Talk:Signalling control

Comments

Hi everybody, since this page was unsightly I created a separate article for North American Interlocking towers.--JackLumber 12:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to Merge Interlocking_tower to Signal_box

I think there is not large difference between interlocking_tower and signal_box, and interlocking_tower is special one type of signal_box. So, I suggest to merge Interlocking_tower to Signal_box, and make Interlocking_tower section in Signal_box.Penpen0216 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be just one article. The first remark on this talk page explains why there are currently two separate articles. Signalhead 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Interlocking Towers are American. Signal Boxes are British. There is a difference between the British and American interlocking plants and procedures. 73, Knuckles, Jr., a railroad conductor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.26.151.215 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

They are essentially the same thing. There needs to be an article that presents a worldwide perspective on the subject. Signalhead 17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Signalhead - they are the same thing, they both have rows of interlocked levers, they both have people in them, they both have the people pulling said levers. Wongm (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree, an interlocking tower is a different animal from a British signalbox. I was in the process of re-writing this article when I got sidetracked and I will now make an effort to finish it. The railroad related articles on Wikipedia have WAY too much of a British slant when often times railroading in North America and the UK deserve to be treated differently.Sturmovik (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fundamentally, a British signal box is the same thing as an American interlocking tower. There are some relatively minor differences in terminology, practice and equipment in the US compared to UK, but equally there are differences in every country throughout the world. The similarities outweigh the differences in this case. As a comparison, we wouldn't have separate articles for "automobile" and "car" on the basis of US/UK terminology differences and the steering wheels being on opposite sides, given that they are fundamentally the same thing.

You will note that there are separate articles for Interstate Highway and Autobahn even tho both are systems of dual carriageway limited access highways. Also, Motorway (ostensibly a generic term) is clearly UK/Ireland centric.Sturmovik (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

English-language Wikipedia isn't confined to explaining UK and US subjects. Throughout the world, railways are controlled from buildings that contain levers or switches, etc. to operate signalling. It isn't realistic to have a separate article for the equivalent of a signal box in every country; there should be just one article that explains in fairly broad terms what these buildings are for. If necessary, the differences between countries can be mentioned either in the signal box article or in the country-specific railway signalling articles.

By the way, the reason why we presently have separate articles for signal box and interlocking tower is because a single editor based in North America, User:JackLumber, considered the signal box article to be "unsightly" so he went ahead and created a separate 'interlocking tower' article without putting it forward for discussion. You have cited British bias as a reason for keeping separate articles. Neither your reason nor JackLumber's is a valid reason for breaking off and starting a separate article. If there are issues with the main article, then you should either flag them or work towards improving it. –Signalhead ^< T > 20:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Signalhead's view that the two articles are essentially documenting the same thing - namely, a building and its contents used for safely coordinating the movement of trains along a track; and that it is no possible to have a separate article on each different national variant. I can see no fundamental differences in the explanations given in the articles in question (only the specific terminology used). Thus I support there being a single article (named...?) which covers the essentials, and additionally has sections for national differences (which will mainly be in terminology). There shouldn't be a British slant to the article under these circumstances, as the main text should aim to be neutral – all national differences should be explained after the main text. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, I see that once again the British Trainspotting mafia has won out and made sure that only the British point of view is shown. So be it, I am removing my "non worldwide" bits from the article. Have fun documenting your little wooden shanties, lever fames and block instruments.Sturmovik (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You were clearly in the minority in wanting to keep the articles separate and you failed to make a convincing argument for keeping them that way. You should respect that. As for "making sure that only the British point of view is shown", I copied over practically all the content from the former 'interlocking tower' article into the 'signal box' article, which you then removed. Don't be too surprised if the stuff you removed is reinserted and globalised or integrated into the rest of the article. –Signalhead ^< T > 16:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did remove it because it doesn't fit here, especially if this is to become some sort of global "Manned track side Signaling Station" page. All my stuff is highly specific to North American intelrocking towers and as tagged, didn't present the proper point of view. You clearly agree with my action or you would have moved to undo it yourself. I'll admit that I was slow on finishing the interlocking tower article, but I only have certain times of the week when I can get down and pound out lots of copy.Sturmovik (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I haven't immediately restored the text you've deleted. Firstly, I wanted to let you finish whatever it was you were doing and give you a chance to calm down. Secondly, I want other interested editors to see what you've done and have a chance to comment. Note that I merged the articles only after a dicussion had taken place, and I allowed several weeks to pass before implementing this merger. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have any respect for authorship you will allow me to take my name off an article so to speak and not have my work displayed inappropriately. As I told you privately in the absence of a globally neutral article on trackside signaling establishments it is unfair to require other major signaling styles to get second billing under the "British Practice Signalbox". Yes half the world uses your system, but North American and Continental European patterns are just as important and each deserves either their own page or equal billing on a Global page. I am not a global signaling guru, it is not my place to make this page, but it was not your place to suck in competitors into Signalbox. Let me know when a globalized page exists and I'll write for it. In the meanwhile I will create other appropriate articles to detail North American Interlocking practices. Sturmovik (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

