Talk:Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line

Closed?

Is this line in fact now closed as it was scheduled to be? The MBTA site still talks about the June 24 closing in the future tense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GMcGath (talk • contribs) 13:45, July 20, 2006.

yes, it's closed

Yes, it closed as scheduled and I have been riding the shuttle bus to Ashmont since. The current bus schedule can be found at [1], and the bus route map is at [2]. Note that the bus follows two routes: one over River St. and one over Brook and Central. There's also a van that only stops at Ashmont, Valley Road, and Capen via Eliot St. because both bus routes miss those two stops. (The Eliot route used to be handled by a bus that also stopped at all the other stops too, but it was replaced with the van either Summer or Fall of 2007.)

Also, there is no chance whatsoever that the trolley line will be back in service until at least early-to-mid 2008. I've been watching the construction at Ashmont and they're just starting to put up the roof beams. Currently, the back 1/3 of the inbound platform and a slice along the outbound platform are gone (to build roof columns). Walls are nowhere near finished, and they're still moving moving dirt around in some parts of the site. The station has to be at least most of the way done before the trolley line can reopen, as the temporary blacktop ramp leading from the temporary fare-collection hut to the inbound platform covers part of the trolley track.

Some good news about the trolleys: There was an item in the Metro a couple months ago stating that the Mattapan trolleys will have air conditioners installed when they come back. (Previously they just had a fan in the roof.) Many of the trolley stations are being worked on too.

Oddly, the shuttle buses' auto-announcer still says "Ashmont Station - Change here for Subway, Bus and High Speed Line"... 24.60.196.199 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The trolley line had reopened by January 2008. PJtP (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Description

"To reference the route as a 'high speed line' is a misnomer as the route is neither characterized by a fully dedicated, grade separated right-of-way, nor by high-speed rolling stock." This is rather odd... The High-Speed designation refers to it's dedicated right of way (I'm not sure what "fully dedicated" means- nothing else runs on the tracks, and there are only two relatively minor grade crossings) as opposed to the other streetcar lines ran by the Boston Elevated Railway in the 1920s, which ran directly in streets (see the "E" Green Line) or at best in medians (see the "B", "C", and "E" Green Line) with many at-grade crossings- this allowed a significant speed advantage over the other lines between Mattapan and Ashmont. --71.124.173.134 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The high speed designation came from a time when trolley lines criss-crossed major metropolitan areas in the United States, including Boston. The tracks for those trolleys or streetcars were on major avenues and streets competing with automobile and foot traffic, and were often unable to travel at high speeds for any length of time. Hence the designation of right-of-way lines like the Mattapan one, a leftover from the earlier more comprehensive trolley/streetcar systems, as "high speed." PJtP (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Grade separation

I have corrected the infobox to be consistent with the text, which it had previously contradicted. Could somebody insert the two grade crossings into the route map diagram? Reify-tech (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Heritage streetcar?

Is this entity a heritage streetcar line?

An editor replaced "...is a heritage streetcar line..." with "...is a partially grade-separated light rail line...", but added "...and exclusively uses historic PCC streetcars for rolling stock..." in the second paragraph, with an edit summary of "This line is not a "heritage streetcar" by any definition, including that found on Wikipedia. That this misnomer is found in multiple places on Wikipedia illuminates the perils of allowing edits by those without no direct knowledge of the place described", but another editor disputed this with an edit summary of "What you feel about it is not relevant - it is by definition a heritage streetcar, one that also provides regular transit service".

So who's right? I'm not seeing this line as a "streetcar". It runs on a railroad right of way and stops at a limited number of stations that have actual structures and names, I think. Sounds like light rail to me. There are a couple of grade crossing (places where it crosses a street directly rather than via a bridge) which is also true of many light and heavy rail lines.

However, it's also not clear that a "heritage streetcar" needs to be a "streetcar". Our article Heritage streetcar says "heritage streetcar operations can include upkeep of historic rail infrastructure". The Ashmont–Mattapan line does use old PCC streetcars which did formerly operate as on-street trolleys add which use overhead lines commonly used by trolleys.

