Template talk:Infobox train

Owner

I think it should say who owns each train i.e. Porterbrook owns the Class 458, 460, 158 and 159 units, just to pick 4 examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdiddyjr (talk • contribs) 15:58, 10 April 2012‎

Image cropping

Does the template support cropping of images in any way - for example the interior image at Class 158 is rather tall and could do with some cutting down… Danners430 (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Danners430,
The image in itself isn't part of the template, so the image can be cropped in the normal way (double-click → Open in Media Viewer → More details → Crop tool).

I think this image is superfluous in the infobox -- one image is all that's necessary and the top one is good for the purpose. So I believe it ought to be in the body of the article if indeed it's not considered more or less duplicative. The caption should be more comprehensible to the lay person than "Scotrail interior in 2024". My 2 cents worth. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 09:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for an extra parameter

I would like to see a non-British alternative to the term "formation" added to this template: consist. In non-British parlance, "formation" applies to roadbed, i.e. the earthworks supporting the track. "Consist" is the exact equivalent to "formation". SCHolar44 (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

How would this be relevant to an individual class of train? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really understand your question. That said, I had thought that specifying "a diesel or electric multiple unit" in the definition of "formation" might be unnecessarily restrictive, since I've observed its use in connection with loco-hauled -- passenger and freight -- trains. However, I readily admit my knowledge of UK practice is not deep, so I won't be surprised to be told I'm uttering a load of tosh.

I forgot to include a definition of "consist", which might clarify the term without equating it to "formation":

The make-up of a train; a list containing specific information for each car of a train; also a group of locomotives.

As to the definition of of "formation", which at present is circular ("formation - The formation and/or length of ..."), I suggest "The make-up of a train ..." or alternative, more UK-appropriate words might improve the definition. But I'll stick to "consist" here. SCHolar44 (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

References

It was early morning, my brain wasn't working. Yes, I think that's a reasonable request. Sorry for the confusion. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Aha! I'm no stranger to that phenomenon! SCHolar44 (talk)

Is it perhaps worth making use of the "use british english" etc. templates to determine whether "consist" or "formation" should be shown? Danners430 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I've normally seen uses like |formation=DMBS-DTCL or similar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

After seriously investigating, via the Sandbox, the potential for me to screw up the template, may I ask for someone more familiar with its coding to implement the change? It involves:

• Adding Consist to the definitions (I see that Formation is label51 and label50 has not been allocated):
  [Especially NAm]: the make-up of a train; a list containing specific information for each car of a train; also a group of locomotives.
• Removing the present circular element of the definition of Formation ("formation [is] The formation ...") and adding:
  [Especially UK]: the make-up of a train." – and if necessary some more UK-appropriate words (I have tentatively guessed that "a list containing specific information for each vehicle in a train" and "also a group of locomotives" might not apply in UK usage).

Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 01:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone?  :-\ Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 05:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)