In my opinion, most of the external links should be removed. A couple of the sites are concerned with railway signalling generally, not specifically about signal boxes. These links are duplicated on more appropriate articles. Then there are all those websites for preserved signal boxes (which I suspect have been put there by volunteers involved in their preservation). All these tend to give an impression that signal boxes are a relic of the past, whereas the reality is that far more remain in active service than in preservation. Signalhead (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the links should stay. (I admit up front that I am biased since one of the links is mine). But I look at it from the point of view of a reader/researcher looking at the article. Whether it is the intention or not, I think it is reasonable to assume that the "Signal Box" article will attract readers who are interested in both active and historic boxes. Would they want the links there: yes/no? I know we don’t want an endless directory of signal boxes but there is some automatic “selection” here. The links point to pages that someone has gone to the trouble of creating. This means that the box must be significant in some way (at least to some people). It also means that there is someone to ask about it if the researcher wants to investigate further. Historic Boxes are also likely to be more physically accessible to a researcher if they want to visit. So I think that, if asked, virtually all readers/researchers would say: “Please don’t remove the links – they are a valuable source of Further Reading for me”. Hpmaster (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Of course, you are quite correct to say that these websites could be of interest to somebody who reads this article. However, I'm sure that I could find a hundred other websites that might also be of interest. Please consider the bigger picture: This article could be read by English-speaking people all over the world. How relevant is a specific preserved signal box in England likely to be to someone reading this article in Australia or South Africa? If you went into a bookshop and bought an encyclopedia, would you expect to find Highams Park signal box mentioned?

Secondly, if you have a personal interest in the preserved signal box at Highams Park, then you adding a link to its website could be viewed as a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to give free publicity to your favourite cause or heritage project, no matter how worthy it may be.

Please refer to Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. Signalhead (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Signalhead, may I as a very occasional contributor to this article support you in this? I feel that the authority of the piece is undermined by links to local projects, of purely local interest and with nothing to add to the topic as a whole. Some heavy pruning is definitely in order. This could even stretch to some of the pictures in the gallery, which seem a bit UK-centric at the moment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My view is that there are too many external links to purely local signal box sites (usually a preservation-related group). If a particular signal box is notable then it should have its own article in Wikipedia, and of course an external link is then in order. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear! I seem to be in a minority here. I have taken off the link that I added to the Highams Park Signal Box. I decided that it should be myself that had the duty of administering the coup de gras. I think it would have wanted it that way. Me and my poor unloved signal box wander off alone into the sunset..... Hpmaster (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unloved, while such dedicated users as Hpmaster retain an interest. Thanks for the truly noble, sacrificial gesture!--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Women

