User talk:Slambo/Archive 0602

Shenandoah Valley Railroad

Sean, I got a disambiguation page started for Shenandoah Valley Railroad since this name pops up under both uses in some of the Virginia railroad research work I have been doing. Of course, please feel free to change or build off of it. I have been primarily working lately on non-railroad articles. Best wishes for the New Year! Mark Vaoverland 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Sean, Thanks for your help on the Abraham Lincoln Pullman car page. As you can tell, i don't know what i am doing..I'm just trying not to break anything here. Best regards--Craig

Thanks!

(for cleaning up some stuff on the Milwaukee electrics pages I created yesterday, and doing a navbox for them too) —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Locomotives infobox

Hello. As I see your'e advanced contributor into railways toppic. I am thinking of preparing template infobox for locomotives. In my articles regarding Category:PKP locomotives i simply use tables, but an unificated infobox for all locomotives (with separation for diesel, electric, steam and EMUs) would be IMHO good idea
CCMichalZ 17:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

CNW Class E-4

Both of the references I have that mention the CNW Class E-4 4-6-4s claim they were oil-fired. Unfortunately that doesn't explain these pictures:

• http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00003414+OP-3414 Obvious coal on the tender ...
• http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00003286+OP-3286 Same
• http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00003288+OP-3288 At a coaling tower ...
• http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00003436+OP-3436 Tender view, showing obvious coal

Do you happen to have any references in your library that give the coal capacity? —Matthew Brown (T:C) 08:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! —Matthew Brown (T:C) 12:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox locomotives

Hi Sean,

Nice work on the template, I've been going back and incorporating it into some of my recently-created articles. One thing I noticed, however, is that the "cylinders" category does not read out in the box once it's placed in the article (same goes for your GP30 example); is this intended?--Lordkinbote 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sean

Same subject, different question. I see you have added an 'infobox' to Novelty (locomotive) but the Career box only includes the Runcorn Gap railway and not the Rainhill trials for the Liverpool & Manchester. I would consider the L&M worth including as the locomotive was built for that railway.

Same issue applies to another locomotive on my watchlist Flying Scotsman. The only railway in the Career box in the LNER but it was also the property of British Railways and a string of individual and companies all of whom have run it to make money.

Before I go in 'feet first' and add such things, please advise on the intention of the "Career Box". Is there a good example to follow? AHEMSLTD 13:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Please use {{rail-stub}}, not {{train-stub}}

Please use {{rail-stub}}, not {{train-stub}}. The latter is a redirect to {{rail-stub}}. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 11:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I've done my share of work with stubs, and didn't consult The List first, assuming I guessed correctly by the blue link in preview mode. However, if you don't want people using redirected stub templates, instead of taking it up one editor at a time, why not bring it up for deletion? -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Copied from my page, please reply there>

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article El Gobernador, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 09:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

How to join wikiproject

Hello again. A question stupid maybe, but I really do not know what to do to join trains wikiproject?
CCMichalZ 09:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

CiTV

Thanks for the message about me editing the CiTV page! I enjoy contributing and publishing my knowledge about CiTV! If you could leave me another message, that would be great! 212.47.83.170

List of Johnston Atoll railroads, etc

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wake Island railroads you were planning on sorting out the numerous articles created due to a faulty nav box. Many of these articles still exist (example List of Palmyra Atoll railroads), linked to each other but not much else, describing nothing, and a few have been redirected to a pretty awful dead end page (United States political division with no railroads). I was wondering if there was a better place to redirect all the articles too, including United States political division with no railroads page, a general page, or else we'll have to go through the tedious business of nominating the lot for AFD. Sabine's Sunbird 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm no admin, and I don't think they are a speedy category. But I doubt there was a clear concensus to delete the lot of them, there were not many votes. I might have to list them all. Sabine's Sunbird 15:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for them to be speedied, it is a lot of effort to afd them and I can't imagine many people will even bother to vote. Sabine's Sunbird 21:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Awesome, and thanks. Sabine's Sunbird 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

BNSF Railway & Railroad Categories

I've been working on a lot of stub pages but I've recently aquired a complete list of active railroads as of 12/31/05. In the process of going state by state I was adding each railroad to a Category:State railroad but you removed some of those links. I know that the railroads sometimes have their own categories but I think that the individual pages should also be in the state railroad page. I had planned on adding every state they operate in, adding them as I get through the states. Is there some overwhelming reason why you don't want the category added? Brianmcfa 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

wheel arrangements

In UIC classification, there is a difference between a Bo-Bo and a B-B. If they have monomotor bogies (a French/Alsthom thing mostly) they are B-B (or C-C) whereas if there is a motor for each axle it's a Bo-Bo/Co-Co. I think we ought to use UIC classification rather than AAR as it's less ambiguous. Therefore I think most of the American locos in category:B-B locomotives and category:C-C locomotives should really be in category:Bo-Bo locomotives and category:Co-Co locomotives. Whatcha reckon? — Dunc|☺ 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)