Talk:Long Island Rail Road/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Service cuts and improvements

I moved this from the article, since it's probably a bit too much detail for the main article. --NE2 22:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to service cuts, several of the more lightly used branches were threatened with abandonment in 2006. The threats included the Oyster Bay Branch, the Main Line between Ronkonkoma and Greenport, and the West Hempstead Branch. The service cuts were intended to reduce opposition to a fare increase or encourage the state to provide more money (which it ultimately did). All the threatened lines have had considerable capital investment in recent years to "bring them up to a good state of repair." The LIRR was originally chartered with the specific purpose of service to Greenport, and the land under the Main Line tracks would revert to heirs of the original owners if that service were abandoned. In addition, a large portion of the threatened Main Line east of Ronkonkoma has been slated for electrification by 2016 as part of LIRR forward planning.

The 2005-2009 capital program of the MTA provides for a third Main Line track from Bellerose to Mineola, with the intent of extending it to Hicksville.

A second track between Farmingdale and Ronkonkoma on the Main Line is also planned, which would greatly increase capacity. Ronkonkoma already suffers from overcrowding, and locals have called for additional service east of Ronkonkoma. The capital program also provides for a landfill in Yaphank (east of Ronkonkoma) to be capped and set aside for this future railroad purpose. This may involve extending electrification, building parking structures, or a building a yard needed for Main Line storage. (The current yard in Ronkonkoma already operates at capacity.)

Billyburg

Williamsburg Bridge says BRT and LIRR shared the central dual tracks on that bridge, but it's not on the list in this article. Is the other article mistaken? Jim.henderson 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be correct, although it may have been the other way around (elevated trains on the LIRR); it should probably be added to the history section since it was a brief trackage rights operation. [1] It may have only been to Broadway Ferry, and not over the bridge: "On October 4th, LIRR trains ran through service from Broadway Ferry to Jamaica using the incline. This service lasted only three months, ending January 10th, 1899." [2] claims the LIRR did run over the bridge, and later extended through the subway to Chambers Street (!). If I ever get a book from interlibrary loan I may have more details. --NE2 08:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; shows how little I know; never heard that there was a ferry at Broadway of Williamsburgh as well as the more famous one at Grand Street. It points out a few gaps in Wiki coverage of New York transport. First, there is no overall ferry history page. Second, the articles for big bridges don't say what ferries they replaced. Third, neighborhood articles don't mention the role of railroads in building them up. Exceptions include East New York and Manhasset but only because I added this information, to the best of my limited knowledge. Fourth, History of Brooklyn doesn't adequately point out how much its late 19th Century expansion was due to local railroads. Ah, well, to write thus stuff myself I'd have to become a hardcore railfan.
Also in the talk page of Gowanus Canal I was skeptical that gasoline had ever been manufactured there, since there had never been a freight railroad there. Now I wonder whether there was, and it just escaped my notice. And grr, Newtown Creek is a much smaller article than Gowanus Canal even though it's a bigger freight route. Jim.henderson 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
List of ferries across the East River is in a sadly neglected state... care to help out? I'm not sure that the truly big bridges really replaced any ferries; the ferries often continued to operate for a long time after the bridges opened. --NE2 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just got Steel Rails to the Sunrise through interlibrary loan, and will be working on this article again. --NE2 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent for the book and thanks for the link to the ferry list, to which I added a link from history of Brooklyn. Alas, these ferries are a topic on which I am unqulified to write articles, but the articles for the mighty Brooklyn, Williamsburg and Narrows Bridges ought to mention that the ferries continued to run for, well, whatever number of years it was in each case. Jim.henderson 15:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not always clear what ferries the bridges replaced. I'm sure you can easily tell for the Narrows Bridge, and probably for the Williamsburg, but there were many ferries connecting Downtown Brooklyn with Lower Manhattan; the subway tunnels probably did more to replace those ferries than the bridges. --NE2 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there was no LIRR service; BRT trains operated over the bridge and LIRR to Rockaway Park. --NE2 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Working out a full list of joint operations

