Jump to content

Talk:SEPTA Regional Rail

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

Question

[edit]

Isn't SEPTA's main railroad line the section from 30th street to Glenside, not Lansdale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.229.189 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The R1 goes to there, but the Main Line refers to all the track between the 30th throat where it becomes the Keystone Corridor and Lansdale, where it previously split into the Bethlehem Line (still the Bethlehem Branch even though track ends at Quakertown) and the Doylestown branch 734cpa (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airport line

[edit]

"It should be noted that the R1-Airport line operates on former RDG trackage, but passenger trains did not run on the line until the connection to the airport was built in 1985."

Is this correct? It goes through University City with the ex-PRR Wilmington and Elwyn lines, no? Digamma 16:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But that track is also R2 and R3. The track that's only R1 didn't run, as far as I can tell, until the Airport connection was built. --SPUI 19:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
R1, R2, and R3 all share the same row south of Univerisy City, till the R1 spur to the airport. --Boothy443 19:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An interesting historical note (probably not relevant for this article, though maybe for an R1 (SEPTA) article) is that the R1 uses the original Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad alignment. A new alignment was built in 1873 (where the Northeast Corridor and R2 run now) and the old alignment was sold to the RDG. To get to the RDG main line, they had trackage rights over either the Junction Railroad (Philadelphia) or the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Oh, and I've made a small clarification to this sentence in this article. --SPUI 21:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Silverline V

[edit]

The Silverliner V technical specification is online at SEPTA's web site. I believe the quarter point doors are in the spec.--Luciuskwok 04:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R8 station closures

[edit]

Note - sometime in the 1990s the nicetown and tioga stations on the r8 closed. someone interested in the history of this might want to look it up and add to timeline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.167.28 (talk • contribs) .

I have no specific timetable reference for this, but I am almost certain that this took place in conjunction with RailWorks. These were long-time low-ridership stations. Alternating trains served either Tioga or Nicetown as flag stops. MKoltnow 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limits

[edit]

Under Speed Limits it says:

"Market East to Temple University: after a 15 mph curve, the speed limit is 45 to 50 mph going northbound (uphill) and 35 mph southbound (downhill) up to MP 1.7, due to a 2.8% gradient. North of that, the limit is 45 mph."

It is unclear what "up to MP 1.7" means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.68.112.83 (talk • contribs) .

SEPTA Station Naming Conventions

[edit]

Just so everyone knows, I proposed a while back naming conventions for SEPTA stations, with discussion here, where you are welcome to contribute.-- danntm T C 01:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Limits Source

[edit]

Just removed "Data source: SEPTA track charts.[1]" Since the link is to an RFP for new Silverliners and has no track charts at all in it. I was unable to locate track charts on SEPTA's website, so I left that removed for now. Skabat169 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photo for AEM-7

[edit]

The current photo being used for a SEPTA AEM-7 is up for speedy deletion as not having a license tag, and unless the uploader comes forward, it'll be speedied on the 24th. I'd like to prepare a contingency plan and ask if anyone knows of a photo of a SEPTA AEM-7 under a GFDL-compatible license, or has such a photo they are willing to post under such a license.-- danntm T C 01:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different photo has been uploaded, and posted. This is a licensed image, taken by myself. --AEMoreira042281 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station History

[edit]

I think that the reference for Westmoreland (R8) closing in 1983 is incorrect. I took the R8 fom Upsal to Center City from 1984 to 1991 and specifically remember the conductors asking "anyone for Westmoreland?" even though it was a flag stop, so it should have been by customer request only. I think that both Allegheny (R6) and Westmoreland were flag stops until Westmoreland was closed and Allegheny became a full stop. The two stops are practically adjacent. I can try to produce paper timetable evidence. MKoltnow 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk section organization

[edit]

Should the items at the top of this page be moved so that they are within sections? MKoltnow 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Mark

[edit]

