User talk:Tim PF

Welcome!

Hello, Tim PF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst on the subject of links - this edit is not quite right [1] see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#General_points_on_linking_style "Section headings should not themselves contain links"

I've put a

Main article: multi-system (rail)

tag in there now. Tim PF (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also - Multi-system (rail) - don't link from the bolded text. (and you really probably don't need to link to such as simple term as train). See Wikipedia:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#General_points_on_linking_style "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." I've fixed that for you - it's a mistake a lot of people do - it looks terrible by the way. Please read the Manual of Style (MOS) on links if you are going to be making a lot (of links).Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've set up the links without piping away from the embolded bits. Tim PF (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you might also want to bear in mind that "multi-system locomotives" (sometimes may be taken to mean) locomotives that work on different railway systems - which means not only different operating voltages, but also different Train protection systems as well, whereas a multi-voltage locomotive may or may not...Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked several sites, such as Bombardier's, Siemen's and the Railway Gazette, and they use the term multi-system locomotive with just an emphasis of multi-voltage + AC/DC If it wasn't for the AC/DC, AC frequency and overhead/third-rail differences, then multi-voltage would be a better term.

If you can cite a usage of multi-system for any other railway system (such as Train Protection System, Coupling System or whatever), then I'd be very interested to know. Tim PF (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and welcome to wikipedia! Ask if you need any help - I'm really not as horrible as I seem :)

Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That remains to be seen ;-) Happy Hogmanay Tim PF (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply here - I agree on "multisystem locomotives" being generally synonymous with multivoltage - just pointing out that there is a sub-set of the definition eg [2] could be taken as such an example of usage. By the way I find google books can often be helpful - they have a not bad collection of engineering books, better than the average library eg [3] this was easy to find.

as for IEP, yes pretty much what everyone except the person who wrote the specifications is saying. As for a bi-mode train I never get bored of pointing out the RENFE_Class_130#Hybrid_train_S130H as an sensible example on another railway. (Just add a generator car, then remove it when the line is electrified). I'm not familiar with bidding specifications, but the IEP looks a little crazy.Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'll look at the Google Books another time.

The RENFE Class 130 is another class to include with the FEVE and CAF locomotives on the (currently misnamed*) electro-diesel locomotive page. I'm not sure from that link how it would be set up; will dig deeper later.

• Note my recent comments in its Talk:electro-diesel locomotive#Electro-diesel Multiple Units (EDMUs) page about restructuring; your comments would be most welcome (ie better get it right in advance rather than moans about it later ;-)

Tim PF (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I getcha :)

Have replaced links and removed the piping on Rail transport in Ireland - take a look and let me know what you think. Cheers, 86.178.52.148 (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, just saw above section, now I can see how a new user knows so much about links :p 86.178.52.148 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm being dim!

Hi Tim,

Sorry, I honestly don't see where the link that isn't complying with EGG is - could you point it out to me please? Or if it's something easy to refactor while keeping the text would you be able to refactor it and then show me where I've gone wrong? Sorry to be a bother but I honestly don't see it.

Cheers,

86.178.52.148 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport in Ireland

Hi Tim,

That's fine - cheers :)

86.178.52.148 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you add info from other wikipedias you should reference it - for inline references see Template:Translation/Ref, whole pages use Template:Translated page. There are many reasons to do this - including verifyability, and giving proper credit.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not from Ireland at all - I just got rather caught up in it recently! Egg Centric (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you re-check your addition to B roads in Zone 9 of the Great Britain numbering scheme‎ as the articles linked to do not match the displayed figures of the roads. Thanks 11:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, well spotted, sorry about that one. 'Twas almost the last edit of the night, and I copied and pasted the lines to get the link target skeletons correct, but forgot to change to descriptions; should have gone to bed a bit earlier. Done now. Tim PF (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keith D (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For going out of your way to help other users.

- Guy Macon   —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thankyou. Tim PF (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that hatnotes should not contain links other than to the desired target; see WP:HATNOTE#Extraneous links. Thus, I have amended railcar like this. I suggest that the hatnote on bathroom be similarly amended; please also check any others that you created. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the heads up about that. I probably should have realised that as you'll notice my first real comment was about extraneous links in headings and other similar places. I've amended bathroom accordingly. I guess you got there via the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in which case you'd know they are the only two I've done, leastways, I cannot think of any others I've created or amended.