  • Brighton Beach Line joined Atlantic Branch at Franklin Avenue, with reciprocal trackage rights, 1878-1884
  • Culver Line junctioned Bay Ridge Branch, with reciprocal trackage rights, 1885-probably 1899 (Culver connection built to Fifth Avenue El in 1895)
  • Fifth Avenue Line junctioned Atlantic Branch near Flatbush Avenue, with El trains over LIRR to Manhattan Beach? and Rockaway Beach, and LIRR "rapid transit" trains over El to Sands Street (latter mentioned in Steel page 43)
  • Jamaica Line junctioned Atlantic Branch near Conduit Avenue, with El trains over LIRR to Rockaways, and LIRR over El to Broadway Ferry, Essex Street, and Chambers Street
  • Connection somewhere for Manhattan Beach to 39th Street Ferry and Sea Gate [3] or was this totally streetcar?
More structured list

On August 7, 1876, the Brooklyn, Flatbush and Coney Island Railroad (Brighton Line) opened to a junction with the LIRR's Atlantic Avenue Branch near Franklin Avenue, and began operating over the LIRR to Flatbush Avenue and Long Island City.[1] This agreement was terminated between the 1883 and 1884 seasons;[2][3] the BF&CI was later connected to the Fulton Street El.

A ramp at 36th Street and Fifth Avenue in Sunset Park, connecting the Culver Line to the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad's Fifth Avenue El, was completed in 1895, and the BERR began operating trains from the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge to Manhattan Beach (using the Fifth Avenue El, Culver Line, Bay Ridge Branch, and Manhattan Beach Branch) on August 5.[4] On April 19, 1896, the beginning of the 1896 summer season, the BERR started using the connection to run to West Brighton, the end of the Culver Line.[5] The Manhattan Beach route was extended over the new El tracks on the Brooklyn Bridge to Park Row on June 18, 1897, but only on race days.[6]

An incline connecting the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad's Broadway El and LIRR's Atlantic Branch at Chestnut Street in Cypress Hills was placed in operation on July 17, 1898, allowing BERR trains to run from Broadway Ferry in Williamsburg to Rockaway Beach.[7] This incline was also used for El service to Jamaica,[8] and later for LIRR service over the Williamsburg Bridge to Chambers Street and Canal Street.[citation needed]

An incline at Flatbush Avenue and Atlantic Avenue, connecting the LIRR's Atlantic Branch to the Fifth Avenue El, was opened May 24, 1899 for through trains between Jamaica and the Brooklyn end of the Brooklyn Bridge.[9][10][11] The Brooklyn Elevated Railroad began using this incline and LIRR trackage to Manhattan Beach and Rockaway Beach on July 29 of that year.[12] --NE2 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK... I added a condensed version to the article. --NE2 10:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "United". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 7 August 1878. p. 4.
  2. ^ "Coney Island". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 25 October 1883. p. 3.
  3. ^ "Coney Island". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 16 January 1884. p. 3.
  4. ^ "Connecting Two Railroads". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 6 August 1895. p. 2.
  5. ^ "L Trains to the Island To-morrow". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 18 April 1896. p. 1.
  6. ^ "Trip Made in Fifty Minutes". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 19 June 1898. p. 7.
  7. ^ "L Trains to Rockaway". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 16 July 1898. p. 14.
  8. ^ "New Route to Jamaica". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 2 October 1898. p. 4.
  9. ^ "Jamaica Time Table". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 21 May 1899. p. 11.
  10. ^ "No L.I. Trains to the Bridge". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 24 May 1899. p. 2.
  11. ^ "Cars are Running Now". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 25 May 1899. p. 1.
  12. ^ "Service to the Beaches". Brooklyn Daily Eagle. Brooklyn, NY. 28 July 1899. p. 5.

"The Gap"

(After just a quick glance at the article) No mention of "the gap" being too wide in some spots and causing injuries to some people? This has been on the front page of Newsday like every day. One should start a section for this; references should be easy for this one. (I don't have the time to do this myself, sorry.) →EdGl 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if someone does add a section on this, they should have to source Newsday and at least one other source. I don't think Newsday's coverage of the gap has been unbiased. --Meadowbrook 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, of course. They're overhyping it. However, I believe it's worth at least a mention in the article. →EdGl 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think 900 commuter accidents, including some of them that have been VERY serious and crippling to commuters makes the GAP a valid issue. Why does no other railroad in the US have a "GAP issue?" Even Metro North, which is in a similar area and has similar commuters does not have a GAP problem. Part of the reson is -- smaller GAPS. I think by attacking Newsday for reporting facts you are displaying a very biased and non-neutral point of view. --Candide08

