Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2024

Looking for sources.
Hello All, I am currently looking for sources for the following pages relating to the Isle of Man railway system; Year of Railways, Isle of Man Railway stations, Isle of Man Railway level crossings and points of interest. I am loathe to nominate these articles for deletion based on how much information is in these articles but I cannot find any sources myself. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Tooncool64 (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you haven't tried already, these books are available on the Internet Archive to borrow:
 * The Manx Electric Railway : centenary year, 1993
 * A history and description of the Isle of Man railway
 * The Isle of Man Railway: A history of the Isle of Man Railway and the former Manx Northern Railway, together with notes on other steam railways in the Island
 * 100 years of the Snaefell Mountain Railway
 * others available are:
 * The Isle of Man by tram, train and foot
 * Douglas horse trams : in colour
 * Registration for the Internet Archive is free, and then you can borrow each book for an hour, but you can refresh that each hour anyway. The important thing to remember is if you finish before the time is up, to return the book to the library, otherwise it ceases to let you borrow items later. There is also a template for the IA: The template page is here.
 * There is no access-date parameter (which I find odd, but there will be some reason for it). Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also try these Middleton Press books in their "Narrow Gauge Branch Lines" series:
 * Douglas-Laxey-Ramsey including the Groudle Glen Railway
 * Douglas to Peel
 * Douglas to Port Erin
 * Douglas to Ramsey including the Foxdale branch
 * Isle of Man Railway Journey, An impressive trip in colour
 * Between them, the first four of these cover the whole of the island's railways, including every station (but not necessarily the level crossings). If out of stock at Middleton Press, your local public library should be able to obtain them on inter-library loans. -- Red rose64 &#x1F98C; (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pomona station (California)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pomona station (California) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

British Railways or British Rail ?
I'm seeing a lot of moves like this recently: British Rail DP1 British Rail Mark 1. These are, of course, incorrect anachronisms. The justification seems to be given as 'consistency'. Yet when did consistency override accuracy, WP:V etc. ?

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The naming convention really predates my involvement with the project - I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways to try and get some of the older editors involved in the discussion over here. Danners430 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Andy Dingley, as the closer of the requested moves British Railways Mark 1 → British Rail Mark 1 and British Railways Mark 2 → British Rail Mark 2, I take no personal position. If you want me to revert the closures and reopen the RMs to present your arguments/evidence, let me know. Or if you're not asking for that, and you just want to coordinate what to do next on this Wikproject page, that's fine too. Adumbrativus (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME should be the decider really, but WP:CONSISTENT does exist of course. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So British Rail Mark 1 now opens with "British Rail Mark 1 is the family designation for the first standardised designs of railway carriages built by British Railways" which obviously doesn't match. They were built by British Railways for most of their production run; I wouldn't have moved this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It depends on when we are talking about. British Railways until 31 December 1967, British Rail from 1 January 1968. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Free access to The Railway Magazine
Would you like to have free access to the full set of back issues of The Railway Magazine though the Wikipedia Library? If you are eligible for a Wikipedia Library account, please upvote this request.

Even if you already have access through some other means, your upvote will help to secure free access for other Wikimedia volunteers. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Upvoted. For those (like me) unaccustomed to the Wikipedia Library, you have to click the 'Log in' button at the top right of the page, then click the bar that says 'Login via Wikipedia. Then the Upvote button will appear next to each suggestion. -- Verbarson talkedits 22:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Upvoted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Upvoted. Although, as somebody who pays for a monthly print copy, I think that I already qualify for direct access. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dadar Central–Ratnagiri Passenger
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dadar Central–Ratnagiri Passenger that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 15:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The articles on electro-pneumatic brakes are a mess
We have an article on the Electro-pneumatic brake system on British railway trains and an entirely US-focused article on Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. What we need is one article about electro-pneumatic brakes in general that covers the various varieties found worldwide, that could include the content of the existing articles. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail
I have nominated Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Passenger route sections in Italian railway station articles
Greetings, editors! I would like to invite your comments in a discussion I've opened on the routes section found in the articles of Italian railway stations. You can join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy. Your expertise and thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

