Jump to content

Talk:Metra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateMetra is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

Cats added

[edit]

I added categories here for transportation in chicago and transportation in illinois and someone reverted them as redundant to existing category metra. Am I alone in the opinion that category metra isn't very useful and the other two supliment well? What do we gain by only using one (obscure) category? I'm not planning on an edit war so am writing this instead. Tedernst 02:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with the above. If there are no objections in the next week, I'm going to change it back. L Glidewell 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph street station

[edit]

I was down there today and Metra is calling it Millenium station now. I would change it but I'm still not completely sure. Avalanche Knight 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Millennium Station on the time schedules and stuff, but the conductors almost always call it out as "Randolph/South Water." L Glidewell 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Board ordinance changing it to Millennium Station after the station was redeveloped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.108.66 (talk) 17:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Accidents

[edit]

I broke up the News heading into News and Accidents. All of those events should be here in Wikipedia somewhere, although I don't know if they need to be on this page per se, I do know they don't all belong in News so I'm working under the assumption that none of them do (once they stop being news, of course) and that they deserve their own heading. Any thoughts? Gws57 22:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the Accidents section is growing, and it bothers me that it's now the longest section in the article. Few other railroads have Accidents sections that take up so much article space. Not that I don't think they are important, but I wonder if the other sections should be expanded, or the Accidents shrunk down a bit -- and how?Gws57 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit to the Wojtyla accident may suggest to readers that there is a citation for this statement: "A wrongful death lawsuit brought by Wojtyla's estate was dismissed in 1996". That is not true. I have not found a source for that last sentence. The rest of the (very long) paragraph is fully documented. Zzorse 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I caused any confusion. My main objective was to change the references to inline citations and attach them to the relevant bullet point, not necessarily the sentence. As the references had no urls I could use to review the facts, I didn't know that last sentence was unsubstantiated. Feel free to move the references as you deem fit and accurate. --Millbrooky 17:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your edit. I moved the inline citations, see how it looks to you. The last sentence about the lawsuit doesn't really seem to fit, maybe it should be deleted? I do share Gws57's concern that the accident section is getting huge. That particular incident, however, has taken on a life of its own on the Internet, with inaccuracies. I felt it best to have Wikipedia nail it down with facts. For what it's worth, the Downer's Grove public library mailed me photocopies of the 2 citations, they are not online, at least not for free. Zzorse 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to create a separate article for accidents so that it doesn't overwhelm the main page? Thoughts? Lonelymiesarchie (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "express train"

[edit]

I think I speak for the general Wikipedia reader when I say, what in the world is a "BNSF 'Racetrack' express train"? —Rob (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the BNSF Railway Line article. The "Racetrack" is referred to express trains along the center track, traveling at high speeds. Calwatch 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious...shouldn't the section regarding the woman struck by the express train in Downers Grove be changed to reflect that, at the time of the accident, Burlington Northern owned that property? BNSF Railway did not exist in any form until 1995. -anon

Expansion

[edit]

Okay... I want to see Metra service expanded as much as the next commuter. But uncited "plans" to expand to Milwaukee, Rockford, DeKalb or other places do not belong in an encylopedic article. I added citations to Metra press releases for the legitimate plans for expansion, but the others need to go away until we can come up with credible sources for them. Gws57 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Racine, WI has fixed up their old C&NW station in anticipation of an extension. Has that officially been announced? --MasterA113 13:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I happen to visit the lake bluff station just about everyday. I can get better quality pictures and you can go inside the station and get pictures as well. I'll upload them as soon as I take them. In the mean time, I'm going to put up a picture of one of the trains.

