Jump to content

Talk:Sprinter (rail service)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Escondido and Vista stations are not original from the Santa Fe era

[edit]

The original Escondido station building is now part of collection of historical buildings at Grape Day Park, located about a mile from the present day Escondido Transit Center. Vista Station is almost certainly new as well; looking just as you would expect a new commuter/light rail station to look. No cite, but I assume it's not necessary when removing "citation needed" content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus4152 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter or light rail?

[edit]

Is "commuter rail" the best category for this service? It sounds to me a lot like south NJ's River LINE, which is generally thought of as a light rail system. I know it uses DMUs (like the River LINE), but it will also feature a flat fare equal to local bus service and all-day 30-minute headways. I'm not saying there's a hard and fast answer to this question, but I think we're going to see more systems that blur the boundries between the two categories. --Jfruh 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the definition is confusing, though for different reasons. Commuter rail is FRA-crash compliant and can therefore be run mixed with freight trains and commuter trains (such as Sounders). Will this operate mixed with those? Light Rail is not crash compliant and therefore must be seperated from crash compliant rail (River LINE is seperated by time, freight can only run at night after all LRVs are off the line). Also, it appears that the Desiro DMU's may not be crash compliant. Can someone explain these issues and expand the article? Skabat169 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looked at from a European perspective, this looks like a pretty standard heavy-rail commuter or suburban rail operation, rather than anything I would describe as light rail. As the article itself says, Desiros are common main-line trains elsewhere. The River Line is an edge case which (IMHO) just scrapes in because it does contain section of street running. There is no indication that SPRINTER does this, or is even fitted with the sort of technology (such as track brakes) that would allow it. Whilst the situation about FRA standards is interesting, I don't think we can let it drive the distinction between heavy and light rail, as if we do we will start having to define lots of main line railways outside the US as light rail. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The line between light rail and commuter rail has always been vague. MUNI, for example, comprises a large amount of street trackage where it runs basically like a streetcar system, but also has some subway sections where it comes closer to rapid transit. By contrast, more of L.A.'s non-subway rail system runs in its own right of way, or is elevated, yet like MUNI is generally considered LRT.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I mean seriously... There's no "European" or "American" perspective. This is an extremely common "heavy" rail commuter train, running on exactly what used to be a "heavy" rail line, constructed for a "heavy" rail purpose. Light rail is MUNI. Light rail is the VTA. Light rail is MAX. These systems were built for themselves, using streetcars/trams specifically designed for a light rail setting, one which the majority of the time runs right down the middle of the road, turns in the middle of intersections, etc. To call the Sprinter system a "light rail" line is just truly preposterous, and I say that with no angst. It is just really, really grotesquely inaccurate. --OettingerCroat (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And after all, it still is a heavy rail freight line when the Sprinter isn't running. As you ride out of Escondido on the Sprinter you see numerous cement and concrete plants, and similar businesses that deal in high-weight low-value goods for which rail freight is ideal. This is just a semantic quibble, though. I think Sprinter falls somewhere between commuter rail, e.g. Coaster or LIRR, and urban LRT. Not every rail transit route falls neatly into predefined categories. BART's another example--in the city it functions like an urban heavy rail subway, but elsewhere it is more like a commuter rail system.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sprinter was documented as a Light Rail Vehicle as stated by the manufacturer, Siemens, And NCTD in the Sprinter Vehicle Fact Sheet the distinction betewne light and heavy rail not only has to do with the vehicle itself, it also depends distance between the stations, the maximum operating speed and maximum consist size, and ownership and type Right of way. The Sprinter Has very sort distance between stations and dose not typically operate at over 50 MPH. To say the sprinter is a Heavy Rail train because of it being a railroad route previously is to say the San Diego Trolley is a heavy rail system. The Sprinter is a Light Commuter Rail System As The Construction of the LRVs is lightweight compared to the Coaster (San Diego), a good example of a "Heavy Rail" commuter train. Personally I Define Light Rail As:
  • A system That The Right Of way Is Controlled and owned by the passenger commuter service and travels at rapid intervals (Rapid Transit)
  • The rail cars are lightweight bi-directional articulated units
  • Creates little or no pollution
  • Stations are placed closer than 5 miles apart form each other
  • The cars can operate as single unit trains.
The Sprinter meets all the criteria above
--Koman90 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is to go by what reliable sources say. In this case, it is generally called a diesel light rail line. --NE2 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Well, Sprinter is daspatched by metrolink by a san diego sub. train dispatcher and operates over San Diego Northern trackage and shares the right of way with the pacific sun railway. It sounds like heavy rail. Thats what NCTD calls it & I work for them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.124.223 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit this article to show clearly that it uses vehicles that, while not FRA Freight line compliant, are not in any way light rail. Wikipedia is a worldwide, not U.S. resource and the term light rail is not appropriate.--Wickifrank (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "worldwide" rail operation (whatever that means); it is a US-based passenger rail operation. Attempting to apply so-called "worldwide" terms (i.e. concocting them) when there is no worldwide railway standard (especially for terms like "light rail", "heavy rail" et al—in the USA, there are three different types of rail operation, light, heavy and FRA, heavy being of the "subway" or so-called "Metro" type) is a sham, therefore, and violates the encyclopedia. This is a US light rail operation, and that is what the world should be informed of. Would a particular body type of US-made automobile be called a "saloon" instead of a "sedan" on Wikipedia since the term "saloon" is perceived to be more "worldwide"? No. The Sprinter is a light rail operation.
71.181.219.209 (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future Expansion?

