Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Oyster Bay Branch)
Jump to: navigation, search

What station is this?[edit]

Location questions have been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Unidentified locations.

Should the R142 and R142A articles be merged?[edit]

Closing own merge nomination since the MTA distinguishes them in their MDBF numbers and per comments below. [1] --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

These two subway car fleets are virtually identical, with the exception of some minor changes that railfans would notice. The R160A and R160B articles were merged several years ago. Do you think that this should be done with the R142 (New York City Subway car) and R142A (New York City Subway car) articles? --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Aye. An excellent example of two articles that should be merged, as the tiny details that differentiate the orders (and that's all they really are, two different orders of the same model car) can be noted in the one article. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I should note that the MTA reports separate MDBF figures for these fleets. I'm reluctant to merge these. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I oppose such a merge. I agree with what Train2104 has stated, and also because the MTA considers them as separate fleet because of the fact that they are not really compatible to run together, unlike the R160s which are interoperable. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. Do you know if the R40s and R40As were considered as separate fleets?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
That can go both ways. I think it was the Slants that were kept separate from their modified counterparts, I'm really not sure. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The earliest committee book I have easy access to is November 2009. The car classes listed in the MDBF report were R32, R38, R40, R42, R44, R46, R62, R62A, R68, R68A, R142, R142A, R143, R160. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I slightly disagree. I think the difference between R160A/R160B and R142/R142A was that there was no actual contract called "R160" since it was composed of R160A/B. R142, on the other hand, is the actual contract number, with R142A appended as another contract altogether according to the MTA. However, I do notice that there's no such article called R32A (New York City Subway car) or R30A (New York City Subway car). Also, we should merge R40/A, R62/A, and R68/A articles if we do this. epicgenius (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The R30/A's and R32/A's were built by the same manufacturers. The R142 and R142A's weren't, and because of that, I'm not sure I like the idea of merging the R160's either. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the R30 and R32. The R160s are very similar (all 2, or 3, or 4 types, I can't recall how many, but I recall some of them were separated by the type of motors that they had). A casual passenger would not be able to tell the difference, and for all intents and purposes, all R160s are virtually the same to the average passenger. epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Differing manufacturers isn't necessarily a reason to keep separate articles; Superliner (railcar) has always been a unified article, even though ten years and a manufacturer separate the last Superliner I and the first Superliner II. I think for me the deciding factor is how different the technical specifications are. If the infobox would be constantly having entries such as "foo value" (R142)<br />"foo value" (R142A) then they should probably stay separate. Mackensen (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The Superliner cars are more of a class of cars though. I look at it like merging the Hudson Hornet and the AMC Hornet. Both cars are named "Hornet," and while one is made by an automobile company that was merged into AMC, and the other was made by AMC itself, they're not really the same cars. Or may the Big 3 all having police specials, police interceptors, and what not. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's also occurred to me that several subway cars like the R30 had supplemental cars called the R30A. They were manufactured by the same company and I'm not sure if there were ever separate articles. The R40 and R40A merger is probably the only one I'd be up for, as they were built by the same manufacturer, but the main differences are the stanchion arrangements to accommodate the A/C units as well as the different ends (slants and straights). In the case of the R62s and R68s, the fact that the supplement orders were built by different companies is my rationale as to why they should stay separated, but in the case of the R160s, I wouldn't split them because despite being made by different manufacturers they were built concurrently for the most part. The order was just split amongst the two pretty much. Discuss this throrughly, these are extreme cases. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
For the 62s, 68s, 142s, and 160s, the orders are mostly the same except for the manufacturers. Therefore, there are bound to be some differences based on the manufacturer's styles. However, they do share the same contract number, apart from the letter at the end (or the lack of such). The reason only the R160 articles were merged was because there was no specific contract called "R160", only subcontracts; but there were contracts called "R62", "R68", and "R142", all with subcontracts. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Why? One, they were manufactured by different companies. Two, the features are not the same. And indeed, the contracts are different. The only rolling stock we know of that had the same contract but different companies is the R160. And technically the R40 because there was the R40, and R40A. The thing I fear is that the page will become a mess, like it did with the R40 artile because now we need to seek more citations for that page. And in terms of the R62 and R62A, they were under separate contracts. Besides, the electronic packages that came along with the cars are different.--Davidng913 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
If the articles need citations afterward, they probably needed citations beforehand anyway. Also, the electronic packages are a minor difference. epicgenius (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Do not merge the R142 and R142A articles. The cars are completely different from one another (different manufacturers and different components), therefore not completely compatible without post-procurement modifications, and were procured under different contracts. In the same vain, do not merge the 62/62A, 68/68A. The 32/32A has a combined article because they were built by the same company and the only difference is that one contract was funded by bond sales and had a minor lighting fixture difference. The 160A/160B merger also makes sense because the contracts were awarded to ALSKAW and were designed to be compatible from the get go. In short, the current car class article set up is fine the way it is. Don't change that. - Fan Railer (talk)
( @Fan Railer) How about the R40 article? Because I am already thinking that merging the R40 and R40A articles was an extremely bad idea. Take a look: --Davidng913 (talk)
Leave that. It's already been done, and the cars have already been retired and scrapped anyway. Priority in this discussion should focus on cars still in service. We can go back and optimize the R40/A article whenever we have time. - Fan Railer (talk)
I guess so.--Davidng913 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
An update here; Within the past several days, I've been okay with R160 as is, due to the fact that there are only R160A's and R160B's. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
They were both ment to be compatable with each other. The R142s and R142As, however, are not.Davidng913 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes it should be merge ( (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC))

