# Talk:R (New York City Subway service)

I just got onto this article to find the page messed up. I looked in the history and it was someone on a phone not registered. I seem to can't fix it.

Ruler1091 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The original reason why the R and N train terminals were switched had to do with the need to access train yards to store trains. When the R train ran to Astoria, its trains were stored along the Astoria line, at City Hall, and at the storage yard near 36th Street. When the N train was extended to Queens, they could store N trains at Coney Island, and in Forest Hills. The MTA thought that it was better to switch the terminals, thereby the R train would have access to the Forest Hills yard.
The same reasoning applied to the #2, and #3 lines. Before the change, the #3 line had a small storage yard at 148th Street, and stored some trains at the New Lots yard. The #2 line stored its trains at the 241st Street yard. The #4 line stored its trains at the Jerome yard, and the #5 stored its trains at 180th Street, and along the Dyre Ave. line. The New Lots yard held some trains for all of the lines. After the terminal changes, almost all #2 and #5 trains could be stored in the Bronx, and #3 and #4 could be stored in the Harlem, Jerome and New Lots yards. --96.250.192.111 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Barry

If you click here, you will see when the B was rerouted to the local tracks in Brooklyn, we used a "Note" paragraph in the beginning of the article to describe it. Therefore, shouldn't this paragraph be included at the beginning in this article?
"Note: Due to repairs in the Montague Street Tunnel, R service has been temporarily changed. Weekday R trains are split into two sections: the Queens-Manhattan portion, running between Forest Hills and Whitehall Street; and the Brooklyn portion, covering the Brooklyn stations of the route. Weekend R trains operate over the Manhattan Bridge in both directions. Late night R trains operate normal service." Mysteryman557 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I feel like it's very unclear at the start of the article that the service being described is only temporary, so there should be something stating that. ~T-Rell (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree, so as a result, I have changed the lede to mention the R's normal service pattern with a short "Note" at the end. There is no need to mention the R's current temporary pattern in the lede because it already exists in the "Hurricane Sandy Effects" section. I have also done the same them for the N train article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment – The construction is for over a year, so the "normal service route" paragraph should be changed to hidden text, with the "construction route" paragraph replacing it. After all, it won't be restored to normal until after the 7 Subway Extension opens (June 2014). Epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
While it is over a year, it still is only temporary and service will be restored. We should mention the normal service pattern since it is the true route of R trains and only note the temporary service change. Mysteryman557 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Not June 2014... November 2014! Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

JoesphBarbaro, do you care to explain your unhelpful reversion comment of this sourced information about the trains used on the R line? Autopilot (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

R160s are only a temporary thing on the R until the Montague tube is restored. Do not use an image of the car's interior. Use images of a car's inteior only for the New York City Subway car articles. If you're so picky, then just take a close-up shot of an R160 R train (the car's front face itself) at a station where the route itself normally serves. Simple as that. Happy now? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The temporary nature of the use of the trains is as encyclopedic as the information about the re-route during the construction and has been mentioned in multiple citations.  You're in WP:3RR territory on this and have not engaged in discussion on the topic -- what is your complaint about the cited information regarding the temporary use of the R160 during consutrction?  Additionally, "Nope" is neither polite nor informative for an edit message, especially when discussion on the topic is sought.  Autopilot (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Well as I said before, both of the previous images that I had reverted were because the former's image was too far away and the latter was that it only showed the interior of the car rather than a close up shot of the car's front face. The R train is most likely going to revert back to normally all R46s after the Montague tube is restored in less than the next six months anyway. And once again, if you're picky, then just take a close up shot of an R160 R at any of the route's stations where it normally serves. Thank you. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: – Do we put pictures of R160s on the C line article just because it's getting R160s for the summer? No, we don't. Unless this is a permanent service change, the picture of the R160 should either be removed or described as concisely as possible. The stuff about the R160s isn't fit for this article; rather, it should go on its own article, or not at all, since it's probably unencyclopedic anyway. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Also indented for clarity. Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the service change is not notable -- it is interesting that the different lines use different cars and that the use of the various families is based on multiple factors, such as the accessibility of the different service yards.  Multiple source comment on it and the MTA has issued statements surrounding the change.  Of the guides in WP:GNG, this meets the threshold of coverage by independent, reliable, secondary sources.  I would argue that the years of introduction and use of the different models on the various lines is encyclopedic -- a reader who is curious about which models were used on a specific line would look first at the article for that line, not for each of the various cars.    Autopilot (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It's pure WP:TRIVIA. Does anyone care than the R is using R160s during the disruption? No one except for avid rail fans who want to take pictures and videos of them. This is not a train enthusiast site. Services have changed car types during disruptions before many times in the past (when Coney Island was closed for reconstruction, the N switched from mostly R68/68As to mostly R40s; when the Manhattan Bridge reopened in 2004, the B and W went from R68s to R40s; during the 9/11 disruptions, the Q used R32s instead of the usual R68s, the E used R46s instead of R32s, the M used R40s instead of R42s, and so fourth; after Superstorm Sandy, the G and C briefly used R46s and R42s, respectively, while the H switched from R32s to R46s). If we mention the R using R160s here, then we should mention every single car assignment history change, which is a lot, but does anyone care that? No.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.52.81 (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it is trivia. This is why this kind of stuff goes in the rolling stock articles, if at all. Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 It's not really that big of a deal anyway. Whenever the C is more or fully diverse in the summer, there really was no need to add a new image based on the temporary fleet assignment, as stated by Epicgenius, it was just only for the summer and the C uses nothing else but R32s for the rest of the year. For every New York City Subway service articles, we only show images of permanent fleet assignments that lasts for a good portion of a decade or so. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The myfoxnews story just cites the NYT article about the rumor.  There is still nothing on the MTA site, so we can just wait until tomorrow to find out if it does actually re-open... -- Autopilot (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it is, a rumor. With at least three sources. It is probably noteworthy... Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:R (New York City Subway service)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ComplexRational (talk · contribs) 16:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll take a look at this for my first GA review.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
The references are mostly correct and reliable, and are present for all statistics, dates, and quotes. I do have several minor concerns that I wrote out below; once they are addressed, I can give a pass for both 2b and 2c.
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
There is not much more to say besides history and the current service pattern. I have read various complaints about poor service (e.g. delays, long trips) on the R line, though from the sources I can find, no substantial content is really lacking - if anything, one or two sentences will suffice.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
No major problems, though I found two instances of slight digression that can be addressed fairly easily, see below.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All are tagged as own work or in the public domain, looks good.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

