Talk:New Haven Line

Northeast Corridor Box?

Why is this box on the Metro North New Haven Line page? Jd2718 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Service vs Trackage

The lead of this article is written about New Haven Line trackage. Is there a reason to believe that readers will come here looking for trackage info, and not service info? Otherwise, "The New Haven Line runs from New Haven, Connecticut, southwest to Grand Central Terminal." Jd2718 03:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Two towns without stations

The user who deleted the line about West Haven and Orange being the only two towns Metro-North runs through without stations acknowledged that it is factually true, but said there are only a few hundred yards running through Orange. I don't see that as particularly relevant; service is not based on how long the track is, but on how convenient it is to the nearby residents. The station would be near a major north-south road serving Orange. Since they are planning to build an Orange station, someone must think it's justified. Therefore I see no reason to delete this sentence. InkQuill 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Haven Line passes through town center after town center, traversing Connecticut's shoreline towns. It passes, though, nowhere near Orange's center. Orange is a residential town, and this is the extreme southeast corner, separated from the rest of the town by I-95. The station is not near one of Orange's major north-south roads (Racebrook, Orange Center, or Grassy Hill). The sentence implies that Orange gets a station because every town gets a station. This seems quite unlikely, and without a source is just trivia. If there is a source that says this, provide it and restore the sentence. Jd2718 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Two of these assertions are simply not true. First, the station would be not near a major north-south road, but on one. Marsh Hill Road is a continuation of Lambert Road and is a major north-south route from Route 34 (a heavily traveled route to the northwest and to New Haven) to Route 1 (the major commercial strip in an otherwise suburban/rural town) and south to Interstate 95, a major movie theater and the Bayer plant, then on to Milford and West Haven. In fact, it is the only north-south road in Orange with an entrance on I-95. It is not a state road but otherwise is one of the most traveled roads in Orange. Second, not all Metro-North stations are in the center of town: West Haven's wouldn't be, New Haven's isn't, and neither is Branford's. The study cited said an Orange station could actually draw more passengers than West Haven, though this was later discounted and would be affected by the loss of Bayer. I don't see the sentence as implying anything about why towns get stations. The cited report shows why both towns believe they deserve stations. Why is this such a big deal unless there is a bias involved? It's a simple statement of fact, nothing more. Perhaps we should submit this to arbitration. InkQuill

You are claiming that Marsh Hill Road is a major north south road serving Orange. That will certainly depend on your definition. Certainly twon residents would name the three I did (all state roads) before Marsh Hill, and likely not think of Marsh Hill at all. That Lambert 'lines up' with Marsh Hill does not make it the same road. It certainly does not have the same geometry, same usage patterns, etc.

You claim that not all New Haven Line stations are in the center of their respective Connecticut towns. You cited Branford (not New Haven Line), West Haven (does not exist) and New Haven (untrue).

Look, I'll save us the trouble of haggling over the detail. I will remove the section. If construction begins, we should put it back. Jd2718 04:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saving us the trouble by removing the section, but I don't accept that. How you can say the only road that Orange residents can use to get to I-95 is not a major road is beyond me. I'll figure out what the appeals process is and follow that route.InkQuill 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful not to misquote. Marsh Hill Road is not a major north south road serving Orange. That is not the same as saying Marsh Hill Road is not a major road. Jd2718 14:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to our talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jd2718#Orange_train_station and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:InkQuill. I would appreciate if someone else would weigh in! InkQuill 03:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in [1] backing up the assertion that West Haven and Orange had sought stations or that they were being planned there because those towns lack stations. --NE2 14:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not there. Inkquill has left it out of the article, but is searching for a source (I think). In the meantime I am quite nervous about including transportation "plans" without source saying they are actually going to be built. I can't find what the $$ allocation was for. Jd2718 15:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The text now is probably ok. Stating that new stations will be built in West Haven and Orange because those are the only towns without them is definitely reading too much into the plan. My guess is that the site was chosen because there is a large stretch without stations there. In any case, listing the plan itself should be ok since the construction of these specific stations have already been enacted into the General Statutes in 2006 and funding for their construction has been allocated in the Transportation Bill. Getting to this stage is already a big deal in terms of Connecticut transportation infrastructure building. --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Does one of our sources say the bit about the General Statutes? Then I think we are fine. (Actually, npov aside, that's great. That stretch was just too long, and an intermediate station should have been in the works years ago. And I would personally benefit (maybe 2-3 rides a year) from the Marsh Hill station.)

