Template talk:Amtrak Pacific Surfliner

Help fix the template

Template:Pacific Surfliner its fucked up near Los Angeles Union Station. Help?!? 98.234.28.27 (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem that you're seeing, exactly? It appears OK to me, after a cursory glance at the template.
— V = * R (talk to Ω) 04:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone reverted it. I changed it back so you cans ee. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish, though. Can you explain further?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to line up. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: let's please not edit war. You want to edit the template, which is cool. You're running into an issue, which is understandable. We're discussing the problem and trying to come up with a solution. In the meantime, let's leave the stable version up so that the template looks OK where it's currently being used.

Now... as for the change itself, I still don't follow what you're trying to accomplish. Take a second and describe what you're trying to do and I'm sure that we can help you out. What is supposed to line up to what? Are you attempting to add something to the route?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am supposed to make

a wye that leads into Los Angeles
a connection to Metro Gold Line.

Look at my version and notice how the wye into LAX does not line up with the rest of the line. That's the problem. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you're trying to do. The question there though, is: why? The Metro Gold Line isn't an Amtrack route.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But (sorry, we were shifting way too far right), it is a transfer, which is typical to include in these charts. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know much about these specific types of templates, so I can't offer a personal opinion about it being "typical to include in these charts". You could always ask about that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and/or Talk:Pacific Surfliner. I do see that Pacific Surfliner specifically differentiates between Amtrack and the Metro trains, however. Also, I know that similar relationships exist along the Northeast Corridor, and from what I've seen the various local and regional lines are kept separate from the Amtrak content.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that basically what you're looking for? Note that what I added was the Metro Silver Line, however. The Union Station (Los Angeles) article only lists the Silver Line as a connecting line there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One note to make is that I have no idea as to why there was ever an airplane next to the station. Although there is a free shuttle, Union Station is nowhere near the airport. Also, the only thing I really wanted to add was the wye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.28.27 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fixed it. But what about all the other things that go into Los Angeles? I think, unless you see metro connections on them, long-distance routes should not have the Metro connection but Amtrak California routes should. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that the free shuttle to the airport would be the reason to include the airplane icon... one of the bus icons might be better though, I don't know. Actually, I'm going to drop a note on the WikiProject page, and hopefully someone with more experience with these specific templates can lend a hand here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the template appears not-horked now, but I'm not convinced that a Bus Rapid Transit line (or any light rail line, even) should be on a route template. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be Metro Gold Line, but I was told to put Metro Silver Line, which I only now know is not actually light rail. Mind if I fix? 98.234.28.27 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh... I just noticed that the Metro Silver Line is actually a bus line, not light rail... my bad, but I was mislead by the Union Station (Los Angeles) page, which lists all sorts of Lines and one Connection. If we're going to add one though, I don't see why we shouldn't add all of them, and especially why we shouldn't add the 3 other Amtrak lines. I guess that I'm still confused as to the need for an edit.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is old, but Amtrak and Metrolink all share tracks. They share tracks with the freight lines. They use tracks from the national railroad system. LACMTA, on the other hand, builds their own lines, as do many other subway and rapid transit systems. That's why they're a different color-- they're disconnected from the railroad system. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate former Rail 2 Rail stations

I propose eliminating the Orange, Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo, Carlsbad Village, Carlsbad Poinsettia, Encinitas, and San Diego–Sorrento Valley from this template. These six stations were added as part of the Rail 2 Rail program, and the stops were primarily made to serve the customers of the Metrolink and Coaster commuter rail services, not for the benefit of Amtrak or its passengers. The stations served very few passengers (around seven per day for Orange and Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo), and because of the Rail 2 Rail rules, most passengers were Metrolink or Coaster pass holders, not Amtrak ticketed passengers. To my knowledge, these stations also never received any of the signage common to Amtrak stations. Because of this unique situation, I believe it is proper to treat these stations like other commuter rail stations along the line (and make no mention of them) and not like a long-time Amtrak station that was eliminated.

Pinging recent editors @Useddenim, Pi.1415926535, Mackensen, and Mjdestroyerofworlds to get feedback.

Thanks for your consideration. --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were listed in timetables - see 2008 and 2016 - and otherwise treated as regular Amtrak stops. Compare, for example to Northeast Regional stops at Edgewood and Perryville which are only noted in Penn Line timetables and not in Amtrak schedules. Regardless of ridership or purpose, Amtrak treated these as regular stops rather than mere contracted stops, and they should continue to be shown in the RDT. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with

π

(although their status should be explained better in the article). Useddenim (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]