Jump to content

Talk:Commuter rail in North America

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

Requested move

[edit]

The term "Commuter rail" seems to be primarly used in North America, and be different from short-distance train service elsewhere. I propose that this page be renamed to it (instead of having the term redirect to Regional rail) and the info moved.

If so, the following list of links should be directed to the proper article:

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Any?

I eliminated a number of rail systems that were listed on this page because they were not commuter railroads, as follows:

Some systems have been left on the list that are better known for their metros (i.e., the MBTA) but they do operate commuter rail as well.

--Jfruh 23:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I deleted Austin Capital Metrorail for much the same reason.

Ryanov (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added Austin back to the list. APTA defines the Austin service as commuter rail. It most certainly is not a metro rail system as those losted above are. It has the same frequency, station spacing, service zones, rush hour focus, and runs on main line tracks which are all indicative of commuter rail service.Tampasteve (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regional rail/commuter rail

[edit]

Commuter rail redirects to the article Regional rail; since that article is more detailed and less geographically-specific, perhaps some sort of merging is in order?David Arthur 21:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

The regional rail article seems to be directed at systems and equipment we generally do not have in North America. For example, "Commonly they are based on diesel multiple units (DMUs), which are self-propelled, bidirectional, articulated passenger rail cars with diesel engines, electric generators and electric motors located below the passenger compartment (strictly speaking, these are diesel-electric multiple units, or DEMUs). In some areas with electrified rail, electric multiple units (EMUs) are used. Electric and diesel-powered multiple units are almost invariably equipped with control cabs at both ends, which is why such units are so frequently used to provide commuter services, due to the associated short turn-around time." Vaoverland 23:14, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Overgeneralizing about 'Northeast' vs. rest of U.S.

[edit]

"Passenger rail outside of the Northeast is infrequent and rarely used relative to networks in Europe and Japan." Not to quibble, but this common over-generalization ignores the huge commuter rail system in the Chicago area. ...And the service is infrequent and rarely used relative to the overall population in California, so I don't know who keeps adding that.

Split

[edit]

Can we split the "under construction" and "proposed" tables? They're two very different things. bob rulz 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter Rail Service Patterns in the USA.

[edit]

I have noticed that regional commuter rail service patterns would be, typically, three trains into the city in the morning and three trains back out in the evening only, even on reasonably short runs. Generally locomotive hauled trains are used. Even major routes such as Harrisburg -Philadelphia only have a few, irregularly timed trains per day.

Viewing this from the UK seems strange for several reasons:

If say four round trips were done in the morning and four round trips in the evening, then only two train sets could be used for all four round trips, saving traction and crewing costs, and providing eight services each way instead of three, with one less train unit.

Also, if you have the train sets why not make the best use of the asset of the trains and stations and run a service all day Mondays to Saturdays rather than have them hanging around in sidings all day?

Also why use loco hauled trains, even for brand new lines such as Utahs Frontrunner, rather than a diesel multiple unit which can turn round at terminals in a few minutes, enabling more trains to run or less trains to run the same service. DMUs generally also have better acceleration as they have engines under each coach rather than one traction unit on the whole train. I saw that San Diego are going to use Siemens Desiro DMUs for their new Sprinter service to Escondido but the wikipedia article calls this "light rail" which confuses me. Light Rail is a tram or trolley. Siemens desiros are heavy rail trains and here in the UK we use them for 110mph heavy rail intercity services between London, Southampton and Weymouth (140 miles) running at half hourly intervals all day.

I am basing the comments on non metro/subway lines outside New York, eg Metrolink, and the Harrisburg to Philadelphia service etc where surely an hourly or half hourly interval service to Philadelphia would attract a lot more passengers? A service of one or two trains a day would be the kiss of death on a line in the UK and even 7 a day would not attract that many passengers and is the sort of service you get on a remote branch line.

I'm basically curious and wonder whether someone could explain these questions and perhaps even add the answers to the article.

Since visiting Pittsburg some years ago, I have often wondered why a service using something like four car siemens desiro units with only two crew as in the UK, one driver and one guard, plus perhaps an attendent wheeling a snack trolley along the train, could not be used to run a two hourly Pittsburg-Philadelphia service servin major intermediate towns, some linespeed improvements to 100mph at least would be needed to offer decent journey times, but the tracks are there and the stations are there and fully staffed. It really astounded me to find a fully staffed and functional major city station at Pittsburgh with only two trains a day.