No it should not.--Davidng913 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't like this extensive merging campaign. If there's a distinction between the two types of cars, the articles should be kept as is. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
That's what I am thinking. They should be left the way they are right now. --Davidng913 (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Weekday late evening M trains to Chambers Street[edit]

Apparently there are scheduled M trains in the late evening during weekdays that terminate at Chambers Street in Manhattan. Using TripPlanner on the MTA's website and entering the starting station as Broadway Junction and the ending station as Chambers Street, as well as entering a departure time anywhere between 11:15 p.m. and 12:00 midnight will yield the M train as a possible travel option. Clicking the time will also show additional times that the M serves Chambers Street.

I have updated the lede paragraph of the M article as well as the ledes of the Bowery, Canal and Chambers Streets articles to reflect this. I have also updated the station listing table for the M to reflect this as well. Next on my to-do list will be to update the templates so they transclude correctly to reflect this change. I believe it has something to do with the Myrtle Avenue viaduct reconstruction. Just wanted to give you guys a heads-up. Any further help would be greatly appreciated. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Chambers-WTC-Park connection to Cortland Street revisited[edit]

Regarding the discussion we had about the future connection between Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park Place (New York City Subway) and Cortlandt Street (BMT Broadway Line), and what the new name was supposed to be. I received an e-mail a week ago, that I didn't find until tonight, and Pedro Mojica of MTA's Customer Service says that they have no plans to rename either station. I'd post a link, but it would only lead to my e-mail account. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Does he confirm, anyway, that the connection will be built? Vcohen (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I never knew there was any question that it was going to be built. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Really? If so, why don't I see sources for this fact, except for one posting on a news site? Vcohen (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Check MTA documents: Gardens 613 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Vcohen (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome. I was also a bit skeptical at first, especially when I thought that it was publicly announced that the connection was cancelled.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I think this is very far in the future. If they do, indeed, combine the stations, their internal list of names for station complexes will be updated, and we can learn the new name from there. epicgenius (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It is not far in the future. Construction is going on. Actually go to the WTC and Cortlandt stops and see.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Large new article[edit]

I have split the Technology of the New York City Subway article from the New York City Subway article. Feel free to add links as appropriate. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I still think that there is one major problem with the article. The article is only about modern technology. It doesn't talk about the older technology that is used to keep the system up and running: power rooms, substations, pumps, the design of the subway tunnels, ventilation shafts, express tracks, etc. This article only features things that are too recent. This is a good start though. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I guess we can add old technology as we go along. We have some info about tunnel designs and express tracks, for instance, but we still need to write about power substations, vents (old and new), switches, and other things. epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I cleared my sandbox to make room for old tech. epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)