Actually, I know that the first one was at Bathroom as I knew it needed something there, and I had to look it up to get the options I needed, but I also remember reading somewhere within three days that hatnotes should be right at the top, and rejigged it. That means I probably cribbed the idea from another article which had been tag-bombed above the hatnote, and I don't recall where. Tim PF (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular reader of WT:RAIL (ie, I've got it watchlisted) so yes, that's where I spotted railcar and bathroom. I thought it more polite (and less off-topic) to mention the hatnote guideline here, rather than there. I didn't know if these were the only two cases or not though; I could have looked through your contribs, but didn't.

If you haven't already found it (or if you have, but have lost it again), the rules for order of presentation of the lead section (ie everything down to and including the table of contents) are at MOS:LEAD; although some items have multiple terms: for example, hatnotes are also described as "disambiguation links", "dablinks" and "other uses". If you're interested, there are similar rules for the tail of the article (see also, references, external links, etc.) at MOS:APPENDIX. Don't worry about making things fit the rules exactly: the two documents don't agree on some things, such as where to put WP:NAVBOXes. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guessed right, and I'll also guess that the reason you didn't bother to look through my contributions is that you know I engage in discussion (unlike someone we both came across recently) as you've come across me before both on Train Talk pages and at User talk:Sf5xeplus, and that given the heads up, I've adapted and sorted things out myself. Oh, and you probably skimmed through this page and found nothing worrying.

Yes, MOS:LEAD was where I read it (but thanks for the reminder). I was aware that there were similar rules for the tail (and also for the bits in between), but I don't think I've yet had to make any changes which I couldn't easily do by comparison with other articles, but I now know where to look, thanks. Tim PF (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have email. Acroterion _(talk) 02:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read the email, I'm going to bed now, I'll reply in the morning, either here, or after I've digested Wikipedia:Email. Tim PF (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine: I'll need a reply by email to send an attachment. Acroterion _(talk)

Okay. While you're here, I note that Talk:Maginot Line is getting rather big, and a lot of sections could probably be archived, say those unchanged for over a year. Could you wave a magic wand, please? Good-night. Tim PF (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not be replying by email. The Maginot Line article has taken up too much of my time recently, and I have too many other things to do, including moving house. I don't mind doing minor changes, such as non-basic conversions and changing to British English (in the absence of other native speakers), but no research, thankyou. Tim PF (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we're all volunteers, and we do what suits us in the time we have available. I appreciate your help and advice. I'll archive the talkpage when I get a little time later today. Acroterion _(talk) 13:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne derailment. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Turin–Modane railway. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Turin–Modane railway - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Acabashi (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{hang on}} tag, and started the page discussion, which says that the article was created as a result of a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Fréjus/Mont Cenis Railway. In short, following a correction of the naming of articles comprising the Fréjus Railway, the history of this derailment ended up in the wrong Turin–Modane railway section of the line. Following further discussion, the consensus there was that it should have its own article to be in line with both the French versions and compared with similar train wrecks. Tim PF (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim PF,

I was wondering if you would be interested in signing up to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011

I've signed up for everything. It's a discussion for changes on en.wikipedia.org I assume, maybe on the other wikipedia languages as well eventually. It would keep you informed on some of the changes to the en.wikipedia.org. Honestly, it's your deicision to sign upto whatever you wish, thought you would be interested in knowing about it because I'm certainly interested in knowing the changes they apply if they do. Read about it and then think about it. Adamdaley (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it on my Watchlist. I think that some other languages already have tougher requirements. I came to Wikipedia many, many years ago when anonymous users could create articles, as well as edit almost everything. I only eventually got around to signing up last year as I realised that it would give more consistency. I now realise that I can have preferences and a watchlist, which gives a much better (too tired and emotional to think what word I want to use).

But I also see too much vandalism, mostly from anonymous users to some of the articles on my watchlist, particularly trains, which probably ought to be semi-protected. Then again, I read the talk-page for toilet, and realised that it's a lousy way to let anonymous users make a valid update. Is Pending Changes better? I dunno, as I wasn't registered until after the trial. Tim PF (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought the publication served as a reference. Apologies. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It's a bit confusing really, as the tag is "{{Unreferenced}}" but it displays as "This article does not cite any references or sources". The normal procedure when adding a reference or two is to change the tag to {{Refimprove}} (or {{One source}}) and to revise the date (or omit the date and let a bot add it).

If you can get hold of the book, I'm sure you could find lots of things in it to cite, but noting WP:PRIMARY, I would then change the tag to {{Primary sources}} (there are several variations, such as {{Third-party sources}} and {{partisan}} -- click on any of these tags to find more about them).