South Eastern Railway
I boldly merged and redirected the disambig at South Eastern Railway to Southeast (disambiguation) as it was a near complete subset. However, now I'm wondering if I shouldn't have gone the other way and expanded the more specifically-titled page to become a set index of railways with "South East" or "South Eastern" (with various spacings) in their name? There are at least a couple of US and one Australian that are the "Something & South Eastern". I'll leave a note for the disambiguation project about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I started a similar discussion about “Northern/Southern/Eastern/Western etc Railway/Railroad” a while ago, which is now in the WT:WPDAB talk archives which might be of interest. Fork99 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd completely overlooked "railroad". Southeastern Railroad appears to be the only relevant article, so I've added links to and from the dab page. I agree with PamD's suggestion in the discussion you linked to combine "South East", "South Eastern", "Southeastern"/"Line"/"Railway", "Railroad"/etc into one dab page (unless there is a need to split for size reasons). Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Minimum railway curve radius source
Unfortunately, the important formulas and examples in Minimum railway curve radius, first added in October 2009, are unsourced or insufficiently sourced. Without reliable sources for the formulas, it is hard for me to tell if the formula was real or original research: if the latter was true then the factual accuracy of the entire article could be in doubt. -- Minoa (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of subtle factual errors in railway-related articles
See. Jc86035 (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maidstone line
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maidstone line that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bergen Line
Bergen Line has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

California High-Speed Rail
There is a discussion currently going on Talk:California High-Speed Rail about potential revisions to the article, which has evolved in an often unorganized fashion over the years. Looking for editors experienced with rail articles who may be able to give some advice or even help out with the effort – particularly in terms of notability guidelines and what should and shouldn't be included. I will be a regular contributor to this project, but I've only edited a limited amount of rail articles in the past so I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs. Thank you, Shannon [ Talk ] 19:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Request: Protected Status for Rio Grande 223
The Rio Grande 223 article has had several extensive edits with unsourced claims and marginally related tangents via User:DTParker1000 over the last few months. This included using an outdated restoration report by John Bush implying the locomotive's current restoration status in a August 2023 revision, an extensive off topic tangent written in a non-encyclopedic tone of voice about the history of the Rio Grande added in January 2024 along with an unsourced claim about the styles of restoration Ogden City is considering for the locomotive.