I searched for the relvant law authorizing the construction of the station. The final bill that was signed into law (P.A. 06-136) does not specifically mention West Haven or Orange. Instead it says

"...shall implement the following strategic transportation projects and initiatives: (4) Developing a new commuter rail station between New Haven and Milford"

Further down it says

"...shall evaluate and plan the implementation of the following projects: (5) Developing a second rail passenger station between New Haven and Milford

I take this to mean "build one and maybe see if we can also build the other one". The original proposed bill had the station names listed but it seems they made it more vague in the final version. There is a new proposed bill that is in the Transportation Committee (07-6456) that specifically amends the General Statutes to provide for the construction of the West Haven station. [2][3] --Polaron | Talk 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source saying the Second Avenue Subway will be built? :) Yes, that's comparing apples to crabapples. There's a cite to a newspaper article on the Orange and West Haven stations though, so it's not just a back-room "hey, it might be cool if we did this!" We should cover any former plans too; Wikipedia should not be biased towards the present. It's probably best to just list places that stations have been planned with a source, and not provide more than that until it gets beyond planning. --NE2 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem. Transportation, in general, has lots and lots of associated planning agency, which generate many proposals. It is the professionals themselves who play "hey it might be cool" knowing that most ideas will never get funded. We shouldn't be biased towards the present, but we should be conservative in relation to transportation proposals. Jd2718 16:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I never intended to imply cause and effect between the towns being the only ones without stations and the plans for building them. I'll see if I can come up with a way to answer all concerns later. InkQuill 16:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New Fairfield Station?

Could we have a source? Jd2718 02:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Metro-North taking over Shore Line East

The idea that Metro-North is going to take over Shore Line East is at best speculative. Neither the governor's budget proposal nor press reports of legislators' press conference Feb. 8 make any mention of such a proposal. If you have information beyond this, please cite sources. InkQuill 03:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Conneticut Department of Transportation oversees ALL SLE and New Haven Line (in Connecticut) operations. Metro-North operates the New Haven Line between Greenwich and New Haven, and Amtrak operates SLE between New Haven and New London. ConDot owns all SLE equipment and roughly 64% of the New Haven Line fleet, and the trains run in pool service. For example, SLE equipment can often be seen doing the midday shuttle on the Waterbury Branch. All M2/M4/M6's are kept west of New Haven because they cannot make the voltage change just east of New Haven, and all of SLE's equipment runs east of Stamford only because they do not have third rail capabilities to enter the Park Avenue Tunnels. This is done because of mechanical constraints, not because they are owned by two separate agencies. M8's will begin testing in the summer of 2012 on SLE for possible through service from Old Sadybrook to Grand Central TerminalCluefinder42 (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut Rail Commuter Council

Why isn't a line about this within the scope of this article? The council is specifically concerned with the New Haven Line of Metro-North. I find this explanation for deletion inadequate. InkQuill 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the line itself. Governance falls to Metro North and the State of Connecticut, the entities with which the Council would interact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Ugly Layout problem

The infobox has forced the first section to the below its bottom. I mistook the cause of the problem, but reversion is no solution to ugliness. DCDuring 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't perfect, but it's better, IMHO. DCDuring 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem appeared to be with the image not being in the lead AND defaulting or being forced right, but I'm still not 100% sure. Recommended style WP:MOS has images alternating right and left. You are right about infoboxes, though. I don't think they CAN be positioned left. DCDuring 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Train in Stamford

The picture which identifies the New Haven Line at Stamford is incorrect. That station is New Haven, and the train is the Shoreline East. It should be removed. Yaletiger (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hate to say this, but you're wrong. Shore Line East has never used a P32AC-DM in New Haven colors. And the coach shown is from the Metro-North pool, Shore Line East uses the unique Mafersa coaches these days. And though fuzzy, at full size one can see that the sign on the platform reads "Stamford". Most importantly, though, the uploader himself states he was at Stamford when the picture was taken. I would think he knew where he was. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Haven Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stationreporter.net/newhaven.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New Haven Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22285791/trains-collision-in-connecticut
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.mta.info/mnr/html/meadowlands/footballtrain.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827190634/http://www.conndot.ct.gov/cptc/railfrt1.htm to http://www.conndot.ct.gov/cptc/railfrt1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718120505/http://www.ipst.org/TechPapers/2005/IPST05_Paper091.pdf to http://www.ipst.org/TechPapers/2005/IPST05_Paper091.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129105204/http://www.stationreporter.net/harlem.htm to http://www.stationreporter.net/harlem.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520001920/http://www.hvceo.org/transport/railpassimprove.php to http://www.hvceo.org/transport/railpassimprove.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Haven Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233114/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/986720/NYCTrackMapV3.pdf to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/986720/NYCTrackMapV3.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myfoxny.com/story/22285791/trains-collision-in-connecticut