On the other had I get the vibe that heritage streetcars are usually 1) tourist attractions which 2) are fairly recent creations, or re-creations of long-vanished lines, and which 3) are not really an integral part of the region's main commuter transport system. (The reader may insert the term "twee" here at her discretion.) None of these applies to the Ashmont–Mattapan line. However, note that I say "usually" so maybe there's some play here, given the PCC thing and all.

My personal take is that Ashmont–Mattapan line is the way people in Mattapan get to work and always has been so I'm sort of disinclined to call it a "heritage streetcar" line. They use old rolling stock, but not in an antiquarian way but because that's what they have. Herostratus (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Herostratus, for so legibly explaining (in your 2nd-to-last paragraph) why it is so troubling that the description of this line as a "heritage" line has infiltrated multiple Wikipedia pages. As essentially any person versed in Boston's transit network should be able to tell you, the Mattapan line comports with the neither the common-usage definition of "heritage line", nor with any of the "heritage" purposes outlined in Wikipedia's article on the subject. Ascribing a "heritage" narrative or purpose to the Mattapan line fails to comport with common sense.

As a very, VERY occasional Wikipedia editor (I originally made the edit above from my other device), I have been increasingly disturbed to witness extreme and rigidly defended contortions of common sense by those who perceive a handful of related pages on a particular subject as "their project". Such seems to be the case with User:IJBall, who reverted my edit, and who also maintains this "heritage streetcar" designation/fiction on the crucial and widely viewed "List of United States light rail systems by ridership" (and similar) pages. Most disturbing is that he view his chosen taxonomy as "objective" and therefore treats infusions of common sense as "opinions that don't matter". I fear that he will take it upon himself to revise the entire history of the Mattapan line, or the very definition of "heritage trolley", in order to double down on his classification.

Wikipedia's primary goal remains the dissemination of basic, straightforward, fundamentally accurate information. Egos and fierce defenses of fiefdoms -- often by those with no direct experience with the subject whatsoever -- increasingly seem to obstruct that goal. It's incredibly discouraging when one's occasional good-faith efforts at accuracy are met with hostile dismissals and obstinate reversions to text that is fundamentally false.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Infrequent IP editor would be very wise to also not assume good faith, and would be advised to revisit Wikipedia's policies re: consensus and edit warring. --IJBall (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize -- I inappropriately and inaccurately projected my frustration with other "hair-trigger revert gods" onto you -- and shall soften my rhetoric as I join you over at the talk page for List of North American light rail systems by ridership.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up question: It's been 25 years since I've been in Boston, on the T - does the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line contain any street running? Or is its route 100% fully grade separated? If the latter, then it is truly "light rail", and not "streetcar". But I've been wondering about this question... TIA. --IJBall (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The line has zero street running or even street-adjacent running. It starts at an off-street turnaround loop, follows the Neponset River for a good chunk of its course, bisects a large cemetery, and eventually parallels the Red Line heavy-rail tracks from their yard to Ashmont Station, where its turnaround loop was recently redesigned and shortened. So aside from the two at-grade crossings (one of which is exceedingly minor, reaching only a couple dozen houses and nothing else), the line never touches street asphalt.

I would also note that it is unlikely that you would have ridden the line when you were there 25 years ago. It is really quite far off of the average visitor's beaten path.73.53.29.108 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I also wish to thank you, Herostratus, for your reasoned comment. My take on this is that any streetcar or light rail line that uses heritage streetcar vehicles (and PCC streetcars are certainly that) qualifies as a heritage streetcar line. In other words, just because a line is used as a regular public transit line, and/or is not explicitly a "streetcar" line but a light rail line, does not "rule it out" as a heritage streetcar line – i.e. it's the vehicle that determines this, not the type of route. Aside from the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, other lines that qualify are San Francisco's F Market & Wharves line, and Philadelphia's SEPTA Route 15 (though both of these are "streetcar"-type routles). The only "wrinkle" I can see in the case of Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is that is has been continuously operating, which I think is the only system in that category aside from Streetcars in New Orleans – but I'm not sure why that should rule it out as a "heritage streetcar" line. I also wish to note here that the heritage streetcar article explicitly mentions the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line in its United States section, so it's not like I am "making this definition up". And I will also point out that I think the lede to the heritage streetcar article is less than helpful and instructive, and should be rewritten (on my end, it's been on my 'To Do' list to get to...). As for the "transit type" in the Infobox for this particular article, I think something like "Light rail/Heritage streetcar" would be an excellent compromise here. --IJBall (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully but vehemently disagree that the use of old vehicles is all that is required to be declared "heritage". By that definition, every small Eastern European town without the money to upgrade their old Soviet-era rolling stock would suddenly (and unbeknownst to them) be running a charming "heritage" system!

