Talk:Los Angeles Railway

message: :Image:LARy WWII logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -- added rationale.  Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LARy WWII logo.png

message: :Image:LARy logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Added rationale.  Slambo (Speak) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LARy logo.jpg

message: In case any of you are reading this, I've been creating pages for the individual routes, and they would really benefit if someone could make PNG's for the route symbols with appear here. Not all of them are there, but it's the best I could do.
Samhuddy (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Symbols 

message: An image used in this article, File:LA Railway PCC.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion 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 provide a fair use rationale
* 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 Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:LA Railway PCC.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hi, some time ago i prepared map of LAR system.  I will be very glad if someone can provide me names of lines terminus so I will be able to improve map.
--Jkan997 (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map improvement 

message: Neither of these two funicular railways was owned by Los Angeles Railway at any time in that railway's history; both were privately owned during this time.  Posting this now prior to editing out reference to the two tiny railways, just 'cause it seemed like a nice thing to do. 1951bfrj (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if you go through the whole thing and edit out everything not connected with the old LARy and then moving the article back to the original title. It is a bit of a mess the way it is, with too much in it that is either unsourced or off the point. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am writing more on the history of the line, but am at a pause while I finish a very large work project. Once I am done with that and can allocate more time to this article, it can be reevaluated.  I'm not too sure how to move articles, though, so could use some help later.  I anticipate working on the additional text in August.  Thanks! 1951bfrj (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the faulty information. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angels Flight and Court Flight 

message: Regarding the route of the 5 line, there was a section of private right-of-way that ran at the rear lot lines of a group of houses in the Santa Barbara Avenue area. Sorry I don't have access to any sources except my own memory, but I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. 5 line 

message: I added this new section on the predecessor company to the Los Angeles Railway (LARy).  The best description of the history of this line is in Robert Post's book.  Ira Swett's two books on LARY and the Pre-Huntington Cars summarizes a lot of info too, and much of the contents is in chronological order. Let me know if this is all TMI (too much information).
I'll be removing all reference of this railway from the Los Angeles Pacific Railroad article, as there is no connection between the two systems other than Sherman and Clark.
I'll also move some photos from the LAP article to this one.
I'll also be building more history of LARy - keep an eye out.
1951bfrj (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Consolidated Electric Railway Co 

message: I corrected the date that LARy started to 1895 - LARy Corporation was created in March of that year.  See Swett and Post books.
Huntington purchased control of LARy in 1898, but the lines had been running continuously since 1890 (As LACE) and 1895 (As LARy), until the final line closed down in 1963.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1951bfrj (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  LARy "Start" Date 

message: To anyone interested - I have added a few sections and I am working on more - so the post on the Rolling Stock is new - I'll add a gallery there asap; but so far I found only 3 pix that are in the Commons - need more that are acceptable - I will be adding sections on LARY's facilities next, and on what made the streetcars go (various electricity sources).  Then I will start adding a more detailed history of the line - expansion after the Huntington syndicate acquired it, the Jitney problem, regulation, 1911 report, congestion, problems in 1919, outcome of problems in '20s, the Los Angeles Motor Bus Co, the good 20s, the challenging late '20s and '30s, restructuring, beginning of the shift to buses, the War, the NCL pruchase, etc.1951bfrj (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for Updating 

message: The LARy wasn'y really an interurban system, but just a local streetcar system.  It operated much like the buses that replaced it, with mostly street running and frequent stops.  
An interurban system, by contrast, historically ran between a city and nearby population centers, sometimes even connecting with the interurbans of nearby large cities.  They had fewer stops than than streetcars and could approach the speed of intercity trains where they had their own ROW corridors between stations.  The stations themselves, at least the ones at important junctions, weren't just signs on poles but actual buildings.  some even had waiting areas and were staffed. Today's Metro light rail lines are somewhat comparable to the Pacific Electric interurbans, while the bus system is analogous to the street car system. Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really an interurban 

message: I am working on a section that describes the expansion of the system after it was purchased by the Huntington-Hellman syndicate, and wow, wat a LOT of changee.  The lines were created, and then constantly extended, re-routed, combined, broken up, and abandoned over quite a bit of time. One website describes many changes made since 1920 and 1921, but changes made before that are not well documented.  Ira Swett's Interurbans Special #11, lists quite a few, and the Los Angeles Times runs stories about franchises given for lines, construction begun, and lines or extensions completed.  In some cases, franchises were awarded and construction never happened.    
I am not sure, therefore, what to do about the template added to the List of Routes section.  There are a lot of changes noted under each 1921 route letter or number, but not much written about changes before that time.  I think that capturing the changes made from thri inception to 1921 or so would be a monumental job.  Changes from horsecar days through about 1898 are described to a large degree in Robert Post's book on Street Railways and the Growth of Los Angeles, but changes from 1898 through 1921 or so are not - and there were a LOT of changes.
When I publish my section(s) on the system's growth, I will try to be accurate but will be simplifying to capture the essence of what happened - 
Does anyone favor removing the template meontioned above?
1951bfrj (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made some updates to the history section and I agree - best course of action may be to say just that. Point out that there were a lot of changes to the system over its lifespan and give a representative list of routes in 1921 or some other representative year. I'd say 1921 would probably be the system's golden age, so my vote would be then. My $0.02 anyways... Blervis (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your additions! I have been so busy with so many other projects, and have gotten bogged down with the expansion from 1901 to 1912 or so, and the other changes during that time that I got stuck!   I switched my own emphasis to LARy history other than the route expansions (which are amazing when you consider all the changes that WERE made and why).  Soon I will be able to augment your great addition! 1951bfrj (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Route Changes