@ComplexRational: Thanks for taking this up. epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Thanks for taking this up. @Epicgenius:, I can handle the review so you can focus on your countless reviews if you want. I did nominate this, but thank you for the help. I appreciate it. AmericanAir88(talk)  04:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius and AmericanAir88: No problem, glad to help. ComplexRational (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius and AmericanAir88: After a final read-through, everything looks good - all the criteria are fulfilled, so I am passing this article. Congratulations! ComplexRational (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
#### 2b and 2c
On July 10, 1919, service was extended to 57th Street–Seventh Avenue with the opening of that station.
Ref 4 (erictb.info) is very descriptive, and appears factually accurate judging by the other refs, though it appears to be someone's personal website (WP:SPS?) and the author's credentials are not clear. I'd give it a pass as long as there are other sources present (which, for the most part, is so).
 Done, Added ref. AmericanAir88(talk)  01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The current R service is the successor to the original Route 2 of the Brooklyn–Manhattan Transit Corporation.
The history of service changes is well-cited, though none of the sources appear to explicitly describe the BMT Route 2 - this should have a citation.
 Done, Added ref. AmericanAir88(talk)  01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The route was labeled the RR "Fourth Avenue Local via Tunnel".
Ref 9 (A History of the R train, September 2010) appears to support the quoted label, though its attribution is unclear.
 Done, Added ref and ref 9. AmericanAir88(talk)  01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
On December 21, full service was restored between Manhattan and Brooklyn after the Montague Street Tubes were drained.
Ref 42 (Second Ave. Sagas) looks accurate and it is corroborated by refs 41 and 43, though it is a blog (WP:BLOGS) and I am unsure if it makes a suitable reference. As the statement is also supported by refs 41 and 43, its verifiability is not really of concern, though I would like clarification.
@ComplexRational:  Done, I removed the Second Avenue Sagas reference anyway. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
...the tunnel re-opened a few weeks early, on September 15, 2014, and $58 million under budget.
Refs 48 (The R Roars Back) and 50 (R Train To Resume Service) contradict each other on the budget. The former states a few weeks ahead of schedule and $58 million under budget. while the latter states Officials said the project came in under budget by $30 million - which of these values is correct, or are they both estimates?
ComplexRational (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done, The exact value of how much under budget might not be that important in this article. I have removed it. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@AmericanAir88 and Epicgenius: All changes look good; now it is a definite pass for 2b and 2c. Only that last change for 3b needs attention right now. ComplexRational (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


#### 3b
As part of the reroute plan, F service along Queens Boulevard was discontinued during late nights (1 a.m. to 5 a.m.) and F trains were cut back to 57th Street on the Sixth Avenue Line during late nights.
These two statements can be combined to ensure that the focus remains on late-night R service; where the F goes during that time is less important.
 Done AmericanAir88(talk)  01:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
paragraph starting with Two service plans were identified prior to a public hearing on February 25, 1988...
There is borderline too much detail on the E train here. As it is an important part of the 1988 service changes, it should not be completely removed, though make sure that the main focus is on the changes in R service rather than E service.
@Kew Gardens 613: Can you take a look at this? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: When I have a chance.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kew Gardens 613 and ComplexRational: OK, I took a shot at addressing this. epicgenius (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. There still is room for further explanation, though it satisfies criterion 3b. ComplexRational (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Recently, I have seen a lot of R160s. I saw one depart Atlantic-Barclays, and then, I saw an Manhattan-bound train about to leave Court Street. What is happening???
--67.87.244.25 (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)