[edit]

Would it be possible to extend the system to Fallbrook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the proper place to ask. I wish this line went all the way downtown San Diego, then it will start making sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikus (talk • contribs) 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the Coaster is for. -Branddobbe (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a map, the Oceanside Transportation Center is far out of the way for anyone wanting to go from Escondido to downtown San Diego. MTS does operate a very decent express bus (line 280), but this is limited to a weekday peak service schedule. Another Rapid bus with more comprehensive service is the 235. Like the 280 it runs mostly up and down the 15 and 163 using the HOV lanes, but hits every transit station along the way, meaning it has to exit and re-enter the freeway for each one. This adds a lot of time to the schedule. Moreover, this route includes several miles of street running between Kearny Mesa and DTSD. For Escondido residents who want to take public transportation to DTSD, I think a good solution would be a rail line running approximately southwest to hit the coast at one of the existing Coaster/Amtrak stations. Failing that, the 280 bus really is quite fast and comfortable. I just wish its schedule could be more comprehensive.Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Who wrote this article, a car/bus manufacturer? This is one of the most preposterously biased articles I've seen on wikipedia. Can someone do a little research and balance this out some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.35.10 (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this piece IS biased. It's a puff piece for the Sprinter, presumably posted by the NCTD/Sprinter bureaucracy. Missing are the following items:

1. The ORIGINAL cost estimate of the Sprinter. Figures are hard to pin down, but the original "conceptual" cost was about $50 million. Like almost every such passenger rail project, the Sprinter projected cost was grossly underestimated -- over and over, at every stage.

2. The NCTD readily admits that about 3/4 of the Sprinter riders are former BUS riders. This article gives the impression that its ridership comes mostly from former CAR riders. The Srinter has had little impact on highway 78's usage and congestion -- certainly compared to widening the highway with another lane (at a fraction of the Sprinter cost).

3. There are little or no reduction in travel time compared to buses. Indeed some buses were cancelled, in part to encourage people to use (and therefore justify) the Sprinter project.

4. SIX years after the Sprinter rail service started, the ridership is still only 2/3 of the Pollyannaish projected usage. Actually, the original usage was projected at about 15,000 a day, but was dropped after the project was approved to "only" 12,000 or so. Again, this "error" is a very common tactic used to sell the public on the "need" for light rail expenditures. And this actual ridership would be lower except the district decided to lower fares to encourage some more usage. Probably a good idea, but from a REVENUE standpoint, the project is doing poorly.

5. The "fare box" revenue covers less than half the operational costs, and pays not a dime towards the half billion dollar capital expenditure.

6. Presumably there is no sinking fund for eventual replacement costs, so another major $100+ million capital expenditure looms in its future (as seen with the BART experience).

7. Assuming Sprinter operates similar to other light rail lines, the PER PASSENGER MILE energy (BTU) usage is about the same as buses and cars -- though the newer cars and buses are actually now MORE energy efficient than most light rail. This is counter-intuitive, but given the low AVERAGE light rail usage, it usually works out that way.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rider (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to item 2, I have never understood the logic behind this argument. It's as if to argue that money spent to get middle class commuters out of their cars is acceptable, but improving service for the already transit dependent is a waste of public funds. This way of thinking is how we ended up without any transit in L.A. other than G.M. buses for generations. With regard to item 3, don't assume that buses are or will remain faster. Looking down the barrel of more housing tracts to come in Valley Center, I am sure that the schedule performance of any buses on the surface roads or CA-78 will degrade in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus4152 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:Compass Card.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coaster (San Diego) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coaster (commuter rail) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sprinter (light rail). 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sprinter (light rail). 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:

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) 06:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the following statement in the article mean?

[edit]

When the article says: 

Due to its shared right-of-way with freight trains serving businesses in Escondido, the Sprinter platforms had to be set back from the tracks a sufficient distance to provide enough room for employees riding on the sides of freight cars.

It fails to explain what that means for riders trying to board a train on a passenger platform. I assume this does not mean there is a wide gap between the passenger platform and the train whe it’s in the station. Are the passenger trains wider then normal freight trains so that the passenger train doors are right next to the platform edge whenthe trainin in the station while the freight trains, being narrower will have a larger gap between them and the platforms so workers hanging the side don’t sidswipe the platform whe passing through a station? this should be clarified in the article by someone who knows the answer. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sprinter_(rail_service)&oldid=1210515595"