To illuminate the current edit war regarding women working in signal boxes: a couple of examples to be found here: Railwaywomen: Exploitation, Betrayal and Triumph in the Workplace by Helena Wojtczak, ISBN 9781904109044. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: nice picture from the Imperial War Museum here of a Great Central signalwoman 1918. It has a Commons-compatible origin and could be put in the article.--Old Moonraker (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't really an 'edit war'... some discussion took place on my talk page! Thanks for the links. Based on that evidence, I think it would be appropriate to cater for both genders by including the removed words "or her". The picture would be a good addition to the signalman article, especially as the only image currently there is somewhat obscure.–Signalhead ^< T > 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Image added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - looks like a candidate for Featured Image.–Signalhead ^< T >

Not by me—I lost the last one I recommended! --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I propose moving this article to "Signalling control" as that sounds broad in scope and doesn't favour any country's terminology. I had considered "Signalling control centre" but that suggests a large modern facility in the same way as "signal box" suggests one that's small and old-fashioned, and this article is about more than just the physical buildings. "Signal box", "Interlocking tower", "Area Signalling Centre" etc. would all redirect to "Signalling control". This is part of a bigger plan to overhaul the structure of railway signalling articles (see discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains). –Signalhead ^< T > 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

International Perspectives

I propose breaking out three sub pages on British, North American and Continental styles of signaling control nodes. Trying to keep it all on this one page will require three sets of terminology and three sets of operating practices for each unit of information. This page should be for the generic history of signaling control starting with the structures and systems related to manual block and progressing through mechanical interlocking, power interlocking, area interlocking and CTC.Sturmovik (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems workable. First, subdivide each section into stylistic subsections. When they are satisfactorily completed, you can then use them to create the separate articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's Signalheads's article so he's the one that needs to move on this.Sturmovik (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't own this or any other article on Wikipedia; nobody does. If you feel that country-specific sub-articles are essential then go ahead and create them. I only hope that you will consider the overall hierarchy of signalling-related articles as discussed here and let this article stay as the high-level global article on signalling control. Or, if you have alternative views, raise them there at the Trains WikiProject talk page. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I also meant to ask, could you possibly consider adding to the existing country-specific articles, such as North American railway signaling and UK railway signalling, instead of resurrecting the Signal box and Interlocking tower articles? Otherwise, I feel there will be considerable overlap. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions of the operational and design particulars of North American signaling control locations would probably only clutter up those pages. Anyway, since you're the one who is going to be doing the work you can design things however you wish. I'm just making suggestions.Sturmovik (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was do not merge into Signalling control. -- DarkCrow^Caw 14:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

A new article, block post, has recently been created. "Block post" is really just another name for a signal box, so it should redirect here. –Signalhead ^< T > 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

They are not synonymous. There were signal boxes before the days of block signalling which were therefore not block posts. And whilst a block post can be a specific type of signal box, as the article says, nowadays it may be equipment forming part of an ABS system. If the articles are merged, the text should be included here as a specific section, otherwise information will be lost. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Block stations, temporary or otherwise, exist in North America as well and have their own separate column on the line timetables. Block stations were used in manual block territory (and its descendants) and are different from Interlocking Stations (although most Interlocking Stations are also Block Stations). Anyway it seems you are intent on making another power grab so it's not much use trying to argue.Sturmovik (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per above Python eggs (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If merged, it should be a specific section with a link to this section from "Block post". Sae1962 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Factual error

The article says "Originally, all signalling was done by mechanical means". This is patently wrong. All signalling was done by manual means (hand and flag signals). Mechanical means is what the article is all about! This is a very silly but easy slip to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.59.164 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article on railway signaling, its an article on signalboxes. The whole point of signalboxes was to replace manual signaling. Taking time in this article to explain the difference between manual hand signals and interlocked signals would be counterproductive.Sturmovik (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Content

For a page that's is the target of so many redirects it seems to be little bland and generic given the broad and detailed subject matter it covers. Are there any plans to expand this page or make new pages that can do the same? Most of the other pages of railroad signaling have a good level of technical information and offer comprehensive coverage of their subject matter, but despite the huge scope of "Signaling Control" there is little or no depth to the page. Sturmovik (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)