Jump to content

Talk:Metro-North Railroad

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

FL9 Locomotives

[edit]

Anyone know whether MNCR is still using FL9 locomotivess? As probably the last F-units in service, that would be noteworthy (especially as the locomotives would be over 50 years old). --Badger151 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all retired, which is why they're not mentioned in the article. oknazevad (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retired rolling stock?

[edit]

Where is the retired rolling stock such as FL9s, and ACMUs? Patcat88 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of a few examples that went to museums, scrapped (or soon will be). Either way, this article is not the place to detail their disposal, as Wikipedia is not a railfan directory. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"MNCR" reporting marks? or "MN"?

[edit]

Sorry, but I can't see those anywhere in any source on the web. All web sources show "MN" for revenue passenger equipment. Even Wikipedia's own page of AAR reporting marks starting with "M" shows it to be "MN". We need absolute clarification here.

71.173.15.112 (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No change in the article in two years? Sorry, but there are no AAR reporting marks that show "MNCR" for any railroad in the USA. Would stand for the article to be corrected. Who is going to step up?
71.173.10.225 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highest ridership?

[edit]

Metro North has higher ridership than LIRR? The source (APTA ridership reports) say otherwise. None of the quarterly rider reports on APTA for 2011 or 2012 Q1 indicate Metro North as having higher ridership, and the 2011 Q4 report (http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2011-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf) says that while MNCR had 81.8 million riders, LIRR had 98 million for the Jan-Dec 2011 period.

The only other online source for this claim is a New York POst article saying MNCR had slightly higher ridership in September 2010, and other reports of MNCR having more riders in 2011 all claim an article that doesn't exist (http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20120124/NEWS/301230081/Metro-North-ridership-grows-surpasses-LIRR-first-time) as a source.

I ride Metro North myself, and have no personal interest in the ridership rivalry, but I would like to see a good source, not hearsay on railfan forums.Avman89 (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wallace incident

[edit]

I've removed the paragraph regarding Matthew Wallace. While the information was sourced[1], the paragraph as written went beyond what was stated in the source and IMO implied Metro North bore more responsibility than the article makes apparent. While the accident was obviously a tragedy, I'm not certain it's appropriate for discussion in an article focused on Metro North itself. DonIago (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems that the editor trying to add it is here to blame Metro-North, not dispassionately describe the incident. Since the source comes to no such conclusion, it is especially inappropriate. Sad incident, but not appropriate for the article. oknazevad (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also WP:NOTNEWS and shouldn't be there, as it wasn't Metro-North's fault that this accident happened. Epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the previous editor who deleted it claimed the incident had no source, and I just thought I'd try to find it. In the place of that incident, we should add the two other accidents of 2013 in Fairfield in May 2013, and the freight derailment at Spuyten Duyvil in July 2013. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely on the former, not so sure on the latter; it wasn't a Metro-North train, and unless it was caused by dispatcher error (I don't recall) then it's not a Metro-North incident. oknazevad (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metro-North stations go way too far back

[edit]

I've been trying to upgrade scores of Metro-North station articles, as some of you already know. During my research, I've become flabbergasted over how many of the stations along the Harlem and Hudson Lines not only pre-date the acquisition by the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad, but actually pre-date the Civil War. Even those that are said to have been opened in the early-20th Century, and are listed either on the National Register of Historic Places or the Historic American Building Survey, pre-date the opening dates given by those agencies. I've tagged all the ones on the Upper Harlem Division with "{{Dubious}}" tags on their 1905 opening dates, but I'll probably have to do the rest of the line as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was split

I believe it would be better to have a page uniform with the separate LIRR page, as this article is already very long. RES2773 (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773[reply]

I do too, and some of the details that could be added are a little higher in the chapter, which was why I placed the split-tag there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice so far, but I think it could use a more expansive lead paragraph, and a history, kind of like the LIRR Rolling Stock page has. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro-North Railroad. 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) 04:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metro-North Railroad. 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) 18:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metro-North Railroad. 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) 21:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention discussion occurring

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have started a discussion over on WikiProject Trains about the naming conventions of Metro-North stations, specifically regarding parenthetical disambiguation. Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Average weekday ridership statistics

[edit]

Hello! While fixing up some things on this article, I wanted to update the ridership statistics. I would like to use the official MTA website, which says it's 298,300, but APTA says it's 306,900. Is it so different because the data from APTA is just an estimate? Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inthink it's the difference between linked trips, that is where trips with transfers are counted as one rider, versus unlinked trips, where each leg of a trip is counted separately. The APTA consistently uses the latter in its stats for all modes. We do as well, as it allows us consistency across many articles, making comparisons much easier. (At first I thought the difference of over 7,000 trips a day seemed large, but then I thought about the upper Harlem Line shuttle and the Connecticut branch lines, and 7,000 passengers a day needing to transfer seems pretty reasonable.) oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad: I think you're right. The only thing is for a subway system, the difference becomes much greater. For example, the New York City Subway article uses the MTA's data, which claims 1,756,814,800 trips. APTA says it's 2,750,527,400. For the Washington Metro, that article uses WMATA's data, which claims 179,693,126 trips, while APTA says it's 234,232,100. I understand the difference between linked and unlinked trips, but I feel like using the unlinked trips data paints an inaccurate picture of how many people are using each system. Wouldn't it be better to use official data? –Daybeers (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both are official data, just listed differently; the APTA gets its data from the MTA, which is a member. That said, linked trips does seem like a more accurate way to represent the number of riders. I say make the change. oknazevad (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scale of subsidies

[edit]

Whilst the article is excellent in terms of history and engineering, the financial issues of the service don't appear to get any attention. I would find this a useful addition. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter vs. Regional rail

[edit]

@Kracky05: I'm very skeptical of your recent edits to wholesale change out "commuter rail" to "regional rail" here. Both logically speaking, I'm not sure it's a fair thing to do, and it doesn't seem like LIRR should be commuter rail and Metro-North should be regional rail, and the respective commuter rail article gives MetroNorth as an example and the regional rail article doesn't. And, of course, for nostalgic reasons, given that it was styled "Metro-North Commuter Railroad" from 1983 until, err, sometime this century, and I think that's still the official name in some contexts. I'm tempted to revert this — the alternative conclusion that a lot of other conforming edits are required to many other articles for consistency is not too palatable. Anyone? The definitions seem fuzzy so it's hard to say one is really "right." jhawkinson (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sure, Metro-North operates robustly outside traditional commuter hours, and does have some significant reverse-peak-direction commuter traffic, but regional rail is not commuter rail, and the commuter rail category is the correct one for Metro-North. oknazevad (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro-North_Railroad&oldid=1209021999"