Talk:GO Transit/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about GO Transit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ridership

I was wondering if we could get some ridership numbers for the whole system as well as the individual lines. I know that the Montreal commuter train pages have ridership statistics

--99.238.33.23 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Line-specific ridership for the 2006 calendar year has been added - some formatting to the table may be necessary to distinguish the line-specific quantities from the sub-totals and final total.

Future Expansion

Updated to reflect information reported in this article

I'd be happy to reflect on this article, but it is not readable, from my server at this time...
I'm also a little concerned with the last few postings by user 206.248.134.86 about future expansion on the CP line towards Bolton....is there a source there, or is it just wishful thinking?

Bacl-presby 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bolton is definitely wishful thinking!

The mention about Peterborough need to be updated to reflect the current state of things. Otonabee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Naming Issues

I've decided to clean up some of the naming issues surrounding GO stations; before, for GO station article names, we had the following "conventions":

All GO stations now have the naming convention Milton (GO Station); it would have been easier to choose the (GO Transit) parenthetical, since many articles used it, but there would have been problems in the future for disambiguating the following:

etc. If anyone has issues with this, leave a message here or on my talk page. Mindmatrix 20:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW:, I've left the line names as Milton (GO Transit) et al, though I'd prefer something else. Anybody have suggestions for this? Mindmatrix 20:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Another quick note: I've fixed ALL redirections that occurred because of page moves. There may still be a few problems with red-links on other pages using old conventions, but those are difficult to find. Mindmatrix 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks great!! Hope any of my recent "revisions" are within the standards sought... Also hoping someone with a camera can take pictures of all of these stations (picture is worth how many thousand words!!); Questions: 1) Shall the Separate Bus Terminals (no rail connections) such as Finch (former York Region), Bramalea City Centre, Square One, be made into separate sections? 2) Should the Highway 407 services get the colouring now used for Stouffville Trains--their schedules are now a dark brown shade??

Incidently, I just saw the new Langstaff GO Station VIVA facilities being built at the north end of the station--not sure at present (someone will know!!) if the GO Buses will use this as well--the 407 Buses presently use Langstaff Road East (south end of station) at present, although the new access will be from the Highway 7/Yonge Street Exit Ramp....

BACL-Presby (I'm registered, but not to talk at present) 13:20 (ish) June 15, 2005.

Templates

I've added templates for each train line in the system:

I'l probably be extending their functionality soon; if anyone has suggestions, let me know. Mindmatrix 02:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

How about spots for indicating whether a station is wheelchair-accessible, has an inside waiting room, the length of trains it can accommodate, that kind of thing? David Arthur 15:02, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I compiled a similar list. Basically, I've been looking over Station information from the GO Transit website (for example Brampton GO Station), and trying to assess which info is useful. I don't want the templates to be unwieldly, but I do want them to be comprehensive. So far, things I'll likely include are:

Location
Station building (do all buildings have waiting rooms?)
Train length
Wheelchair-accessible train service

And things I may include:

Connecting transit
Links - for schedules etc (?)

I'd like to include train length data, but I haven't found a good source for this yet. Mindmatrix 17:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've added information for location (address), station building and wheelchair access. It's stored in a separate template called Template:GO Transit Facility Services. That template is used by each of the seven templates listed above, which pass variables down to this new template. That is, this template is used transparently. Mindmatrix 01:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: these templates have been deleted; all their functionality has been replaced by Template:Infobox GO Transit rail. Mind matrix 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Policing

Just noticed the addition of the Special Constables section. This is also noted on a related page with Viva (York Region Transit's bus rapid transit service, not VIVA!). I recently linked special constable to the Viva site, and will do likewise here on GO Transit...However, I'm not at all happy with the placement here, and wonder as well whether the respective Rail Police Forces CN Police Canadian Pacific Railway Police Service should also be included here??

