Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 9 August 2006

Trains B‑class

Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Light rail was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 25, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Unheadered junk at top

Does the author have permission to post this? , --maveric149

Yes, as far as I know 1. http://www.rinbad.demon.co.uk/ca_rail.htm -- from their FAQ

Copyright policy?

Copyright © 1992-2000. The copyright of the pages on this site belongs to us, but you may make copies for personal use. If you reproduce any of the material in any electronic or paper publication whether for profit or otherwise, please acknowledge the source as Rinbad.

2. The data is public data from National Transit Database, APTA (an association of public agencies) copied it themselves and formatted it in html, which was copied and cited, does that formatting matter? Their statement: Copyright© 2001, American Public Transportation Association; All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy and distribute documents and related graphics from this World Wide Web server ("Server") is granted provided that (1) the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear; (2) use of documents and related graphics available from this Server is for informational and non-commercial purposes only; (3) no documents or related graphics available from this Server are modified in any way, and; (4) no graphics available from this Server are used, copied or distributed separate from accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by the American Public Transportation Association. The American Public Transportation Association shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including but not limited to direct, indirect, or consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this Server or links provided from this Server to other servers or websites.

--DavidLevinson

Just as I thought -- these conditions are not compatible with the GNU FDL. The above notice can be deleted by anyone any time a wiki and no provision of the FDL can prevent commercial redistribution. Attribution on a wiki is also not possible. The material needs to be either extensively rewritten or removed. --maveric149

I have no problem in principle with rewriting LRT article (Rinbad piece), but "Misplaced Pages and Nupedia's use of the GFDL began in January, 2001, and has won the project the support of Richard Stallman of the FSF. See . It has long been the understanding of Misplaced Pages principals (Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger at least) that, as in the case of Nupedia (see and ), links back to original Misplaced Pages articles would be required from anyone who used Misplaced Pages articles. (Jimbo confirms that Stallman agreed that the license permits this. ) Misplaced Pages principals have, recently, finally gotten around to making this requirement explicit for Misplaced Pages (as it has been for Nupedia), which has caused some controversy. (See the Misplaced Pages-L archives and /Talk.)"

So if Misplaced Pages's GFDL allows it to insist that others links back to it, it is quite inconsistent to not allow other licenses to require that Misplaced Pages refer back to it. I realize that since anyone can edit, anyone can delete notice, but that seems an implementation problem, that Misplaced Pages may face if another Wiki type site cites its articles. (Rinbad clearly just wants acknowledgment, and implicitly allows profit distribution).

I suspect APTA is blowing smoke about their copyright, but I am still plowing through National Transit Database to find the original table. I agree there is a problem with not allowing commercial reproduction if their copyright is valid. But if it is public data than the point is moot.

--DavidLevinson

As I thought, APTA took the data from: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTDData.nsf/2000+TOC/Table20/$File/t20_32.html (or equivalent tables in previous years) The National Transit Database Table 20 and basically deleted all the lines not dealing with LRT (and a few redundant columns) to create the specific table.

Is that copyrightable?

Can I take someone else's data and remove some and get a new copyright? Can I change a font and get a new copyright?

--DavidLevinson

Nope -- making those types of changes along with any changes that are not a complete rewrite are called "derivitive works" and are covered by the original copyright (no new copyright was formed since the terms of the original copyright cannot be followed by this wiki or be re-licensed under the GNU FDL). So the list has to be removed and the stub for this article has to be rewritten. You can use the same information in the rewrite - but it must be said in a different way and presented in a way that does not substantially reflect the creative work of the original author. If you don't get around to this, I will provide a rewritten definition that I prepared for work (also based in part on the definition you provided but rewritten to conform to copyright law).