A "heritage purpose", as described in my comment on the other talk page, is requisite. I am quite certain that any reputable source inside or outside of Wikipedia will draw such a distinction between lines with such intentions and lines that merely happen to be old. This truly is the "common usage" of this informal term.

Regarding your other U.S. examples: F Market & Wharves#Historic_Trolley_Festivals describes the explicit "heritage intent" that gave birth to San Francisco's F trolleys, long before they (somewhat by accident) grew into a broadly-used feature of that city's transit network.

The SEPTA Route 15 example is a little more complicated, as the revival of that dormant streetcar line was bundled with vaguely aspirational branding/redevelopment aims, but the more explicit purpose with to enhance the legibility of a piece SEPTA's urban transportation network. I would probably need to know more about the internal politics (including the reasons for using PCCs) in order to take sides, but my hunch is that your case for calling it a "heritage line" is valid, but only by a hair.73.53.29.108 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is the very heart of the disagreement. I am generally uncomfortable with any definition that includes "intent". (A very similar argument arose in regards to the definition of "premetro", where some were arguing that the "intent" to convert to a full metro system was required in the definition, and I was uncomfortable with including the "intent" in the definition...) Suffice it to say, I think some references will need to be produced backing your position. And I think I'd want to see relatively recent references – because I think what you're describing was perhaps the original definition of "heritage" systems maybe 15 or more years ago, but I get the impression that the definition has broadened since then. Oh, and one more reference in support of my position: APTA's Streetcar and Heritage Trolley site includes the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line in their "existing systems" section (note that the portion where it's said that the public wanted the "heritage" streetcars kept on the AMHS line) – if it's good enough for APTA it's hard to argue that it's not good enough for Wikipedia... --IJBall (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to delve into this more later, but I have to admit that I find that last part surprising. (I might also consider it a bit suspect since the page is maintained by the Seashore Trolley Museum rather than by APTA itself, lacks sources, and unfortunately seems to err on the side of an "inclusive folk-history" vibe.)

I share your surprise at that "premetro" debate. While that term SEMANTICALLY derives from its original potential-conversion aims, it has clearly evolved into a neutral, DESCRIPTIVE term for any hybrid system with street-rail tendencies outside of the core and full grade separations within the core. By contrast, I think "heritage transit" continues to retain its fundamental semantic distinction from transit whose form merely follows (mobility) functions, regardless of the age of its elements.

But you do raise interesting points.73.53.29.108 (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick follow-up: I think I've got a compromise for you over at the List of United States light rail systems by ridership Talk page that I'd like you to take a look at... Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent arguing (in the good sense), laddies. Thinking about what should go in the lede, though, got me to thinking about what is important about the line, which got me to to thinking what is important generally, such that I got sidetracked and wrote The Important Book. So it goes. So being in the mind of that book, if I may indulge in a bit of fancy:

The important thing about the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is
that it takes people to town.
It has its own right of way,
and it uses old streetcars,
and it is not really high speed,
and it rattles and clatters,
and it is a poor stepchild of the MBTA.
But the important thing about the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is
that it takes people to town.

- after Margaret Wise Brown, The Important Book

In other words, "is a heritage streetcar line" doesn't belong as among the first things we want to present to the reader. Whether justified or not, some readers are likely to be all like "Oh, I get it it, it's like the YesterYear Trolly they put in down in the Quaintville section of my town" or whatever and we don't want that.