-Bacl-presby 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, special constable is a British policing term, so I've replaced the definintion with Peace officer, that is the North American definition. -Bacl-presby 18:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Train 48

Do we really need to go into detail on the derailed soap that Global has been using a filler on Summer Saturday Evenings?? Or is this more Colbert shrapnel?? Bacl-presby 13:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

New GO Trains photos in circulation

[1] Pretty exciting to see new trains. Obviously they don't have their paint scheme yet, but apparently the are undergoing testing. Should be delivered in the fall. -- 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Electrification of Lakeshore GO line

I overheard a radio report last Friday of an Ontario government plan to electrify the Lakeshore GO transit lines. I don't know the details, but if anyone does, they would be welcome here.

--Plane nutz 15:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be talking about MoveOntario 2020. This will only come into light of the Liberals are re-elected in October, if they choose to keep this election promise. Until then, Electrification of the GO line (SuperGO) is just a thought. --16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Length

The length of the bus fleet has been converted from feet to metres, as this US editor had forgotten that the US system is not used in Canada. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that the specifications from the manufacturers are to the nearest foot and your conversions are to the mm. Try this Template:ft to m which would read as "40 ft (12.2 m)", with a more rounded precision. Lastcent (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming issues revisited

When I first standardised naming for GO-related articles, my primary concern was to provide consistency for article naming. That was achieved by having all train lines named "Line (GO Transit)", and all stations as "Station (GO Station)". This probably needs an update of sorts.

For train lines, the present naming seems OK, but a better alternative is always welcome. Possibilities include "Line (GO Transit train line)", "Line (GO Transit train service)", "Line (GO Transit rail service)", or "Line (GO Transit rail line)", but these don't really offer any advantages over the current names. They may be useful redirects to the current articles, though.

For the train stations, there are a number of possibilities. First, if the current names are retained, they should at least satisfy the Manual of Style, so "Station (GO station)" would be more appropriate (note lowercase "station"). However, this could also be clarified as "Station (GO train station)", though this may represent needless disambiguation. Another suggestion is to use names as they appear on the GO Transit website, such as "Milton GO Station". This may be the technically correct solution, but would require renaming the lines too, for consistency (say, "Milton GO train line", etc. as above).

For bus terminals, we currently have "Finch Bus Terminal" and the like; I think this is optimal, though we should set up redirects as necessary.

Does anyone have any other suggestions? Does anyone prefer the status quo? Mind matrix 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GO seem to almost universally use the ‘Milton GO Station’ form, so I think that would be the best name for the articles as well. It would match better with most of the articles about railway stations around the world (see Guelph railway station, London King's Cross railway station, Stockholm Central Station, etc.) as well as discouraging people from using the pipe trick to reduce the name to just ‘Milton’, which suggests a link to the town rather than the station. David Arthur (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GO Transit uses upper case for branding purposes "GO Train", "GO Bus", "GO Station", etc., not as a descriptor. This eliminates the need to repeat the word Transit in those titles, which are widely used. A GO Transit bus is a vehicle that is used to provide GO Bus service and the same would apply to GO Train service to GO Stations. I agree with the ‘Milton GO Station’ format as used by GO. I am not sure what to call the railway routes, except not to use GO Transit rail or train. But then I thought that Go Daddy was the name that Sean John Combs used while travelling in the GTA. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The options available for train lines are (using Milton as an example):

Milton (GO Transit train line)
Milton (GO Transit rail line)
Milton GO Transit train line
Milton GO Transit rail line
Milton (GO train line)
Milton (GO rail line)
Milton GO train line
Milton GO rail line
Milton (GO line)
Milton (GO line)
Milton GO line
Milton GO Transit line
Milton (GO Transit line)

