Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page	(WP:TWP)	talk
Portal	(P:Trains)	talk
Project navigation bar		talk
Project participants		talk
Project banner (doc)	{{TWP}}	talk
Project category		talk
Manual of style	(WP:TWP/MOS)	talk
Welcome message		talk
Departments
Assessments	(WP:TWP/A)	talk
Peer review	(WP:TWP/PR)	talk
To do list		talk
Daily new article search	search criteria	talk
Task forces
Article maintenance		talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive		talk
By country series		talk
Categories		talk
Images		talk
Locomotives		talk
Maps		talk
Rail transport in Germany		talk
Monorails		talk
Operations		talk
Passenger trains		talk
Portal		talk
Rail transport modelling		talk
Timelines		talk

"In Fiction" Segments focused on Thomas & Friends Characters

I frequently see examples on various locomotive pages of "In Fiction" segments with brief one or two sentence blurbs dedicated to characters from Thomas & Friends, one example I just stumbled across was at the end of the Climax locomotive article.

I certainly am not opposed to mentioning major characters in the Railway Series and their respective real life counterparts where there is sufficient source material to make the connection meaningful (for example the Talyllyn Railway locomotives were such blatant inspirations for the Skarloey locomotives, and the fictional influence of the Skarloey has played a real role in the preservation of the Talyllyn with regular Awdry themed events ongoing on the line to the day). However in cases such as the Climax locomotive I pointed out above, it seems the characters mentioned are obscure and can't really add anything meaningful beyond just one or two sentences that sum up as "This locomotive was in Thomas & Friends, his name was Jeff." Considering how common this is on many pages of locomotives with seemingly little relevant information between the fictional counterpart and the real machines; can there be a standard of relevancy to mark the difference between "hey the only reason people know what an LBSCR E2 is anymore IS because of Thomas so we better explain that connection" vs. this practice of non-relevant blurbs naming secondary characters with no relevance beyond the fact the character just exists? I don't want locomotive pages cluttered by trivial segments if there isn't enough sources to establish the fictional character's relevance relating back to the real machine. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless secondary sources have made the connection, I believe "in fiction" sections should be deleted entirely. The example you linked certainly isn't appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go with that mindset and be bold and just cut extraneous fictional sources when I see them. I removed the segment from the Climax page, and also cut a similar segment from Pennsylvania Railroad K4 class. I think the sniff test that works is as stated strong secondary sources, and I just don't see that bar being met by many of these offending examples. Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Our policy on this is very clear (although mostly ignored). It requires secondary sources. In practice, this means that everything in the books (Rev W. Awdry and Christopher Awdry) is supported by the substantial books of commentary on the Thomas series from Brian Sibley The Thomas the Tank Engine Man and a couple of others. Also the commentaries by both George and Wilbert Awdry, The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways and by Christopher Awdry Sodor: Reading Between the Lines on Wilbert's writing a generation earlier would qualify.

But the TV series? I know of nothing secondary on those. So the Fat Controller's railway is almost all covered, as are the Skarloey and Arlesdale railways, even Sodor itself (although WP has now deleted these articles anyway). The later, more international, content is where the problem lies. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a massive amount of Thomas the Tank Engine content on YouTube, some of it really quite in depth, but how much qualifies as reliable I have no idea (YouTube suggests far more of the content to me than I watch). Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Which era of Thomas is it referring to? Does it appear to meet WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The last video I watched covered every TV series and film but didn't mention (or at least not in any detail) the books at all. I didn't watch it with an eye to evaluating its reliability, but there were no glaring red flags (not that that specific video would likely have information relevant to Wikipedia). There is a wide variety of content out there though, with a very wide of purposes and differing reliability, so your question is similar to pointing at a large bookcase filled with an assortment of printed works that mention Thomas the Tank Engine at least once and asking "is that a reliable source?". No single answer is meaningful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Be careful about linking to stuff on youtube as it is very often copyvio. Call me the Fat Controller! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well the last video I watched had a lot of copyrighted content in it, but fair use would definitely apply as it was being used for critical commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Turkey

In a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCDD Subdivision 3 I said “I think there are too many articles about Turkish rail.” and @Thryduulf replied “The nominator disliking the number of articles on a topic is not a valid reason for deletion, but the subject being at present better covered in the parent article is a reason for a merge.” As this is a general thing rather than specific to that article I think I should explain further here (WP Turkey is only semi-active) and hopefully we will find we broadly agree.