Kerripaul (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of North America’s rail lines are owned by the private freight railways, who are generally reluctant to hand over any more paths to passenger service than they have to, so timetables are therefore limited. Commuter railways often compensate for this by running long, double-decker trains, but it still is difficult to make the service appealing to casual users. Your second question is related to the first: in the name of safety, any passenger train sharing tracks with freight trains must be built very heavy, a regulation which all but outlaws multiple-unit trains. The only practical use for them is under light-rail rules, which is why Ottawa’s Talents and San Diego’s new Desiros are limited to slow local services despite being capable of much more; inter-city, commuter, and regional services (if they exist at all) are almost exclusively drawn by locomotives. David Arthur (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David, this will surely become a growing issue as oil and therefore gas(petrol) prices continue to rise. Am I right to assume that many of the lines are only single track and those that are double track have very long block sections?. The safety rules for passenger trains sharing with freight seem a bit odd. Desiros etc. share with heavy freiht trains all over europe. Is this because US freight trains are exceptionally heavy (athough european freights are pretty heavy too in some cases) or because signalling standards differ? Kerripaul (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Single track is indeed much more common in North America than in Britain, as are level crossings (some of which do not even have barriers or lights). The safety rules are indeed odd and counterproductive; while North American freight trains are indeed heavier than British ones (take a look at this picture of Class 66s being delivered to see how much larger the Canadian locomotives are), the limitations have more to do with poor signalling systems and even more to do with politics. Who wants to vote against ‘safety’? David Arthur (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Desiro's are classed as Light Rail in the US because they do not meet our Federal guidelines for crash standards. As mentioned above, US Freights are ALOT heavier than European freight (100+ car trains, 100-tons per car are the norm here). There are DMU and EMUs that run here (Budd RDCs and Colorado Railcar for DMUs, SEPTA and Metra for EMU), but the market is far smaller than in Europe and the UK. As for push-pull instead of MU cars, push-pull trains are more energy efficient (though slower accelerating) and more readily available here. Still, as Kerripaul mentioned, as gas prices increase you may see more demand for MU commuter rail here (Portland, OR's new line is compliant DMU). My personal opionion is that LRT is a buzz-word right now and may be supplanting commuter rail projects for percieved political benefits. But who knows? Also, I wish we had 2-hour Philly-Pittsburgh running times. Even with 110mph electrified top speed on the Keystone Corridor the Philly-Harrisburg leg is 90 minutes. I think 3 hours for Philly-Pittsburgh would be more realistic. Skabat169 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

This article needs updating because most, if not all, of the original Ferrocarril Suburbano de la Zona Metropolitana de México project is in service. See Mexlist for more info. Peter Horn 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership figures redundant

[edit]

It would seem that the ridership figures for United States commuter rail systems quoted at this page are redundant with those at List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership. If there are no objections, I'll delete the U.S. ridership figures from this article (I'll probably separate out the Canadian systems in to their own table, and keep their ridership figures...), and simply add a 'See also' linker template to List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership in its place, in the near future. --IJBall (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think that article just needs to be renamed, badly. The "by ridership" is too specific, and dates from a time from before there were sortable tables. As you note, there's some real redundancies because of this. Breaking down by country makes sense (even if it means Mexico has a list of 1), as does by continent, so both the North America list and the (renamed) United States list should exist. That said, I don't think this list should have the ridership figures removed; one of the purposes of a sotrtable table is to make easy comparisons, and there's no reason to make it more difficult for a reader to make a ridership comparison. It is quite plausible that someone might want to compare the ridership of NJ Transit and AMT, for example (possible prompted by their use of the same equipment). So I say leave it. oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem (as I'm finding out on my end...) is that keeping two tables up to date (let alone one!) is a real hassle, especially when they both provide the exact same figures. That said, the bigger problem with this page is that the tables themselves are a mess, so my first order of business will probably just be "fixing" the tables so they're "presentable". I may want to revisit the ridership issue again, after I've gotten than done... On the issue of the List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership article, I think its name is actually OK – it fits in well with the parallel List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership and List of United States light rail systems by ridership, so I don't think I would be in favor of renaming it, unless it would be to broaden it to a more general List of North American commuter rail systems by ridership which I wouldn't be adverse to. --IJBall (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Commuter rail in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Commuter rail in North America. 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) 14:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Commuter rail in North America. 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) 22:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Planned and under construction recentness

[edit]

some of the links for planned systems are archived from 2002 - 15 years of inactivity hardly seems like it's in the planning process. perhaps a limit on how new of a project can be included? like "Projects updated since 2010" or similar? it may even be prudent to trim it down to only systems that are under construction - ala Light rail in the United States#Light rail systems in the United States under construction. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]

Oh.. Now, Cuba and Costa Rica are part of North America, not Central America. Oh...--Manfariel (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central America is a subregion of North America in some definitions, yes. Caribbean islands are sometimes included as well (see CONCACAF), but are less commonly so. However, if a international body like the UITP groups them, then there's no issue with including them here as well. oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
anyone is free to make the Commuter rail in Central America article. -MJDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commuter_rail_in_North_America&oldid=1201076035"