Also, even if the the original info for the table was from the FTA (thus in the public domain) APTA modified and added to it. Their modifications and choice of additions (even if they were also PD) is under automatic copyright protection in the US. The table in the / page is exactly the same as the one linked anyway - so providing an external link to it has the same effect. I will go ahead and remove the content from the / page and add the page to page titles to be deleted for a final review by another administrator. We are all learning here, so I hope this does not cause undue hard feelings. :)--maveric149

My questions were rhetorical and aimed at APTA not wikipedia. APTA modified the FTA public domain table by deleting rows, thus creating a derivative work, and then claimed copyright on it. (Its like copying part of a phone book, but only numbers beginning with '9'). Since you agreed with my point that this is invalid, APTA does *not* have a copyright on the table -- regardless of what they claim.

WRT the LRT article (not the table), the rules RINBAD put forth a definition looks a lot like copyleft to me, simply asking for notification of original source. I noted earlier, that[REDACTED] asks for exactly the same thing in its redistribution.

ALSO AS A SIDE MATTER - There probably should be some integration of the Tram and Light rail articles, Trolley and Street car already redirect.

--DavidLevinson

Their choice on what to delete and include in their own table is a copyrightable derivitive work -- and the "FTA" tables are obviously formatted differently in HTML and come from a .com domain, which in combination with the lack of an obvious copyright renunciation, places great doubt on their public domain status. The table that was inputed into wikipedia was very obvously a minor HTML port of the exact APTA table and not the "FTA" table. --maveric149

AFAIK Tram and Light Rail are not the same thing. Eg, the Docklands Light Railway in London. A quick google search (results below) confirms that it would be more accurate to say Tram is a type of light rail which runs on roadways.

• http://www.lrta.org/explain.html
• http://www.lightrail.com/definition.htm

It seems this article needs replacing anyway. I'll look into it some more and get back to it. -- Tarquin

"Tram" seems to mean more different things than "subway" (which is either a form of urban railroad, or a pedestrian underpass). Consider the "tram" up Victoria Peak in Hong Kong (an old funicular railway) and the "Roosevelt Island Tramway" in New York City (a cable car system). Vicki Rosenzweig

The Dayton System looks more like an electric bus than a light rail since it doesn't actually have rails. --DavidLevinson

would that then be a "trolleybus", if it has power from overhead lines? There's also "guided buses", which use a rail of some sort (or optical markers) but run with a normal diesel engine. The emerging consensus seems to be that far from being synonyms, "tram" and "light rail" are two different things which overlap in modern trams which are built with light rail technology. The Tram article seems to explain it well. -- Tarquin

I added an article on electric trolleybus, including a list of North American cities which still have such systems (including Dayton). The LRT and Tram articles still need fixing. --DavidLevinson

Hey, cool, you got to it before I did. Which is a good thing - it means I've got paying work!  :-) -- Marj Tiefert

Great rewrite, AdamW! I'm trying to remember something I read about the tram / light rail difference: it's something to do with operation and the way the vehicle is driven. Light rail, like railways, have signs & lights which dictate the driver's behaviour; trams, like buses, don't. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- Tarquin 22:32 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

And then you have hybrid systems like in Sacramento, California where the light-rail train operates like a tram (that is, the train shares right-of-way with automobiles) in the central city but like a traditional light rail system in the extensive suburbs (with its own right-of-way and only the occasional R/R crossing). But the vehicles there are most definitely light rail vehicles and not trams. There could be a better discussion on the distinction here - to most people there really isn't much, if any difference between the two systems/vehicle technologies. --mav 07:33 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, the photo on this page looks a hell of a lot like a tram to me (short, single vehicle on what looks like a city street) and not a light rail vehicle operating in a light rail system (that is yet anther distinction we should make). --mav

Yep. Clearly a tram. But then tram is a form of light rail, so I guess that's OK. Ideally, a heavier example might be clearer though. Tannin

I have just such a photo of a 3 car bifurcated light-rail train at a station on a pedestrian mall. But it is at work and hasn't been downsized or cropped yet. --mav

In Greece trolley is .... electric bus. Really stupid. The vehicle is not a trolley but trolley bus (also trackless trolley or trolleybus), look up Misplaced Pages entry on trolleybus and delete Greece nonesense.

