This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Passenger railroad car article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Passenger railroad car was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | On 14 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to ?. The result of the discussion was Procedural close. |
I'm planning on moving the "variations" sections back into the main car types section. Many of the cars in the main types section do not even exist anymore, while the "variations" are common today. Why separate out the new from the old? Don't understand at all. Fourdee 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In case you're wondering where the references are on this article, there aren't any. This article is built from my own experience of twenty years of building models of American trains and railroads. As I find references that should be included, I will add them. slambo 17:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, there's a reference. Now that I'm adding more information on railroading practices outside North America, I need the references to look up the data. slambo 01:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
The Classic Trains reference is one that I just picked up today at my local hobby shop. As it's a periodical, the cover date (and therefore the copyright date) is a little bit in the future. The copyright date all over this publication is 2005, so that's what I put in the references. slambo 03:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
What about armoured trains and their infantry cars? I think the article should have a mention of those. Also it should be noted that sometimes various totalitarism regimes used freight cars to transport people, especially prisoners. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I hate to leave this section so slim, but I've got to stop now to have dinner. I will be adding more to those listed as well as finding information on others. slambo 02:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so there were a few objections, I'm working on them. Unfortunately, the entire discussion was removed from the WP:FAC and archives page, so it's a good thing that I copied them into the todolist here. Once I resolve these objections, I'll likely renominate the article. slambo 16:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Could someone also add recent prices for a typical car? How much does one of these things cost?
I removed the following text from the article:
While this information could still be valuable, I don't think it's worded very well here. Besides, the seating arrangements are different for each car type, and this text deals more with coaches than other types. It seems to me that seating arrangements are better described on the car type pages themselves and not here. slambo 20:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Talgo references to inline footnote style. The other references I'm not familiar with so I'll leave it to someone else to work them inline. n2xjk 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Has now been delisted by 3-0. LuciferMorgan 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:OP-14522.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a no brainer - they are the same thing. I'll merge into this article since it's bigger, (and more people live in the US than UK? what do other english speaking peoples call them), also there is a presedent eg "railroad tie" over "sleeper", "switch" over "point" etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
"More people live in the US than the UK" - arrrrggghhh!!! Give me something to bite on! As someone based in the US, this makes me ashamed of my fellow-countrymen because this is a typical arrogant American-centric viewpoint. There are MANY times more "International English" speakers (based more closely on English-English) than speakers of American-English. American-English, for example, is the only form of English that saw a unilateral change in spellings (thanks to Noah Webster for that particularly confusion).
As for this particular page, as a rail enthusiast of many years, I can confirm that American rail terminology is in the minority worldwide, compared with the terms used by rail experts who speak international forms of English. Please also remember that the American rail system is much smaller (on a per-head-of-population-basis than in many other countries - partly because America decimated its rail systems following the advent of cheap air travel). So this arrogant decision to merge pages in order to make "carriage" or "coach" subservient to the predominantly American term, "car" (which most of the rest of the English-speaking world reserve to describe an automobile) - is indefensible. "Car" WAS used occasionally in British steam-era rail terminology but is virtually unknown in modern UK rail parlance.
A generic world-view page should be written in International-English, majoring on international terminology, not American terminology. It is then perfectly correct - under Wikipedia guidelines - to have an American "local-view" page written in American-English and giving more detail using American terms (such as car) and using American spellings (z instead of s, for example).
It is virtually impossible to accomplish this level of detail within one page because the rail terminology in America is so different in almost every respect to the rest of the world. Besides car/coach/carriage, some other examples based on comparisons with UK terminology: switch (US) v points (UK); railroad (US) v railway (UK); consist (US) v rake (UK); switcher (US) v shunter (UK) ... I could go on, but you get the point.
-- 621PWC ( talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the subsection 'parlour car' because it's duplicated in the section Passenger_car_(rail)#Coach .. however that section calls them 'compartment cars', and I though parlour cars were of the 'open' type. Can someone (from North America) check this so it makes sense both in UK and USA English (Canadians, Indians, Barbadians too etc..)