Hi, it looks to me as though there are too many pictures of Lake Bluff. I'm not saying they are not nice, and I'm not saying delete them, but maybe if anybody has some other photos, please post them up. bobsmith319.

linked full dates vs. linked years

[edit]

I propose that we remove the links which point solely to years. We should retain links to full dates as long as that is how the wiki software recognizes date preferences. MKoltnow 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as it makes articles easier to read, as unnecessary links break the flow of the article. I also think that it's more or less becoming consensus throughout the Wikipedia to delink years unless necessary to establish context, which most of these aren't.Gws57 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents current event tag

[edit]

I think we should revert to keeping the current event tag in this section. It refers to the last paragraph--where police are still investigating the cause of the accident of 2006-10-25. Until we rewrite this graf with new info, it should have a current event tag. MKoltnow 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are both 553 and 555 still running?

[edit]

I've only seen the 553 club car recently. Is 555 still running out there? --MasterA113 13:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Trivia Section, Downers Grove reference

[edit]

This bit of trivia is not particularly significant, and it is not really about Metra, per se. It is something about Downers Grove. I think it should go away. Trivia sections are not a good idea, in general. I will respect consensus, of course, but will endeavour to make this change by 16 April 2007. MKoltnow 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even true, as Evanston also has three stations (Main, Central, and Davis)

Notable accident?

[edit]

There is a Metra accident mentioned on this page, Rachel Barton Pine. Whether it's worth including on the Metra page I'll leave up to others to decide. Zzorse 03:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


humm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.13.165 (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Metra Articles

[edit]

The titles of articles for the Metra lines with cardinal directions (e.g., North or East) in their names use a "slash" between the direction and the word preceding it. For example, the Union Pacific North line is rendered "Union Pacific/North". Why is this? The website doesn't print the line names that way. -Rrius (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the sub-articles were created, the slash was used in the name of the lines on the written public timetables. This remains the case. I understand the confusion, but tend to think that the printed timetables supercede what is published on the internet. Gws57 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly see how the train schedules would be the be-all, end-all. I should think other, less utilitarian examples would shed more light. That is to say, there are reasons why the train schedules might use eccentric formatting. I fail to see why Metra's website would be other than a reliable means of judging how the names of Metra lines are formatted. If the front page is not enough, how about the press releases? In this release, Metra refers to the "Union Pacific North Line"; Wikipedia would refer to it as the "Union Pacific/North Line". Where the subject of the article uses a normal, unpunctuated form in standard text, why would we use some other form because they use a variant for the title of a small booklet? -Rrius (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care enough about the naming rubric of the articles to stand in the way of a mass change one way or another. I was just answering the question as posed, and explaining why I thought it had been organized the way it was. Gws57 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate route-map image

[edit]

This route map is WRONG. Believe me, ive been using metra for quite a while. Check out the Metra website if you dont believe me. One example is: North Central Service leaves at Union station NOT Ogilvie

Please replace the image or remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.243.244 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the map is a little hard to read, it does not show North Central stopping at Ogilvie. That line, with the other two from the north and west snake around to Union. Look again. --DAW0001 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children Policy/Other major polices

[edit]

Should the policy from Metra's website (which can be dumbed down to "No children 7 or under are permitted to board the Metra train without parental supervision") be included on the article? Of course, my dumbed down version obviously could do a little NPOV, but it is notable and should be included. 98.226.32.129 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language versions

[edit]

I have removed the es:Metra links from de:METRA and fr:Metra, (and previously removed them here) and removed links to the French, German and English versions of this page from es:Metra, as the Spanish Language article has a completely different, non-railroad, subject. Hopefully this will help prevent erroneous Bot inter-wiki additions to this article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Code of Conduct

[edit]

Would a mention of Metra's code of conduct be appropriate? I personally appreciate Metra's stance on language and disruptive behavior onboard and believe that this is a positive that sets it apart from the CTA. Lonelymiesarchie (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Metra navigation box?