BTW, I added the book when I was about to reinstate a citation from it about the Wankie coal mine disaster, followed the link and noted it was missing. I now note that it is also cited at Hwange#Wankie Coal Mine Disaster, but it's not obvious that the Wankie link would cover it -- could possibly do with a bit of adjustment there). Tim PF (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi !

I'm currently trying to found a source for the name. I've seen "Voiture à étage", "voiture à deux étages", voitures à deux niveaux"! Which is right, I don't know. I'll ask the Railways wikiproject about this, but for the moment, I think the title in French "Voiture à étage État" is the best.

Trizek ^{here or on wpfr} 11:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made a note to check it in a few days or weeks time. Tim PF (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim,

Alleppey Express (old name Cochin Express) is one of the oldest and very important train from Kerala state in India. You can get by plenty of results by googling. In which parameter the tags holding der? It should be removed.

--Bijuts (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it should be fairly easy to find reliable primary and secondary sources to support its notability, and add those to the article before removing the tags. See WP:PRIMARY, and note the discussion on its talk page. Tim PF (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim,

I think you are well knowledged with railways from your contribuitions. But your edits in Indian Railway articles seems to be lack of knowledge. How you assign a train notable or not? You even made a tag on Bhopal Shatabdi which is very very much important train of Indian Railways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijuts (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely the problem. There have been several recent documentary programmes on British television, but those concerned the Mumbai Suburban Railway some narrow gauge railways (such as the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway and the Nilgiri Mountain Railway), how the railways cope with the Monsoons, and the history of the building of the Indian railways.

Apart from some of those famous trains above, the only way way I can determine if a trains such as the Bhopal Shatabdi Express, Alleppey Express, or Chennai – Trivandrum Superfast Express are notable or not is if there are suitable references in the article as per Wikipedia:Notability.

I have not said that the Bhopal Shatabdi Express is not notable, I have merely added a tag which states: "The Wikipedia:Notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed." If you or some other WP editor adds references that satisfy Wikipedia:Notability, I'll gladly remove the tag, as I will then know that the train truly is notable. Tim PF (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your note on 9 February 2011 and for editing the article. I am not sure, now, what you meant about my spelling (sorry for the long delay!), but I'm certainly not committed to any particular approach and indeed don't really intend to go back to that article, so I'll just say thanks and happy editing. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the delay (although I did have to check your talk page (history) and Talk:Bathroom to refresh my memory. There seems to be a lack of consensus of the spelling of "en suite", "en-suite" or "ensuite" (which is the likely chronological progression from the original French phrase to a bona-fide English word).

I merely pointed out that you had used the "en suite" spelling (last July), but I decided to use the "en-suite" spelling.

I've just checked wiktionary:ensuite, which it seems to prefer over en-suite and the original French en suite, which would suggest that I am being conservative (or British), you are perhaps a little old-fashioned and Wiktionary is progressive (or American) (see more at Hyphen#Prefixes and suffixes).

Now, what was the question?

Ah, yes, we both ended up at Bathroom for various reasons. Mine was that we were (and are) looking to buy a house (having relocated with my wife's new job), and we saw a house that is described as having a Jack and Jill bathroom, and had wondered what one was. We eventually viewed it last Saturday, but decided not to buy it -- we'd prefer a house with a regular family bathroom with an en-suite for the master bedroom.

So, I've tidied up the en suite links, but neither of us are inclined to expand it, at least for the moment. Tim PF (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim - do you know about this. Last chance for some time to record the train history in the silk mill? Victuallers (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen it, but unlike cyberspace, it would mean taking up the whole weekend, and cost about £200 (for travel and a cheap hotel). Plus, I've got quite a few things to do next weekend.

BTW, did you know that you can use the "Add Topic" tab to start a new topic on a talk page. It has the advantage that the automatic edit summary shows the edit in the correct section. Tim PF (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist, I will put in clearer edit descriptione when I put back the perfectly resaonable sections about signalling and layouts, since the relationship between the two has so far been overlooked.

Mention should also be make of Double junction since these have great influence on the design of station layouts.

Tabletop (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Railway signalling article probably covers that topic already, and if not, it probably belongs there, with perhaps at most a note that certain aspects of signalling may provide constraints on a station layout, such as maximum platform length or loop length on single-track railways.

I cannot see why you added the "Main line loops" to Railway station layout (unless you were referring to stations with such loops), and it's probably covered (or should be) in the passing loop article.