Other choices would replace the word line with service, route or another qualifier. I'm inclined to choose either Milton GO line or Milton GO train line. Mind matrix 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you there. Although 'Milton GO train' and 'Milton GO line' are commonly used, your choice of 'Milton GO train line' gives additional clarity to those who are unaware of GO Transit and what services it provides. I have looked elsewhere in Wikipedia for precedents. VIA Rail and Amtrack have named trains, not lines, which is not much help here. List of railway lines in Great Britain seems to be the most extensive. Following that convention I would think it should be 'Milton GO Line', with no mention of train or rail and use upper case L. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with capitalisation is that it implies the title is a proper noun, which I don't think is correct here. Mind matrix 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This page from GO Transit would confirm what you say [[2]]. Although they use some branding that I mentioned above, here they use 'line' with lower case, and so Barrie South GO Station is "located on the Barrie line (formerly the Bradford line)". -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the logic for the current titling scheme is rooted in how the TTC's and Montreal Metro's articles are titled. (ie Linename (Operatorname) for lines, Stationname (Operatorname) for stations. ) Because Milton, Georgetown and Stouffville can refer to both a line and a train, though, we got into the midst of this whole business of Stationname (GO Station) rather than Stationname (GO Transit), which is where I think all the trouble began.

So, I guess the most relevant question is if there's any advantage to emulating the TTC/MM model.

If we're not, my vote is for "Barrie line", "Lakeshore West line" etc., as Secondarywaltz suggests. The stations are trickier... in theory I'm down with "Rutherford GO Station-type nomenclature. But what about those stations that have multiple services? Is Oakville, for instance, more of a VIA station or a GO station? Should we consider who built them, perhaps? And what about those that predate GO service and date back to the mists of Rapido-time? The Tom (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I’d say ‘Burlington GO Station’ for anything which is exclusively GO, and ‘Oshawa railway station’ (following present international convention) for anything which is shared or exclusively VIA. David Arthur (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I still favour the 'Milton GO Line' (or 'line') format. There are many places in the world called Milton or Georgetown, and how about Lakeshore East in Chicago or Lakeshore, Ontario or any other Lakeshore. The GO line to Oshawa is also distinct from the CNR line (now nicely depicted on the route map, thanks to The Tom). Which brings us to shared GO/VIA stations. Oakville railway station, Guildwood railway station and Oshawa railway station are redirects to each GO Station, but Georgetown railway station is in Scotland, Aldershot railway station is in England and Brampton railway station is a disambiguation page with one of the links to the GO Station. Of the six shared stations, Oshawa is probably the only uniquely named community but even there the article in Wikipedia is still fully titled Oshawa, Ontario. Should the name of all of these railway stations then use the extended Wikipedia name, including 'Ontario'? -Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