I should probably have said that I think there are too many uncited (about 20 are tagged in https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources) articles and low-quality articles. I agree that merging can often be a good solution as I think editors are more likely to fix wrong info if it is part of an important article rather than in its own small unimportant article. So if any of you guys are interested in Turkey and feel like doing some merging that would be great. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

British Rail Class 555 move discussion

There is a move discussion ongoing at British Rail Class 555 to move the article to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555 which I would appreciate input in, as it was originally moved without discussion. Thanks. Danners430 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Horten Station (1881-2007)#Requested move 14 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Horten Station (1881-2007)#Requested move 14 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

High speed rail in Turkey

Only 2 people commented last year so it would be great to have more opinions.

An article that you have been involved in editing—Yüksek Hızlı Tren—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

S.W.G. abbreviation

Hello, I come from the German Wikipedia and have a question for native English speakers. In this locomotive diagram of the LMS Garratt I found the term "X 9 S.W.G." behind the superheater tube diameter. But I don't know what it means and hope someone can help me. Bahnfreund21 (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Standard wire gauge" presumably. Used to specify the diameter of a piece of wire. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

To add some more. SWG was also used to specify pipe wall thickness. So looking at your diagram 9 , 7 and 11 SWG equals pipe wall thicknesses of 3.658 mm, 4.470 mm, and 2.946 mm respectively. Hope that helps. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Does the diagram mean the superheater tubes have an inside diameter of 1.5 in (38.1 mm) and an outside diameter of 1.5 in + 2 * 0.144 in = 1,788 in (45,4 mm)? Bahnfreund21 (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the superheater tubes are 1.5 inches outside diameter i.e. "Dia. Outs.", so the inner diameter is 1.5 - (2x0.144) inches = 1.212 inches. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your helpful explanations. Bahnfreund21 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

SWG is definitely Standard Wire Gauge; but besides wire and pipe walls, it was used for any sheet metal. In the aluminium industry - with which I was briefly involved - the term "sheet" is reserved for cold rolled metal, up to about 2 mm thick, and "plate" for hot rolled metal, from about 2 mm or thicker. We also had a term "shate", which was a hybrid of the sheet and plate processes, but I can't remember if it was cold rolled but more than 2 mm thick, or hot rolled and less than 2 mm. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Every day is a school day. Than you! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Rail transport template

I have started a discussion at Template talk:Train topics regarding cleaning up the links in this template. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for John D. Rockefeller

John D. Rockefeller 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Chinese name

Could someone better at Chinese than I am please translate the line name zh:石衡沧港城际铁路? Thanks Garuda3 (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Fermiboson, can you help here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments requested at Talk:Yanchep line

Comments at Talk:Yanchep line#Proposed merge of Northern Suburbs Transit System into Yanchep line from members of this WikiProject are requested please. Steelkamp (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What's this?

I snapped this picture a few days ago on a minor freight branch in Brooklyn, New York. Any idea what it does? Jim.henderson (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you are talking about the piece of metal with white and red-painted ends, it looks to me to be a guard rail associated with the crossing portion of a set of points - see points (rail)#Crossing (frog or common crossing). Its function is to ensure the wheel doesn't derail while traversing the crossing. Thryduulf (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I must bring this to the attention of the railfans with whom I was walking the track. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jim.henderson: See also this plan of a similar track component. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

In the UK, I believe that component is actually called a "frog" - why, I do not know. On higher speed routes, there are also versions of this with a movable "nose" called "swing nose crossings" - this allows the stock rail to be unbroken (no gap) in the direction of passage of the train, giving a smoother ride. Danners430 (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Crossings

The above section (#What's this) means I've discovered crossing (rail) is a red link, should it (and rail crossing) point to level crossing (like rail crossing), Railroad switch#Crossing (frog or common crossing), Level junction (AKA flat crossing), somewhere else or should it be disambiguated. Crossing (disambiguation) exists but adding the terms there will likely just result in them being removed as partial title matches. Thryduulf (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I reckon it should probably be disambiguated - a "crossing" really does have multiple, context-dependant, meanings in rail parlance and all are realistically of equal stature when it comes to the "primary" meaning of the term. Danners430 (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been bold and created the disambiguation page, and redirected rail crossing to it. Please feel free to expand it, or revert if you think I've been a bit too bold! Danners430 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

nevermind - redirected to the existing disambig page Danners430 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro)#Requested move 28 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mezhdunarodnaya (Moscow Metro)#Requested move 28 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Former/Defunct

Hi All- I'm wondering what the difference is between "former" and "defunct" railways. In particular, when should a railway be described as former versus defunct in a short description? Pencilsforall (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Anglesey Central Railway

Anglesey Central Railway 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)