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Also I've got to ask is Passenger_car_(rail)#Horse_car really a type of passenger car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The section on prisoner cars is interesting and I attempted to find which countries used them. I found many articles about a hoax where conspiracy theorists decried the existence of "prison cars" to be used for the mass incarceration of American citizens. The hoax arose around 2010; the railroad cars were in fact multi-tier auto cars with gratings on the sides. Probably trains are not used for transporting prisoners in the US because of the justified stigma of the Holocaust train. This forum post includes memories of ex-railway employees about the use of prisoner cars in the US in the past.
In Russia, however, rail travel is sometimes more practical than road travel, and that country does use prisoner cars. The car pictured has at least one visible end door. Note that the caption regarding the Arctic Sunrise is not related to the photo.
I didn't want to change "some countries" to "Russia and other countries" without evidence that other large countries do not also have prisoner cars, especially since the description of cars without end doors does not match. Roches ( talk) 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole article needs to be redesigned to separate out practices from various countries.
Take
(1) the simple use of the US term "Maintenance of Way" - in the UK thats "Engineering" (at various times, dependent on practices before and after nationalisation in 1947.
(2) Air-conditioning rebuilds took place in the late 1920's and early 1930's in the US, using ice as a coolant before more recent methodology. The result could be anything from a changed roof-line on both sides, partial over part, or "half-clerestory" on one side only (see Pullman "Dover Harbor (Harbour), The National Railway Historical Society, Washington, D.C. Chapter, Inc (see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/terry_browne/10466214536 )
More comments to fully after further study!
I note a previous comment (from 621PWC) criticising the US centric tone of the article - which whilst a little unparliamentary I cannot fault!
If it helps, as admin of a group studying just Clerestory Coaches the reader might like to study the group (see : https://www.flickr.com/groups/2031425@N22/pool/page1/?thumb=1 ), so that broader practices across many parts of the world can be elicited. (Most of North, central & South America, Much of Europe including the UK, the Levant, North & Southern Africa, some parts of Asia, and even Russia are covered).
Terry nyorks ( talk) 21:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Slambo added the following to my talk page.
Stepho
talk
22:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I see your revert of my recent edit. I took it out of that sentence because the other types that are listed there are specific rail car types that are and have been historically used in regular service in regularly scheduled passenger trains worldwide. While I don't doubt that prisoners have been transported by rail, in 40 years of model railroading and research, I have never seen or heard of a prisoner car being used as a regular part of a regularly scheduled passenger train. More clarification is needed for its inclusion in the article. Slambo (Speak) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
For charabanc see Talk:Haarlem railway station#Charabanc Peter Horn User talk 16:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
For Belmond Andean Explorer#Belmond Andean Explorer Cars could some one describe Spa car and Piano bar car? Peter Horn User talk 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Passenger railroad car. There is support for both the proposed "Passenger coach" and this alternative title, and a general consensus to abandon the current clumsy disambiguation. However, this one has virtues of WP:CONSISTENCY with the main railroad car and WP:PRECISION against Coach (bus), and has gained sufficient support in the discussion. No such user ( talk) 11:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Passenger car (rail) → Passenger coach – Procedural nomination in order to get this parallel discussion back on track. The claim in that discussion is that passenger coach is the more international term. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The article contains two separate paragraphs about prisoner cars ( Passenger_car_(rail)#Prisoner_car and Passenger_car_(rail)#Prisoner_transport_car). I suggest that these are merged.