‘Georgetown, Ontario railway station’ would probably best reflect existing conventions; the question is whether it should be included always, or only when there’s another place by the same name. (When I first started creating articles about minor Canadian railway stations, I included the province name in every case, but since then many of them have been renamed to just the town’s name, as in Guelph railway station.) David Arthur (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the title should only be as specific as necessary. Further, the new convention for article names for Canadian places is to remove the provincial or territorial disambiguator in cases where the title would be unique. (Oshawa is an excellent candidate to be moved, by the way.) Although I have no preference toward line naming, having titles such as "Milton line" isn't a poor choice - it is not the duty of the title to specify where the line operates unless there is more than one line with that name. The example by DavidArthur demonstrates this: including the province in the title wasn't necessary for "Georgetown railway station" either because no other such station exists, or no article for another station with this name exists. If another article for a different "Georgetown railway station" is created, then the pages can be moved and disambiguated accordingly. We should have rules in place to handle such situations, but shouldn't do it until it becomes necessary. Mind matrix 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding lines, let's use the simplest name possible, then: "Barrie line", or possibly "Barrie GO line". Redirect any possible and plausible variants to that article. For stations, we seem to have either "Milton GO Station" or "Milton railway station". For the latter, it may be necessary to create some disambiguation pages for the articles noted by Secondarywaltz. For the record, I prefer "Milton train station" in these circumstances, since that's how most people are likely to refer to it in my opinion, but all choices perform their function adequately. We'll have plenty of redirects to ensure readers find their way to the correct article. Mind matrix 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you intend to change these names, Mindmatrix? I will assist wherever I can. Watch out for assassination attempts on individual stations by unenlightened editors. I have just reverted London, Ontario railway station, one of DavidArthur's articles, and the 'GO Station' format is often chopped to lower case. What about the proper name for Hamilton GO Centre? -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen places where GO refer to the Hamilton station as Hamilton GO Station, so for consistency and clarity I think it’s best to stick with that despite the parallel use of GO Hamilton GO Centre. For the lines, I think just ‘Milton line’ is a bit vague; I’d suggest ‘Milton GO line’. David Arthur (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have specific instances in mind? Here are search results, restricted to gotransit.com, for Hamilton GO Centre (191 hits) and Hamilton GO Station (1 hit, googlebombed to Hamilton GO Centre page). Mind matrix 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been pulling for 'Milton GO line' all along, but thought it had been rejected. After a reread I think it was actually favoured by most. I will edit the summary! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I'd prefer to disambiguate railway stations as London railway station (Ontario), as we do for articles about geographical features. I've looked through the various naming conventions, but haven't been able to find anything specific regarding such situations. Mind matrix 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I’ve seen ‘Hamilton GO Station’ on the destination-sign of coaches on the 407 route. ‘Centre’ is probably more common on maps and such, but I prefer ’Station’ for consistency and clarity, and to use ordinary language; the fact that they have used it means it isn’t a neologism. London railway station (Ontario) has some merit, but I chose London, Ontario railway station in order to combine the existing naming conventions for Canadian city articles with those for British railway stations (which have been the model for most railway articles on Wikipedia). I think it also more closely resembles the way people tend to write such things under normal circumstances. David Arthur (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked out the Category:Railway stations in Canada? The suggested 'London railway station (Ontario)' format is used by Nooobody! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely true - in Category:VIA Rail stations in Quebec, there's a link to Central Station (Montreal). BC and Manitoba use the format I propose, using city instead of province as the disambiguator - I've found Union Station (Winnipeg) and Waterfront Station (Vancouver), and also Saskatoon Railway Station (Canadian Pacific), which should be moved to Saskatoon railway station. Moreover, there appears to be a distinct non-consensus about this, and articles are named by whomever creates them using whatever scheme they prefer. There is consensus for some other countries though. See, for example, Category:Railway stations in Australia and Category:Railway stations in Japan by prefecture (see this list for a subset). The former use the format Ascot railway station, Brisbane, whereas the latter prefer the format I proposed, for example Kanda Station (Tokyo). For US stations, most are disambiguated using the transit agency, a la "(GO Station)", the rest by city, and a few by state, all using the format I proposed. The UK articles disambiguate, as noted above, using the city as High Street (Glasgow) railway station. This is used almost exclusively for UK articles, but you'll see the odd one disambiguated using the operator/agency, such as Bramwith (WR&G) station. Germany uses the same format as the UK, France disambiguates by operator. India has a hodgepodge of formats, but mainly follows the same standard as Japan. Sigh. Mind matrix 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary

'Milton GO line' etc., for GO Train routes. Keep it simple!
'Milton GO Station' etc., for exclusive use GO stations, as per GO Transit usage. Enforce as proper name.
'Oshawa railway station' etc., for shared stations, except conflicts at Georgetown, Aldershot and Brampton, where Ontario should be included, following the existing style for VIA Rail stations. Redirect from the new 'Oshawa GO Station' format above.

Contibutors please comment on this as a consensus. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Eeek! Hold up! I had missed this edit, Secondarywaltz, so I had kept mum because I was fine with the original proposal.

I really, really dislike the notion of "Milton GO line" precisely because "GO line" is a Wikipedia-specific neologism. If the company was in the habit of using terminology for lines akin to GO Bus, GO Train, GO Station, we'd see GO Line, but we don't. In official usage it's always just "XXXX line," and in my experience, anyway, colloquial use leans that way, too.

I hear your point about the potential issues associated with not being suitably unambiguous on a global scale, but if that proves to be the case, WP naming conventions are pretty clear that it's always better to make the name more specific via a parenthetical comment (so, for instance, "Lakeshore West line (GO Transit)" or "Lakeshore West line (GO Train)") rather than by using an article title that seems to officialize another term coined specifically for its 'pedia-friendliness.

