Talk:Orange Line (MBTA)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Orange Line (MBTA) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 9, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
March 2, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Old Chat[edit]

"The fleet's windows have a distinctive orange tint."

I know what this means, but the Blue Line cars' passenger windows are like that too. The orange paint and cheesy faux woodgrain interiors really do make that amber/beige/whatever-it's-supposed-to-be stand out, and if you look into the windows of a passing car, it looks like the passengers are floating in a tankful of pee. Odd, that, since the old Bluebird cars on the Red Line are the ones that smelled like pee. --iMb~Meow 07:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should add a note about the blue-line tint whenever someone adds an entry on rolling stock to the blueline page. jdb ❋ (talk) 08:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
BTW, why did you remove this? jdb ❋ (talk) 05:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because it's not distinctive. The PATH cars they were based on have the same glass. That kind of coloring was typical in the 1970s. --iMb~Meow 06:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hm. I don't remember an orange tint last time I rode on the PATH (Jersey City-NYC), although that was a long time ago. Do you know if cars with that coloring are still in use? jdb ❋ (talk) 07:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been out there in a long time, and am looking for photos of that series (older and newer PATH cars look superficially the same but were from different builders). This one sort of shows it, but not too well (you can see the difference in tint between the front and side windows, but the angle stinks). --iMb~Meow 07:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. The Blue Line uses a blue tint, the orange line has an orange tint, and the PATH has an (apparent) orange tint. Given that this is unique to only two of Boston's rail lines, I'll re-add it, with the details you've supplied. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Huh? The Blue Line cars have the same sickly yellow window as the others, as seen here.
I'm going to take out this stuff about color-keyed glass again. If you intend to re-add it, please come up with a reference from MBTA or Bombardier to support it first. Thanks. --iMb~Meow 08:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's very odd. I stand corrected. I think some of the cars have replacement windows that gave me the impression that they were blue: [1] -- the left-hand door pane looks blue, not orange, by comparison to the right. BTW, what does Bombardier have to do with this? jdb ❋ (talk) 08:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Those aren't replacements, the windows in the operator areas were always different. Hawker-Siddeley Canada sold Canada Car to Bombardier years ago. --iMb~Meow 08:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I'm referring to the pane in the doors (in here, the leftmost pane in the photo, c.f. the next leftmost), not at the end (but no matter; it's an exception, rather than the rule). jdb ❋ (talk) 15:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From what I can tell from that photo (unfortunately there are no closeups on, the yellowish tint seems to come from the lights. --SPUI (talk) 08:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They really are tinted in real life, even looking out from the inside. The yellowish/brownish cast could easily be grime, though. --iMb~Meow 08:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IMeowbot talks about how the cars smell. Do the cars really smell like pee? Geo Swan 07:01, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Yes, the Bluebirds did smell like pee. Those cars (now retired) didn't have air conditioning, the Red Line is really crowded during commute hours, and sweat contains pee. I suppose it was inevitable. --iMb~Meow 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map requests[edit]

Maps are needed to compare the Washington Street Elevated routing and stops with the Southwest Corridor routing and stops, and to compare the Charlestown Elevated routing and stops with the Haymarket North Extension routing and stops. -- Beland 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Washington and Charlestown elevated sections[edit]

Does anyone have photos of the old elevated sections? Service continued into the 1980s and 1970s, respectively. Dogru144 13:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Express Track[edit]

[2] mentions a third express track from Wellington to Community College. Perhaps this article should mention it, and talk about why it was built and how it was intended to be used. (It apparently has been used for testing new Blue Line cars recently, but I doubt that is why it was built.) JNW2 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It was built as an express to be used when the line was to be extended all the way to Reading. That way there wouldn't be a long commute time. I doubt that we can find many sources on it since newspapers pre-1980 are hard to come by. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to Downtown Crossing[edit]

It would be more accurate to take these times in the table from the published schedule, not from the distance between stations. -- Beland (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Route Map?[edit]

Should I make a route map using the Rail Icons for this route? --NYCTrainFan (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. Could you show me an example of what it would look like/what you would change? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry this has taken so long, I've been extremely busy. I've posted the example on my user page. CLICK HERE NYCTrainFan (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. Have you done a lot of these? What is the rule of thumb for detail? I mean the legend has a ton of options including highways crossings, bridges, tunnels, etc.. State is also a major station so it should be large as well. State and Downtown Crossing make up the "inbound" destinations of the trains. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I've done a few. I haven't taken the time to look at Google maps to put in highways and waterways and all that other stuff. I'll fix State right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCTrainFan (talkcontribs) 12:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes to route map[edit]

The current route map that shows the former Charlestown and Washington Street elevateds is neat, but confusing. The historical routes look like branches, rather than separated by time.