There is nothing on the expected or average passenger capacity of any of these railroad cars, which is vital information. Here, 2022 in the city of Montreal, Canada they are making a new railway system and claim 128 seats a car and almost 200 people a car. I find nothing to compare this imaginary rail car to, to find out if it is a reasonable number or not .-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 19:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Railroad car which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Railroad car which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Passenger railroad car article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Passenger railroad car was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | On 14 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to ?. The result of the discussion was Procedural close. |
I'm planning on moving the "variations" sections back into the main car types section. Many of the cars in the main types section do not even exist anymore, while the "variations" are common today. Why separate out the new from the old? Don't understand at all. Fourdee 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In case you're wondering where the references are on this article, there aren't any. This article is built from my own experience of twenty years of building models of American trains and railroads. As I find references that should be included, I will add them. slambo 17:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, there's a reference. Now that I'm adding more information on railroading practices outside North America, I need the references to look up the data. slambo 01:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
The Classic Trains reference is one that I just picked up today at my local hobby shop. As it's a periodical, the cover date (and therefore the copyright date) is a little bit in the future. The copyright date all over this publication is 2005, so that's what I put in the references. slambo 03:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
What about armoured trains and their infantry cars? I think the article should have a mention of those. Also it should be noted that sometimes various totalitarism regimes used freight cars to transport people, especially prisoners. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I hate to leave this section so slim, but I've got to stop now to have dinner. I will be adding more to those listed as well as finding information on others. slambo 02:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so there were a few objections, I'm working on them. Unfortunately, the entire discussion was removed from the WP:FAC and archives page, so it's a good thing that I copied them into the todolist here. Once I resolve these objections, I'll likely renominate the article. slambo 16:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Could someone also add recent prices for a typical car? How much does one of these things cost?
I removed the following text from the article:
While this information could still be valuable, I don't think it's worded very well here. Besides, the seating arrangements are different for each car type, and this text deals more with coaches than other types. It seems to me that seating arrangements are better described on the car type pages themselves and not here. slambo 20:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Talgo references to inline footnote style. The other references I'm not familiar with so I'll leave it to someone else to work them inline. n2xjk 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Has now been delisted by 3-0. LuciferMorgan 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:OP-14522.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 08:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a no brainer - they are the same thing. I'll merge into this article since it's bigger, (and more people live in the US than UK? what do other english speaking peoples call them), also there is a presedent eg "railroad tie" over "sleeper", "switch" over "point" etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail ( talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
"More people live in the US than the UK" - arrrrggghhh!!! Give me something to bite on! As someone based in the US, this makes me ashamed of my fellow-countrymen because this is a typical arrogant American-centric viewpoint. There are MANY times more "International English" speakers (based more closely on English-English) than speakers of American-English. American-English, for example, is the only form of English that saw a unilateral change in spellings (thanks to Noah Webster for that particularly confusion).
As for this particular page, as a rail enthusiast of many years, I can confirm that American rail terminology is in the minority worldwide, compared with the terms used by rail experts who speak international forms of English. Please also remember that the American rail system is much smaller (on a per-head-of-population-basis than in many other countries - partly because America decimated its rail systems following the advent of cheap air travel). So this arrogant decision to merge pages in order to make "carriage" or "coach" subservient to the predominantly American term, "car" (which most of the rest of the English-speaking world reserve to describe an automobile) - is indefensible. "Car" WAS used occasionally in British steam-era rail terminology but is virtually unknown in modern UK rail parlance.
A generic world-view page should be written in International-English, majoring on international terminology, not American terminology. It is then perfectly correct - under Wikipedia guidelines - to have an American "local-view" page written in American-English and giving more detail using American terms (such as car) and using American spellings (z instead of s, for example).
It is virtually impossible to accomplish this level of detail within one page because the rail terminology in America is so different in almost every respect to the rest of the world. Besides car/coach/carriage, some other examples based on comparisons with UK terminology: switch (US) v points (UK); railroad (US) v railway (UK); consist (US) v rake (UK); switcher (US) v shunter (UK) ... I could go on, but you get the point.
-- 621PWC ( talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the subsection 'parlour car' because it's duplicated in the section Passenger_car_(rail)#Coach .. however that section calls them 'compartment cars', and I though parlour cars were of the 'open' type. Can someone (from North America) check this so it makes sense both in UK and USA English (Canadians, Indians, Barbadians too etc..)