Big article

Isn't it time to slice off the excellent history section into a new article? It's well beyond the recommendations of WP:SIZE and probably some readers who want to know what the railroad is, rather than what it was, are having trouble with it. Not me, with fast connection and desk computer, but some. Jim.henderson 07:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy... I'm improving this article to featured status, and you want to cut it up? Much more happened from 1832 to recently than in the last few years. The LIRR basically is its history. --NE2 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll think about it anyway... --NE2 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jim. The history section is indeed quite good, but far too long to exist in this article. It should be split off into a new article (History of the Long Island Rail Road?), with a more concise version replacing it in the current article. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 10:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
LIRR today is a bore, a useful tool for workers, students and others who have places they need to be. This evening, after repairing a computer, I caught the 8:36 from New Hyde Park to Penn Sta, thankful for good service and slightly miffed at the price. Plenty of people like me use it occasionally or are curious about how to use it, and ought to have a nice clear little article to tell them about the tool.
LIRR in its first century was a sprawling saga of hope and fear and rich people guessing wrong and going broke, or hitting it lucky and getting richer. A story of clever and strong men building the industrial age. Much more fun than the present railroad. That saga deserves its own article explaining how the railroad came to be. Separate from the neat little article that says what it is and what it does today. Jim.henderson 05:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it was a good idea to split it off into a new article, but shouldn't the History section of the main article be more than "The Long Island Rail Road was consolidated from a number of railroads during the 19th century"? Most articles at least have a summary of what is in their "History of" article in the main article. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 18:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

"[Penn Station] is reached via the Amtrak-owned East River Tunnels from the Main Line in Long Island City, the only LIRR trackage not owned by the LIRR." The Main Line article says the tracks are indeed owned by the LIRR. I assume that someone meant the Amtrak tunnels aren't owned by the LIRR, but that isn't how the sentence reads. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New Source for Station History

Okay, maybe the source isn't new, but the URL has been reparied, and the info is quite useful(http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirrphotos/LIRR%20Station%20History.htm). Hope the rest of you agree. ---- DanTD 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Routebox Trouble; Bethpage (LIRR station)

I'm currently having trouble adding the routebox for my proposed Bethpage (LIRR station) article. As you can tell by the title, it's with the routebox: 

{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=LIRR}}
{{s-line|system=LIRR|line=Ronkonkoma|previous=Hicksville|rows1=2|next=Farmingdale}}
{{s-line|system=LIRR|line=Central|hide1=1|next=Babylon}}
{{end box}}


I can't separate the colors on the Central Branch and inidicate it's destination to Babylon Station. ---- DanTD 01:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's because no one had made Template:S-line/LIRR right/Central yet. --NE2 22:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Okay, I made it. Thanks for the fix. Although I wonder if the color bars should be green or teal, since it leads to Babylon Station towards the Montauk Branch. ---- DanTD 15:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The MTA definitely shouldn't be the only source, but they do color it purple on their map. --NE2 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting statistics on track mileage

I was just looking at a ref for daily ridership ([4]), and it also gives the miles of track as 594. This claims "more than 700", and that is the stat that is used in the article. This is a conflict of over 100 miles, which is not insignificant. All of the other stats agree, however. Perhaps the "more than 700" includes yards and other non-revenue track or something, but that's just a guess. What do we do? -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[5] claims 701, with 300 miles if everything were single track. I can't easily find anything non-MTA. --NE2 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolley operations

Long Island Consolidated Electrical Companies was incorporated as a holding company on March 30, 1905. It was dissolved July 18, 1935.

Ocean Electric Railway

stopped 1928

Northport Traction Company

opened 1902 under LIRR control; sold 1924

Nassau County Railway

opened 1902; stopped 1924

Glen Cove Railroad

opened 1905 under LIRR control; stopped 1924

Jamaica and South Shore Railroad

Huh??? This had something to do with the Cedarhurst Cut-off.

