Template talk:California rail network

LA County+USC Medical Center station

Hi! I personally think it would be a good idea to include the future infill station at LA County+USC Medical Center station on Metrolink's San Bernardino Line here, but I feel like that may be out of my league. If possible, if anyone here knows how to, I would appreciate it. Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I focus more on the Midwest so I do not know much about Metrolink's projects, but if the project is planned (not just proposed. It would be better if funding is secured and shovels are in the ground,) then I support the change. I can tell which line the San Bernardino Line is on the RDT, but between which two stations (or junctions) would the Medical Center station be located? Let me know and I'll find a way to squeeze it in. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It’s between Union Station and Cal State LA stations. —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

While we're at it, perhaps adding the planned stations on the end of the 91/Perris Valley Line at Hemet and San Jacinto would also be a good idea? --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

P.S. As a general suggestion, perhaps it may be easier to do what is on Template:Amtrak California and only note which stations are not accessible since most of them (including all future stations) will be accessible. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

For the 91 Line, yes, I will look into adding said planned expansion.

But for the accessible stations, I do disagree. Unless/until all stations in a given network are accessible, I believe it's preferable to use accessible and regular icons interchangeably.

Taking a glance at Metrolink and how it was built relatively recently, I can assume all stations are accessible and a note mentioning such on its own diagram could be sufficient. But statewide, I can think of at least two stations in California that are not accessible.

As for Amtrak California, I do not know enough about the system. If all stations are accessible, then the note at the bottom works. Otherwise, I will find the time to label the stations accordingly, as I have done back home.

Unrelated, I did notice that the multicolored  (umKBHFea) icon was used. To show accessibility here, simply use  (lACC white) on top of it.

Sorry for the long read. I just believe that the average reader deserves to know exactly which stations are and are not accessible, and I am willing to put in the work to show it. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I think you make a good point. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I was also thinking. Would it also be a good idea to show Link Union Station (the through-running project on Los Angeles Union Station), since that project is pretty important to both inter-city and commuter rail? —-OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Metrolink's limited service stations and accessibility

The three limited Metrolink stations (Fairplex, Auto Club, and San Clemente Pier) are all accessible, but there is no simple iconography for limited service stations that are also accessible. You lose something by representing these stations as either one or the other. None of the other limited service stations here (Allensworth, Stanford, and Broadway) are accessible, so it seems odd to represent them as stations with full service when there are others in the network that have similar accommodations. so any good ideas? -MJ (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed this same exact issue. Ideally, I'd want iconography that can convey both accessibility and limited service; but I'm just not sure how that would work. If that would be possible, I would be all in favor of it, however. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to use ((rint|wheelchair)) adjacent to the station name. I did that here (top half, right side, zone "E") with Ravinia Park station. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Kind of an unrelated question. Not really a suggestion per se, but I just wanted to ask for clarification. I notice that not all planned Valley Link (the future phase from Tracy to North Lathrop) stations are shown; it looks to be a deliberate omission given the usage of the dotted straight segments. I'm guessing this was probably due to the fact that including those stations would've been either complicated or impossible, especially for stations planned in the distant future. Is this correct?

On another unrelated tangent, maybe eBART in the Bay Area could also be considered "hybrid rail" like Sprinter in San Diego County, but I have no clue if there would even be a point in including it here, given its complete isolation and that it is considered as a rapid transit extension. Just a random tangent, haha.

Also maybe worth it to include the Downtown Rail Extension of Caltrain in San Francisco? --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

In all honesty, we need to think about whether this template is actually needed. What purpose does it serve? Because of the vertical format of RDTs, geography is distorted, so it doesn't do a great job illustrating how the various rail networks fit together. Readers on List of California railroads are likely interested in that higher-level view, not links to about 300 individual stations.

The template is impractical - it's about 4 screens long, and much wider than a typical smartphone screen. When uncollapsed, it is more than twice as long as the entire "passenger carriers" section of the article, despite only actually illustrating ten of the systems linked there. We should be aiming to replace it with a good-quality geographic map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, but the shortcomings you mentioned (vertical distortion, template dimensions, reader's interest) apply to most RDTs, except for those that detail a station layout, one line, or are lacking in information.