"Light rail is a particular class of railway that" yeah, what about narrow gauge rail and how does it differ? How does a passenger train running on narrow gauge track differ from the so called light train and what is the definition of lightness. Narrow gauge rail is as legitimate (although not as sexy a) term as "light rail."

Could we get a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages for light rails / trams vs other transportation systems? (Buses, Subway, Monorail, etc.) --Weyoun6 18:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Light rail is NOT the same as narrow gauge. Some light rail systems are standard guage (1435 mm) (some may even be wider!).

In the British Isles, Light Railways were defined as railways using, literally, "light" rail. That is, the rails had a lower weight per linear yard than the normal rail network. Because of this the speed and weight of trains was restricted. Some of the "light railways" built in the late 19th C and early 20th C (usually in remote areas which didn't justify "heavy" rail) were narrow gauge: others standard.

Currently light rail is used as a catch-all phrase for various tram, streetcar and metro systems that don't use the more expensive "heavy rail" technology. It can include street running or grade-separated systems.

However, the whole "tram", "streetcar", "subway", "metro" nomenclature issue is a minefield.

Exile 20:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Dublin's Luas is specially mentioned under 'Unusual Variations'? To the best of my knowledge it's a fairly straightforward modern tram system. --David Arthur

Is it really true that the Docklands Light Railway wouldn't normally be considered a light railway? The trains cope with much sharper curves and steeper gradients than conventional rail would. --Adam Woodcraft 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The DLR certainly has light-rail type characteristics, but it's definitely very close to the dividing line; the Tyne and Wear Metro runs articulated trains of a similar length at lower frequencies and with level crossings, but never gets called 'light rail' because it's the heaviest service around. From a user's point of view, there's very little difference between the DLR and any other metro system.

but its title is still Docklands Light Railway, whatever the "dividing line" might be!!! Peter Shearan 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a good - although brief - summary of what the Light Railway Act of 1896 was all about here. It doesn't just talk about the weight of vehicles; it also has to do with the fact that the line itself can be built in a less constrictive way - which is precisely why Colonel Stephens was able to build the railways he did - few bridges, lots of level crossings etc. I fear that this article tries to cope with the term as it is used world-wide, and then when it comes to the individual countries that is too sweeeping a statement. Google actually gives Japan as its early matches!! Peter Shearan 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user that added some rather specific information to the "disadvantages" section which I removed because they were not NPOV and really not disadvantages of Light Rail vs other mass transit, but mass transit vs roads. The citation was from an article about a specific case in the US, not relevant here. The debate over the value of mass transit is real and is discussed else where in wikipedia. protohiro 22:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

^^^^^ Yet, under 'advantages' you refer to a specific implementation in London, England... That should be removed also, then. Sometimes specific instances highlight concrete advantages and disadvantages, rather than resorting to abstractions. Comparing to roads (or walking or biking or kayaking for that matter) is perfectly relevant since they are modes of transit. Comparing light rail to heavy rail in the 'advantages' area is like saying rotten milk tastes really good compared to rotten hamburger. Sounds like you are editorializing a little bit.

ok, but you see what you have written is not universaly accepted as fact, its opinion. So you could put in the article as "opponents of light rail say" but what you have written is not NPOV. Many people would disagree with the statement:

Modern metropolitan areas are far too dispersed in residential and employment locations for any mass transit facility to be able to remove a significant percentage of drivers from automobiles. Generally, transit is able to provide service that competes in time and convenience with the automobile only to a single downtown area in each metropolitan area.

. That means it isn't NPOV. If you want a section that says "arguments against light rail" or something like that, I would be ok with that, but I don't think you are talking about specific disadvantages to light rail, rather you are arguing against mass transit in general. The london example is refering to an advantage of light rail vs other mass transit, not light rail vs everything else. Also may I suggest you register with wikipedia, it will be helpful. protohiro 17:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In the section "Criticisms of light rail, and responses to them" could there be a less charged term used than "far right-wingers"? If economic or political conservatives are those being described, then it would be better to use such a term.