This article requires protected status to prevent future edits from veering off topic and into speculation about the locomotive's potential restoration. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Xboxtravis7992: You need to make this request at WP:RFPP. Fork99 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will look there and at some other templates to see if I can find how to best resolve the issue. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Further information, I have begun digging through past articles and I found this example Rio Grande 268 which does not confirm to quality standard guidelines. It seems much of the text here was the source of self-plagiarized fluff words that the author copied into the Rio Grande 223 article as well as D & RG Narrow Gauge Trestle. I am trying to clean up the older articles to the best of my ability, but Rio Grande 268 requires clean up from the foundation up due to it's quality issues. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with Xboxtravis7992 in his characterization of my recent posts on Wikipedia articles "Rio Grande 223," "D&RG Narrow Gauge Trestle" and "Rio Grande 268."
 * His charges against me are baseless and are nonsense.
 * Below is a recent exchange between the two of us. Judge for yourself which one of us makes more sense.
 * He sent me the three messages below:
 * February 2024[edit]
 * Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Rio Grande 223. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
 * Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at D & RG Narrow Gauge Trestle, you may be blocked from editing. Text self-plagiarized from text in Rio Grande 223 article with arbitrary tangent about railroad's general history
 * --Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rio Grande 268. Same self-plagiarized text of fluff words from Rio Grande 223 and D & RG Narrow Gauge Trestle articles previously mentioned
 * --Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * This was my response to him:
 * You accuse me of "deliberately introducing incorrect information" and "vandalizing" Wikipedia. That charge is complete nonsense.
 * You state that if I believe the information I added was correct I should "cite references or sources." Yet, that is precisely what I did. I included citations for every single paragraph that I wrote.
 * You apparently think that my sources are incorrect, but you offer nothing to refute them.
 * Instead of offering ANYTHING to contradict ANY of the 11 sources I cited, you simply deleted the entire seven paragraphs that I wrote on the "Rio Grande 223" article (and you made the same sweeping deletion on the D&RG Narrow Gauge Trestle article).
 * Your actions are completely unreasonable and without any scholarly basis. DTParker1000 (talk) 04:36, 17
 * He then sent me this:
 * February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * Removed paragraphs were self-plagiarism of text in Rio Grande 268 article, with noticeable errors in citation quality, generalization, broad claims and weasel words. In addition removed images in the Rio Grande 223 article included copyrighted Otto Perry photos owned by the Denver Public Library collection, and further copyrighted material has been noted as having been uploaded from the Otto Perry collection to other pages. For further discussion please discuss with fellow WikiProject Trains editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains under the Administrator Request: Protected Status for Rio Grande 223 tab. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * This was my response:
 * Your removed my text because of "self-plagiarism?" There is no such thing as "self-plagiarism." I'll buy you a dictionary if you like. Plagiarism is taking and using the work of another and passing it off as one's own.
 * In other words, you are removing my text because I failed to give credit to myself for writing it.
 * Sheesh. What nonsense.
 * You accuse me of making "noticeable errors in citation quality, generalization, broad claims and weasel words." Yet, you offer no examples whatsoever.
 * Speaking of broad claims and generalizations...
 * I, on the other hand, provided citations for everything I wrote. Perhaps you could learn from that.
 * Now, you go on to start deleting pictures I provided claiming copyright infringement. If the photo is old enough, it CAN'T be copyrighted. Just because it is posted someplace and with the word "copyright" attached to it doesn't make it valid. This is made clear on the Wikimedia Commons pages. DTParker1000 (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If anyone should be blocked from changing these articles it is Xboxtravis7992, not me.
 * I will be happy to discuss this further if needed. Please advise me if I should be doing so in some other forum.  Thanks so much for your attention to this matter.  I appreciate it. DTParker1000 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks but please be aware that most people are not going to read a wall of text. There is no reason to copy/paste comments from somewhere else to here. It would be much better to focus on one issue and explain why your edits were justified. That would allow others to give opinions on that one proposed edit. After that, another issue could be considered, etc. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To give a clearer view of why I stated those as issues and to clarify my actions:
 * Self plagiarism:
 * Duplicate publication
 * When recycling your own work can get you into trouble
 * US Copyright date information:
 * Public domain in the United States
 * |Copyright Information Library of Congress
 * Otto Perry was roughly 35 years old at the time of current US Copyright expiration for works prior to 1929. His photos from then until his death in 1970, including the majority of his photographs of the Rio Grande narrow gauge photos in the 1940's fall under copyright protection. Without a rights release from the right holders of Perry's work (be that his living estate or the Denver Public Library archives) we can assume that even as "old photos" they are still under Copyright protection unless Otto Perry failed to extend copyright protection prior to 1989 when the laws changed to their current 95 year term length. Wikipedia has operated under the assumption Otto Perry photographs are under copyright in the past as seen in | this template. I have noted similar usages of photos from the Friends of the Cumbres and Toltec archives and the Colorado Railroad Museum archives uploaded and used by this user which flirt with copyright expiration risks.
 * Broad Claims and Citation Errors
 * To use some sample text from the Rio Grande 268 article to highlight my concerns:
 * "Engine 268 was part of this order, the largest order of narrow-gauge engines ever made." The Baldwin 10-12-D orders from France for use in World War 1 outpace the orders from the D&RG by a wide margin. Without further research claiming "the largest order ever" is to broad of a scope without further research.
 * "Now farming became profitable. Now ranching became profitable. Now mining became profitable." While the railroad was certainly successful in opening the economy of the west, this argument is again to broad to constrain to the history of specific engines. Furthermore the existence of the Union Pacific, Central Pacific, Denver South Park & Pacific, Utah Northern, Santa Fe, and other railroads within the market served by the Rio Grande make the claim that the Rio Grande itself played a critical role in opening the region too broad to claim. The repetition of statements doesn't follow encyclopedic writing style and are an example of weasel text.