[edit]

I trying to tie all of the Metra pages into one easily navigable spot instead of just showing Metra lines. Anyone like this more or less than the current navbox? Suggestions? Only have one section for "lines" with two subsections (current and proposed)? Do nothing? OMGWTFBBQ? Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure South Shore Line belongs here (although I can see how that might be the case, seeing as how Metra partially funds the service and all). I would include links to rail terminals and (possibly) former lines, but other than that, I have no problem with your proposed navigation box. --Strannik (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the accidents listed under "other" need be there, but incorporating the links to the fleet isn't a bad addition. Should try to squeeze in the gallery cars, as all Metra lines (outside the ME) use 'em, and they originated in Chicago. There's a section on them here. I agree that terminals would be a good addition. Host/provider railroads might start getting a bit crowded, and are linked through the individual line articles anyway. (And, thanks to some not so creative names, are obvious for at least some lines).oknazevad (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 changes

[edit]

This article has several issues - many already discussed on the talk page - so I'll be attempting to address them and rework this article.

  • The article's prose outside of the history section has way too much focus on historical information. CURRENT service descriptions are listed as connecting to this old station or used to leave that station that no longer exists or runs on these "ex"-whatever tracks. I'm going to try to consolidate what I can to the history section. Also, I'm considering moving the history section down one and putting service first.
  • The lines and service descriptions are quite confusing for someone not knowledgable about Metra service. The table, while helpful, lists too much different information at once - from ridership to departing stations and dates of construction. Relevant information, for the most part, should be kept in relevant sections. If you look at the Chicago L article the service section does a pretty good job keeping routes and their descriptions understandable and does so in an organized fashion.
  • The fare section needs work. There is little to no information on ticket options. Zone info needs to be communicated more efficiently and exceptions to rules shouldn't comprise most of the text in this section.
  • The accident section - IMO this section needs to be removed completely. When looking at the two major commuter railroads in New York the word "accident" never even appears in their articles. I understand we shouldn't base the structure of some articles on others, but that article provides an example of perspective. Accidents occur frequently on all methods of transportation (rail, car, plane), but listing accidents on the main article for the transit service only serves to act as a memorial or for shock purpsoses - and Wikipedia doesn't exist as a personal memorial or shock site. Some of these incidents were substantial and should probably have their own pages. But listing things like the Wojtyla death and Pine injury on the MAIN page is ridiculous. This system is inconsistent and unnecessary (a number of other deaths and suicides aren't listed here - and why list any in this fashion?)

I'll try and update other things too, but the list above seemed to be the most serious issues at first glance. DR04 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on your thoughts:
    • I think the article has a pretty good balance of history in it. Metra is fairly unique historically, due to Chicago's status as the rail hub of North America, and Metra's nature as a legacy operation that assumed the private operations. No other legacy North American commuter operation has as many predecessor companies, nor do they have the complexities of owning some lines outright, operating some lines themselves on trackage owned by the freight railroads, and operations performed by freight railroads under contract. Understanding that complexity means describing the history to some extent.
    • I think the table is quite fine as it is; it, in conjunction with the map, effectively summarizes and overviews the various lines. I could see moving above the history section, but that may lead to layout issues with the infobox.
    • I agree with fare section needing work.
    • I can see thinning out the accidents section, but not removing it entirely; while the New York area commuter systems articles may not have them, they are pretty common on these articles. The only currently listed incidents I would keep are the Wojtyla and Pine. The Pine incident became specifically notable because of the great deal of coverage the ensuing lawsuit received, while the Wojtyla footage is, as noted, widely repeated. I don't believe the incidents are capable of supporting their own articles, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included here; it's a common result of AfDs that such articles should be merged into another article.
One additional thought: the bonus scandal section should be incorporated into the history section, and made significantly smaller. A bit of WP:RECENTISM to give it such a large section. oknazevad (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forced to agree with DR04 about the lines and service section and about the bits of history interspersed throughout the article. It's all good information, but in its current state, that information is quite cluttered. Aside from it somewhat manageable for those already familiar with Metra, the whole section seems very much directed at a railfan audience. Anyone outside of that group is bound not to get most of it. The history section really should cover all of the commuter services into Chicago and then explain how many began to die off and Metra was formed. Again, this information wouldn't be deleted, just moved from lines and services into a greatly expanded history.
The fallen officer part also needs to go as that's clearly a memorial to that one officer. No offense to him or his family, but it isn't a notable event. Lost on Belmont (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should have something about current services not lost amongst the history. Not everyone who comes to the article will want to know all the history; they wouldn't be well served by making them search the entire history. oknazevad (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the entire history of every single commuter service in the six-county region will make the history section needlessly clutted. I agree with most of oknazevad's points save for the part about shrinking the bonus section. Don't really see the need for removing the section about a fallen officer, since it was an unusual event in Metra history and thus notable. As far accidents, listing every single accident that ever occurred would cause it to bloat beyond reason, so we should just keep it to the more notable (and newsworthy) ones. --Strannik (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off let me say I was so impressed at the number of responses! I hadn't seen much activity here on the discussion page recently and wrongly assumed no one would be responding to my comments! Now - let me clarify a few things, point out some areas where I agree, and some differences of opinion I have.