I'd like to make a pretty radical change to the template. I propose making the main template a representation of the Orange Line in its current state, without the former elevated sections. I'd then like to make a series of historical templates - one with all three elevateds (including Atlantic Ave) from 1901 to 1938ish, a second one until 1954 with the Charlestown and Washington elevateds, then a third until 1987 with only the Washington El. This would eliminate confusion in the current template (which doesn't even show the Atlantic Ave route), and provide for a series of maps that would illustrate the history of the Orange Line (just stick them side by side in a new section in the article).

I'm willing to do the major work on this; I would put the old-route templates up first then modify the main one to minimize disruption. I can do it this weekend or before, but I'd like to see if there's consensus. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I can't wait to see what you come up with! Grk1011 (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Whew, finally got a chance to finish these. Take a look, and let me know if there's any errors, or correct them yourself. Once I'm satisfied with their accuracy, then we'll need to decide whether to place them side-by-side in a section in the main Orange Line article, or give them their own article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Replaced the main infobox template per user page discussion; will start working on a side-by-side solution for all 5 for later in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Collected route diagram templates[edit]

I have formatting all set for the five historical route diagram templates; it can be viewed here. My preference is to put it in the article itself just before the station listing, but I could accept it as a standalone page. Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I think keeping it in this article for now makes sense, at least until there's sufficient accompanying text to justify a breakout. Great work! Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Route map fixes[edit]

The route maps are very nice, but strangely omit any mention of the Green Line transfer points (at both Haymarket and North Station), while showing connections to the Red and Blue Lines appropriately. Also, in the infobox, the word "Legend" is repeated twice. I would fix them, but I'm afraid of breaking the maps. Much thanks go to User:Pi.1415926535 for his extensive route map work, as well as the many well-composed photos he has been contributing to Wikimedia Commons, allowing an upgrade of the MBTA articles' quality and visual appeal. --Reify-tech (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a crack tonight. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
There's some nasty formatting issues, especially with the Causeway El. Will have these up eventually. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep plugging away, the diagrams look great when you finish, and really help make the system understandable. --Reify-tech (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've got one possibility on the 75-87 template. Not sure if I like it. Might try to switch to a straight-through style. North Station is going to be a major problem on the newest template, what with two logos (intercity rail + commuter rail) and three wikilinks (Green Line, Amtrak/Downeaster, Commuter Rail). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I believe that Haymarket North Extension should be merged into the main Orange Line article. This cam up during the discussions at Talk:Green Line (MBTA)#Re-split about the merging and splitting of the Green Line Extension. As the Haymarket North Extension is not its own line, and is only an extension of a currently line, I do not feel it warrants it's own article.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Trolley colors[edit]

The wiki entry reads:

"Cars throughout the Boston rapid transit network were formerly painted orange or with orange stripes by MBTA predecessors, and restored streetcars on the Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line wear their historical orange livery, but this is largely coincidental."

I'm debating whether this needs to be in the entry since the Mattapan trolleys connect to the RED line (not the Orange line) and the trolleys reflect the orange color that was used on all of the early 20th century trolleys throughout the entire system. The entry does say "this is largely coincidental," but it actually has nothing to do with the orange of the Orange line. In fact, the trolleys are more of a burnt orange color and not the pure orange of the Orange line cars. I'm interested in what other people think. (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely unnecessary; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Orange Line. I've removed it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2013‎ (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Orange Line (MBTA)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Designate (talk · contribs) 03:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This isn't an optimally well-researched article, but it clearly fits the critera as written.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:

Designate (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Line diagram omits North Station?[edit]

Somehow the line diagrams omit North Station and list Anderson RTC instead. Anderson RTC is in Woburn, which makes that route an impressive feat of spatial distortion.

Seriously, I looked through the markup and it doesn't mention Anderson at all, while it does have North Station listed in the right place. However, the Read view says Anderson RTC.

Could someone who knows what they're doing check this out? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Looks to have been a bug in {{MBTA stations}}. I've now fixed it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

(official MBTA and pre-wiki sources)[edit]

Better sources, but that mostly illustrates the differences between "better" and "good." Sanborn has some standing, and this is early enough his later disability isn't a factor...but it's from 1992, and it's listed as "trivia." Trivia lists are notorious for folklore and back-formation,, especially...within an organization; compare the tripe about flags ang flagpoles among soldiers. This was supposedly a memnonic, so it should have been publicized contemporaneously.Anmccaff (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC) PS: As a rider of the '60s blue line, moving on clapped-out cars through tunnels that suggested they were built by medieval sappers, the last thing a passenger wanted to be reminded of was that they were going under the harbor. Anmccaff (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Here, BTW, is the Sanborn "reference": The Washington Street Orange line travels through a section of Boston originally named Orange. Folklore if ever I saw it, and the whole Trivia section suggests a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek. Anmccaff (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Things to do:[edit]

  • Condense "History" section
  • Source any easily disputed material
  • Make sure information is factual

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)