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A Suggested URL for Adding Citation (Particularly for Control Points, Track Layout Details, etc)

Here's a 2015 AutoCAD-made Metro North Track and Structures Dept book of Track Charts, Interlocking Diagrams and Yard Diagrams - http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2647944-Operations-Metro-North-Railroad-Track-Charts.html As you can see there is a direct link to the PDF as well if that works better. Hope it's of use. I'm not very good at adding citations, nor did I write any of the article as of yet. 2601:19A:4400:218C:120B:A9FF:FE61:EFBC (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Chris C.

I have added it to the article. Thank you for the link; it's very useful. epicgenius (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for adding it, Epicgenius. Glad it is useful. - Chris 2601:19A:4400:218C:E0BC:6FC8:46B7:B7E5 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

September 2013 electric failure

@Pi.1415926535 and RoySmith: The following text has been added by @Smellyshirt5:, but its inclusion is disputed:

On September 25, 2013, a 138 kV main feeder cable from Con Edison that provided electricity to an AC catenary-powered 8-mile (13 km) segment of the New Haven Line failed, causing electric train service over the line to halt between Mount Vernon and Harrison, New York. It was so impactful that Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut held a hearing on October 28, 2013 and among others, a representative from the ASCE spoke.The other feeder cable that supplied power to that segment was out-of-service due to a planned electric equipment upgrade at the Metro-North station. There was no formal contingency plan in place between Con Edison and Metro-North in case of the failure. An attempt to draw power from a Connecticut substation in Cos Cob failed to provide enough power to supply full service on the line, and was instead used to rescue stranded trains. Metro-North used diesel locomotives and alternative bus service to carry passengers until full service was restored after 12 days of disruption. Con Edison initially provided this short-notice power by modifying available electric transformers and other equipment to Metro-North's unique needs in an adjacent temporary location. The outage was caused by liquid nitrogen, which was being used to control dielectric fluid flow in the out-of-service feeder, freezing the dielectric fluid in the adjacent live feeder supplying the sole power to the station. Con Edison had performed this type of freeze operation around 18 times a year, and had never experienced this type of failure before. The executive summary of a state report was released in November of 2014 detailing findings. The Cos Cob link is now able to provide full service power if needed. The monitoring of the use of liquid nitrogen in underground transmission feeders has been modified. There was a short term interest in examining n-1-1 power supply contingencies to various municipal power consumers following the incident.

References

It looks like too much detail for a minor incident, and most of it shouldn't be placed in this article, as per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. This may also be related to WP:TOOMUCH (about too much detail). Most readers don't really want to know about the details of a single incident if they are specificially looking about information on the New Haven Line. epicgenius (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• I agree this this is way too much detail for this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

To RoySmith and his associates Epicgenius and pi....:The word "tedious" is subjective, as is the word "reasonable". I am displaying the findings of the executive summary of a public state investigation of a unique outage event that disturbed the most popular rail road line (with 125,000 daily riders) on the east coast for at least 12 days. Please see http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId={5B2369A6-97FC-4613-AD8B-91E23D41AC05} or NYSPSC Case no. 13-E-0529. It was so impactful that U.S. Senator Blumenthal decided to hold a hearing shortly after the incident occurred. That would indicate that some level of technical explanation for the cause of the event is appropriate, beyond how unique and interesting (and publicly available) it is. Additionally, your complaints about adding technical details are comical in that you and your associate were the ones that began removing technical details from this page as soon as I added the findings about the event.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smellyshirt5: We're not disputing that this is an important event, or that Senator Blumenthal held the hearing. We are disputing the inclusion of technical details. We're asking, why does the average reader care about the technical details? It's publicly available, and it's probably interesting to you (or other people with similar interests), but take a step back and think about whether other people might find it interesting. You have to remember that Wikipedia is targeted toward the layman, so such a technical report wouldn't be appropriate for an overview article like this. epicgenius (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I made a separate page for it. Thanks for all your concern for the layman.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)