I thought SEPA was SEPTA's official mark, and that SPAX was the mark for their Maintenance equipment. Sorry for changing it about a million times. Clue me in? 72.82.193.236 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check that. I checked the List of AAR Reporting Marks, and SEPA is indeed correct. I was right! Check it for yourself if you don't think so. And no, I didn't alter it to say that to prove my point. I'm not that stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.193.236 (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big changes needed soon: all RR lines to be split and renamed

[edit]

On July 25, 2010, SEPTA is doing away with all the "R" numbers for the Regional Rail lines, and splitting them into two lines naming them after their destinations on each branch. For example, R6 (SEPTA) will become the Manayunk/Norristown Line and the Cynwyd Line. This means that each of the 7 Regional Rail line articles will need to be split, disambiguated, and the {{s-line}} templates will need to be updated. This will require a lot of work and I am willing to do it with some help. For more information, see this article. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to help out. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Slashes are not a problem in mainspace articles. They just can't be used for project pages (ex: Wikipedia:Project/other stuff - where "other stuff" will be a subpage of "Project"). I could use lots of help here and would appreciate it. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this mean we should wait until July 25 to make these changes, or should we start editing ASAP? Bmanphilly (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, with less than a week to go, drafting is a good idea. As the line articles would be new, we can start those now, and wait to turn the current R# articles into disambig pages and update the links until the 25th. I believe that will lead to least possibility of confusion for readers by the duplicate articles before that date. oknazevad (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question: Do we need a separate article for the Glenside Combined? After all, it's not really a separate line, just an all-in-one timetable so that riders from the shared portion of the Reading side don't have to look at all the rest of the timetables. I am aware of its history as the offical pair to Airport trains, but, of course, it is the removal of the pairings (which haven't been rigorously followed in years) that is promting these changes. I think we do need to mention it somewhere, but I don't think a separate article is needed. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Glenside Combined doesn't need an article. It needs to be mentioned in WTR, WAR, and DOY. Train2104 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking a brief mention on this main article after the list of lines is needed as well. Which brings up a good question, how do we change this article to reflect the changes? oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will do the s-line templates starting tommorow. In my experience with the NYC Bus changes, it seems the remaining few links will be very hard to find. Most of them will be in articles about towns and cities through which the trains pass, and some other things such as transit-oriented development, bus transit centers, minor agencies, etc. Train2104 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those are the most niggling. The "what links here" feature is so useful for those things!oknazevad (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To start with the S-Line templates, I am creating all the new articles (as redirects for now), or else there will be red links. Links can be found, mentions can't. Train2104 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important: What should be done about R3 West Chester, R6 Ivy Ridge, or R8 Newtown? Train2104 (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-sections of the existing lines shortened from those, i.e. Media/Elwyn Line, Cynwyd Line and Fox Chase Line.oknazevad (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking about the S-lines. Cynwyd (SEPTA station) is broken right now. I will leave Elwyn and Fox Chase untouched for now. Train2104 (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. We could just treat them like closed stations (which they are). Check out Valhalla (Metro-North station) for an example of how it has been handled before.oknazevad (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just leave them up to you. I don't think seeing "Fox Chase Line" at Newtown will be good. Also, I didn't put any switches in the left-right templates. Don't forget that we will have to either TFD or CSD the R- right/left templates. Train2104 (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I kinda changed my mind.

I remembered there was a redirect from "SEPTA Main Line" (linked at the disambiguation page main line) to R1 (SEPTA), which is itself became a redirect to Airport Line (SEPTA). As the Glenside section of that article was no longer appropriate, I split it off to a separate article at SEPTA Main Line, with redirects from "Glenside Combined" and "Glenside Combined Line". I haven't put it on the navbox, because I don'tknow if it belong there. I'm going to turn the R1 page to a disambig, like the other R numbers. Any thoughts on the matter?oknazevad (talk)

To-do list for RR change over

[edit]








  • Edit {{SEPTA color}} so ALL Regional Rail lines have the color #44687E  
  • Add new Regional Rail lines to {{SEPTA lines}}
  • Update {{SEPTA}} navbox

