Talk:Terminal Link

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Start of Service

Has the monorail started service? Someone changed the article to say rail service started in 2005? Nfitz 05:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well to answer my own question. I was over at T1 today ... service certainly hasn't started. The station is a do-not-enter construction area filled with equipment. There was equipment on the monorail line that would preclude operating a service as well. I'm completely reversing all 72.136.49.4's edits in this article Nfitz 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation started June or July 2006. Cable Liner Shuttle - not to be confused with a monorail.

Yeah, it's convenient, but it's hardly a nice ride. The rattling is pretty disconcerting. -- 216.185.84.30 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the rattling, but I found the system pretty slow. I was in London, some time ago, and the subway went right under the terminals at whichever airport I used there. I think it would have been best if the Union-Pearson train extended to each station. While a nice view is pleasant I think an underground tunnel would be better, because it could provide an entrance to the arrivals level without a walk of several hundred meters. Transferring to the interterminal shuttle adds a delay -- a delay of up to 6 or 7 minutes during off-hours.
The cable car's maximum capacity is too low. It is less than the capacity of a jumbo jet. And, because it is a cable car, it can only handle one trainset per track.
The tracks twisty-ness would reduce the maximum speed, even if the cable cars were replace with rolling stock that could travel at higher speeds. That was a mistake.
The stations are several floors away from the arrivals and departure levels. I wonder if they planned enough stairs, elevators and escalators to carry a full trainset of passengers to the next floor. Once the passengers get to the right floor, they then have a brisk walk to the arrival or departure mezzanine. I think the cable car imposes a heartbreaking delay on Union-Pearson passengers. I think it could take well over ten to fifteen minutes from getting off the Union-Pearson train until they get to their departure gate, where it would take considerably less if the Union-Pearson train went underground, and passengers emerged right up to the departure level. Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising much?

"A cable-driven APM is the most environmentally responsible solution for transportation in high density applications."

It is certainly an opinion. Not sure that it's a "Fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.4.237 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The reference following that was to the manufacturer. I attributed that to the manufacturer. This sentence should probably be removed all together, if a third party isn't referenced. Geo Swan (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References were a mess

Several URLs bare urls. Please people, never use bare urls. I changed all but one of these to populated {{cite}} templates. The one I didn't change didn't support the paragraph where it was cited.

I found many of the references didn't support the sentences or paragraphs where they were placed, so I added some {{cn}}.

A new reference I found said that the rolling stock cost $56,000,000 and the tracks and stations cost $150,000,000. The article currently says the whole system cost $56,000,000.

I suspect that if the Blue 22 system is a success it will overwhelm this system's 2000 pppd capacity. The goal of the blue 22 system is to get airline passengers from downtown to the airport in 22 minutes. The people-mover, as currently constructed, could almost double this. The first time I took it was a Saturday, around noon, and the second car didn't start up until 1pm. The article says the maximum wait for a train was 8 minutes? It seemed longer. I'll bet it will seem incredibly long if you are late boarding your flight. The train itself seems quite slow. And then there is the incredibly bad design of placing the stations up a couple of escalators, and a considerable walk for the arrivals and departure lounges.

Even if the cable car technology were replaced by a faster technology I suspect the tight curves would keep the speed down to a crawl.

I plan to keep my eyes peeled for RS that address these issues. Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opaque bulleted list?

I am sure the bulleted list is accurate, and made sense to whoever contributed it. But I find it opaque. I think it has something to do with the layout of the wheels -- but what? Geo Swan (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

opaque bulleted list
Married set formed of cars 1.2 + 1.3 + 1.4 + 1.5 + 1.6 Married set formed of cars 2.2 + 2.3 + 2.4 + 2.5 + 2.6 Small work car

Contract Amount

Geo Swan brought up this issue in the section of this talk page titled "References were a mess". Geo Swan provided the following discussion on this issue:

"A new reference I found said that the rolling stock cost $56,000,000 and the tracks and stations cost $150,000,000. The article currently says the whole system cost $56,000,000."

I did not see what source had the cost listed as $150,000,000, but if there is a source, then I agree with changing the amount as the $56,000,000 is not sourced. The source provided for the entire table I have not been able to access. User226 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LINK Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721211841/http://www.dcc.at/cells/4_1/tdt.html to http://www.dcc.at/cells/4_1/tdt.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405202545/http://www.dcc.at/main.htm to http://www.dcc.at/main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 February 2018

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

The result of the move request was: move uncontroversial (closed by page mover). feminist (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LINK Train → Link Train – As per MOS:TM, "titles should follow standard English text formatting and capitalization". In this case, LINK is not an acronym so full capitalization is inappropriate. A quick search shows that many sources refer to it as "Link Train" anyways. BLAIXX 23:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I think you could have boldly moved this, since even the official page uses that style. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. –BLAIXX 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As per nom, agree with Secondarywaltz, could have been boldly moved. – Northwest (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 15 April 2022

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

It was proposed in this section that Link Train be renamed and moved to Terminal Link.

result:
Moved. No real objections raised. The only comment pointed out that adoption of the new name is still in process, so this is being treated as a WP:BOLD move with WP:RMNOMIN. (closed by non-admin page mover) -2pou (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Link Train → Terminal Link – "Terminal Link" is the name used by Pearson Airport, and secondary sources like Via Rail and MiWay. "Link Train" does not appear to be the common name. 162 etc. (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that from your links Via calls it "Terminal Link train", MiWay uses "Terminal LINK Train" and "LINK Train" in the same paragraph. UP Express still calls it the "Link Train service" while this Insauga news article from 2021 matches Via and used "Terminal Link train". I agree the service has been rebranded by the airport (per nom), and the change is just slowly being adapted by other agencies. BLAIXX 14:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.