Huntington Railroad

acquired 1898?; stopped 1919

New York and Long Island Traction Company

acquired 50% in 1905[6]; sold 1926

Long Island Electric Railway

acquired 50% in 1906; sold 1926

Babylon Rail Road

acquired in 1906?; sold 1908

Central Branch trolley operations

Nassau and Suffolk County street railways never controlled by the LIRR include the New York and North Shore Traction Company and Suffolk Traction Company. --NE2 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you need to merge my page on the Suffolk Traction Boulevard for an article on the Suffolk Traction Company, be my guest. ---- DanTD 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

List of former Long Island Rail Road lines chaos

Should this list be reorganized somehow? It's not in alphabetical order, nor is in listed from west to east. ---- DanTD 23:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jamaica Station's yard and bypass tracks

One line about Jamaica (LIRR station) bugs me;

Jamaica encompasses eight tracks and six platforms, plus yard and bypass tracks.[citation needed]

I've been there, and I can confirm it's true, but that would only qualify as original research. I suppose the only existing substitue for a citation would be a wikimap... unless somebody else has a better idea, since the use of wikimaps as sources keeps getting trashed too. ----DanTD (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Disability fraud investigation

One anonymous user from OptOnline in Long Island has been repeatedly removing any mention of the NYT disability fraud investigation. Since we are citing verifiable sources (NYT and Newsday) there is no valid reason to remove this information. The anonymous user claims it is "unsubstantiated", but that's flawed - we are not acting as judge and jury here, we're just summarizing and incorporating information which has already been reported in articles by reputable newspapers. If you believe the NY Times, Governor Paterson, multiple elected officials, and AG Cuomo are all making "unsubstantiated" accusations, maybe you should sue them. Don't take it out on Wikipedia, though. There's no basis for removing properly cited information about this scandal. Rhobite (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Freight service chapter

It's impossible to ignore that huge orange tag in the "Freight service" chapter of the article. Wouldn't an official link from the New York and Atlantic Railway itself be enough to take it down? ----DanTD (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Commuter Issues are Valid Issues

The LIRR has a whole Press Department to put out its POV (Point of View). Basically whatever they say is printed UNCHECKED, in the mainstream press. The LIRR goes around and brags about being "The biggest Commuter Railroad in North America."

Well, if that is OK, commuter issues should also be OK to discuss with the LIRR. I will tell you 100% positively - commuter opinions about the LIRR are very different from the LIRR's opinions of itself. Let's not suppress and censor these issues. The opinions of more than 250,000 commuters DO matter and should be heard.

The OTP (On Time Performance) of the LIRR is a bad joke. It is always much higher than any commuter will experience. When I worked for them I heard high level executives joke about how it was so bad. Everyone knows this. So, if it is such an "Open Secret" - why object just because it is in print here? The railfan, always rosy side of the LIRR story is NOT the only one and should not be the only one told.

If this is objectionable - then I propose that the LIRR fix it - by performing better.

"Another criticism is that the On Time Performance (OTP) calculated by the LIRR is meaningless and manipulated to be artificially high. As defined by the LIRR, a train is "on time" if it arrives at a station within 5 minutes and 59 seconds of the scheduled time.[12] Some Commuters groups have been formed to represent commuter interests and their belief is that the OTP has no meaning to what commuters experience on a daily basis. The LIRR publishes the OTP (called 'Monthly Lies' by most commuters) in a monthly booklet called 'Keeping Track.' The number always seems to be 94% to 96% regardless of bad performances. Most commuters experience a 70% - 75% Real OTP, and LIRR executives quielty chuckle to themselves that this is really a more accurate number.

Until this is changed to a more meaningful measure it is highly doubtful that the LIRR will gain any credibility with commuters. Their reputation is so bad that even the head of the MTA called the LIRR "The third best railroad at the MTA" - there are only three." 71.250.35.133 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I remember the descriptions of LIRR problems from when I read The Power Broker. This is definitely something that's notable and has some history. --NE2 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The way to do this here, is by keeping a neutral point of view. Without that, you sound as bad as you profess the railroad to be. Find some newspapers or some credible source expressing these criticisms (and based on what you keep telling us, they shouldn't be too hard for you to find). Pacific Coast Highway {blab • stalk} 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately getting accurate information from the MTA is difficult. The MTA will only furnish a copy of the 1996 report, referenced below, in reply to an FOI request.
The 1999 article below in the New York Times does give a good overview of both the ongoing rocky customer relations and mentions a 1996 MTA Inspector General Report that found serious "flaws" with many LIRR procedures - including the way the On Time performance is calculated. This included timing trains about 1 mile before their timing point in some cases.
NY Times: LIRR President Out of Touch
This NY Times search query shows 9 articles that indicate less than smooth performance and less than ideal relations with LIRR customers:
NY Times LIRR Search Query
These articles below are examples of ongoing poor performance and poor customer relations:
Commuting in Misery
Snow and Chaos
Thirty Years of Neglect
I completely agree with the NPOV neutral point of view, as long as that applies evenly to everyone. I find that "railfans" do not have a NPOV, they tend to romanticize railroads in general and the LIRR in particular, presenting a biased (in favor of) point of view. I think balance and presenting many sides and differing opinions concerning the LIRR is both prudent and necessary. --Candide08

