Talk:Toronto Rocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Ontario / Toronto (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Trains (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

Train Template and Front Passenger Accessible Window[edit]

Trying out the template for train info ... comments would be appreciated ...

Eja2k (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To whomever the mysterious IP editor was musing (albeit inappropriately) about a front passenger accessible window. The plan still is, and the cars have been in production with full width cabs. The safety/liability issues I'm sure outweigh that of a few transit nerds than cant watch the pretty signals. After all the TTC doesn't want Johny or Janey to see someone do the flying leap in front of the train.

On a serious note to editors... unless you can back up opinions or claims without references ... don't bother putting them into the articles. Discussion can be had on this page (on topic and in moderation) :-)

Eja2k (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

T35A08[edit]

Is there any actual proof that this was a real name? As far as I can tell, it was a "joke" name used in the naming contest as an example of what the name could be if the public didn't pick a better name. It's *very* hard to imagine that the TTC would go from G1-G2-G3-G4-M1-H1-H2-H3-H4-H5-H6-T1 to T35A08. 216.220.43.110 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The TTC in various locations and as reported in numerous media forms was indeed referring to the new train as the T35A08. So there for I wouldn't say it was a "joke" ... If you have something to substantiate that claim put it forward... but the TTC doesn't tend to "joke" about things... period. I'm sure the plan all along was to come up with something flashier, but for over a year T35A08 was the name used internally and externally regarding the train. eja2k 05:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Environmental concerns and criticism.[edit]

These cars do not seem to have regenerative breaking and/or high efficiency power regulation items like a high speed fly wheel or super-cap. Odd given mayor Miller's stance that Toronto is a world leader in environmental issues. Is there some criticism to be referenced? This page looks like a rail road buffs perspective or product literature as opposed to encyclopedic information. Bpringlemeir (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The MITRAC energy saver appears to have regenerative breaking and possibly a super-cap, as the discard a flywheel and conventional batteries in this link, but I guess it could be a flow battery. No indications [that I can find] as to whether the TR will be outfitted with these. Bpringlemeir (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
TTC Environmental plan in the section Energy Efficiency - Subway and LRT says they plan to have 100% regen braking by 2010. Is that good enough for a reference? Bpringlemeir (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Rocket is on the track at Millhaven[edit]

I visited the Bomber plant on Friday (the 6th of August, 2010) and the Rocket was making runs up and down the TTC test track. I didn't get a picture though, by the time I got to the end of the track where you can see the trains, they had finished for the day. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyedits[edit]

I'm trying to clean this article up to make it more readable, avoid the journalese and redundancy. Here are a few tips:

  • "currently" with the present tense is usually redundant: the present tense of verb indicates the current condition of something.
  • "unofficially" – a train can’t unofficially enter revenue service, can it? Either it is or it isn’t in revenue service, and adding "officially" doesn’t change the meaning.
  • removing the link to North America -- per WP:OVERLINK, widely known places just adds clutter – readers can be expected to know where North America is, and there the North America article won’t provide any information that is specifically relevant to understanding the issues addressed in this article.
  • "only and first in North America" – if it is the only, then there aren’t any others, so “first” is redundant. Let’s look at stating things simply and clearly, rather than adding in extra would for emphasis. They make the article longer and more difficult to read.
  • "ends of the train" – let’s give the reader the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know that a train has two ends – not more and not less. As much as I would love to see a train with more than one end, specifying that it has cabs at the "front/rear ends" or "both ends", is redundant. "The ends" is unambiguous.
  • "cab units" – what is the difference between a "cab" and a "cab unit?" Not much, so let’s stick with plain English over technical terminology, which would be more appropriate in a user manual or construction specifications.
  • "slated" – this is a favourite of journalists instead of scheduled or planned. This isn’t a newspaper or a TV news program, so let’s leave the journalese to the journalists.