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Also I've got to ask is Passenger_car_(rail)#Horse_car really a type of passenger car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The section on prisoner cars is interesting and I attempted to find which countries used them. I found many articles about a hoax where conspiracy theorists decried the existence of "prison cars" to be used for the mass incarceration of American citizens. The hoax arose around 2010; the railroad cars were in fact multi-tier auto cars with gratings on the sides. Probably trains are not used for transporting prisoners in the US because of the justified stigma of the Holocaust train. This forum post includes memories of ex-railway employees about the use of prisoner cars in the US in the past.
In Russia, however, rail travel is sometimes more practical than road travel, and that country does use prisoner cars. The car pictured has at least one visible end door. Note that the caption regarding the Arctic Sunrise is not related to the photo.
I didn't want to change "some countries" to "Russia and other countries" without evidence that other large countries do not also have prisoner cars, especially since the description of cars without end doors does not match. Roches ( talk) 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The whole article needs to be redesigned to separate out practices from various countries.
Take
(1) the simple use of the US term "Maintenance of Way" - in the UK thats "Engineering" (at various times, dependent on practices before and after nationalisation in 1947.
(2) Air-conditioning rebuilds took place in the late 1920's and early 1930's in the US, using ice as a coolant before more recent methodology. The result could be anything from a changed roof-line on both sides, partial over part, or "half-clerestory" on one side only (see Pullman "Dover Harbor (Harbour), The National Railway Historical Society, Washington, D.C. Chapter, Inc (see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/terry_browne/10466214536 )
More comments to fully after further study!
I note a previous comment (from 621PWC) criticising the US centric tone of the article - which whilst a little unparliamentary I cannot fault!
If it helps, as admin of a group studying just Clerestory Coaches the reader might like to study the group (see : https://www.flickr.com/groups/2031425@N22/pool/page1/?thumb=1 ), so that broader practices across many parts of the world can be elicited. (Most of North, central & South America, Much of Europe including the UK, the Levant, North & Southern Africa, some parts of Asia, and even Russia are covered).
Terry nyorks ( talk) 21:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Slambo added the following to my talk page.
Stepho
talk
22:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I see your revert of my recent edit. I took it out of that sentence because the other types that are listed there are specific rail car types that are and have been historically used in regular service in regularly scheduled passenger trains worldwide. While I don't doubt that prisoners have been transported by rail, in 40 years of model railroading and research, I have never seen or heard of a prisoner car being used as a regular part of a regularly scheduled passenger train. More clarification is needed for its inclusion in the article. Slambo (Speak) 18:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
For charabanc see Talk:Haarlem railway station#Charabanc Peter Horn User talk 16:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
For Belmond Andean Explorer#Belmond Andean Explorer Cars could some one describe Spa car and Piano bar car? Peter Horn User talk 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Passenger railroad car. There is support for both the proposed "Passenger coach" and this alternative title, and a general consensus to abandon the current clumsy disambiguation. However, this one has virtues of WP:CONSISTENCY with the main railroad car and WP:PRECISION against Coach (bus), and has gained sufficient support in the discussion. No such user ( talk) 11:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Passenger car (rail) → Passenger coach – Procedural nomination in order to get this parallel discussion back on track. The claim in that discussion is that passenger coach is the more international term. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The article contains two separate paragraphs about prisoner cars ( Passenger_car_(rail)#Prisoner_car and Passenger_car_(rail)#Prisoner_transport_car). I suggest that these are merged.
There is nothing on the expected or average passenger capacity of any of these railroad cars, which is vital information. Here, 2022 in the city of Montreal, Canada they are making a new railway system and claim 128 seats a car and almost 200 people a car. I find nothing to compare this imaginary rail car to, to find out if it is a reasonable number or not .-- Mark v1.0 ( talk) 19:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Railroad car which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 15:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Railroad car which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)