The "Passengers Issues" section is the opinion of a non-profit, 501-c-3 commuter group that has more than 500 members. The LIRR and its "rail fans" do not want this information to be put forward, even though it is 100% accurate and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide08 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed "However, critics have not been able to offer any concrete evidence to substantiate their claims, whereas periodic audits of LIRR records have failed to find evidence of time recording irregularities."

This is simply not true. Even the MTA, the LIRR's parent agency, has found and published in the press, timing irregularities - like timing trains a mile in advance. In addition the LIRR will not release any data to allow an independent audit. Numerous requests for "raw data" have been denied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide08 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Candide08 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Steam

Around 1954, my mother told me to look at the steam engine approaching Bay Shore from the east. She said, "That's the last steam engine you'll ever see". I wonder when that was. Unfree (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it last ran on the Montauk Branch, but this was the last steam engine run for the whole railroad(http://www.lirrhistory.com/laststeamgreenport.htm). ----DanTD (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate level of detail

If level of detail posted by contributors is not appropriate, perhaps a helpful course of action is to move the detail to an appropriate page (or a new page if needed) instead of eliminating the detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.142.135 (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, new comments go on the bottom of the talk page, not the top, as that keeps the talk page in chronological order. Also sign your comments by typing four tildes (these things: ~), so people know who you are.
Secondly, while I appreciate that you wish to make the article as comprehensive as possible, there's a point where it's too much. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia, not a specialty publication. While it being on the Internet and not paper allows for a greater breadth of topics than a traditional printed encyclopedia would cover, the depth is still limited by the need for notability and encyclopedic approporiateness. I must also say that your additions may have trouble with verifiability because they're either missing reliable sources or are cited using poor formatting.
To sum up, while I, as a fellow railfan, truly am interested in this level of knowledge, I also know, as a longtime Wikipedian, that much of whats been added here and at the MBTA Commuter Rail article is more appropriate for a specialist site, which Wikipedia is not. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the guidelings and policies linked in this message, so you can understand that as well.oknazevad (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Greenport Branch

Just a minor point. The Greenport branch does not have an article of its' own, rather it's lumped together with the Ronkonkoma Line Article. Each branch has a unique schedule, and they are treated (I think) as separate branches by most commuters.

Besides which, the LIRR originally operated trains exclusively from Brooklyn to Greenport. If nothing else, an article about the Greenport Branch has historical interest.

Daton (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that they don't have a separate schedule. Greenport trains appear on the Ronkonkoma Branch timetable. That's really a misnomer, anyway, as is talking about a "Greenport Branch" in the first place. They're both sections of the Main Line, one continuous line that is separated into service zones based on frequency of service and electrification.
Actually, if anything, the Ronkonkoma Branch article should be merged into the Main Line article, with a specific section talking about that service. oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but so many other services are part of the Main Line, like the Port Jeff, Oyster Bay, Hempstead, and Belmont Park branches. Every now and then some editors will talk about merging the Babylon Branch into the Montauk Branch as well. Speaking services on the Montauk Branch, I'd still like to know when the Long Beach Branch went from the Montauk Branch on the Cedarhurst Cut-off to the Atlantic Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but...
That is to say, the Port Jeff, OB etc. services "run on" the Main Line after their respective junctions with it, but those branches aren't "part of" the Main Line, they are distinct physical lines. The Port Jefferson Branch is separate from the Main Line, for example, and Port Jeff trains have distinct trackage from the Main that they run on. This is in contrast to Ronkonkoma and Greenport trains, which never leave the Main Line at all. (Not counting that the Main technically doesn't include Penn Station.)
I think we need to examine our set up here. Is an article, like the Port Jeff one, about the service, or the physical line, or a bit of both? For example, Westbury is served by trains to and from Port Jeff, but that doesn't make it a station on the Port Jeff Branch, as it is physically located on the Main Line. The Westbury article is, fortunately, accurate in its description, but the Port Jefferson Branch article includes Westbury on the station listing. (It's also on the station list at the Main Line article). I think that it's a mistake to include it on both. The question is: should it be included on the station list for the appropriate service, or the physical line? oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PRR-LIRR thru trains