"I think the article has a pretty good balance of history in it. Metra is fairly unique historically, due to Chicago's status as the rail hub of North America, and Metra's nature as a legacy operation that assumed the private operations. No other legacy North American commuter operation has as many predecessor companies, nor do they have the complexities of owning some lines outright, operating some lines themselves on trackage owned by the freight railroads, and operations performed by freight railroads under contract. Understanding that complexity means describing the history to some extent."
Indeed Chicago rail history, pre-Metra/Amtrak and even pre 1990, is quite extensive and rich. Don't get me wrong - I never proposed that any history info should be removed - only organized better. Chicago rail history is certainly an interest of mine. But as I mentioned in my original comments - "CURRENT service descriptions are listed as connecting to this old station or used to leave that station that no longer exists or runs on these "ex"-whatever tracks. I'm going to try to consolidate what I can to the history section.". This will be my goal. Current services shouldn't be flooded with tons of historical information. To do so would confuse readers and complicate the prose beyond understanding. I agree with Lost on Belmont's comments - "Aside from it somewhat manageable for those already familiar with Metra, the whole section seems very much directed at a railfan audience. Anyone outside of that group is bound not to get most of it. The history section really should cover all of the commuter services into Chicago and then explain how many began to die off and Metra was formed. Again, this information wouldn't be deleted, just moved from lines and services into a greatly expanded history." In other words this should be expanded, but put in the right spot. I would even be behind having an entire article dedicated to commuter rail history in Chicago.
"I think the table is quite fine as it is; it, in conjunction with the map, effectively summarizes and overviews the various lines. I could see moving above the history section, but that may lead to layout issues with the infobox."
I think the table is a fine source of data and appreciate the effort that went into its construction. However it has some glaring issues. The dates of construction are misleading and history too complex to list in a table. For example - North Central Service began in 1996 - but this table implies it was setup in 1886. I know - NCS uses part of the Soo line (a very cool and historical fact), but the table states something else. Due to the extensive history of Chicago rail history, something that you've pointed out yourself, oknazevad, these details are best left to prose; not an oversimplified table. Lets leave the table to do what it does best - present basic, but fairly extensive data in a concise, factual format - I'm thinking of using it, but just leaving the basics, technical details, names, termini (sp?)... I'll try to rework the table in my sandbox when I get through with my edits, and I'll list it here as a proposed change prior to actually updating the article. Sound fair?
Also, I do like having the former owner's listed, but maybe we should put it in a different table? Combining that all into one, especially one that lists service and technical details, makes it all very cumbersome. Again, I'll propose some changes and lets look at that.
"I can see thinning out the accidents section, but not removing it entirely; while the New York area commuter systems articles may not have them, they are pretty common on these articles. The only currently listed incidents I would keep are the Wojtyla and Pine. The Pine incident became specifically notable because of the great deal of coverage the ensuing lawsuit received, while the Wojtyla footage is, as noted, widely repeated. I don't believe the incidents are capable of supporting their own articles, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included here; it's a common result of AfDs that such articles should be merged into another article."
Listing these 1 or 2 person accidents/injuries (ie Wojtyla and Pine) is a perfect example of the article being written with a strong availability bias. Same goes for the officer down mention; I completely agree with Lost on Belmont on that point. These are not notable events. I understand that these were dramatic events and they received coverage - but that does not make them notable enough, IMO, to mention on the main page of an encyclopedia article covering one of the busiest commuter rail systems in the United States. Wikipedia is not a news media and shouldn't employ a faulty availability heuristic. People die on the expressways all the time - but they don't get mentioned (and these Metra incidents do) because of this bias. Just because the nature of rail makes these stories seem more dramatic because we hear them less (because rail travel is safer) doesn't mean we should include them. Should Wojtyla and Pine be mentioned here? Absolutely not. What about the 1995 Fox River Grove bus–train collision accident? Sure that one makes sense - on top of the size of the tragedy (21 injuries, 7 deaths) and media coverage, this article had a significant impact on national and local rail travel safety. This type of incident represents something I would be willing to compromise on keeping a section for. I see there are others on this discussion page who have expressed concern over the size of this accident section. So again, I'm willing to keep it in some form, but I'm thinking only 1 or 2 actually notable events should be listed (ie Fox River Grove).
And re: Strannik's comment - "Don't really see the need for removing the section about a fallen officer, since it was an unusual event in Metra history and thus notable" - unusual events in and of themselves do not qualify a mention as notable, and certainly don't qualify as having their own section.
"One additional thought: the bonus scandal section should be incorporated into the history section, and made significantly smaller. A bit of WP:RECENTISM to give it such a large section."
Yea I was thinking the exact same thing. I'll try to address this.
"I agree with fare section needing work."
Yea this will be critical to put in for me. The fare and ticketing system is a crucial component of the Metra system and this information would be very beneficial to readers if it was presented in an organized and understandable fashion.