Whether it belong somewhere down in the body of the text is a fraught question with no right answer, I think. Normally the answer is "go to the sources". But... while the APTA is alright, it probably does not exercise detailed oversight of the APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site, which is sponsored by the Seashore Trolley Museum, and which may be authoritive but may not be neutral since they have a vested interest in there being more heritage streetcars I suppose. So what we'd want is the New York Times saying ""The other day, this reporter rode the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, which is a heritage streetcar line...", but even then... first of all, NYT or no, it's just some reporter who probably isn't an expert giving his opinion or repeating what some person told him -- I don't know as they fact-check to this degree of rigor (probably not), and secondly, that's always going to tend to yield positives. You're not likely to find the Los Angeles Times saying "The other day, this reporter rode the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, which is definitely not a heritage streetcar line..."

So I dunno, it's sort of a matter of opinion. So how to thread the needle. We maybe don't want to be like "Hey, it's a heritage streetcar line, period, and you can take that to the bank" but on the other hand omitting any mention at all that it's kinda-sorta-maybe like this thing that people call a heritage streetcar line is not a service to the reader either. Tricky problem.

Speaking just for myself, 73.53.29.108 makes sense. Intent, or maybe the general vibe, matters, I think. Two guys in my town might drive a 1963 Ford Pickup. One's a banker who's lovingly restored it with original fittings and matched the original paint and draws admiration for his retro panache when he pulls into the golf club. The other guy's just trying to get one more year out of an old rustbucket he got for free when his grandpa died so he can keep the overhead down on his handyman jobs. Is it helpful to describe both as "antique motor vehicle aficionados". Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The latest expository addition, from User:Pi.1415926535, is quite good. It helps to elucidate the practical reason for continuing to run the line with very old rolling stock, as utterly divorced from aesthetic or even capacity concerns. I know that I have read this explanation elsewhere in the past, but ideally I would like to see the claim sourced. Anyone know of a good corroborating source? 50.181.254.76 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting this issue (2016)

I've been told that this might stir up a hornet's nest, but I'm going to state my opinion anyway. As far as I know, and due to the fact that this isn't really addressed specifically in the heritage railway article, a rail line that exclusively uses historical or historical replica (pre-1960) equipment by accident instead of on purpose is not disqualified from being labeled as a heritage line. Consider the San Francisco cable car system, a rail system similar in this regard to the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line, in that it has operated continuously since the 1870s with the same style of equipment and still provides a valid public transit function. Under the currently-accepted status quo from this discussion, this system would not be considered a heritage operation, even though it has National Historic Landmark status and several of the rail vehicles and the lines themselves are over 100 years old. I ask you this: is the San Francisco cable car system a heritage system, or no? What does your gut instinct tell you? If your answer is "yes", the same line of thinking ought to be applied to the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line. I think we can all agree that the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is a very unique rail line (in North America, at least). Because of that, I feel that it is worthy of being labeled as a unique type to make note of its historic character, and I believe that unique type should be heritage light rail. Jackdude101 (Talk) 21:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed to death, and your insistence doesn't change the facts. The cable cars are a primarily tourist attraction, with historic rolling stock kept for tourist purposes, that is primarily used by tourists rather than locals. (All of those are explicitly cited in its article.) The Ashmont-Mattapan HSL is a light rail feeder to a rapid transit line, with historic rolling stock kept for operational purposes, that is primarily used by local commuters. There is a very substantial difference between heritage lines like the cable cars and the F Wharves line, and conventional transit lines that use older rolling stock for other reasons. The R32s will be 58 years old when replaced, the British Rail Class 483 are 76 years old and still going, and the oldest Red Line stock will be 53 years old when finally retired. Yet obviously none of those are "heritage" operations. Please stop changing the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

My gut instinct also tells me that the SF cable cars and the Mattapan line are different in most important ways. They only way they are similar is that they use old equipment. (If the cable cars use fairly-recent replica replacement cars, which I don't know but is possible, they're not even alike in that.) Why get hung up on physical equipment -- that matters some, but not much. What's different is their function'. One's a tourist dingus and one's a commuter line. Lumping them together is kind of link including roller coasters in your list of light rail systems since they use light cars that run on rails.