"Sunrise Special (1922–1942) which ran from Pittsburgh to Montauk via Penn Station, New York. Joint PRR and LIRR train that operated during the summer. Trains ran eastbound on Fridays and westbound Mondays. During 1926 summer season trains were run daily. After 1932 there was an additional eastbound trip on Thursdays. Complete first class train from 1932 to 1937."

No one has found a timetable showing such a train, have they? Don't think Steel Rails to the Sunrise mentions the Sunrise Special running to Pittsburgh; does any other book?

The 6/26 and 6/29 Official Guides don't say anything about thru service west of NY; neither does the 6/33 LIRR public timetable. The eastward Sunrise Special left NY around 3:20 PM EDT, so it would have had to leave Pittsburgh some time before dawn. Why would such a train exist? What reason is there to think it did? Tim Zukas (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I found a timetable with the Sunrise Special right here. There have been other sources, but I forgot where they were. ----DanTD (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in the link says the Sunrise Spl ran to Pittsburgh. The link does mention a thru car to Pittsburgh that didn't run on the Sunrise Spl; apparently that car didn't last long. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • 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 Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Private taxi company connections

I noticed that a lot of stations list private taxi companies in connections. I started removing them, until I realized how many stations listed them. I figured I should make sure my decision to remove them was in the interest of some other editors. My reasons for doing so is as follows:

  • Taxi companies aren't notable. Connections are usually reserved for other transit agencies, with articles written about them or at least some sort of secondary source. Sometimes I've seen bike paths or nature trails listed, but never any private taxi companies.
  • There's no evidence that any of these companies actually go to these stations. I haven't seen any mention of them on the MTA's website (aside from phone numbers), and none of the taxi companies have websites of their own.
  • Mentioning this isn't reliable. There's no guarantee that a certain taxi company will continue to wait at X station, and said taxi company could go out of business. Additionally, taxis don't have any sort of schedule like a bus would.
  • I've found no Metro North stations that list private taxi companies. I know this isn't a criteria in itself, but the two railroads have so much in common, I figured it was worth mentioning.

I appreciate any responses. If there's a general consensus that the rest of these taxi companies should be removed from the connections sections, I will do gladly do so.

Thanks, Rogerthat94 (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's break down some of your points.
    • I agree that taxi companies in themsleves aren't necessarily notable enough for articles. Nobody is suggesting that anybody writes articles for taxi companies. This doesn't change the fact that they are connections, and in many cases, the only connections. There are other kinds of connections, and bike paths, nature trails, subway stations, light rail stops, and ferries also qualify.
    • There is evidence that those companies actually go to the stations. They're listed on the official websites. In some cases, they're actually shown in photographs of station, and in other they operate from station properties.
    • You're right about the reliability of company X to be around to take passengers to and from station X, but as I stated earlier, it's still a connection, and in some cases the only one.
    • I haven't worked on too many connections with Metro-North stations in a long time, so I'll have to take your word for it until further notice. ----DanTD (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to your points below.