--- I removed the list of opponents at the end of the first paragraph. The discussion of the specific objections seems sufficient to me.

NPOV cost section

The comments made in this section are obviously written by a pro-light rail enthusiast. "the notion that they are a waste of government money when compared with the ostensibly self-financing highway system is specious and is usually made for ideological/political reasons so as to push the interests of the pro-highway lobby" is a partisan statement if ever I heard one. "despite the enormous social costs of continued highway dependence" is another. I agree with the statements made, but this section has a definite slant. Benandorsqueaks 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the section could be broken up into the arguments for and against light rail being cost effective (i.e. many pro-railers hold that highways incur large social costs and ..., while those opposed argue that...).66.240.10.170 04:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)loodog

I have reworded the cost effectiveness article to be more NPOV. I will remove the neutrality flag if there are no objections.Loodog 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Light rail definition

While the definition of light rail may or may not have traditionally referred to tram or streetcars which are not completely seperated in the US, it is commonly employed nowadays to describe any rapid transit system which is fairly light including completely seperated systems such as those based on the Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit. Indeed it appears in the UK and other European countries, trams are normally not considered light rail. As such, I think it's silly for us to describe the numerous completely seperated, rapid but light systems such as the, KL LRT, Singapore LRT, Docklands Light Railway and various other systems commonly referred to as light rail as mislabellings. They are called light rail, and I suspect many people using them (definetely being from KL, I can say I think of the KL LRT as light rail) would consider them light rail, not mislabellings. Indeed advocates of light rail commonly refer to these kind of completely seperated systems when they are talking about light rail. See this page for example . In NZ too, when people refer to light rail, they are usually referring these kinds of completely seperated, fairly frequent rapid people mover systems. There was a definite bias in this article and in other articles against calling these completely seperated systems light rail and I have attempted to remove this bias and make it clear that many people would consider these systems as light rail not mislabellings. I may not have done a superb job but I think it's better then it was before where it appeared to suggest that a completely seperate system wasn't really light rail just a mislabelling. Hope we can agree that it is not NPOV to try to claim these systems are not light rail Nil Einne 14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the section could be broken up into the arguments for and against light rail being cost effective.67.92.28.66 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)loodog

Yes, this completely ignores that revenue from fuel taxes on vehicles often outstrips the money spent on highways, vs the appalling contribution fares make to operating light rail services. However, as different cities and countries have different environments, it is better to argue both sides - in essence light rail is a cheap and nasty way of doing proper rail transit, when dedicated busway systems would be cheaper. Nowhere in the new world has introducing light rail ever been commercially viable - but plenty of highways are (with tolls).

The previous poster in this section did not sign.--Will 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad image layout

I really like the way the stack of images down the right side of the page looks, but unfortunately, it seems to confuse the layout software. Take a look at Image:LightRailScreenShot.png; notice the four tags in a row, with the rule drawn right through them. I don't imagine that's what was intended. The browser was Safari, and it only happens with certain window widths. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Light rail definition part 2

The article is in need of another rewrite to clarify the definition(s) of light rail. It says one thing in the intro, and different things in the "attempting to define" section. Someone with a good understanding should weigh in. Perhaps one improvement might be to separate the UK/continent/USA uses. One paragraph state that the US preference is for the 2nd type (separate right of way), but the American Public Transportation Association defines light rail as primarily having no separate right-of-way. -Help! --Blainster 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