(Its true that a few people use the cable cars for mundane commuting, and not absolutely no people have ever ridden the Mattapan line for tourist interest, but few things are absolute; we are talking about the general common function.)

One thing that occurs to me: suppose both lines lost a bunch of cars and needed to replace them. Would they both try to get replicas of their current cars made, even if that cost a bit more? Of course not. One would, one wouldn't. Because they are entirely different different types of entities. Heck, Mattapan itself is full of old buildings. Should we therefore lump it in with Colonial Williamsburg? Confusing the reader about this stuff, in the service of pedantry, is not called for IMO. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that the MBTA would source more PCC cars or similar if the existing PCC cars needed replacing. They looked into using LRVs etc and determined that was not feasible. That being said I don't have time to continue this fight. Paradoox (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The MBTA plans to convert the line to modern rolling stock within the next decade - a fact already cited in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this system a "premetro"?

The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section. More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.

Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.

I am going to place a {{dubious}} tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.

If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Egads! I don't think anyone can in any way seriously claim that Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line is a "premetro" system. If no objections are proffered here, I'll go ahead and strike all "premetro" terms from the article in the next day or two... --IJBall (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no evidence that I know of that this outlying service was ever planned to become heavy rail. Reify-tech (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hell, do it right now! The Ashmont-Mattapan Line was built specifically to avoid building a metro line (a further extension of the Cambridge-Dorchester Line), not to make one possible in the future. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, there is no use in this article of the term "premetro" in the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line article itself, nor any wikilinks to the premetro article. So it would seem this is a non-issue in this particular case... --IJBall (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. May I suggest that a consensus for a particular page title be garnered before another move request is attempted. (non-admin closure)  Rules of enpagement Paine  03:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line → Mattapan Trolley – The official name of this service seems to be "Mattapan Trolley", according to the MBTA's website [3][4][5] and many media sources [6]. In fact, the name "Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line" only appears once in a single document on the MBTA's website [7], and Google searches for the term actually show results for "Mattapan Trolley" [8]. As per WP:UCRN, I think this page should be moved to the proposed name. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) –Dream out loud (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to finding a different proper name for this article, but "Mattapan Trolley" is a rather recent colloquialism and definitely not the proper name. Even the MBTA cannot find a consistent name: the Bluebook variously says "Mattapan Trolley", "Mattapan-Ashmont Trolley", "Mattapan Line", "Mattapan-Ashmont High Speed Trolley".... Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to other name suggestions, but I don't think the current article title is the most appropriate. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Pi.1415926535. Also, WP:OFFICIALNAME applies here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "WP:OFFICIALNAME applies here"? Are you saying that the current title is its official name? Because I can't find that "official" name being used anywhere. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dream out loud: What I'm saying is, even if "Mattapan Trolley" is the current "official name" that doesn't necessarily mean the article should be at that title (because it should be at the longer-term "common name" instead, and I don't think "Mattapan Trolley" is that...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: The article needs to be titled based on it's most common name, whether or not it is official. But regardless, the current article title does not reflect its most common name and it needs to be changed to something else. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: When I followed nom's own link to Google, I got many hits for the current article name (your results may vary). Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page move discussion