–Dream out loud (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typos corrected. Also, why does Trenton Line need a (SEPTA) suffix? There is no other Trenton Line. Train2104 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trenton Line (Conrail) is a redirect to Trenton Subdivision, as that was its former name before the Conrail split. Ironically, that's the West Trenton Lines, but I digress. I don't think the undisambiguated name can yet be applied to the SEPTA operation per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because it's too new. Also, we should be careful that the article focuses on SEPTA's ops, not the physical line, which rightly belongs at Northeast Corridor, as Amtrak owns it (ditto with the Wilmington Line). oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the line maps have been created by copying and pasting sections from the old maps and changing links. The following templates need to be deleted:

—Train2104 (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the regional rail articles have been split now with the old R designations turned into disambiguation pages. The articles for the two Chestnut Hill lines need to be moved to their proper title with requested moves placed. At this point, the maps for each of the lines still needs to be updated, as the current maps are still based off the old R designations. Dough4872 02:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, there are still issues with the S-line templates for the former service to Ivy Ridge, West Chester, and Newtown. For Ivy Ridge, the Cynwyd and Barmouth articles have errors in the template. For West Chester, the Elwyn article and every former station to West Chester west of that point have errors except for Williamson School and West Chester. For Newtown, the Fox Chase article article has an error with the template. Dough4872 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

[edit]

General question about the section of this article since we've got some eyes on this page. To be blunt, I don't like the sourcing. The Railpace articles are rather dated, and the other quotes, while accurate, come from a message board, which is questionable in terms of reliable sources. The section also seems a bit long for the length of the article, raising issues of undue weight. Some mention of the political background of them would be beneficial, as well, to help ensure NPOV.

That said, these criticisms have a long history and do desrve to be mentioned, but I think that a more neutral phrasing would be appropriate.oknazevad (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this. I am researching reliable sources to give the political background in order to maintain the NPOV. There is plenty of it out there, which I was unaware of when first adding the criticisms. You hit the nail on the head: these criticisms do indeed have a long history and need to be mentioned with neutral phrasing. The book Trains, Trolleys and Transit: A Guide to Philadelphia Area Rail Transit is probably the reference guide for this article.Oanabay04 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the old signs stay?

[edit]

A question about the rewrites; Why can't the old signs remain part of the articles? I just went to the Airport Line (SEPTA) article a few minutes ago, and it was as if it was never the R1. I hope all the other R signs will stay in the new versions of the articles. It's part of their history, so they should be recognized. ----DanTD (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should stay. Train2104 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just brought it back, although it should probably be upsized. ----DanTD (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More edits with questionable neutrality

[edit]

Seems to me that the latest round of edits, with their breathless use of WP:PEACOCK terms (like "unimaginable") and questionable, Internet forum sourcing, are part of an effort by a certain editor to use this article to bash SEPTA in contravention of Wikipedia's five pillars.

Not the first time I've tussled with these sorts of edits here, as it was a struggle just to keep out some previous, obviously POV material backed by nothing more the WP: OR previously.

It needs to stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If you don't like SEPTA, that's fine. But we don't care about your opinion. It's not appropriate to use an article to make a point, ever. Even the talk pages aren't the right place; they exist for editors to express their opinions about what goes in the article, not their opinions about the article's subject.

SEPTA does have a well-deserved lousy reputation for a reason. And tht deserves mentioning. But, there are plenty of sources, such as mainstream newspaper articles, to use that state that. The addition of the source with Vuchic's criticism is the sort that should be used, not an inherently unreliable Internet message board. (Those tend to focus on the things that go wrong, btw.)

As for the actual topic, frankly, the chances of all of the former diesel trackage being reactivated are now and always have been nil. So to spend a large chunk of the article breathlessly criticizing SEPTA for not reactivating lines that haven't seen a train in a quarter of a century creates definitive issues with WP:UNDUE. The idea that if they don't reactivate them right now they're doomed forever is an absurd false dichotomy, as well.

And the writing style is utterly inappropriate, too. It reads like poor tabloid journalism, and utterly fails at a factual, neutral tone. The peacock terms are only the worst offender of this. Also, the quotes are too long.