The Double junction station layout appears to be covered as Vee (open triangle), although that probably also covers single junctions as well. Tim PF (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Main Line Loop" section better belongs with passing loop article, but there was no "See also" link to help jump from one page to the other. I have added such a link. Similarly Double junction. BTW, the double junction article makes no mention of stations or platforms. The reverse links are also desirable. Tabletop (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Railway station layout article appears to be a sub-article of Train station, but was until now missing a hatnote to that effect. Passing loops are mentioned in the lead of train station, although I think it could, perhaps, be expanded on in the Configurations of railway stations section. I've therefore also removed your Passing loop addition from Railway station layout.

I have no objection to crosslinking articles (so long as not overlinking), and I had actually noted that your original addition was devoid of links, so something had to be done to it. The problem about the reverse link is that "Vee" stations may include other types of junctions, and I'm not sure how one could easily incorporate the links. Perhaps the best way is with specific examples, such as "Virginia Water is on a double junction" (which may not be true -- too many trees to see on Google Maps). Tim PF (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your rv on Railway stations in Tanzania

• some websites are more reliable than other
• railpage is generally reliable
• the particular information on Tanzania comes from a generally reliable newspaper, from The Guardian.

• the same applies to Musoma ^[1]

Will you please therefore rv your reversions.

Tabletop (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:SELFPUBLISH did you miss?

"... self-published media, such as ... Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable as sources. ... Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."

Even websites like SlashDot have a link to a news website to start each discussion thread. The news pages at Railpage Australia may be reliable, but not the fora, especially when there are no links back to reliable websites.

The link from The Guardian is about plans for a two lane highway between Arusha and Musoma; did you have another one about a railway? Tim PF (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article mentions rail: "A railway line will parallel it, and there will probably be a six-lane highway in each direction." Tabletop (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the context of that quote, you will know that it is extremely sarcastic comment of what might happen in several decades time. Tim PF (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at Category talk:Track gauge by size?

TC has been blocked as a suspected sock of Tobias Conradi. See new proposal for a category tree at WT:TWP#Track gauge categories, part 2. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've been busy with domestic duties, but you may have noticed that I have partly caught up with what's happened at WT:TWP. It looks like there's a way to go, not least because I agree with Andy Dingly that the discussion for the rename of Track Gauge should have been at project level, but then again, that was before my time. Tim PF (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim,

I am to translate into English an article that has been used as source by the Spanish Wikipedia. Also, I am writing an article on Rail Gauges. It draws heavily on Wikipedia sources, but I think it is unfit for Wikipedia: pro-BG, and thoroughly opinionated. Would love to hear your views. I am easy enough to find in the Net.

Yours cordially,

Juan Manuel Grijalvo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grijalvo (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop unexplained deletion of multiple {{cn}} tags, and accusations of RS with apparently no elaboration? 218.250.143.16 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I might be deleting multiple {{cn}} tags is because they were added as part of large edits which were either adding uncited material, or using unreliable sources, as explained in my edit summaries. You (or others) keep re-adding them without any explanation of why they may be justified, and until now have not attempted to discuss this on any talk page, contrary to WP:BRD. Tim PF (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undo only what you disagree, or else you are effectively vandalising as part of your edits. Please elaborate why those can't satisfy RS. 218.250.143.16 (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Did you have any plans to deal with articles which link to railpage.com.au? I've removed the ones which linked to actual copyvio - replacing refs is slow work because detailed checking is needed; the original source rarely agrees with the text in the article. However, there are still about a hundred articles which cite general forum chatter, mostly about Australian railways. Any suggestions/preferences on how to deal with them? If you're not inclined, I could add them to my to-do list... bobrayner (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I was aware, web-forums are usually not reliable per WP:SPS: Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. I'd therefore delete those too (as WP:SPS), especially for non-Australian topics. In fact, I had thought that it was those that you were deleting, possibly because you may have inadvertently done so on a few pages, including some of those I had noticed.

As for plans, I have none, except insofar that I will delete them as such as and when I come across them. Tim PF (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding Yh00157 (talk · contribs) - please see the message I've left at User talk:Signalhead#Yh00157. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Tim PF (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the guff off my talk page - I know exactly who it was I'm afraid, and there's nothing that can be done, but so be it...