There is currently only one count of inconsistency on MBTA's website, and that is the rail map carried over from the old website, and even that just says "Mattapan Line". Please also refer to the Transit feed data, which is matched on Google Maps. There is not a single mention of "High-Speed Line" on the MBTA website, and the timetable for the trolley has been separated from the Red Line timetable, also carrying the "Mattapan Trolley" name. Cards84664 (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. I would suggest giving this a pause and waiting for sources to become more clear before revisiting the issue. Dekimasuよ! 21:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line → Mattapan Trolley – Doesn't match official sources, Ashmont is not in the title. [9] [10] Cards84664 (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Cards84664 and Pi.1415926535: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Official sources have always been wildly inconsistent on this, and "Mattapan Trolley" is scarcely used otherwise. Given the history of RMs on the page, this should never have been considered "uncontroversial". Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. OP needs to provide more data. Official names are only a small data point, per WP:OFFICIALNAME. The terms are too obscure for Google Ngram to help here. Raw Google hits are essentially useless, but FWIW I get 19,900 hits for "Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line" and 12,500 for ""Mattapan Trolley", which isn't consistent with ""Mattapan Trolley" being overwhelmingly the preferred term. More data needed before I support this move. Also please don't make technical requests for moves like this. Herostratus (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me why we can't update the title with consistent primary sources here? We have done the same with BART every time a line is extended there. What about the Cincinnati Bell Connector, which is also commonly known as the Cincinnati Streetcar? The Cleveland system was even titled "Shaker Heights Rapid Transit" (a name I commonly use) before it was also moved on the basis of modern naming back in 2006. If this issue has been brought up multiple times before that's a matter of consistency, not policy.Cards84664 (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't explain those articles, I don't know anything about them or why they were renamed, if they were. It is true that there are very many situations on the Wikipedia where similar articles use different titling logic. It doesn't bother me a lot but it's possibly not ideal. I think the place to go for that would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport and ask them. Maybe you can get some enthusiasm for standardization of subway etc titles. I know we do have standardization for a number of things.

As to "update", it is not necessarily that simple IMO. You have to look at all the places people might be coming from to get to his article. If "Mattapan Trolley" is what more people write now (this has not been demonstrated), but "Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line" is what more people were writing ten years ago and twenty and thirty... well, how many readers are coming here from ten-year-old books?

What I'm getting tho is that people are still writing "Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line" even today (I don't know whether "Mattapan Trolley" is written more nowadays, and I don't think anyone does. But.. this 2018 piece from the Boston Globe has the phrase "The Globe's report on the Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line (“Mixed signals on the trolley,” Page One, June 23) raised the ugly specter of..." which is all I can read (it's a subscription site). This 2016 piece in the Patriot Ledger uses "Mattapan trolley" (lower-case "trolley", so it's descriptive and not a proper name) and says it is also known as the "M Line" (new one on me) but uses "ASHMONT-MATTAPAN HIGH-SPEED LINE" (along with "M LINE") for the title of its infobox-like summary of the line.

After that...there're a lot of references to "Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line" but a lot of them are people's Facebook and Instagram pages, which does show usage among commoners to some extent... here's Getty Images using Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line for the title of a photo made on July 28, 2016... here is something called Trains magazine (looks legit) using Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line in 2018... here is UrbanRail.net using Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line, granted that is just a fancy one-person web site I guess... here is a 2018 book Urban Archaeology Boston: Discovering the History Hidden in Plain Sight which uses "Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line". All this does demonstrate that some people are clearly using "Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line".

here is the Dorchester Reporter using "Mattapan Trolley" in 2018... here is the website for Dan Cullinane, who apparently is the State Rep for Mattapan, and he uses "Mattapan Trolley"... here, CommonWealth magazine, which looks legit, uses "Mattapan trolley" (descriptive, not a proper name; the capitalized proper name they give is "Mattapan Line")... here is local TV station WGBH with "Mattapan Trolley"... here's another local TV station, also with "Mattapan Trolley"... and here is another local TV station, with "Mattapan trolleys", but "Mattapan Trolley" in the title, but the capitalization there may just be because of title case... here, Boston magazine has "Mattapan trolley" (again lower case), but here and here are two more local news outlets with "Mattapan Trolley"... here's WHDH, another local news outlet, with "Mattapan trolley" (lower case)... PopFlock uses both names... etc.

There are also a few scattered references to the "M Line" but there's a lot of noise on that term.