Sorry for arriving after the fact! Can we maybe revisit? The Tom (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I moved the line articles because I thought there was consensus; this can certainly be undone/redone, so don't worry about it. I haven't touched the station articles yet, nor have I created the planned redirects. Mind matrix 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just did an internet search for various uses regarding GO train lines, and it appears that the form "Milton line" is overwhelmingly used by a ratio of 20:1 and up to 100:1 over "Milton GO line" and "Milton train line". In keeping with my previous comments, those of The Tom above, and these search results, it is perhaps best to use this terminology. (Note: my search excluded Wikipedia sites and mirrors.) Mind matrix 19:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I have not contributed in this way to Wikipedia before, and so I thought it was time to come to a conclusion - and got it right - then got it wrong. No problem for me on the 'line' naming. Could you please post a final summary so I know what formats you are going with. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined to simply name the stations "Milton railway station" et al. The majority of station articles I've found use this format, and redirect from the more common names, such as "Milton GO Station". This would also give us greater consistency for all station articles, at the expense of not using the proper name. Per the discussion above, we still need a firm guideline for disambiguation. Mind matrix 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course. You're right. The simple scheme makes much more sense. I kept looking at this as a GO Transit project, rather than just a line of regular railway stations anywhere in Canada or the world.
My interpretation of the disambiguation examples above are that the (Locale) used comes after the proper name section of the article title. Therefore Union Station (Winnipeg) distinguishes from other ocurrences of the proper name Union Station, could also be Central Station, and similarly High Street (Glasgow) railway station is used to indicate which specific High Street. Following this pattern you would use London (Ontario) railway station, with (Ontario) after the proper name to disambiguate that and before the generic description, but if the entire title is treated as a proper name then you have London Railway Station (Ontario) as seen in the List of railway stations in Japan. Currently the Category:VIA Rail stations consistently uses the Wikipedia style of naming towns, with a comma and the provincial name to disambiguate, except where it is treated as a proper name or is a facility shared with a regional system like GO Stations. Australia - "forget about it". -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary, take 2

Alright, so given this rather extended discussion, we now have:

Milton line for the train route
Milton railway station for the stations, with redirects from common names used by specific agencies:
- Milton GO Station by GO Transit (per station's page)
- Oshawa Station by VIA Rail (see title in header of station's page)
- etc.
an undetermined disambiguation format

I'll rename the lines at the end of the week if there is no further discussion about that. I'll move station articles next week. Mind matrix 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK with me! I just found this Image:CN Rouge Hill.jpg, and it will not help. Are there half a dozen names used for every station? -Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That sign is a standard CN location-marker found all along CN-owned lines, indicating to engineers that this spot along the line is known as "Rouge Hill" (not "CN Rouge Hill"), so I don't actually see how that would affect article titling.

Anyway, I was under the impression that Fooville railway station was the conventional practice only for facilities that don't really have a proper name. Certainly in the case of little stops in the North of England, they don't really have names--just a sign that matches the village it's in--multiple rail carriers might stop there, and the station is owned by a separate body entirely, Network Rail.

Most GO stations, though, are privately-owned by GO itself, and so what's they're named is what they're named by GO. And that's why my first preference is still for the Milton GO Station format, simply because that's the proper name in constant and consistent use by the owner-operator. The Tom (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles here, so let's try this instead. Are all GO stations owned by GO? (You state "most" above.) If so, then the correct article titles for all of them should be, as you say, Milton GO Station, with redirects from the name used by VIA rail. If not, which ones are not owned by GO, and what is the ownership structure? How should these be handled? For example, on GO Transit's website, the station page for Oshawa indicates that it is a joint GO/VIA station, but I don't know if this implies ownership, or simply usage. (The list of shared stations is: Aldershot, Brampton, Georgetown, Oakville, Oshawa, and Guildwood. source)