So to sum up, I guess what I'm saying is, lets stick to the facts and stop the POV pushing. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to a ton of bias in tone, there is even original research by synthesis. Stringing together a few facts in a way to lead to a conclusion is not valid unless there is an actual WP:RS that strings together those facts to make the conclusion. Describing some ideas of a "transit mindset" and then noting some failures of projects suggests a cause-effect. Talk of criticism, even cited (the "repercussions of..." blockquote), doesn't allow you to extrapolate that criticism to other issues or state a pattern to it. It's true that disused lines were ripped up; it's true that some ripped-up lines became trails while others did not; it's not valid (unless directly cited) that all the ripped-up lines were done in order to convert them to trails. Or even if they were, you're not allowed to leave the impression that it was a poor decision to do so without funding for the trail. Or that a hastily-consrtucted line was done that way to "erase any presence of a railway"...who said that's why? There's a tremendous amount of using correlation to suggest causation. DMacks (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading it, I'm even going to have to retract my endorse ment of the Vuchic quote. It's obviously placed for shock value, to create an emotional reaction. Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now it gets ugly. Attempts to correct the issues raised here, with pointers to this talk page conversation in my edit summary, are promptly reverted, with no comment here, or any attempt to engage in meaningful collaboration. And then there's the abusive edits to my talk page, complete with sockpuppetry. I point to my talk page, and particularly the revision history, where the editor clearly is trying to pass himself off as multiple editors, complete with logging off between revision of his edits. I think he need to be brought to WP:SPI, at the very least.oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was about to create a new section, but since a discussion on this has already been going on, I figured I'd pick up where things were left often, even if it was six months ago or so. The "Criticism" section is very biased and needs to be cleaned up. It makes it seem like SEPTA is a careless organization with tons of people who are extremely critical of it. I could go through it by each paragraph, but it seems like the entire section as a whole needs to be fixed. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article, particularly, is too critical and needs some cleaning up. Unfortunately, there is little doubt that those who live in the area and deal with SEPTA on both a customer service as well as political level know that, sadly, SEPTA is a careless organization with a great many people who criticize it. A great deal of what has been written has occured and has been in the press and the internet rather heavily, so I think it does deserve proper mention. There is no reason to remove any topics because they are all factual and very valid issues at SEPTA. The good thing is that they are here. The question here is how to get the message across clearly and factually and with neutrality. Further research and better sources need to be added, and the overall article needs to be tighter. There are loads of legit sources out there documenting the management that is SEPTA's Regional Rail division. I have reverted the changes for now, since the edite dversion is choppy and looks worse than the current "warts and all" version. I will attack this article over the next several days and clean it up.Bnlboyardee89 (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bnlboyardee89, I would be glad to assist in cleaning up some of this article, as several of the excessive edits admittedly came from me. There is a super resource published in 1999 that is both factual in its discussion of SEPTA history and mistakes. I used it to help writing the section dealing with the 1983 strike.Oanabay04 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of diesels

[edit]

