Talk:Caltrain Modernization Program
Caltrain Modernization Program has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 23, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Caltrain Modernization Program appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 April 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Suggestions
editThe page could use a "current status" section to summarize the latest info about the project progress and running estimate of project completion, versus original projections.
For example, summaries about what parts of the electrification are on or behind schedule, whether the cars being built are on schedule, and the ultimate final date for revenue service, whether on or behind schedule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernova87a (talk • contribs) 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Length
edit@Mliu92: I think the 2021 brochure is in error about the length of a 7-car set. The older brochure indicated a car length around 85 feet, which is standard for US passenger equipment; it seems extremely unlikely that they would have switched to a much shorter car. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks - agreed. It also copies the truck configuration, power output, and tractive effort verbatim from the 6-car brochure, despite the addition of (apparently) another passenger trailer with two powered trucks, so I think they didn't check it very thoroughly before posting it. I'll update the article and revert the title back to a six-car consist. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
YouTube NTSB links
edit- NTSB San Bruno, CA Media Briefing (3/11/2022) on YouTube
- NTSB San Bruno, CA B Roll 3/11/2022 on YouTube
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
EMU numbering
editPutting this original research here for now, as I don't have a verifiable source other than observation:
(2n+2) | (2n+1)6 | (2n+1)5 | (2n+1)3 | (2n+1)2 | (2n+1)1 | (2n+1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
<--South | Bike | Pass. | Pass. | Bike | Pass+W/C | North--> |
Notes:
- Caltrain EMUs have a seven-car consist, consisting of two cab cars (on the north and south ends) and five passenger cars (in between)
- Caltrain EMUs carry three-digit numbers on the leading (north and south) cab cars
- All three-digit numbers are in the 300s
- All north cab cars are odd
- All south cab cars are even
- The lowest three-digit number is 301
- Leading elements are paired so the south cab car is one (integer) digit larger than the north cab car. I.e., if a train has 305 as the north cab car, the south cab car is 306.
- Caltrain EMUs carry four-digit numbers on the middle cars
- All four-digit numbers are in the 3000s
- All four-digit numbers are based on the north cab car's three-digit number
- The car immediately south of the north cab car uses the north cab car's three-digit number with a "1" appended to it. So for instance, the car immediately south of 305 is 3051
- Four-digit cars are numbered sequentially from north to south, skipping 4 (e.g., car numbering jumps from 3053 to 3055); I speculate this is to accommodate eight-car trains in the future
- Bike cars are 3xx2 and 3xx6
- The only restroom (labeled WC) is in 3xx1
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Updated train layout: https://stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/kcal0823e_us.pdf -- in the drawing on page 2, north is oriented to the left.
GA concerns
editI am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:
- There is an "Overview" section which seems to be a second lead for the article. This should be combined with the lead.
- There is an orange "update needed" banner at the top of the "Environmental effects" section, and an "needs update" tag at the end of the first paragraph of "specific modifications"
- There is some uncited prose in the article.
Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)