      • Like I stated, unlike subways, light rail, and ferries, taxis have no set schedule. There's no guarantee that a taxi will meet a train. Bike Paths and nature trails will always be available, which makes them a different category all together. What significance does it have that there are no other connections?
      • Could you please provide an example of such sites? I was unable to find such a mention. For example, the Page about Stony Brook only lists the bus under connections, and if you open up the PDF about "Parking, Bus and Taxi Information" it only lists the phone number of a cab company. It does not explicitly state the name of the company. In any case, whether or not a specific taxi company actually picks up passengers from a train station isn't that big a deal anyway. My main point is that it seems unnecessary to list them.
      • Like I said before, I don't see what the fact that no other connections exist has to do with anything. I think it's assumed that taxis pick up passengers from most stations. It seems unnecessary to list the name of each individual company.

|Would you consider it an appropriate solution if I were to remove all of the taxi connections from the individual stations, and then notes could be made on the stations that have no taxi connections? I think most people assume that they can get taxis to pick them up at any LIRR station. Plus, all of the connection sections would match the table on Port_Jefferson_Branch. If I get your approval on this, I'll go ahead with it, because you've added all the taxi connections I've seen. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not forget that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and to avoid "overinforming" in your updates to articles of this nature. Wikipedia is to be "encyclopaedic" by nature, and over usage of tables and the like will, in fact, detract from the article. Addition linkage to other Wikipedia articles is one thing, but detracting from the core purpose of the article is really not recommended. Please use the appropriate sites for these details, such as Wikitravel.
Cheers.
--Allamericanbear (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you directing this at me or Rogerthat94? In any case, the PDF connection Parking, Buses, and Taxis, had taxi company names at one time and they did on the other LIRR stations. Furthermore I just checked a Metro-North station article specifically Brewster which lists two taxi companies:
  • 1) "Manny's Taxi: (845) 279-1398 (Guaranteed Home Program)" 2) "Brewster Taxi: (845) 279-6552. Cabs meet most trains."
Nearby Southeast Station has the following;
  • 1)Brewster Taxi: (914) 279-6552. Call ahead for taxi. 2)Katonah Taxi: (914) 232-5772. Call ahead for taxi.
As for other evidence, here's an image of a Taxi at Port Jefferson Station, and one at Sayville Station, and Garden City Station. So that proves what I mentioned before. This doesn't mean we should make new articles on the taxi companies, it just means they're genuine connections whether they have fixed schedules or not. I don't know of any stations that have no taxi connections, other than former stations so I can't see how removing all taxi connections, and then adding notes to those that don't have them would work. ----DanTD (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)+
I'm suggesting that whoever decides that the taxi connections should exist take into consideration that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I (as well as others, possibly) will have an argument regarding it's being encyclopaedic, in nature. It appears to have a lot of work put into it to make it appear in the articles, but a matter of seconds for someone to revert it due to it not following wiki guidelines. Just putting that out there. When you read into the link to WP:TRAVELGUIDE, it states that:
2: Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead.
--Allamericanbear (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
None of the taxi connections I added have phone numbers or prices. For example, Westwood (LIRR station) just has "All Island Taxi" and that's it. If this is still a problem for some of you, we can still leave the fact that they stop there. ----DanTD (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That one can get a cab to or from an LIRR station isn't worth mentioning. One can get a cab to or from almost any train station in the US. That one can call for a cab is not in the least bit distinctive or defining. The purpose of listing other public transportation connections in a train station article is to highlight the network effects. There's no such effects with a cab. They should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so if you want to add these to WikiTravel, then do it. ----DanTD (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, Dan. I can tell that you're getting frustrated here.
I was suggesting if one has the energy to supply this information, that it's better suited for Wikitravel. I'm not forcing people to go there, and post articles, but to use the proper channel. The point that I'm trying to make is that the article in this wiki is to be encyclopaedic, with few exceptions.
I've seen a lot of efforts dashed after the fact that a writer has gone through the time to offer their work, and I'll tell ya...I've had work of my own reverted for the same reasons that I'm bringing it up. I ask a few questions of myself before writing, each time, and the primary is always..."is it encyclopaedic"? I've stopped numerous edits on that alone. The rest of it, I make my edits fall within guidelines.
Happy editing!
--Allamericanbear (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I never said you were forcing people to go there. There's still plenty of material on Wikipedia that hasn't been covered. And as disappointed as I am by such connections being left out, I can still live with it. Incidentally, I just checked Wikitravel out, and I saw no LIRR station articles there whatsoever, and unless I overlooked them(and I'm sure I did), no train stations at all. Perhaps we can take the material we've already written here and add it to that. ----DanTD (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is listed on the MTA website does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I was referring to the Wikipedia articles (not MTA pages) on Metro North stations which, to my knowledge, do not list any taxi companies. A picture of a taxi in front of a train station doesn't really prove anything. I'm not doubting that such taxis do service the stations that you say they do, I'm just trying to make a point that anybody can park a car in front of a train station and take a picture of it. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to see in the Garden City Station picture.