However, I do support your idea of a static geographic map, although instead of deleting and completely replacing the RDT, it would be the default option shown on the page for readers that desire a visual perspective, while keeping the option for viewing an RDT open, for those that choose to. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's needed for the same reason that things like Template:Bedford Lines or the real life Tube map exist: to give an overview of how a network interconnects within one defined political/geographic area. The Tube map takes up more than one page of a paper pamphlet or a single smartphone screen to be readable, distorts geography, etc, but i think it's still a useful tool. -MJ (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually not so sure some of the more speculative projects should even be included on here. The Monterey rail extension is still really early in the planning phases, and there aren't good plans for the Sen Jacinto extension. For at least one or two other transit templates I've worked on, there seems to be a minimum requirement that a project be under construction before being included. I'm not unconvinced that might be a good requirement here. -MJ (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay! Feel free to remove whatever you feel doesn’t belong here. —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if it's totally up to me. I can give you various reasons for why I would include any particular system or station, but I would rather it gel with everyone who's maintaining the template (and I'm glad it's more than just myself).

• Definitely include every system that's under construction
  • The Valley Rail stuff, ACE stuff
  • I think they broke ground on Placentia station but just haven't gotten around to actually doing it
  • CAHSR is very technically under construction.
• Maybe or maybe not include things that are in advanced planning
  • Valley Link...they just have so much money, and they keep committing to dates.
  • SMART is pretty locked into finishing their main line before it does anything else...legally
• Stuff I'd consider questionable and potentially running afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL
  • San Jacinto/Hemet Metrolink is only mentioned in one or two sentences on the 91/Perris Valley Line article - i've put in a very minimal amount of research into this project and there doesn't seem to be much
  • Downtown Rail Extension and it's severe lack of funding - the route may be defined, but there are really no good plans for getting it donw right now
  • Monterey Rail Extension is still fairly early in the planning, again the station placement is pretty well figured out, but there's not a good timeline for getting it done. Maybe do include the planned service at Salinas though...
  • Other stuff not shown here due to lack of concrete plans possibly despite known routes: Coachella Valley–San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service, San Joaquins northern extension to Chico, SMART between Novato and Suisun, Cross Valley Corridor, any Santa Cruz or Monterey services

What do you think? -MJ (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mjdestroyerofworlds: I think that's a good list. Other probably off into the far future plans include like the Second Transbay Tube, Dumbarton Rail, CAHSR Phase 2, and the Brightline West High Desert Corridor.

Also to be fair, I believe the Metrolink San Bernardino Line station at the LAC+USC Medical Center I suggested be added at the moment has very tentative plans, along with a Pico Rivera station on the Metrolink 91 and OC lines between Commerce and Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs. Perhaps these both shouldn't be included at the moment as well? If so, it might also be worth removing the 91 Extension and the Medical Center station on the Metrolink RDT as well. Speaking of which, not sure about the ESFV connection at Van Nuys Metrolink since while that project is also in advanced utility relocation, it isn't under construction quite yet, much like Brightline West between Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas. Link Union Station is also not yet under construction yet (on the Metrolink RDT).

Speaking of Brightline West between Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas, not sure if it's worth including that yet; it's apparently "near-shovel ready" but it hasn't broken ground yet. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We could always put <!- -these- -> around the features that are not ready for viewing, and easily remove them when they are, without having to tinker around with the diagram and try to get everything to fit. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, a lot of the projects you list in the first section don't even have well-defined routes yet. All the Metrolink stuff you mentioned is indeed probably outside of the scope of this particular diagram (for the time being), but those may be suitable for inclusion on the standalone Metrolink system rdt. And Brightline is only not included here because that company (and its predecessor) has claimed to be "shovel ready" for over a decade now - it's hard to include it when they've proven to be pretty unreliable in their execution. Again, i think the best qualification for inclusion on this list that the project either be actively under construction or sufficiently advanced in its planning that construction is eminent. -MJ (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. I think with this all being laid out, I'd say you should be good to go to make any additional changes to this particular RDT. The only other thing right now that I'd say that I'd need help with is squeezing that proposed Pico Rivera station onto the Metrolink RDT. That's out of my skill level with BSicon as of now, unfortunately, haha. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Coast Starlight on the Coast Sub

The Coast Starlight article has long indicated that the train runs the whole length of the Coast Sub, bypassing Hayward and Fremont. I vaguely remember seeing some mention that it can use either the Coast Sub or the Niles Sub depending on the dispatch and particular day, but does anyone have any other sources to back this up before I make the line "active"? (minus Ardenwood) -MJ (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

additionally, the Sunset Limited seems to take the Alhambra Sub for its whole distance after leaving Union Station, which is not currently indicated here. This one will alter that segment of the graph greatly for not much new information, so I can understand why it might be seen as unnecessary. -MJ (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Brightline/SwC geometry

If this diagram is to maintain its design language, there's going to need to be a redrawing of either the Southwest Chief or Brightline to show their crossing(s) - two over the Cajon, and one north/east of Victorville, and another east of Barstow. The two over the Cajon can probably largely be ignored, but they're so close to existing stations (and putting almost 1/3 of the map between Victorville and Victor Valley feels kind of wrong). -MJ (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)