So actually it looks like there are four possible titles in play:

1. Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line
2. Mattapan Trolley
3. Mattapan trolley (lower case t) -- the trolley in Mattapan, in the same way as Thermoelectric effect is the effect which is thermolectric (in the article body, it is "thermoelectric effect"). Probably Hawthorne effect (an effect named for Mr Hawthorne) is a better example, since both Hawthorne and Mattapan are proper nouns and would be capitalized in all situations.
4. M Line

Anyway... there are a lot uses of "Mattapan Trolley", and if you combine that together with "Mattapan trolley" there're even more. Enough to show a clear preponderance? I dunno... not sure. The question is really "which title will make the lower percentage of readers be like 'what the heck is that?' upon encountering the title we choose. I haven't seen convincing data either way, but the burden is on the person suggesting the change to make the case. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613: - as experts on the New York subway, maybe they will have an informed opinion about the Boston subway as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with this topic to cast a !vote either way. I will say, though, that I have seen both "Ashmont-Mattapan HSL" and "Mattapan Trolley" being used in regards to this subject. So I'm neutral on this. epicgenius (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: While I can't call myself an expert on the T, I can say that I have seen both. Some of the articles that use Ashmont-Mattapan HSL might be copying the term from wikipedia/ I agree the burden is on the person suggesting the change. Thanks for the ping.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support but lowercase trolley – In books that use this name, lowercase trolley is by far more common; per MOS:CAPS we default to lowercase when caps are not necessary. The "High-Speed Line" designation is archaic, misleading, and itself over-capitalized. Other names in books include "Ashmont–Mattapan trolley" (1972), "Ashmont Mattapan High Speed Line" (1958), "Mattapan High Speed line" (1997), "Mattapan High Speed Trolley Line" (1981), "Ashmont-Mattapan High-Speed Trolley" (1966), "Ashmont- Mattapan high-speed streetcar line" (1968), "Ashmont–Mattapan line" (1964), "Mattapan high-speed line" (2014). Might as well be concise, more descriptive, and not misleading about it being a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Note also that in nom's second link about the "official" name, the only place where it's not in a title or heading has "Download PDF of Mattapan trolley schedule", with lowercase trolley. So official and recent common usage seem to be in agreement on "Mattapan trolley". Dicklyon (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Hmm, I think lowercase "trolley" could go either way. On the one hand, this is about a specific trolley line that goes to Mattapan, so "Trolley" could be used as a proper noun, i.e. the "Mattapan Trolley" line (like the "Red Line" or "Orange Line"). On the other hand, "trolley" could be a descriptor for the line itself, so it would be a common noun, i.e. "Mattapan trolley". epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly so. And since it can go either way, MOS:CAPS guides us select lowercase, avoiding unnecessary capitalization. It is no less clear what it refers to without the cap. Dicklyon (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  When talking of the trolleys, or cars, they are a set, and the sets change with time, and so cannot have a proper name. There is, however, exactly one line, and it can have a proper name, and sources frequently treat the line as having a proper name. It should be unsurprising that many who worry little about capitalization, think those who capitalize important words, confuse the issue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  When the line is named by its endpoints, it is easily read as a descriptive name, but when the line is being named after a neighborhood (Mattapan), it can no longer be a descriptive name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support Mattapan Trolley Line, proper name, of the line, not of the trolley. [11]. A "Mattapan line trolley" is a trolly from the Mattapan Trolley Line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Premature at best, see wp:BALL. This nickname may take off and may not. The spin doctors obviously want it to, but that's all the change of official name means. A redirect from Mattapan Trolley Line, currently a redlink, is a good idea, not necessary currently because of the redirect from Mattapan Trolley but if you want to laugh and cry take a look at the history of that page... I lost count of the number of times this article has already moved, just as evidenced by that page history. And of course there's also a previous RM which resulted in no move, above. Each of the moves which did occur harmlessly broke incoming external links, with the redirect coping with it seamlessly thanks to the bot, but if that page becomes an article of its own as proposed above we'll then have all these links pointing to the wrong page. Again not all that serious, but a pity. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. After reading through the discussion, it is apparent to me that the current title remains the common name. We can always revisit this in the future. Calidum 17:04, 8 November 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.