Talk:SEPTA Regional Rail

message: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Airport line

message: 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)
thread_title: Silverline V

message: 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)
thread_title: R8 station closures

message: 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)
thread_title: SEPTA Station Naming Conventions

message: Just removed "Data source: SEPTA track charts." 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)
thread_title: Speed Limits Source

message: 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)
replies: text: Different photo has been uploaded, and posted. This is a licensed image, taken by myself. --AEMoreira042281 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo for AEM-7

message: 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)
thread_title: Station History

message: Should the items at the top of this page be moved so that they are within sections? MKoltnow 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk section organization

message: 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)
thread_title: Reporting Mark

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Big changes needed soon: all RR lines to be split and renamed 

message: *Split R1 (SEPTA) into Airport Line (SEPTA) and Glenside Combined Line (per above discussion)
*Disambiguate R1 (SEPTA)
*Update  templates for all Airport Line station articles
*Update  templates for all Glenside Combined Line station articles (likewise, per above discussion)
*Split R2 (SEPTA) into Warminster Line and Wilmington/Newark Line
*Disambiguate R2 (SEPTA)
*Update  templates for all Warminster Line station articles
*Update  templates for all Wilmington/Newark Line station articles
*Split R3 (SEPTA) into West Trenton Line (SEPTA) and Media/Elwyn Line
*Disambiguate R3 (SEPTA)
*Update  templates for all West Trenton Line station articles
*Update  templates for all Media/Elwyn Line station articles
*Split R5 (SEPTA) into Paoli/Thorndale Line and [[Lansdale/Doylestown Line
*Disambiguate R5 (SEPTA)
*Update  templates for all Paoli/Thorndale Line station articles
*Update  templates for all Lansdale/Doylestown Line station articles
*Split R6 (SEPTA) into Cynwyd Line and Manayunk/Norristown Line
*Disambiguate R6 (SEPTA)
*Update  templates for all Cynwyd Line station articles
*Update  templates for all Manayunk/Norristown Line station articles
*Split R7 (SEPTA) into Trenton Line (SEPTA) and Chestnut Hill East Line
*Disambiguate R7 (SEPTA)
*Update  templates for all Trenton Line station articles
*Update  templates for all Chestnut Hill East Line station articles
 
*R8 (SEPTA) into Fox Chase Line and Chestnut Hill West Line
*Disambiguate R8 (SEPTA)
*Update  templates for all Fox Chase Line station articles
*Update  templates for all Chestnut Hill West Line station articles
*Edit  so ALL Regional Rail lines have the color #44687E 
*Add new Regional Rail lines to 
*Update  navbox
–Dream out loud (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  To-do list for RR change over 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: I just brought it back, although it should probably be upsized. ----DanTD (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't the old signs stay? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More edits with questionable neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Daily Commuters to Philadelphia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Errors in new not-to-scale diagram 

message: 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)
thread_title:  R-number S-lines revisited 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV of "Criticism" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Here's a typical edit that bugs me: . 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)
thread_title:  More copyright issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rolling stock 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bethlehem Line 

message: 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)
replies: text: Name is based on the end point for that particular line.Sturmovik (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cynwyd Line 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: I've removed the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ridership figures