 * "In the 1880s, the Denver & Rio Grande was expanding rapidly. It was hastily constructing a main line to Ogden, Utah." The Denver & Rio Grande terminated in Grand Junction, Colorado and the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railway continued construction westward as a separate company based in the Utah Territory. After William Palmer was expulsed from the D&RG, he retained control over the Utah based D&RGW.Ry transforming it into the Rio Grande Western a standard gauge line that met the Colorado Midland in Grand Junction. The two companies would not be a unified D&RG again until the 1900's at which point the only remaining Rio Grande owned narrow gauge in Utah would have been the Little Cottonwood Canyon line. Stating the D&RG was building to Ogden, although it and the D&RGW.Ry briefly shared the same corporate roots, lacked specificity as to the accurate history of the Rio Grande's expansion westward.
 * "The railroad dramatically transformed Utah and Colorado." Again too broad of a statement. This can just as easily be applied to the Central Pacific, Union Pacific or Kansas Pacific Railroad. It has little bearing on the history of the locomotive itself.
 * "There are well over a thousand steam engines still in existence in the United States (on display in parks, museums and in operation).The vast majority of these were built in the 20th century." Weasel text that is irrelevant to the subject of the article. There are over millions of people in the United States, however when writing an article on a pop cultural figure we wouldn't start off by pointing out how many other people live here; what bearing does this statistic have on the actual locomotive's history? Why does it matter that 268 is a 19th Century engine instead of a 20th Century one beyond sentimentality? Why was the same text used for two other engines that the Rio Grande classified as the same class, especially considering their grouping together as a class is a result of later power schemes on the Rio Grande and as built a Grant 2-8-0 such as 223 would be considered a different machine than the Baldwin 2-8-0's such as 264? It is comparable to saying a 1960's Mustang and a 1960's Camaro are the same car just because they both have V-8 Engines and are "mid-century Muscle Cars."
 * Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know I am digging up this dead horse again, but looking at the changes to Rio Grande 268 and I don't feel like the added citations fix the core issues. A few of my concerns (from the latest February 20th revision):
 * At least two citations (#15 and #33) are to Wikipedia itself and not first or third party sources.
 * Citation #22 is to User:DTParker1000's own post on another website.
 * Multiple citations rely on the same author, Jerry Day's articles in The Prospector, which make me concerned that even when accurate third party sources are being used they are extremely limited to one perspective.
 * The citations notably from Robert Athearn, Lucius Beebe & Charles Clegg, and Gilbert Lathrop don't allay my complaints of weasel words and fluff text since that might as well be the holy trinity of railroad fluff text in my personal opinion (not to mention the many complaints elsewhere regarding Beebe & Clegg's sloppy research suggesting they make poor sources to use in general). Regardless, the tone of Athearn, Beebe & Clegg and Lathrop while often making for a good story fail to imitate the encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia and support the fluff text used in the article.
 * Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Xboxtravis7992 is wrong. My response to his accusations is below:
 * 1. I have no idea what he is talking about on his "Item #1."  The citations he lists are not to "Wikipedia itself" as he claims.
 * Citation #15 was to the book "A Ticket to Ride the Narrow Gauge," by Herbert Danneman.
 * Citation #33 was to the book "High Road to Promontory," by George Kraus.
 * The section I submitted on the engine's historic significance was only 7 paragraphs long, yet it had 42 citations! Every one of them was to a book or a published article.  None of them were to "Wikipedia itself" as xboxtravis7992 maintains.
 * 2. Citation #22 was to the book "Rebel in the Rockies," by Robert G. Athearn.  I presume what xboxtravis7992 is referring to is actually Citation #34, which was to an article I wrote entitled "The Significance of the Railroad," in the Ridgway Railroad Museum Newsletter.  Just because I wrote the article doesn't mean that it is not factual, as xboxtravis7992 implies.  This citation, by the way, was only one of three citations for the sentence in question.  The other two were Athearns' book mentioned above, and Kraus's book, also mentioned above.
 * By the way, the sentence in question simply stated that railroad freight rates were lower than the cost of transport by wagon or on the back of a mule. This fact is so obvious as to belie the need for ANY citations.  But regardless, instead of attempting to dispute the fact, xboxtravis7992 attacks the source.
 * 3. Jerry B. Day is the highly respected author of three different articles on C-16 engines (D&RG 223 is a C-16 engine).  I read recently that he is now in the process of writing a book on the subject.  Again, xboxtravis7992 does not dispute the text, he simply attempts to attack the source.
 * 4. Speaking of "fluff"...  This is another example of xboxtravis7992 offering no refutation of the facts in the text, but merely making ad hominem attacks on the authors - in this case four of them.  Sheesh.
 * When I was in school, we were taught that in a debate, it is fair to attack the opponent's facts or logic, but not to make personal attacks.
 * I stand by my text and citations. Xboxtravis7992, for reasons best known to himself, is displaying a pattern of finding any imaginable excuse to reduce or eliminate the section in this article on the historical significance of D&RG 223.  This is the THIRD time he has done this.
 * The first time he did this, he disputed a couple of facts, and claimed that the historical significance section was inadequately sourced (even though it had sources cited for every single paragraph). Using this pretext, he then ELIMINATED the entire section.
 * I resubmitted it, and modified some of the text and doubled the number of sources.
 * Then, he ELIMINATED the entire section again, claiming it was "extraneous." He replaced the section on the historical significance of the engine with a section going into exceedingly meticulous detail on the mechanical history of the engine and its movements.  Speaking of "extraneous" information...  He included nothing on its historical significance.
 * I strongly disagree with the editorial philosophy displayed by xboxtravis7992. If we were to apply his definition of "extraneous," then the Wikipedia article on the Cotton Gin should be limited to the mechanical history of the relic, and not include a section on its historical significance.
 * Similarly, if we apply the editorial philosophy of xboxtravis7992, then the Wikipedia article on the Titanic should only be history of the ship itself, and not include information on its historical significance.
 * He wants the article on D&RG 223 to go on for page after page on the mechanical aspects and movements of the engine, but can't stomach 7 short paragraphs on the engine's historical significance?