Please let me know of disagreements/comments, etc. I'll try to keep working on the proposed changes so I have something to offer more than simple criticism. I'll post a link to the sandbox here once I make some decent progress. DR04 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see what revisions to the table(s) you could come up with. And I too like the idea of a History of Chicagoland commuter rail article (to coin a proposed title).
I still disagree with the removal of the Pine and Wojtyla incidents. The Pine incident should be mentioned not just because its well covered, or because it had permanent affects on Pine, but because it has had lasting impression on Metra; there were changes to operating procedures that resulted from it, and the financial settlement was nearly $30 million. And the Wojtyla video is distinctly notable for it's use by Operation Lifesaver. I can see adding the Fox River Grove incident. But that's our two opinions; I would like to hear other's input about which, if any, incidents to include. oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be great if we could get some other opinions as well - and it looks like we might already be getting closer to a solution on this point. I'd be happy to find some common ground to move forward with a consensus!
I was willing to compromise to leave some type of accident section in. I also would be willing to compromise to include some of these incidents IF they had a significant impact on service or safety policies as well. I'd be willing to leave in (with heavy rewrites) some of these incidents if we have sources showing how they impacted Metra and/or safety policies and the prose is focused on its notability rather than the event itself. I propose creating a safety section discussing safety policies of commuter rail and Metra, with an "Incidents" subsection that would include incidents with the justifications listed above. The incident would include just a sentence or two summarizing what happened and then have a sentence or two summarizing the impact and/or changes. Thoughts? DR04 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for an additional comment, but I have another proposal that might prove simple to start off with yet leaves a large opportunity for expansion. What about:
  • Renaming Railroad terminals of Chicago to "History of passenger rail transport in Chicagoland" or "History of passenger rail transport in Chicago"???
  • I noticed "Railroad terminals of Chicago" doesn't just cover the terminal stations but the railroads themselves. So this rename is probably logical anyway.
  • This rename wouldn't require a completely new article to be written but would encourage an article that already exists to be improved.
  • An article focusing on the history of commuter rail alone should probably be created after the article on the history of all passenger rail in Chicago exists...
oknazevad, others, thoughts? DR04 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both sound pretty good to me. The rename of the Railroad terminals in Chicago article seems the most logical way to have a history article without creating a duplicate article. Let me know when you've got drafts ready and I'll look em over. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! This is exactly what I was thinking of in my comment about the history of commuter rail lines in Chicago for the history section. What would appear on the Metra page would be a condensed version of this to help explain why the formation of NIRC and Metra was necessary. A "main article" tag would go above this. I'm not quite sure about the Wojtyla case, but I do believe the Pine incident is notable and should stay because of the changes it brought about at Metra.
On a side note, there are several editors on the 'pedia who are prone to having psychotic episodes with the mere notion of using the word "Chicagoland." Just a heads up. Lost on Belmont (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good guys. I've moved the terminal article to History of passenger rail in Chicago. Also I'm still plugging away on the rewrite for this article over in my sandbox. If you have any comments feel free to let me know. So far I've made good progress on the history, service, and fare/ticketing sections. Still have work to do on other sections and referencing, etc. DR04 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good; I particularly like the way you handled the services section. Thinking on it, the details of who owned what, when, etc. belong onthe individual line articles, so a capsule review is suitable.
Looking at the draft, I was reminded of the one thing I've always hated about this article: the rolling stock charts. They railfan spotter's guide material, which runs afoul of WP:NOT big time. At the least the retired equipment should go, and I dislike the listing by numbers. I would regroup them by builder. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well throw this out here since the article is getting a facelift. I've been (slowly) working on a List of Metra stations, but I haven't completed it due to time constraints, lack of constant internet access, and general laziness. The table is complete (it doesn't have opening dates, but this isn't required and the column can always added later) but the lead isn't. Any comments or suggestions, would be great. Lost on Belmont (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great! I'd say post it to the title you used in your link! DR04 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of tweaks