Whatever we choose, the VIA rail name for the station will be a redirect, since it is not (or so it seems to me) the common or official name for it. Also, all these titles will be used, it's simply a matter of which are redirects, and which is an article. Mind matrix 02:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As Bill Clinton said: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement..." [3] Born William Jefferson Blythe III (CN Blythe) and, due to family changes, later became William Jefferson Clinton (Clinton VIA train station) and now, because of his government position, he is called President Clinton (Clinton GO Station) but everyone just calls him Bill (Clinton station). If I referred to President Clinton or Bill Clinton you would know who I mean, but those other names are almost never used. Neither is wrong. 'Get on the GO!' -Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'll be moving every article to XXX GO Station, and will deal with the six dual GO/VIA stations later. Mind matrix 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I request Hamilton GO Centre over "Station"? GO is quite adamant about sticking with that construction on its own written content, which reflects the fact that the facility is a joint GO Station, intercity bus terminal, and [vacant, I believe] office block. The Tom (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was my intention for that article. Mind matrix 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As you've all noticed by now, I've moved all the station articles, and I've created numerous redirects to each one (about a dozen per article, and more than 700 overall). Next step is to figure out what to do with the six GO/VIA dual stations. Mind matrix 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First, big thanks all round to everyone who's been helpful in slogging through all this. Special thanks to you, Mindmatrix--those 700 redirects must have been soul-destroying.

In terms of the dual stations, I've been thinking about it, and I'm coming around to the position that there can be no harm in sitting tight for the time being with what we've got. They've obviously gotten by just fine up until now with GO-rooted titles. Ideally, if we managed to determine who owned the actual parcels of land or something, then I might feel more certain about recommending a title, but until then, we might as well go with the Wikipedia rule of thumb and use the most commonly-used name. Passenger volumes would definitely put GO well over VIA, so I suppose it would be fair to assume that more people think of it as a place you go for a GO Train rather than a VIA train, and accordingly see it as the VIA train stopping at the GO Station rather than the GO Train stopping at the VIA station. The Tom (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mindmatrix - not just for the big job, but for your responsive open attitude. The VIA stations are all built on CN land but I don't think that should affect the naming because all the GO Station platforms along CN tracks will also be on CN lands. Where are all the local railroading fans? Some of these stations, not just Union, have a historic background that should be expanded upon. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing articles

Articles related to GO Transit that need to be written:

Three of these terminals, owned and operated by transit agencies other then GO Transit, have details entered at: Barrie Transit#Terminal, Brampton Transit#Bramalea Transit Centre and Brampton Transit#Downtown Transit Terminal. I always thought that 'Scarborough Centre Bus Terminal' was within the Scarborough Centre (TTC) LRT station structure, and the Wikipedia description reads that way, but the GO Transit page does say 'near T.T.C LRT station'. [4] I will research that one. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've created redirects to the articles for now. Mind matrix 15:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS - A 5 Star Infobox! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... Mind matrix 15:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that Scarborough Centre is one structure comes from You Tube. First [5] shows the west end of the station at the TTC platforms, viewed from the overhead walkway at the shopping centre. At the end a GO Bus drives in. Second [6] shows a view from the east end, looking west, as a GO Bus pulls out. In the background is the walkway and extending beyond is the TTC section. Third [7] is the other side of the terminal; the southerly platforms. The camera is located just inside the TTC zone (barrier in the left corner), looking firstly at the bare GO Transit facility then swinging around to face west. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted an infobox for Scarborough Centre and Barrie (route updates to come). If a collapsed bus terminal list was the default, any article could accomodate stacking or inserting the terminal version of the infobox. So much information from such a small footprint. Finch and Newmarket should really have GO Transit at the top (like Unionville GO Station), but the VIVA infobox is so pushy. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Exhibition Station DOES have TTC routes near it!

The connections part states a wrong fact about TTC connections. Here is the wrong info below (the part about the buses):

All GO Train stations within the City of Toronto except Exhibition are adjacent to TTC bus routes, and Danforth, Exhibition, Bloor, and Long Branch stations are also on streetcar routes.