 * And, then he accuses ME of being "unencyclopedic?" Sheesh.
 * This is nonsense.
 * Now, he accuses my section on the historical significance of D&RG 223 as being "fluff" and he attacks my citations. This is also nonsense.  He is simply finding any excuse he can to eviscerate the section on the engine's historical significance.
 * As xboxtravis7992 himself admits, he is "digging up this dead horse" again. Yes, he is.  And, he is wrong to do so.
 * I disagree with his editorial policy. I have cited multiple sources, and they are written by respected authors.  Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even bother to challenge the accuracy of the text.  He just accuses it of being "fluff."  I strongly disagree with this accusation, and would appreciate it if a panel of other Wikipedia editors could review this series of malicious edits by xboxtravis7992 and put a stop to it.
 * Thank you. DTParker1000 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Xboxtravis7992 @DTParker1000: No one is going to read this huge mountain of text, as was already pointed out above. Just be straight forward about the dispute.
 * This is probably the wrong venue to complain about a significant content dispute, I would suggest you go to WP:Dispute resolution first and carefully read the instructions for either asking for a third opinion, mediation, OR if urgent and blatant policy violations/editor conduct are in question, then go to WP:ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) directly.
 * If this goes to ANI, please read the instructions there before making a editor conduct complaint against another editor. I would also suggest reading a few closed/settled archived discussions to see how ANI discussions usually work.
 * Also, note that WP:Assume good faith is one of Wikipedia's guidelines in regards to editor conduct. Fork99 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will consider moving it to Dispute Resolution. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion has still be going on and off, and I admit escalating it here in hindsight was probably no the best way to handle my concerns with the DRGW 223 article.
 * However, I am wondering if any neutral members of WikiProjectTrains would be willing to join in on Talk:Rio Grande 223. I have ideas on an approach to the article, but I feel like neutral voices will be needed from outside observers to help find consensus. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Japan's Keikyu Wikipedia Page Concerns
There are missing pages in the Keikyu retired rolling stock. These missing pages being the Keikyu 230, 400, and 500 Series. I also have concerns that the Keikyu website and the Keikyū Main Line websites aren't merged, since they are very similar. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Keikyu article covers the company, and the Keikyu Main Line article covers the railway line. They should not be merged.
 * Not to mention that if you want an article created, be bold and start it yourself. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Iarnród Éireann
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iarnród Éireann that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Article Merge Potential
Pages East Broad Top Railroad Mikado locomotives, East Broad Top 12 and East Broad Top 16 all carry significant WP:OVERLAP in their subjects. Would it make sense to merge the two individual locomotive articles into the larger article on the 6 EBT Mikados? I don't know if there is enough unique in the 12 and 16 articles to justify such overlap between pages. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks via templates
I just disambiguated a few links to dab Seongnam station. On any other topic, this would have been a simple matter of replacing the links by piped links to Seongnam station (Incheon), taking a minute or two with DisamAssist or ten minutes manually. However, railway stations have to be special and different. They use arcane templates such as stn and Adjacent stations, which require the editor to unravel a complex web of templates and modules before they can attempt any sort of fix or improvement. Despite my longstanding interest in railways and many years' experience of disambiguation, templates and modules, I spent well over an hour disentangling these links and am still not sure I got everything right. I could have spent that time much more profitably fixing a hundred legible and transparent wikilinks on any non-rail topic. Although I am sure that everyone involved has acted in good faith, the casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the system was designed to make the articles as difficult as possible for anyone other than their owners to edit. I have never dared to replace the templates by legible links deliberately, and when I once did so accidentally (using a now-defunct tool which didn't show diffs clearly) the changes met with a hostile reception. I know you will never change your ways, but I do want you to understand that this project is unique in making its articles so inaccessible, and causes major problems to generalist editors, most of whom will just give up. Certes (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll just say for my part that I still have User:Certes/Reports/Ambiguous rail links watchlisted and that I check it every morning, though apparently a few hours after you do. Mackensen (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Great Train eXpress
Hi. regarding Great Train eXpress, I need some expert opinion on whether this is now considered as part of the Seoul subway system or not. This article is confusing, as it says the operator will be Seoul Metro which runs the traditional metro lines in Seoul and that GTX-A runs entirely in tunnel. So it is subway or not. Should it be featured in Seoul Metropolitan Subway article, or not? Thanks a lot. Xia talk to me  14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge requests
I've started requests to merge Pennsylvania Lines LLC and New York Central Lines LLC into Norfolk Southern Railway and CSX Transportation, respectively. I have also proposed a merge of Regional railroad and List of U.S. Class II railroads. Editors are invited to comment on all three requests. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Capitol Limited (B&O train)
Capitol Limited (B&O train) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for California Southern Railroad
California Southern Railroad has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR Lord Nelson class
SR Lord Nelson class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3
LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Category for alleged train incidents?
See Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki train disaster and Rzepin train disaster. I did some c/e - they were described as facts where in fact they seem more like old fake news (CIA?) or urban legends. Do we have any categories better than Category:Unexplained phenomena? Note that other categories are for confirmed incidents (ex. Category:Railway accidents in 1952). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Input needed on requested move for People mover to Automated people mover
Please visit the discussion at Talk:People mover. – Dream out loud (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Amagasaki derailment
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Amagasaki derailment that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Gulf & Atlantic Railways
Hello, WikiProject,