[edit]

Totally dig the rewrite. Made a couple of tweaks (which I explained in my edit summaries), but I have a quick thought. I don't think we need the header paragraph under "Service". It's a bit too HOWTO for my liking (that it's sourced to Metra's "how to" riders' guide reinforces that). But more importantly, the process it describes is the same for every commuter rail system I've even seen. As such, it seems too definitional, for lack of a better word, than is appropriate for this article. This article doesn't exist to define commuter rail; the already linked commuter rail article exists to describe the characteristics that make it commuter rail. So I think it can be safely removed. oknazevad (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Yea I wasn't quite done with the rewrite but based on todays events I figured I should go ahead with what was ready on the improvements. Thanks for the tweaks. I also agree on the service. During my writing it was supposed to be somewhere else, got kinda rewritten and then now its just disjointed. I'll take a deeper look at this again soon too, but I'm glad its up ready for edits. Thanks again! DR04 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for the hard work! I took out the paragraph, and there's been a few more routine tweaks, which says to me the page is now at a normal state, which is good. Thanks again! oknazevad (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of Lead

[edit]

Since the majority of the article has been rewritten I also rewrote the lead to reflect the updates and (hopefully) efficiently summarize primary points of the article. I used WP:LEAD and some featured articles as a guide. I removed the mention of the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation from the lead (it still exists in history defining its operational situation) - it is NOT Metra's official business name. Metra is officially a division of the RTA per the Metra site and RTA. The NIRCRC is a corporate front for Metra and the RTA - it manages the purchase/management/leasing of railroads and serves an "adjunct staff function". Just wanted to clear this up in case there was a question. DR04 (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my interpretation of this and prior understanding: the RTA is a funding agency, which only looks at the "big picture" oversight. The day to day operations are handled by the "fundee". In the case of Chicago commuter rail, the RTA's Commuter Rail Service Board oversees the operations, using the common "Metra" brand (which has become synonymous with the service board), while day to day operations are carried out by three "fundees": BNSF for the eponymous line, Union Pacific for it's three lines, and the Northeaster Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corporation (NIRC) for the other lines. Now, NIRC is a subsidiary of the RTA, and described as it's "operating arm". So it's the official business name for the actual ooerator of the majority of Metra lines, but it's nit synonymous with the whole of "Metra" as most would understand it.
The take away from all this: the current descriptor in the article is pretty darn good. The only thing I might add is a phrase such as: "lines not contracted are operated by the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corporation (NIRC), Metra's operating subsidiary", maybe in the lead, but probably better in the lines section.
Also, I don't think we need to mention the CTA in the lead. That they're sister agencies isn't really defining for either, and is covered by the already extant link to the RTA article. I won't take it out yet, but would like a stronger rationale for it. oknazevad (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that also seemed kinda messy, so I removed the CTA mention. I like your option to add that phrasing into the article itself.
So I still have some work to do - doing a little rewrite on incidents to prose (and cleanup) and also doing the same for the rolling stock - I'll also rename that section to a simple "Rolling stock" as that term (with my understanding) includes "motive power" as it currently reads. But yea progress seems to be coming along. Thanks Belmont and oknazevad for staying on top of my mistakes and keeping it up to par. Its nice to be able to just focus on writing and knowing you guys have my back so quickly!! Thanks again! DR04 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a brief paragraph at the beginning of the routes section including the mention of NIRC. I also alphabetized the routes. While the counterclockwise by outer terminal list makes sense with a map present, for a regular list, it seemed to make more sense. oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of Incidents/Accidents