US-centric

I have removed the US-centric tag from the article. While there is a section regarding Criticisms, which does indeed deal largely with the US, this is due to the specific issues there; these criticisms (ie, bus or private car is better, cheaper, etc) are less common in other countries, where the arguments against light rail tend only to deal with upfront cost, not a philosophical objection to it. (Not always, but enough to make the US-centric tag unwarranted.) ProhibitOnions 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Especially the "spatial mismatch" argument appears very US-centric to me. It may be partly true in the US, but in Europe it's complete nonsense. European cities are much more densely populated than American cities. As a result, I have never heard someone claim that there are too few people in a part of a city for light rail. This may be an issue in rural communities near the cities (is there a translation for the German "Zersiedelung"?), but not in the cities themselves.--Qualle (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to put the tag back in. However, I have heard this argument in terms of declining population in Frankfurt (Oder) and elsewhere, and many western European cities did remove their tram systems in the past for some of these reasons. Regards, ProhibitOnions 14:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but wasn't Frankfurt(Oder) a tram project? Regarding the removal of many tram systems in the 50s, 60s and 70s: AFAIK the dominant argument was creating an automobile-compatible city: The cities were so densely populated that the space available to traffic was limited. When automobile traffic grew, more space for cars was needed, so trams were closed down. In larger cities, metros or light rail systems with tunnels in the city center were built instead. --Qualle (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the arguments in European cities, but in the U.S. the arguments were made more in rhetorical terms: "trolleys are antiquated," "the public wants to ride on rubber," "you can't stop progress," and so on. There were complaints that streetcars got in the way of autos but frankly these arguments are rather asinine: if a higher-capacity form of transportation is in conflict with a lower-capacity form of transportation, getting rid of the higher-capacity form does not make much sense. -- Cecropia 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They are asinine if the higher-capacity is actually used to full capacity and not heavily subsidized.--Rotten 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the section and removed the tag, to make it clear (as others have pointed out) that the arguments in it are in response to conditions which, if not peculiar to the U.S., loom larger there than most other places. It would be nice if others could do some country-centric comment for countries that also have unique opponents, if any. -- Cecropia 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It still seems a bit US-centric to me, and I suggest having a specific article dealing with that US issue. Perhaps a link to "Light Rail in the USA", with all the US-centric arguments, would be appropriate.--66.167.115.102 12:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Anyone up for it?  ProhibitOnions  15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

PRT is not LRT

"Personal Rapid Transit" doesn't belong in this article...it is just a concept and it does not run on rails. I have never heard of PRT referred to as LRT. Most PRT advocates campaign against LRT. Avidor 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that most PRT ideas run on rails. Lightweight rails in fact. Most of the time they're called "guideways" or "tracks". But yea, PRT is never refered to as LRT. Fresheneesz 10:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say "most PRT advocates" promote PRT as a more efficient alternative to LRT, which can be cheaper to install and may provide faster service to a wider geographic region. Do you consider this "campaigning against"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk • contribs)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Light rail has failed, for the following reason:

There are no references listed, only external links. While it may be that these links were used as references, the reader has no way of knowing this. References are especially necessary in the discussion about costs. Also as a matter of formatting, the large line of rather large thumbnail images is a bit overwhelming. Slambo (Speak) 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus there's the issue of how light rail simply doesn't arouse the same passions in people (pro or con) as freeways do, which is why it's generally easier to find references for freeways (as I have done for that article). --Coolcaesar 22:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge "Light Railways"

Suggest merging Light railway into Light rail. Essentially the same, I believe. "Light Railway" does have some distinguishing information about th UK; perhaps a seperate article about "Light Rail (United Kingdom)" should be established. CPAScott 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tend to agree, though "light railway" does have a specific legal meaning in the UK from 1896 that is not specifically related to the current use of the term "light rail".  ProhibitOnions  15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the two articles not be moved. A review of the two articles seem to show the terms mean different things. Light railways seems to refer to (mostly) abandonned passenger rail lines in the United Kingdom, while light rail seems to refer to several overlapping categories of (mostly) new passenger rail service, including trolleys, streetcars, trams, and interurbans, but does not seems to include high capacity subway systems or commuter rail systems. In fact, it appears, from the article, that light railways may fall category of commuter rail. WVhybrid 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also oppose the merge - a light railway can refer to small railways used for hauling goods, like the sugar cane trains in Northern Queensland in Australia (of which there are a lot). It is certainly not restricted to light rail passenger transport. (JROBBO 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

Regarding Citation in Paragraph entitled Spatial Mismatch

For the citation in this sentence... "The busiest United States light rail system achieves 25 million passenger boardings per year, only half that of the London Docklands Light Rail system."

