Talk:Coaster (rail service)

Page Design

I think a long term goal is to make this page more caltrain-like. (similar in details and structure.) MrHudson

I am going to work on some of the page content this weekend, and move around a couple sections, too. I will put up an uncopyrighted system schematic when I have time. The Coaster page will more closely resemble the Caltrain page then. -DavDaven 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Page Content

Is the security section really necessary? It seems overly vague. -DavDaven 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I dropped the security section. -DavDaven 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reporting Marks

I believe the Reporting marks are SDNX, not SDNR, as this is not a Class I Railroad. Anyone agree? -Unregistered User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.122.119 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC-7)

Nope it's SDNR... NCTD who runs the COASTER also owns the San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR) who purchased the tracks used by Coaster from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway in 1994. NCTD created the subsidiary San Diego Northern Railway Corporation in 1994 and dissolved it in 2002. NCTD still owns the SDNR reporting marks and uses it for its rail equipment. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The railroads reporting marks are in fact SDNR but all SDNR locomotives and rolling stock are marked with SDNX

Well, at this point, the article says it's NCTC, but I couldn't find any source that says it's NCTC except this, which is from 2013 and might get the information from this wikipedia page. This, this, this, this, and this all suggest it's not NCTC or NCTX. This, this, and this all suggest it's SDNX, while this suggests it's SDNR.

Upon searching "san diego northern railway" on google, I found this suggesting that NCTC replaced SDNX/SDNR, but I couldn't find the source. This was the edit that changed it to NCTC, but it was unsourced. Absent more information, the evidence seems to suggest reverting it to SDNX is in order, which I will do. Blippy1998 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Compass Card.jpg

The image File:Compass Card.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. The arguments for disambiguation by type (rather than location) were stronger, and further disambiguation from the Australian DMU can be done with a hatnote. Miniapolis 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Coaster (San Diego) → Coaster (commuter rail)
• Sprinter (North County Transit District) → Sprinter (light rail)

– Both rail lines are operated by the same transit agency, yet their article titles are disambiguated completely differently. The disambiguated titles used to be somewhat "reversed" – as Coaster (North County Transit District) and Sprinter (San Diego County), respectively. I don't think it makes sense to use the locations or the transit agency to disambiguate the titles. Using the location doesn't make sense because there are no other rail lines with the same names (such as Metrolink (Southern California) and Metrolink (St. Louis). Using the agency doesn't make sense either because I don't think that "North County Transit District" is very recognizable for readers and it won't help them find the article they are looking for. Let's just keep it simple and disambiguate it to the type of rail lines they are. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose both the proposed disambiguations are unintuitive. For most people, these geographically limited trains aare more easily accesible through their locality names. And Oppose "Sprinter", there's also NS Sprinter Lighttrain. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you suppose we move them to then? Both articles should have consistent titles, regardless. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would you need consistency over accessibility? Redirects handle systematic naming issues. You could do Coaster (North County Transit District) for consistency as a redirect. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• After much thought, I think I'll give weak support. Honestly, I don't see the need for these to be consistent with each other, because despite connecting, they are separate services, but I don't think the current disambiguators are good. Sprinter is poor, as, with a few exceptions, transit agencies are too obscure to make effective disambiguators (like the (NICTD) at South Shore Line (NICTD); it doesn't tell anything to anyone that doesn't already know what it is, and isn't needed anyway as a primary topic). Especially here, as "North County" is so vague as to do nothing to actually disambiguate. Meanwhile, "(San Diego)" would be a fine disambiguator if there were other trains named Coaster in other places, but there's not, so it is actually an over-précise disambiguator. That it is a commuter train is the first thing that sets it apart from the other entries at Coaster (disambiguation), not that it is in San Diego. So I support. oknazevad (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a different Sprinter light rail which we have an article for. "Sprinter (light rail)" should be a disambiguation page. (or redirect to Sprinter (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that's a model of EMU that happens to have that similar, but not identicle name. We don't need a disambiguation page for two items; a hatnote covers it fine. And the Sprinter in San Diego County appears to be the primary topic for the term in relation to light rail in English sources, so that article should be at Sprinter (light rail) with a hatnote pointing to NS Sprinter Lighttrain. That would accomplish that task of better disambiguators (because the current one is truly poor) while still allowing for anyone searching to get to the EMU model article to follow only one more click and not requiring an additional click for the majority of users who are looking for the service in California. oknazevad (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out, if we do decide to go with the locations to disambiguate, it should be noted that only two Coaster stations are located in San Diego, while none of the Sprinter stations are located in San Diego. Both lines, however, run entirely within San Diego County. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we do do that, we could use Coaster (San Diego county) and Sprinter (San Diego county) / Coaster (San Diego County) and Sprinter (San Diego County) then. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"County" would have to be capitalized, that's basically indisputable. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support per oknazevad. Use a hatnote on Sprinter to the Dutch line. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as proposed. In general and in this specific case, I think it is better, clearer and more helpful to disambiguate by what the thing is, rather than by where it is - or what agency it is a part of. --MelanieN (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coaster (commuter rail). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105052657/http://www.gonctd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/COASTER-FactSheet_02_01_2013.pdf to http://www.gonctd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/COASTER-FactSheet_02_01_2013.pdf

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) 00:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Coaster5002.jpg (discussion)
• PhaseTwoCoasterLiveryCabCar2301.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The 1st one has explicit consensus, the other 2 are treated as unopposed and can be reverted per WP:RMUM. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 21:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

---

• Coaster (commuter rail) → Coaster (rail service)
• Sprinter (rail line) → Sprinter (rail service)
• Arrow (rail line) → Arrow (rail service)

– Probably not the most important move, but I believe that moving the page to this would harmonize its name and standards with that of the pages for Sprinter (rail line) and Arrow (rail line), given that Coaster is the only rail line with its name. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: A subtle but necessary distinction is the difference between a rail line (physical infrastructure) and rail service (the pattern of trains that is operated). Coaster is a service that operates on the Surf Line; using "rail line" as the disambiguator isn't really correct. (Similarly, the other pages you cited should have different disambiguators: Sprinter is a service that runs on the Escondido Branch, and Arrow is a service that runs on the Redlands Subdivision.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's a very good point. Perhaps, in that case, would it actually be more appropriate to move the page names for Sprinter and Arrow to "Sprinter (hybrid rail)" and "Arrow (commuter rail)" respectively? --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  How about (rail service) for all three? Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, I'd be cool with that. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree with Pi.1415926535 in all respects. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: relisting after conversion to multi-page requests. there is consensus in the earlier discussion to move Coaster from (commuter rail) to (rail service) instead of the proposed (rail line) dab, however, the consensus also relies on moving the other two pages as well to the newly proposed dab tag. the relist will give time for readers and editors of the other two articles to respond to this request. – robertsky (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re. fleet numbers of new cars

Are there any sources available that confirm the fleet numbers of the new passenger cars? They should be set back to TBA if there aren't. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Redirect target changed

In conformance with the perspective that a shared name does not justify shared coverage: Since it doesn't share anything but the name, I don't think here is the proper place for information about the SP train -- I have restored deleted material as a separate article using the name Coaster train formerly used as a redirect to this article. Thewellman (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thewellman: I have moved the article to Coaster (Southern Pacific Railroad train). Since this is likely the primary topic between the two articles, I've returned Coaster train to point here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)