It's appreciated :)

Egg Centric 21:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I'll leave you on my watchlist, just in case. Tim PF (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you destroyed the information about roads shared with road in List of road-rail bridges. By all means tidy it up, add more examples. But throwing the information away is a form of negative vandalism. Tabletop (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you mean. Even if you really meant rails shared with road or roads shared with rail. Your last edit which I reverted had three separate additions:

1. Road and rail may also share tunnels, and also long sections of road kilometres long which are not really level crossings. — this may refer to list of road-rail tunnels and street running, but doesn't explicitly link to either.
2. * Bloomfield Coal loop where it crosses the New England Highway near Thornton. — this may be a perfectly valid addition, although uncited
3. ==== Shared road and rail ==== — three more uncited additions, two of which are redlinks, and a title which is as unclear as the first additions (ie street running on a bridge or street running in a tunnel or on a linear level crossing).

So, I looked at the three sets of additions, and would have had a go at tidying it up, but that would essentially mean removing 1 & 3, and just leaving 2 (with a {{citation needed}} tag). I might agree that throwing information away is a form of negative vandalism, but adding unclear information is not good either. Tim PF (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Road shared with rail might also be called street running. Tabletop (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I assumed that you were aware of the street running article. I now notice that you haven't edited it, so perhaps you weren't. I also note that it wasn't referenced from the List of road-rail bridges, so I've added it there now, which is perhaps part of what you had added yourself (but without the link). Tim PF (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to start an edit war, but my issue with the use of the term "sleepers" instead of "railroad ties" in this article is that the article about sleepers/ties is titled "Railroad tie". Therefore, for consistency sake, shouldn't the term "ties" be used in the "Track (rail transport)" article as well? Jrzyboy (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, please read WP:RETAIN. The Railroad tie article may be written in American English (WP:AmE), but Track (rail transport) is written in WP:BrE. WP:RETAIN takes priority, and you would have just as much right to revert anyone trying to change Railroad tie into British English. Tim PF (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense, and thanks for the clarification. However, do you think it would make sense to use both terms in the Track (rail transport) article, for the sake of an international flavor? Jrzyboy (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does, or at least it will again if you revert your own last revert to Track (rail transport) (which you should to avoid being blocked). Tim PF (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reverted. Thanks for your clarification on this topic. Jrzyboy (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Jrzyboy (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't remove article problem templates until the problem is fixed.Imgaril (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See new Three-phase AC railway electrification article Hugo999 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded showing the current status (as of this morning) and Haymarket article updated. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 13:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying (due to house move), and I like the photos (including the Class 380).

The electrification was actually done as part of the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvements Programme (EGIP), rather than the Airdrie to Bathgate project, according to both Network Rail ("Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvements Programme Contracts Awarded". Network Rail. 2010-08-12. Retrieved 2012-01-30. Carillion will begin work on the electrification of Edinburgh's Haymarket north tunnel in September in what will be the first physical element of the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvements Programme (EGIP) to be delivered.) and Transport Scotland ("Annual Review 2011". Transport Scotland. 2011-08-16. Retrieved 2012-01-30. Good progress continues on the Edinburgh-Glasgow Improvements Programme (EGIP) with both design and advance work well under way. In August 2010 work began on the electrification of Edinburgh's Haymarket North Tunnel.).

Neither give a date for the actual work, but would explain why I didn't see the wires in September 2010. There are some other documents on their websites which appear to identify this as a diversionary route for A-B trains, and I guess that someone realised that:

• A-B needed that diversionary route from day 1 (or ASAP),
• there was no money for it in the A-B budget,
• EGIP would need it as a regular route,
• it would be easier to erect the wires before the 4tph A-B started,
• The EGIP budget was available by then.

On the other hand, the official EGIP site just shows a map showing it as Current Electrification.

So, whilst it was probably done in 2010/11 in conjunction with the Airdrie to Bathgate project, it was officially done as part of EGIP using EGIP's budget.

I haven't updated Haymarket railway station yet. Tim PF (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, what can we do with this chap? I see that you have battled away incessantly on his talk page, but I deduce that he doesn't or can't read it. I think he is foreign and maybe doesn't read anything but the simplest English. The thing is that *some* of his edits seem OK, which actually makes things more difficult. -- Alarics (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought you'd like to know that I'm splitting List of rail accidents (1900–1949), although despite what the tag says, I'm considering a third possiblity. I have two versions in my sandbox right now. ----DanTD (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE; I did it, but I chose the 1930-1949 version. ----DanTD (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of rail accidents has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Set theorist (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Thunderbird locomotive. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 9#Thunderbird locomotive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]