It appears as though there are several cities which transport more than 25 million people yearly using a light rail system. This article mentions that boston does 189,000 daily. http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:11874080

It also says that Philidelphia does more than 44 million.

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), there were 5 light rail systems in the US with more than 25 :million passenger boardings per year.

APTA's 2004 boardings shows:

• Boston - 59.7 million
• San Francisco - 44.8 million
• Los Angelos - 35.9 million
• Portland - 30.2 million
• San Diego - 28.8 million

American Public Transporation Association - Light Rail Statistics web page

Please note that these numbers are for light rail only. For instance, the Red Lines of LA and Boston are not included.

WVhybrid 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On browsing the statistics, it appears that you are right - the unreferenced factiod in the article is incorrect. San Diego is actually only the fifth busiest light rail system in the US, and some of the busiest are approaching the ridership of Docklands Light Rail. (Although, I think Calgary is still the busiest LRT system in North America, since its ridership has doubled since the highbeam article.)

People have to be careful about where they get their statistics on US transportation. Some people do not seem to be above fudging the facts in order to claim that building $14 billion freeways that drop 12 ton ceiling tiles on cars is rational and cost effective, speaking of Boston's transportion system. RockyMtnGuy 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help build a table with light rail usage, based on good references like the APTA. But I'm not familiar with Canadain and European data sources. If anyone has verified sources, please post here, and then we can try to build a reliable table. Thanks WVhybrid 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put up a table of the most popular light rail systems in North America based mostly on APTA numbers. Unfortunately APTA numbers are a bit flakey because some data arrives late and they don't update their tables. (They say they'll have complete 2004 numbers by 2007, whoopee!) Part of the problem is that cities like Boston and Toronto run large light rail systems, but consider them just side shows to their rapid transit and commuter rail systems. Calgary is easy to get numbers for because it's been so successful, but the numbers are changing fast because most of Canada's oil industry is headquartered there and it's going nuts due to the oil price increases of 2004-2006. I don't have sources for European systems. RockyMtnGuy 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Found a formatting error under Section 5.1

See the image below. I am using Firefox 1.5.0.4 with no extensions installed.

--Will 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This happens in other articles too, due to images floating on the right and the links having nowhere to go. Might want to check out the bugzilla to see if the issue has been reported. lensovet 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. At least for Foxfire and MS Explorer. Any problems with other browers? WVhybrid 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what happened? Should I delete the image?--Will 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like when you put a stack of images in a column, it upsets the wiki software that inserts the "edit" buttons. So I used a bit of HTML formating code I found in a row of userboxes on someones User page. (I was using the same code for my own User page.) You can see the two lines of code I used to bracket the Image references by looking at the history. Apparently the formating realigns the wiki page so the edit buttons make sense. As for deleting your message, is that what folks usually do? I'm pretty new at all of this. I'd suggest leaving it so folks can learn what can go wrong. I'm really not at HTML and wiki'ism, so personally, I like to see examples of how things are done. WVhybrid 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

signal control of operations

What does signal control of operations mean? Ken 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Often in Misplaced Pages articles just get longer and more repetitive over time as people add information. I'm going through making the article more concise again. Some statements made seem a bit WP:POV to an outsider and there are very few secondary sources referenced in-line. If anyone thinks I've deleted some important information, please check you have find a reliable source for it. Stephen B Streater 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK - 5kB shorter. I'll see if I can add some good cites inline. Stephen B Streater 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. So many Misplaced Pages articles need a good copy editing like this. --Jfruh (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• B-Class rail transport articles
• Unknown-importance rail transport articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages
• Former good article nominees