This WikiProject doesn't look active but if anyone does happen by, could you check out this article? We might be looking at a possible Merge discussion as a new editor is renaming the article a variation of another existing train article. Thanks if you can help. Liz Read! Talk! 17:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Liz appearances are deceiving! Mackensen (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Railway nationalization
At present, Railway nationalization has its first word in its name using the non-American word, whereas the second word uses the American spelling. The article also inconsistently switches between British and American English, notwithstanding the obvious need to use American English for discussion of North American railroads. Considering MOS:ENGVAR, any thoughts on how to standardise (or standardize) this article a bit? Fork99 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My understanding of MOS:ENGVAR is that one standard of English should be followed throughout. That would be British English, given the international character of the subject. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just WP:BOLDly made the move to Railway nationalisation and changed "-ize" to "-ise" and "-iza" to "-isa". Please feel free to let me know if you disagree and/or revert so we can continue discussion. Fork99 (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like it might have been first written in Canadian English to me. I never noticed Canadian, it looks sort of half British and half US. I doubt that anyone would care much, I just used to try for ENGVAR (Hint: put a flag on the talk page). Sammy D III (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Japan railway line/station name and place name in general

 * Additional ping to other active railway article contributors:
 * Additional ping to other active railway article contributors:

Currently, there is a discussion on Talk:Sōtetsu Shin-yokohama Line about the spelling of the title. I would like to request broader comments to discuss how to address the apparent lack of grammatical consistency in Japanese names when utilizing hyphens and capitalization.

For context, Japanese organizations do not have a consistent approach to handling hyphens and capitalization in place names. The same organization can have various iterations; for example, the Yokohama municipal government website uses "Shin Yokohama," "Shin-Yokohama," and "Shin-yokohama" on different occasions for translating "新横浜".[//www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/aboutweb/search/search.html?q=%22shin+yokohama%22&sa=%E6%A4%9C%E7%B4%A2&cx=017251950101454243133%3Aiearvzsq_l8&ie=UTF-8&cof=FORID%3A9] JR, the largest railway organization in Japan, consistently uses "Shin-(Capitalized stem)" in all of their "Shin-" station signage,[//www.google.com/maps/place/Shin-Yokohama+Station/@35.5081525,139.6166121,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipP3Un_mDZENcpHmESSgkBey1kXGrTBdZkhcScP7!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP3Un_mDZENcpHmESSgkBey1kXGrTBdZkhcScP7%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4080!8i3060!4m9!3m8!1s0x60185ed02e389b43:0xdab81661ffb6a63b!8m2!3d35.5076585!4d139.6175553!10e5!14m1!1BCgIgAQ!16zL20vMDM2eG54?entry=tts&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDUwNy4xKgBIAVAD] but this is not adhered to by other organizations such as Sotetsu,[//cdn.sotetsu.co.jp/media/2023/train/stations/download/route-map-download-230318detail.pdf] Tokyu,[//www.tokyu.co.jp/global/railway/line/] Yokohama Municipal Subway, and the government department responsible for road signs,[//www.google.com/maps/@35.5501756,139.6189087,3a,75y,110.2h,127.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh40qIBgK0ZPFQhgITnfaNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu] which, in turn, use "Shin-(all lowercase stem)".

While other commenters prefer to follow JR's practice, I am in favor of replacing the hyphen with a space and keeping the proper name capitalized. My rationale is that "Shin," which means "New," is rarely followed by a hyphen in Anglophone countries such as "New York", "New Zealand", "New Cross", etc. JR's practice is unusual, no less than other Japanese organizations, if not ungrammatical in English. I fail to understand the rationale of making an exception for Japanese proper names, if the whole point is to adhere to English grammar and English naming convention.