Editors - thinking of creating a separate entry for SEPTA's diesel era. Since the article is "SEPTA Regional Rail", the 'regional rail' name did not kick in until 1984 when the R-system came to be. Before that, it was just called SEPTA Rapid and Commuter Rail System' (see link of map from 1979 [2]). As such, I think a brief mention about SEPTA's diesels can be mentioned here, and a separate article can be dedicated to SEPTA's diesel operations prior to 1981 when they quit. Since there are no definite plans to bring these services back, the article can be notable based on its historical qualities. Thoughts? Oanabay04 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea per WP:SUMMARY. It would certainly alleviate my concerns of undue weight. (I will mention the 422 plan to restore service to Reading, which may use dual modes.) oknazevad (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I will attack this over the next few days. Thank you kindly. Oanabay04 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the term "SEPTA Regional Rail" was used before the CCCC was built, as seen in this timetable from 1981. The SEPTA Regional Rail Division officially commenced on January 1, 1983. I don't know when the term started getting used exactly, but it pre-dated the R-number system. I don't think it was referred to as the "SEPTA Rapid and Commuter Rail System", and my guess is that that name only refers to the map. Similar to the current map that says "SEPTA Regional Rail and Rail Transit". It it possible that it was called "SEPTA Commuter Rail" at one point, but looking at other old schedules, I don't really see any kind of name on most of them. I can see your reasoning for wanting to create a new article, but does that mean that it will only cover the diesel lines and ignore the electric lines that were in operation at the same time? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that all the trains went electric at once. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lines were electrified decades before SEPTA, under the Pennsy and Reading. What Oanabay's proposed article would cover would be the dropping of the longer ex-Reading services that went further out than the electrification's limits. These were ended around the time of the Center City Tunnel's opening, nominally because the diesels couldn't run through the tunnel, but a certain amount of retrenchment to control costs was part of it.
As they've been gone for nearly thirty years, and have almost zero impact on the current operations, spending too much of this article on that part of the history would be undue weight, so splitting it off to a separate article makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense now that it's been explain a little clearer. So a new article has been proposed to split the information about the ex-Reading services to Allentown and Pottsville? I think it's a good idea, since it's basically foreign to today's Regional Rail system. But where those services actually operated by SEPTA? I thought those were separate entities and just operated by the Reading/Conrail on their own. The article now says that there used to also be service from West Trenton to Newark, NJ. I can't imagine SEPTA going all the way to Pottsville, nevertheless Newark. I don't know too much about the diesel-era history, but I think what's in this article now should be clarified in a small section with a {{main}} template for the new article at the top. I'm not sure what to call it though and don't even know if "SEPTA" should be in the new article title. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SEPTA fully took over operations in 1983; that's when Conrail, which had been operating the services since it's own 1976 formation, was required by Congress to get out of operating passenger service under contract. (That's also when New Jersey Transit Rail Operations and Metro-North were fully formed). Prior to 1976, the Reading and Pennsy operated them, with subsidies from SEPTA, which was formed to subsidize services in 1964 (they took over the Philadelphia Transit Company, the subway, trolley and bus operator in 1968).
The point of all this history is that, yes indeed, these were SEPTA services, as the SEPTA brand appeared before SEPTA took over operations. Even more so, as they continued operation for a short while after SEPTA fully took over. So yes, SEPTA did run to Newark, NJ, Reading, Allentown and Newtown, but they were gone shortly thereafter, so too much space shouldn't be spent on them. oknazevad (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I understand now. I had no idea SEPTA ran services that far, so I completely support a new article. I guess now we just need to figure out a title. I'm guessing that we might have to give the article a common noun title since the services don't appear to have had an actual name. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Sorry for not having made edits in a while. Death in the family. I restored the following image because I want to use it for the new article of SEPTA's diesels we are creating:

--> I agree there are too many images associated with this section as it is (the removal of the "cancellation sign" was fine). however, I want to avoid having to reload the above phot again. Please leave it here so we have it for the future separate article. Many thanx,Oknazevad.Oanabay04 (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Oknazevad, there were a few reasons why the diesels were nixed, which is why this subject really warrants its own article. You are correct about the first two. They ended on July 27, 1981. The Newtown line was the exception but SEPTA had no intentions of running the RDCs into the Center City Tunnel, as they hoped to electrify the line by the time of the opening. Costs was another factor. The Commonwealth cut all diesel trains all over the state: Pittsburgh got hit too at the same time. There was huge controversy. The reality was that cuts were being made all over the U.S. SEPTA just chose not to fight it and take the easy way out (hence, the flyer about the "boot.") As we obtain more legit sources as to the details of the diesel demise, they will be added to the article. I am thinking the article can have the same format as Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line. Your thoughts, please. Oanabay04 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly was a complex issue, which is why it desserves it's own article. About the image, two things. Firstly, as a fair use image, it can't be on a talk page, so I've commented it out here. As for the article edits, there were other copyedits in that edit that I'm going to restore, but I'll leave the image in for now, just to preserve it. I do think it's too large for the section, so I may shrink it a bit. I would recommend keeping a copy handy so you can upload it later fresh if need be. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Sorry for dissapearing for a while (work has been busy).Oanabay04 (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Work on SEPTA Diesel Service has begun. Still need to add more to it, but should be done soon.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Commuters to Philadelphia

[edit]

I have been trying to find weekday commuter numbers into Philadelphia. I have read stats within the body of the article as well as boxes. If it is there I just have not found it. Any links?