That's wrong. The bus route 29B and D (Dufferin) run past. Here is the correct info from the Exhibition GO Station:

Directly in front of the station there is a connection with Toronto Transit Commission buses on Dufferin routes 29B and 29D and at the nearby streetcar loop with 511 Bathurst and 509 Harbourfront streetcar lines.

It's opposing, and actually, the info on this page is untrue. I even have proof, as I was waiting in front of Exhibition for a TTC bus to come (there's a bus stop right in front of it!). Someone please change it. Thanks. BOB WAS NOT HERE! (Devrit) 02:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

GO Bus Route listing

I don't know if you folks need it, but I've compiled something that's hopefully correct wrt GO Bus routes. Some more details could be added... kelvSYC (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the page is at User:kelvSYC/List of GO Bus Routes. kelvSYC (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! This seems a better crafted list than most. - Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right - however, I'm more concerned with accuracy, and other key essential notes (such as service-type or other significant notes - eg. YRT fare integration on Route 69, the fact that all Highway 407 buses are weekday services, and so on). There is also a movement out there that is claiming that a list of bus routes is fairly crufty, due to the ever-changing nature of bus scheduling. I'd like those concerns addressed before moving on. kelvSYC (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo in bus section?

The last paragraph of the "Bus" section mentions "12V AC outlets" as being available inside the coaches. As twelve volts AC is not a common power source in North America, is this supposed to be either 12 volts DC, or 120 volts AC?. I'd correct it myself, but with a 50% chance of error in my guess, It's much safer to have someone with the correct info do so... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The source says just '12 V' without any current type, suggesting the DC explanation, but it seems odd that they wouldn't use regular power sockets. Can someone who's actually been on one of the buses clarify? David Arthur (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing resembling "outlets" on a bus would be feeds from the onboard 12/24V AC power supply for things like lights. They would not be available for use by customers/passengers. Dan Garcia -- 209.47.185.57 (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Dan, The article has been corrected by removing the outlets from the amenities. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

GO Transit operate regional coaches used by business travellers, and it isn't out of the question that they might have provided plugs for use with laptops and telephone chargers, just as some railways do. Since we have a source indicating their existence, can someone who actually travels by GO bus confirm their presence or absence? David Arthur (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Niagara Falls service

So, info about Niagara Falls has been added to the articles and infoboxes, but is it accurate? I know it has been announced, and will commence in June, but is it part of the Lakeshore West line? Given that it operates on different schedules, and skips most of those stations, it may be that they'll call it the Niagara Falls line, or some such. Is there any other info out there? This article notes the moniker "Niagara on the GO", though that may be Craitor's personal invention. (Article also states that nearly 55 people a year take GO.) Mind matrix 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It might needed to be. Schedule is on a different timetable from Lakeshore west line. (And I wonder the logic behind this - now we have 7 trains each way between Toronto and Niagara Falls on Saturday and Sundays in summer - 4 from GO, 2 from VIA Corridor, and 1 from Amtrak Maple Leafs.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Physically, it operates along the Lakeshore West line, it calls at Lakeshore West stations, and the timetable for both the bus and rail services are listed in the Lakeshore West booklet.

It's actually "Table 07 Niagara Falls Weekend GO Train" [8], which is different from Lakeshore West, and it only calls at a few stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reorg tag

I removed this tag, as in my opinion, the article is organized excellently, with good flow and a primary focus on the current service. More importantly, the original tagger never detailed what the supposed deficiencies of the article were. So hence the removal.oknazevad (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Future expansion section

This link [9] details GO's expansion aims over the next decade. I'd like ot re-write the Future expansion section to take account to take account of this, but I won't be able to do it any time soon. Tompw (talk) (review) 02:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