Another issue is that if we should rename all Japanese railway line and station articles to use the lowercase "line" and "station", similar to UK railway articles. I know there was a consensus about the change to use the lowercase "line" and "station" but am unable to find the archived discussion and relevant policy page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * While I'd love to hear more voices on this, let's try to keep this discussion on Talk:Sōtetsu Shin-yokohama Line instead of rehashing the same arguments here.


 * Whether we lowercase line/station would potentially require reworking basically every train-related article for Japan. I have no strong opinions either way, but this is an entirely separate topic that needs a better forum that the talk page of any obscure regional line. Jpatokal (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lowercase "line/station" aside, this discussion is not just about the Sotetsu line article but also a broader issue that will affect many articles, not least those with "Shin Yokohama" in their names (Shin-Yokohama, Shin-Yokohama Station, Kita Shin-Yokohama Station, Sōtetsu Shin-yokohama Line, Tōkyū Shin-yokohama Line, Shin-Yokohama Rāmen Museum, Shin Yokohama Prince Hotel, Shin-Yokohama Park.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have more to say on this topic but have not yet had a chance to post my reply at the main discussion. Very briefly, it is important to note that there is a preexisting guideline regarding how many of these things are written in English on the English Wikipedia: MOS:JAPAN. Things like the systematic capitalization and spacing of "Shin-" have been discussed there since at least 2006 (note that this is not a problem that only pertains to trains), and you can also read many past discussions about why the station names are capitalized. Dekimasu よ! 03:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not against the capitalization of proper names; my issue lies with the hyphen. MOS:JAPAN does not address the hyphen issue concerning prefixes like "Shin-" and directional indicators like "Naka-", "Kita-" etc. The closest guideline in the MOS page pertains to Japanese islands, which recommends against hyphenation. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will be sure to reply again later at the main discussion. For "Shin-", checking the archives on the talk page may be helpful, as it has been discussed more specifically there. Dekimasu よ! 06:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Australian railway station codes
Hello, I have several questions related to Victorian station identifier codes, but please direct me to another place if one exists. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * All but two Victorian stations have an identifier code in the infobox, e.g. Malvern railway station, Melbourne is "MAL". What are these codes called, i.e. is there a name for the system?  Looking for something analogous to IATA code for airports.
 * Is there a central database where I can look up a station's code? It doesn't appear to be on the PTV website, e.g. "MAL" is absent from the Malvern station's page.  It's on the VicSig webpage, but that site's pages sometimes lack the codes.
 * Huntly and Sherwood Park don't have any infobox codes at all. Any idea if they have them (and the articles are just missing them), or if the stations have no codes at all?  Many stations have signs near the station (apparently for the sake of drivers and other railway staff), but Huntly and Sherwood Park are hundreds of kilometres away from me, so I can't just go there and look for signs.  VicSig doesn't give any codes for them.
 * BEN and CFD are used twice, for Benalla and Bentleigh, and Caulfield and Clarkefield respectively. How do I ascertain what's wrong?  I go through Bentleigh and Caulfield routinely, but again, the others aren't near me.  It seems absurd that these codes would be used twice, since that defeats the purpose of unique identifier codes.


 * Hello Nyttend.
 * I'm not sure what those codes are officially called, but those codes are used for internal identification of stations. Those codes are not meant for public use, and you won't find them on the PTV website or the Metro Trains Melbourne website. VicSig is a railfan website and is therefore not a reliable source. The only somewhat reliable source I can find talking about those codes is Daniel Bowen's blog, at . He says that "Every station (and a good many other places, such as passing loops and sidings) in the state has a three letter code, used in railway circles. Occasionally you’ll see them creep into the public arena". He also lists all the station codes, but they are sourced from Wikipedia, which means we can't use that list as a source.
 * In my opinion, those codes should be entirely removed from Wikipedia. They are generally only used internally and there aren't really any useable sources for those codes. As for why they are even on Wikipedia in the first place, at least some of them (possibly most of them) were added by User:Sw2nd around 2012.
 * By the way, if you aren't aware, there is a WikiProject Australian Transport where there might be some other people who are more familiar on this matter than me. Steelkamp (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm in full agreement with Steelkamp here. Internal codes don't belong in infoboxes; only the rare systems that use them in public-facing materials (notably Amtrak) should have them listed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gulf & Atlantic Railways
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gulf & Atlantic Railways that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR Q class
SR Q class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for SR V class
SR V class has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Electric-steam locomotive
The electric-steam locomotive article has been moved to electric–steam locomotive (en-dash instead of hyphen). I'm pretty sure that the hyphen is correct. Should the move be reverted? Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be a hyphen, it is a compound word not a from/to situation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've moved it back to the former title. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is where I bring general train-related problems like issues buying tickets? Y/N?
ok I'm kidding but please tell me if there's a good place to ask bc I know someone knows this immediately but I'm failing Google:

What train did Underground Railroad passenger Charlotte Gilchrist take to get to Canada in 1854? I'm pretty sure she stopped in St. Albans (town), Vermont and Rouses Point, New York. TY for any guidance you can offer. jengod (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jengod: The most likely route from Rouses Point into Canada would have been the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railroad, which enters Canada just a mile from Rouses Point, though it's possible she instead went west on the Ogdensburg and Lake Champlain Railroad and crossed on one of its connecting lines. If she arrived in Rouses Point by train, it would have been on the Vermont Central Railroad, which passed through St. Albans. You can see these lines on commons:File:1854 Rail Road Map of the New England States.jpg. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Incredible. Transportation history at its finest. Thank you so much and I'm going to add this map to the article, TY so much for surfacing it . <3 jengod (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Identifying an early part of the NYC subway system
I've been working on Richard Harper Laimbeer, whose NYT obit says "He was one of the commissioners appointed to determine the present route of the first Interborough subway between City Hall, New York and Borough Hall, Brooklyn". I haven't found any other references to this yet and would like to know exactly which part of the modern subway system this is so I can add that detail to his article. Does anyone here know what this refers to? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That should be the Joralemon Street Tunnel (Lexington Avenue Line to the Eastern Parkway Line).  Cards   84664   16:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks; added a link to that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to contribute in new article, List of busiest railway stations
Hi. Gare du Nord states that "It is the busiest railway station in Europe by total passenger numbers, and the busiest outside Japan". I tried to check, but there is no world ranking reasonably up to date, so I created List of busiest railway stations as a humble stub. To make it right requires A LOT of work, you are most invited :) --Jbaranao (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

County Durham articles
Hi User: Pi.1415926535 redirected four stations at Demons Bridge railway station, Stillington railway station, Simpasture railway station and Saltersgate Cottage railway station. I've written these using sites like Disused Stations, Historic Rail Maps and some other news articles. Can we see these as being notable or are there any other links needed like books articles etc worth linking? DragonofBatley (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * None of these articles meet the notability guideline because there is not significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Adding sources that scarcely mention the stations (if at all) does not demonstrate notability. I've nominated them for deletion:
 * Articles for deletion/Demons Bridge railway station
 * Articles for deletion/Stillington railway station
 * Articles for deletion/Saltersgate Cottage railway station
 * Articles for deletion/Simpasture railway station
 * Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Parameter Tagging for Article Assessment
Hi! I'm a relatively new wikieditor (be kind!) and I have been working on rating WikiProject Trains articles. I'm using WP:RATER and I see where I can add parameters. Can someone give me an explanation of the parameters within WikiProject Trains? Some I can figure out myself but others I'm not sure about. Other questions: Is there a difference between "needs-map" "map-needed" "map-requested"? Should Stations be marked as a parameter within WikiProject Trains or Project Stations? Is there a good definition of what counts as a subway? Is it always underground? Thank you!! Pencilsforall (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The various parameters should all be documented at Template:WikiProject Trains. As shown at Template:WikiProject Trains, meeds-map is the primary parameter, the others are aliases with lower precedence. isn't often used for railway stations, for which setting yes in the  is normally sufficient. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of these parameters are duplicates, as a result of templates being merged or different terminology being used in different parts of the world. When in doubt, try adding parameters manually and then previewing the result before submitting the edit, or copy formatting from established articles that are in good condition. I will say that I started out with doing assessments as a new editor, but quickly found it unrewarding compared to editing articles directly. It can seem intimidating at first, but improving articles is what servers our readers, 99% of whom will never even look at article talk pages or assessments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This was helpful. Pencilsforall (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

GA review requests
I’ve recently nominated a steam locomotive page, Texas and Pacific 610, and I was wondering if anyone could take the time to look it over and let me know if it’s eligible for the Good Article grade or not. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Copyright problem at Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
After an investigation it appears that the original version of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway is a copyright violation from the Chesapeake and Ohio Historical Society. Please see Talk:Chesapeake and Ohio Railway for discussion. A complete rewrite may be necessary. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)