By the way, this is the first time I ever posted so...hope I am doing this correctly.

69.254.139.3 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)LMM September 10, 2011[reply]

Errors in new not-to-scale diagram

[edit]

I noticed the following errors in File:SEPTA Regional Rail Diagram.svg:

  • Amtrak connection is not shown for Downingtown, Newark, or North Philadelphia. The latter two have limited Amtrak service, but the connection is already shown for Cornwells Heights, which also has limited Amtrak service.
  • BSL connection is not shown for North Broad, even though it is shown for North Philadelphia, which is farther away from the BSL station.

74.109.43.44 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R-number S-lines revisited

[edit]

I want to restore some of the R-number S-Lines and color bars for certain former stations, since I see that many of them were already done for some former R3 Media/Westchester Line stations. These include Fishers (SEPTA station) which was closed before SEPTA got rid of the R-Number system, and my upcoming article on Shawmont (SEPTA station). I tried using the SEPTA Color template as a guide, but it wasn't working for me. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV of "Criticism" section

[edit]

The "Criticism" section of the article is currently written in a very non-netural point of view and needs to be re-written. Most of the content was created by User:Oanabay04 who has been banned indefinitely since last year. I had many discussions with the editor at the time of his contributions and he continued to write much biased content, most of which lacked reliable sources. Any editors working on this article should BE BOLD and fix it up! –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Based on prior experience, we can't assume that the content is even found in the citations. Even if it is, all the "transit-minded" stuff appears to be sourced to one writer at Railpace. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and deleted the entire section. After skimming through it, all of the content was entirely unencyclopedic and none of it could even be easily be re-written to sound less biased. If a criticism section is to appear in this article again, it must be re-written from scratch and properly sourced from the beginning. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The history section contains at least a couple sentences lifted from Gerry Williams; as to be expected, much of what is "cited" to him is not actually present in the source. I haven't checked my Drury yet but I imagine there's a similar problem there. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing as I was looking at it again following the removal of the image, that it read like the rest of Oanabay's stuff. Not just the potential copyright issues (which are probably quite rampant), but the "connective" material, for lack of a better term, is that terrible combination of overly familiar tone, and synthesis to push a POV that was a hallmark of his crap. Might need to roll back a lot of it to find a suitably neutral, non-infringing version. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that familiar with the material that Oanabay has infringed upon, but I suggest that an investigation should filed at WP:Copyright problems. –Dream out loud (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's already one active at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04 and this article's on the list; I just hadn't gotten there yet. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a typical edit that bugs me: [3]. This isn't easily checked unless you're a subscriber of long standing to Railpace (I'm not; anyone else?). Fewer than ten libraries worldwide have any holdings at all; most are incomplete. Beyond that, "SEPTA Scene" was just Gerry Williams' regular column on SEPTA matters. I don't mind using that for simple facts, but something weaselly like "critics have regularly accused SEPTA management of having little understanding of traditional railroad operations" needs better support. What critics? When? My suspicion, though I haven't seen the article, is that we won't find any named critics aside from Williams himself (note: Williams died in 1999). He may not be wrong, but he's one man. That also means, inevitably, that anything cited to Williams is at least 17 years old and getting older. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock

[edit]

My objection to the "remarks" column (yes, I know it's a common feature in US articles but that doesn't make it desirable) is that it's foamer bait. The information there is rarely, if ever, sourced and it's almost always trivial. In my view anything worth saying there should be rewritten as prose and placed in the main text. I did do that with the note on the ACS-64 replacement of the ALP-44 and AEM-7. To take a few other examples:

  • "101–188 Series Former Reading Married Pairs. 306–399 Series Former Penn Central Married Pairs. 400-series units are cars renumbered from lower series or from Reading Railroad cars 9018–9031 when PCB transformers were replaced with silicone transformers.": All unsourced. Possibly true. Probably belongs on the Silverliner article, though I've just flagged significant sourcing problems there.
  • "Replacements for 70 older cars; will also add capacity.[7] First three cars entered revenue service October 29, 2010; delivery completed as of March 21, 2013. All units temporarily withdrawn due to cracks on some of the components." This is all discussed in the main text and the Silverliner V article.
  • "Cars originally built for NJDOT for service on the Erie Lackawanna's commuter trains. Purchased from NJ Transit 2008 for added seating. As of August 2013 they were put in storage." Could easily be discussed in the main text, assuming sources can be found.

Also, per WP:IG the gallery ought to go in favor of stack images. We definitely don't need two consecutive images of Penn Central Silverliner IIs. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the table is to provide an at-a-glamce summary of important details. Notes or remarks are a standard feature of roster tables, especially regarding numbering changes, ownership changes and retirements. Why are you trying to make it harder for people to find the information they need?Sturmovik (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a railfanning site. An at-a-glance summary does not include the kind of information I outlined above. That belongs in the main text, preferably with actual references that can be verified by other people. If I seem salty, it's because the Philadelphia-area articles are chock full of copyright violations, opinions, and missing or incorrect referencing, and the problem only gets worse as you try to fix it. Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem Line

[edit]

I'm trying to consolidate all the old Bethlehem branch stuff at Bethlehem Line. Feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Bethlehem Line regarding the title of the article. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cynwyd Line

[edit]

All Septa literature refers to the Cynwyd line as just that with no mention of Bala. (http://www.septa.org/schedules/rail/w/CYN_0.html). Any reason for the recent update to refer to the line as the Bala/Cynwyd Line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overturn 91 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name is based on the end point for that particular line.Sturmovik (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bala and Cynwyd were the names of two railroad stations on the Schuylkill Branch of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Bala Cynwyd is the name of the post office that handles the regions around both of the stations. There are also two political entities in Lower Merion Township named Bala and Cynwyd, but other than seeing the names on polling locations, I don't know if the dividing line between them had any real significance. Crazyengineer (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

[edit]

Each SEPTA Regional Rail Line is color coded. The Airport Line is Maroon. 2600:1017:B830:58E9:358E:5B54:A8A2:DB90 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership figures

[edit]

I've removed the {{American transit ridership}} template. I don't doubt the figures, but it's reporting ridership by calendar year, while SEPTA's annual reports, including line breakdowns, use fiscal year. The previous version was reporting three sets of figures: calendar year 2022 for annual ridership, Q3 2023 for system daily ridership, and FY 2019 for line-by-line daily ridership. All three are now sourced from SEPTA's data portal, and are FY 2022. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. The data will still stay in the main template. The whole point of that project was to make it easier to update, especially for the pages that get less attention from editors. If you’ve found a better source for SEPTA, use it! Cheers! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reclassifying "Transit Type"

[edit]

Currently, the "transit type" in the info box links to Regional rail, an article that focuses mostly on what might previously have been called local trains domestically. There's a note that explains the North American usage differs, but SEPTA is still functionally a commuter rail system (links outlying suburbs with the core) even if it offers all-day service (compare this with LIRR, which runs 24-hour service but is still classified as Commuter rail). I have changed the SEPTA article to match the reality of their service. -- 734cpa (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the change. It was changed to the incorrect link about a year ago. This had previously been discussed at the trains Wikiproject, so should t have been changed anyway. (Should note that old SEPTA-related edit diffs may not be available to anymore as the SEPTA pages were victims of tremendous copyvios and POV-pushing from an editor who also engaged in sock puppetry.) oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SEPTA_Regional_Rail&oldid=1239015154"