I propose that the facilities and terminals sections be merged into a new article titled GO Transit stations and facilities. These sections are currently too 'listy' and trivial for inclusion in the article. I think it would be better to create summaries in this article, and move the information into tables at the new article. It could also allow for detailed listings of all GO stations, park and rides, and maybe ticket agencies. Thoughts? --Natural R_X 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not just "GO Transit facilities"? Every station has its own article, so details would not be required, and inclusion of the list of bus terminals means it is not just "GO Train". Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We Could even make it a "List of..." eh? Having them listed there wouldn't hurt, even if they have their won articles. --Natural R_X 17:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not just a list - it will still contain the detailed information about other facilities that get split out (or is that spit out?) Could be used as a holding pen for all those miscellaneous items that clutter up the main article. Whatever you call it - it's a good idea. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I moved the article about GO Transit vehicles to GO Transit infrastructure, modelling London Underground infrastructure. Don't have time to do it 100% right now, but it will be taken care of in the coming days. --Natural R_X 02:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you guys thi9nk about moving some of the future expansion stuff there too? --Natural R_X 22:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think splitting the future expansion is a good idea; readers are ill-served if the have to run around to too many articles. Also, the title of the new spin off is iffy. As a large chunk of the article is vehicles, I think the use of "infrastructure" is poor, as infrastructure usually means the fixed assets, while, by definition, vehicles aren't fixed. I also am not sure of the scope of the article. A second split of the vehicles to a GO Transit fleet article, similar to the Long Island Rail Road fleet article strikes means the way to go. (Absolutely no pun intended.) oknazevad (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well like I stated earlier, I am trying to structure it so it is somewhat like London Underground infrastructure; namely rolling stock, (summary of) stations, lines and connections, electrification and planned improvements, and other projects. There is much detail to these subjects that I envision being expanded upon, way beyond what should be included in the main article. I believe there is a policy about it related to the MoS, but I can't find it. Anyway, this should be more of a broad overview nutshell article. For example, we do not need to know the exact tracking that the Bolton or Seaton lines will follow, just roughly what communties they would serve (nevenrmind they currently are not referenced and are speculative; I need to clean these up). I also don't see how you resolve the argument that readers shouldn't get a run-around of too many articles, yet a second split of the vehicles should be done. Appreciate your input though. --Natural R_X 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to split again. Just revert the redirect page List of GO Transit vehicles to what it was before. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

New system diagram

Hi everyone. You may have heard that GO Train service is being extended to Kitchener. The layout of the system map has taken a new form recently too. The current system map on this page only shows trains. I want to appeal to anyone that is good with diagrams to try and make a new one incorporating all these features. I would do it myself but I am lacking in expertise beyond MS Paint. If you could help out it would be greatly appreciated. --Natural R_X 08:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I did it in Paint anyway. If anyone wants a crack at a better version have at 'er. --Natural R_X 23:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Kitchener start

Hi, all - I've made a bit of a start on the transition from 'Georgetown line' to 'Kitchener line', by renaming the line article, and updating the Guelph and Kitchener station articles, to the best of my ability. Some bits (like the 's-line' templates in the infoboxes) are beyond my acumen and remain inaccurate for now. If anyone is willing to help, that would be greatly appreciated! Radagast (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GO Transit rail system

Hello all. I was going to explain in the edit summary, but I mashed the wrong button. I removed the template {{GO Transit rail system}} because it was causing problems with the images in the article (see the Villiage pump discussion). Furthermore, it is only a diagram for the Lakeshore East line and Lakeshore West line, so it may be more appropriate in those articles. Cheers. --Natural R_X 21:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong - it is for the entire system. Look carefully. Right - it is overly complex, like so many others, and does not really add anything. You were correct to remove it. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is tricky. Thanks for pointing that out. --Natural R_X 03:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you also seen the Template:Stouffville line? It is extreme in its complexity and much more than a RTD. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

2013 July 8 Toronto flooding

This should be updated to cover the torrential flooding and how it flooded out the trains and lines -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; see WP:NOT#NEWS. If flooding damage becomes persistent this year and is summarized in a source, then I could see it being notable enough. --Natural R_X 22:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a major incident on the service, so should be mentioned. NOTNEWS does not mean we shouldn't mention it, only that coverage shouldn't be great. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)