Ground Zero | t 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why I've semi-protected the article[edit]

I've semi-protected the article to prevent an unregistered editor from reinstating his/her preferred wording which is often ungrammatical and at other times clumsy. He/she has been edit warring rather than discussing the edits on the talk page. Here are the specific edits in dispute:

His/her version: “The new TR trains operate exclusively on the Yonge–University–Spadina (Y-U-S) line and are slated gradually replace the system's older H-series (H4, H5, H6) subway cars, most of which presently in revenue service since the 1970s
My version: “The new TR trains operate exclusively on the Yonge–University–Spadin (Y-U-S) line and will gradually replace the system's older H-series (H4, H5, H6) subway cars, most of which had been in revenue service since the 1970s”.

There are three issues here:

  1. “are slated gradually replace” is grammatically incorrect
  2. “slated” is journalese – why not use the simpler, clearer, less jargonny “will”
  3. “most of which presently in revenue service since the 1970s” – what does this mean?
His/her version: “The oldest lines of the H-series (H4) trains (which operates on the Bloor–Danforth line)”
This is grammatically incorrect: “the trains operate on the line”, not “the trains operates on the line”.
His/her version: "Since May 2011, test runs of the new trains along with operator training have been taking place on the Y-U-S line (with the trains being out of service)."
My version: "In early May 2011, main line testing and operator training began with the trains out of service, during revenue hours."
I think this is simpler, clearer, shorter.
His/her version: "An open house for the new trains (via Doors Open Toronto) took place at Davisville station on May 29, 2011, where passengers were able to get a sneak peek of the new train."
My version: "The TTC held an open house (via Doors Open Toronto) at Davisville station on May 29, 2011, where passengers were able to tour the new train."
This is simpler, clearer, shorter. And avoids “sneek peak”. Wikipedia readers are adults, not children.
His/her version: "By late December 2011, up to 10 or 11 new trains were available for revenue operation."
My version: "By late December 2011, there were 10 or 11 new trains available for revenue operation."
I don’t get what “up to” is doing here. “Available” indicates that there that they are not always in revenue service.
His/her version: "TTC officials had noted that this could either be because the train was sitting too high in relation to the level of the platform or be the result of the train’s door threshold, which is not parallel with the platform and/or the number of passengers riding on board the new subway train and were actively looking for ways to solve the problem."
This is a really long sentence, so I broke it up to make it easier for the reader to digest the information. No explanation has been provided for why these two sentences have to be combined.

Ground Zero | t 21:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The same ip editor is back ... and while s/he is not using 'slated' anymore ... s/he is introducing some of the same issues from before. Perhaps trying to get a block on that editor would be more effective than locking the article? eja2k 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally it isn't a good idea to block IPs because you can block other people who have the same IP from editing, but if the only edits from this IP are on Toronto transit articles, then it might not be a problem. I'll look into it. Thanks for your help maanaging this person. Ground Zero | t 14:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the vandal has struck from a different IP, so blocking the IP won't work. If it happens again, I will semi-protect the article again, with regret. Ground Zero | t 21:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Another example of wordiness[edit]

My version: "Full-width operator cabs at the ends of the train"
AlexRampaul's version: "Two full-width operator cab car units (one at each end of the train)"

Does the longer version add any information at all? Or does it just take more words to say the same thing? I think it is just longer. Ground Zero | t 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also to note - "Cab car units" is incorrect/does not make any sense. The older trains are in 2 car married pairs: Three 2 car "units" to a 6 car train. These trains as we know are one 6 car train ... no "units" so to speak. eja2k 01:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not articulated train[edit]

I think we have an essential misunderstanding of what makes a train "articulated." Articulated trains have non-independent attached sections in which no section can stand alone, the attachment between the section resting on a common truck or bogie. The Rocket is a semi-permanently coupled six car train with a full-width passage between the cars. Each car is fully supported on two trucks. Compare with the actually articulated ALRV that actually has a common truck beneath the articulation joint.

I cannot find any reference, including at the manufacturer's site, that refers to the Rockets or their generic class as articulated. -- Cecropia (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Order for 10 more trains[edit]

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/news/n-america/single-view/view/toronto-orders-10-more-rockets.html Fan Railer (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)