[edit]

I've rewritten the Incidents section. I've altered the focus to a more aggregate perspective. I've included only disasters and statistics. Also I've written the section in prose - trying to move away from the lists.

I reverted back to not including these individual incidents (unless catastrophic, there are currently 2). Statistics paint a much better picture and are more notable. In a list format people were listing every little new incident. In reality there were 150 or so deaths - so which ones to include? Why not all? Others here have commented that those with million dollar lawsuits/settlements or those that have videos used by operation lifesaver are notable. Perhaps in a list format (ie List of Metra incidents - maybe a link to article?) - but not here. Why? Because several of these deaths have involved such lawsuits and operation lifesaver has used several of these incidents in videos. I fail to see why that makes those individual incidents notable to include on an individual basis for the primary page on of one of the busiest commuter rail networks. Again, I reassert that Wikipedia is not a memorial or shock site. Listing individual fatalities does not represent Metra's safety failures as a whole, but stats do. Several editors have mentioned their feelings that the accidents/incidents section is growing too large. I attempted to correct this and hopefully the changes encourage more appropriate updates to this topic. DR04 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Metra stations

[edit]

User at 67.188.158.240 keeps changing the Metra station count to 239. Metra's FAQ page which is literally up to date (html updated as of today) shows a current station count of 241. I've updated the reference, included that reference and updated the page. If this continues to be changed this user should be reported. I've already placed a warning on the editor's talk page to not continuously revert without references. DR04 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 08:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did not work. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned routes --> Not anymore (?)

[edit]

This article states that Metra is currently planning two new routes, but this information seems outdated. One of the proposed routes, the Suburban Transit Access Route, is not a serious proposal (or even a proposal at all) anymore, according to the article. The other, the SouthEast Service, has a very outdated article. I don't think that either routes are proposals anymore. I think this article (and the two other articles) should be updated to reflect this, but I would rather leave this up to an editor who is more knowledgable on this specific subject. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metra's website - broken refs

[edit]

Metra's website was recently redone, and because of that, pretty every ref sourced to Metra's website has been broken. Either a bot will archive these refs, or we could find new refs on the new website or others. Just a note. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every ref accessed before June 29, 2016, I believe, to be more specific ([1]). --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Metra. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 01:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All work! --1990'sguy (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metra. 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: 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) 04:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Metra. 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: 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) 20:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption

[edit]

Just now, I split "Corruption" off into its own section, added the Don Udstuen-Roger Stanley scandal, and added a bunch of citations. Acwilson9 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, I personally know, but cannot currently document, that many Metra employees, all over the organization, were unhappy about the political scandals (which got in the way of doing good work), and were happier with the more meritocratic administration of both the recent Boards and recent CEO Don Orseno. It helped that Orseno was mostly well-liked, respected, and successful in his various previous on-train and management jobs in Metra's Operations. I myself, a former Metra bureaucrat, did not know him well, but occasionally crossed paths with him in meetings. Orseno retired in Dec. 2017, leaving "big shoes" to fill, IMO, for new CEO James M. Derwinski, who, like Orseno, is a capable veteran of Metra Operations. Also IMO, most Metra employees took, and take, great pride in running a good efficient railroad and public service, contradicting the stereotype, if not the reality, of government bureaucracies.) Acwilson9 (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

is responsible for all stations along with the respective municipalities

[edit]

most stations have been taken over by the city's they are in, metra has no money, has sold not only it's stations

and it's parking lots too. 50.254.21.211 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by 97198 (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Metra has the largest network map out of any commuter railroad in the United States?

