Talk:Classification yard

Trains High‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 1, 2006

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. 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 articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Name

I am confused, do Canadians call it a marshalling yard or classification yard? The text states that both names are used in Canadian English.

As a Brit, I had never heard the term classification yard and since it appears that only the US exclusively uses this term, I would suggest a change of name for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be changed to marshalling yard. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to make the argument that this concern is strong enough to override WP:RETAIN. I remain unconvinced without actual data or statistics on usage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage links are a mess

@Bermicourt: The interlanguage links between classification yard and rail yard are intertwined. Peter Horn User talk 15:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder Tracks

According to the Ladder track article there should be some info on Ladder Tracks in marshalling Yards which there is not any info. Should it be added or put somewhere else. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading. Ladder track as used in a yard is unrelated to the ladder track type of roadbed, it is simply an arrangement of switches [1]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder tracks are used on the mainline for Example at Clapham Junction there is a Ladder which lets you run from the West London lines to South Western Mainline via the Windsor Lines and is a mainline which does not run through a yard. There is other examples of Ladders which are on the Mainlines which are not in Yards. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the classification yard article we are at right now, is it not? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The layout at Clapham Junction is also called a Ladder. Which just confuses things. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special locomotives

A recent addition about special hump yard locomotives was reverted, as being not English. This may be so, but there is enough evidence that locomotives were designed specially for humping, including

British class 13
American ~~cow-and-calf~~ slug configurations
Austrian class 1067

... and probably more. User:Haraldmmueller 09:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow-calf locomotives were designed for transfer duties and yard switching, though some saw use pushing cars over humps. The Class 13s however were specifically made for pushing cars over humps. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Slugs might be a better fit. --User:Haraldmmueller 10:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haraldmmueller @Haraldmmueller @Trainsandotherthings@Trainsandotherthings Should the edit be reverted to show special locos again, do you have any reference for non British ones. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was written in English. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, I have no objection to this article having a section on that topic. The problem is not the idea of covering such a topic, but the gibberish that was written in an attempt to discuss it, and the writer's inability to understand how to write in intelligible English. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why people are pinging me as if I'm the authority on the topic, I'm just a concerned editor. I have no objection to the topic being covered but as you said it was written very poorly. Can't say I trust this particular user to properly cover the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, I pinged you because you were the one who created this thread...looks like I confused you with User:Haraldmmueller. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

instead of removing it why not convert it into what you call English. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i don't really know about Specail Locos outside of the UK. So that is why I am asking people to add the non UK examples and improve it instead of deleting it. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to convert it into something understandable, but your writing defies conversion. Nyttend (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this because I am a British person and write in British English, also I have tried multiple different apps to try to improve the phrasing and it keeps on coming back to what I last wrote. Also it does make sense, maybe the Humps in Hump Yard, you might have a better way to phrase it. But it only seems to be you having an issue with what I type and no one else, I am not saying it is your fault, I am just saying that your the first to comment about it. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read this thread and the associated edits twice now, and cannot fathom what’s going on. @I Like The british Rail Class 483: please read over WP:MOS, Wikipedia’s manual of style, and conform to this. No, it does not matter that you’re “British”, and no one is targeting you for this, it’s just that your writing almost reflects what’s called a stream of consciousness or as someone else said, “gibberish”. But I can’t even call it a stream of consciousness, because I can’t even read between the lines to fathom what your edits mean. Fork99 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, could you please limit your word count of sentences to about 20 words, and avoid using too many commas? When a sentence goes on and on and on (a run-on sentence), it makes it harder for someone else to follow what you mean and what your thoughts are. Fork99 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So does this work? Special locos are sometimes required because the humps in hump yards can have the risk of ground. Therefore, you will sometimes find specially made or converted locomotives to work the hump yards. For example, the British Rail Class 13 was converted from a pair of British Rail Class 08 to provide more power than you could get with a single Class 08. The class 13s were built because of the risk of grounding with larger locos like the British Rail Class 20. Please do tell me if this is the wrong place to ask this question. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why this article and the rail yard article haven't been merged?

I don't really know how to do a Request for consensus/move request, but I was just wondering if there is any support to merge these two articles? At least one or two users on this talk page called for this to be done 14 years ago. I don't mind helping to do the actual combining and editing of the text. Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at Talk:Rail yard. Anyone else reading this should reply there as well. Fork99 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]