Talk:R (New York City Subway service)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in New York City (Rated B-class, Mid-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
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Issue with page[edit]

I just got onto this article to find the page messed up. I looked in the history and it was someone on a phone not registered. I seem to can't fix it.

Ruler1091 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

N and R Trains[edit]

The original reason why the R and N train terminals were switched had to do with the need to access train yards to store trains. When the R train ran to Astoria, its trains were stored along the Astoria line, at City Hall, and at the storage yard near 36th Street. When the N train was extended to Queens, they could store N trains at Coney Island, and in Forest Hills. The MTA thought that it was better to switch the terminals, thereby the R train would have access to the Forest Hills yard.

The same reasoning applied to the #2, and #3 lines. Before the change, the #3 line had a small storage yard at 148th Street, and stored some trains at the New Lots yard. The #2 line stored its trains at the 241st Street yard. The #4 line stored its trains at the Jerome yard, and the #5 stored its trains at 180th Street, and along the Dyre Ave. line. The New Lots yard held some trains for all of the lines. After the terminal changes, almost all #2 and #5 trains could be stored in the Bronx, and #3 and #4 could be stored in the Harlem, Jerome and New Lots yards. -- (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Barry

Notice About New (temporary) Service Pattern in Beginning of Article[edit]

If you click here, you will see when the B was rerouted to the local tracks in Brooklyn, we used a "Note" paragraph in the beginning of the article to describe it. Therefore, shouldn't this paragraph be included at the beginning in this article? "Note: Due to repairs in the Montague Street Tunnel, R service has been temporarily changed. Weekday R trains are split into two sections: the Queens-Manhattan portion, running between Forest Hills and Whitehall Street; and the Brooklyn portion, covering the Brooklyn stations of the route. Weekend R trains operate over the Manhattan Bridge in both directions. Late night R trains operate normal service." Mysteryman557 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I feel like it's very unclear at the start of the article that the service being described is only temporary, so there should be something stating that. ~T-Rell (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree, so as a result, I have changed the lede to mention the R's normal service pattern with a short "Note" at the end. There is no need to mention the R's current temporary pattern in the lede because it already exists in the "Hurricane Sandy Effects" section. I have also done the same them for the N train article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment – The construction is for over a year, so the "normal service route" paragraph should be changed to hidden text, with the "construction route" paragraph replacing it. After all, it won't be restored to normal until after the 7 Subway Extension opens (June 2014). Epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
While it is over a year, it still is only temporary and service will be restored. We should mention the normal service pattern since it is the true route of R trains and only note the temporary service change. Mysteryman557 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Not June 2014... November 2014! Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

R160 trains on the R line[edit]

JoesphBarbaro, do you care to explain your unhelpful reversion comment of this sourced information about the trains used on the R line? Autopilot (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

R160s are only a temporary thing on the R until the Montague tube is restored. Do not use an image of the car's interior. Use images of a car's inteior only for the New York City Subway car articles. If you're so picky, then just take a close-up shot of an R160 R train (the car's front face itself) at a station where the route itself normally serves. Simple as that. Happy now? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The temporary nature of the use of the trains is as encyclopedic as the information about the re-route during the construction and has been mentioned in multiple citations. You're in WP:3RR territory on this and have not engaged in discussion on the topic -- what is your complaint about the cited information regarding the temporary use of the R160 during consutrction? Additionally, "Nope" is neither polite nor informative for an edit message, especially when discussion on the topic is sought. Autopilot (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Well as I said before, both of the previous images that I had reverted were because the former's image was too far away and the latter was that it only showed the interior of the car rather than a close up shot of the car's front face. The R train is most likely going to revert back to normally all R46s after the Montague tube is restored in less than the next six months anyway. And once again, if you're picky, then just take a close up shot of an R160 R at any of the route's stations where it normally serves. Thank you. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: – Do we put pictures of R160s on the C line article just because it's getting R160s for the summer? No, we don't. Unless this is a permanent service change, the picture of the R160 should either be removed or described as concisely as possible. The stuff about the R160s isn't fit for this article; rather, it should go on its own article, or not at all, since it's probably unencyclopedic anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Also indented for clarity. Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the service change is not notable -- it is interesting that the different lines use different cars and that the use of the various families is based on multiple factors, such as the accessibility of the different service yards. Multiple source comment on it and the MTA has issued statements surrounding the change. Of the guides in WP:GNG, this meets the threshold of coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources. I would argue that the years of introduction and use of the different models on the various lines is encyclopedic -- a reader who is curious about which models were used on a specific line would look first at the article for that line, not for each of the various cars. Autopilot (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It's pure WP:TRIVIA. Does anyone care than the R is using R160s during the disruption? No one except for avid rail fans who want to take pictures and videos of them. This is not a train enthusiast site. Services have changed car types during disruptions before many times in the past (when Coney Island was closed for reconstruction, the N switched from mostly R68/68As to mostly R40s; when the Manhattan Bridge reopened in 2004, the B and W went from R68s to R40s; during the 9/11 disruptions, the Q used R32s instead of the usual R68s, the E used R46s instead of R32s, the M used R40s instead of R42s, and so fourth; after Superstorm Sandy, the G and C briefly used R46s and R42s, respectively, while the H switched from R32s to R46s). If we mention the R using R160s here, then we should mention every single car assignment history change, which is a lot, but does anyone care that? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is trivia. This is why this kind of stuff goes in the rolling stock articles, if at all. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's not really that big of a deal anyway. Whenever the C is more or fully diverse in the summer, there really was no need to add a new image based on the temporary fleet assignment, as stated by Epicgenius, it was just only for the summer and the C uses nothing else but R32s for the rest of the year. For every New York City Subway service articles, we only show images of permanent fleet assignments that lasts for a good portion of a decade or so. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

September re-opening[edit]

The myfoxnews story just cites the NYT article about the rumor. There is still nothing on the MTA site, so we can just wait until tomorrow to find out if it does actually re-open... -- Autopilot (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it is, a rumor. With at least three sources. It is probably noteworthy... Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)