We should remove the individual mention of taxi connections because they are available at every station. I mentioned making special notes of stations that didn't have them, because this would be relevant information. But since all stations have them, there's really no reason to make any note.

Since there appears to be a consensus to remove these listings, I'm going to do so. But I respect the effort you put into researching all this, so if you'd like, I can leave it up for a few days if you'd like to copy it over to Wikitravel. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Garden City station picture actually had the taxi company operating from the one station house. I didn't know if you could see the sign for it in that picture, and looking at it now, I don't blame you if you can't see it. If you feel like getting rid of the taxi info, you could do it now if you wanted to. If we wanted to use it for WikiTravel articles, we can always look through the history of each station article, and dig it up from there. ----DanTD (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

LIRR Book of Rules

This one paragraph has a citation:

In Glendale, Queens the LIRR connects with CSX’s Fremont Secondary, which leads to the Hell Gate Bridge and New England, however, once trains leave the secondary they enter LIRR territory and fall under the guidance of the LIRR Book of Rules.

I saw a copy of the LIRR book of rules online a couple of months ago, although I can't think of where I saw them now. Does anybody have any idea what should be cited from that book? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disability Section

Does any editor know what the consequences / benefits are of declaring disability while on pension, what the financial differences are? If so, that information may be useful to add to the section. After reading the article I was left wondering what the financial incentive was to declare being disabled. Damotclese (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ACSES Expansion

I see in Railway Age that ACSES is being expanded in the Northeast Corridor and within the LIRR. There is not much details about the capabilities and modernization yet I would like to propose an update to the extant article covering the proposed ACSES overlay. If no editor is opposed I'll drop the proposed update in to the Talk: page here to solicit for comment and if there's consensus I'll drop the final text in to the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Long Island Rail Road rolling stock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. RES2773 (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)RES2773

This should be uniform with Metro-North's rolling stock information, which is currently on the main Metro-North page RES2773 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - We don't need to enlarge the main article any more than we have. I don't even like the idea of Metro-North's rolling stock chapter not being split from that main article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per WP:SUMMARY, articles that would be too long have logically split out daughter articles. The rolling stock list is one such article. It should remain separate. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose, the rolling stock is detailed enough as is. 156.111.111.81 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2015 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Long Island Rail Road. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

@DanTD: Hello Dan,
This is another case for banning anonymous 'contributors'.
Peter Horn User talk 15:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It might seem like it, but I've been in numerous situations where I've had to contribute without signing in. I certainly wouldn't do anything like that though. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Long Island Rail Road. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Second oldest [...] railroad?

The current introduction to the article contains a sentence which reads:

"Established in 1834 and having operated continuously since then, it is the second-oldest US railroad still operating under its original name and charter."

However, the reference given (this page might be quicker to see, though) doesn't qualify the statement with "second". As far as I can see, the other contender is the Strasburg Rail Road, whose own website only claims "oldest shortline", although at least one other site also adds "charter". (A quick Googling doesn't turn up any sources regarding its name, although I don't know what else Strasburg ever would have went by.) Does anyone have a source which is expressly willing to either say one or the other is older, or under which qualifications each railroad is the oldest?

Modelincard (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't Strasburg Railroad acquired by the Pennsylvania Railroad, and did they keep their old name under Penn ownership? Either way, the only other older railroad I can think of is the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which was acquired by the Chessie System. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of the Strasburg having been acquired by the Pennsylvania. Odd given their location, but I haven't seen any mention of it. If the B&O no longer exists as its own corporate entity, I'm assuming CSX Transportation doesn't use their "original name", so I think for this more limited question they're not in the running.
It looks like the best histories of the Strasburg Rail Road itself are only available in print, so someone would need to go check one of them to confirm that the Strasburg a) is still under its original name and b) charter, and that c) it has been "continuously operated", for some value of that term. The existing article on here for the Strasburg Rail Road does make all those claims in the intro, but the intro links to one article behind a paywall, and elsewhere mentions a book I don't have access to. Modelincard (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Long Island Rail Road. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Long Island Rail Road. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long_Island_Rail_Road/Archive_2&oldid=1146408421"