Talk:M2/M4/M6 (railcar)

Untitled

I'm a little confused; maybe you could supply a source? I have never heard of "Triplex" cars, or that they (M6's) had automated announcements. Around the shop & yard, M series cars were referred to as pairs or triplets, not anything else. Keo 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Title gender

For consistency, title should be Budd Cosmopolitan Keo 08:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As it is, I'm considering moving this article to M2 (railcar). The move of Budd Metropolitians to Budd Metropolian was done by an admin who didn't know that the name Metropolitans/Cosmopolitans were a branding name that covered the entire fleet and not the name proper. Given how the Metropolitan and Cosmopolitan branding names are at best historical and that staff and riders know them by the technical class names the MTA gave them, it'd make sense to rename the articles for simplicity's sake.

Besides, on the other side of the transit coin the page for the GMC/MCI/NovaBus Classic is named Classics (transit bus) even though the name of the series never, ever, had an s in it. Scrabbleship 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, thanks.Keo 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Falacy?

I believe that this statement is wrong:

Nearly identical to the M4s and, these cars have the distinction of being one of the last with wholly American construction.

Having worked on the M6s, I think I recall that the shells (car bodies) were actually manufactured in South America (Brazil I believe) and then shipped to the MK factory in NY where everything else was added to the car bodies (trucks, machinery, interior...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.6.134 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

{{infobox train}} would be nice. Peter Horn User talk 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I just started adding a hidden infobox to this article too. You should add material to both this and the M1 (railcar) infobox. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of "M4/M6" in article title?

I never quite understood why the M1/M3 page made a reference to both classes in the title, but no reference to the M4s and M6s are made in the title of this article. The M4s and M6s are quite different from the M2s, as are the M3s to the M1s. Perhaps someone could move the article to a new page called "M2/M4/M6 (railcar)." Mtattrain (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Optionally, we could split each generation out as a separate article. Though I think there's some concerns that they'd be too short for separate articles. oknazevad (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

How about Cosmopolitan (Railcar)?Sturmovik (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to split each single generation, for reasons stated by Oknazevad. The idea of an article based off of the trains' nicknames sounds like a nice idea, though. Mtattrain (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If memory serves correctly, that was actually the original title of this article, or the M1 article was called "Metropolitans". The problem l, also thinking back, that led to their moving was that the nicknames actually only apppied to the first generations of each. That is to say the M2s were Cosmopolitans, but it isn't actually correct to say that M4s are, as they were made by a different builder. oknazevad (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that there's been no follow-up to this discussion, but I do agree that the article should be moved to "M2/M4/M6 (railcar)." PrecipiceofDuck (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

> I'm still for the idea (I suggested it lol) but I guess nothing's gonna happen for a while. Apparently, all the cars are retired too now but there isn't anything reliable to say that. Mtattrain (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I support moving this to "M2/M4/M6 (railcar)." I have found some more information to cite. I am sure that with more research, they can be split in the future. My focus now is citing what is in the articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

M4/M6 series citations

The section is entirely uncited, and has been since it was included over 3 years ago. I will pause deleting it for a week or so, as I understand the desire to keep the content... but unless someone adds some valid citations, it has to go.

If that happens, I wholly agree that the article should be renamed to M2/M4/M6 or some such thing.

Also, the claim that "By July 6, 2015, all M4s and M6s were retired. 24 M2s arranged in three 8-car consists remain in service on weekdays." -- is either questionable, outdated or never actually occurred unless I keep getting very, very lucky nearly every other day when I board the train in Bridgeport... Markvs88 (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

You could just be getting very lucky! After all, those M2 trains are mostly used during rush hours, so the odds of getting them are increased for daily rich hour commuters.

That said, I agree we need better sourcing for these sorts of in-service/usage pattern material. Often it seems that they're based on info gleaned from railfan message boards, which are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. They also easily become dated, making me question whether that level of detail is appropriate, similar to the discussion ongoing at WT:TRAINS about fleet rosters. In many ways it's the same issue, just from the opposite direction, namely that instead of the article on a railroad listing how many of which models are used, it's the article on the model listing how many each railroad has. I see some value in kt, but I also see that it is questionable as Wikipedia is not a trainspotters guide. oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, I think that the page could also do with a rename.

PPS, I would wait longer than a week before deleting, what with the holidays and all.

So I gave it a month, and that's really long enough. If someone wants to salvage that content, they can just do a diff and try to find sources. Markvs88 (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

And Kew Gardens 613 was right on that. I'd love to be as good as finding sources as he is. oknazevad (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad he was able to add those sources, though I wish it could have gotten cited in the interim. Deleting is my last choice... but OTOH without it we get things like Williams School (Connecticut). Markvs88 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for not dealing with this earlier. I saw your comments on this, but did not act on them, focusing on other articles.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you got it done and that's all the matters. Nice job! Markvs88 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I shouldn't have rolled back you without a message on the talkp age. Sorry about that.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)