Created by Amerail (talk). Self-nominated at 16:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Ineligible. Not raised to GA status or expanded sufficiently. In addition, a lot of the article content does not meet DYK citation requirements. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

While the Route Map drop-down and System Map in the infbox are nice; it'd be really nice to have an embedded map with the lines colored somewhere in the article, preferably in the "Routes" section. Kind of surprised one isn't present in the article, already. Criticalthinker (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. If I understand what you mean correctly, I would recommend reaching out to AlphaBeta135 for help with that. They created color coded maps on most of the station/line articles. I'm not sure how difficult it would be, how long it would take, or if they are even up to doing it, but that is probably your best option if they do agree to it. If I interpreted your message incorrectly, be sure to send me an article showing what you mean. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect CriticalThinker is referring to a map like the one in Providence and Worcester Railroad, based on OSM data. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Literally just talking about a free graphic of the system to embed in the article so you won't have to do any drop-down viewing of a system map. Criticalthinker (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Unfortunately I don't have the proper software to make that happen, but perhaps someone else does. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even talking about someone creating a map from scratch. I literally just talking about someone finding a free/fair-use image, uploading it to WikiCommons or wherever, and just embedding it in the article. I might just go ahead and look around, but would rather someone else go through that work of finding such a map. Criticalthinker (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's File:Metra system map.svg already. Mackensen (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That map is missing 35th Street and Romeoville stations. It was actually the very reason I put so much work into creating the route diagram. [Plus, it can be updated quicker. For example, if a station becomes accessible, all I have to do is change   (HST) to   (HSTACC).] If there is a way to update it to include the aforementioned stations, (along with possibly including Peterson Ridge and Auburn Park) then yes, that's a good alternative. But if not, it sends a bad message when we show a system map "updated as of 2010-2012" in 2023.
I say Yes to a free image of the system map, but No to the one that exists on Wikimedia Commons. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (check infobox). AlphaBeta135talk 12:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the question is asking for. The point is the map shouldn't be in the infobox, but near he list of lines. That infobox map isn't all the useful, both in placement and content (zero labels). An updated version of File:Metra system map.svg is what is needed. Why it was ever removed from the article in the first place I don't know. oknazevad (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the svg map as soon as the BSicon diagram was ready. (Admittedly, I should have asked around first. My apologies.) The fact that it was depicting the system ten years ago was actually one of the two main reasons I created the map despite knowing nothing about coding, but I digress. The BSicon map has the advantage of being labeled and being easily changed, with the disadvantage of being geographically inaccurate. The interactive map has the advantage of being geographically accurate but is not labeled.
I believe the best solution would be to use Metra's official system map, but since under-construction stations are not shown on their official maps, we should wait a few months until Peterson Ridge is completed. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highliner II builder

[edit]

The disputed source doesn't say who the builder was going to be. The Highliner article is effectively unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New header picture

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

would it be possible for a more up to date header picture such as one of the recently rebuilt F40PH-3s? I feel like the F59PHI isn’t so fitting now considering Metra is entirely rebuilding most of their fleet. thanks! Railfan 124 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New section for paint schemes/liveries

[edit]

Today I was skimming through the Caltrain wiki page, and discovered a section with all of their paint schemes. I was thinking if we could make a section for all the paint schemes the page would be a lot better for it anyone is using it as a reference.

Thanks,

Your local Chicagoland foamer Railfan 124 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metra&oldid=1246253330"