Talk:PATCO Speedline

Article makes unsupported assertions and needs references

In the process of cleaning up the grammar and usage (the article is about a US transit system, but appears to have been produced by a Briton), I notice sentences like this:

"The frequent use of such high acceleration and deceleration rates makes for a quick ride, yet one that could [be] perilous for non-seated passengers."

This strikes me as a statement of opinion more than fact, especially based on actual experience riding PATCO. The previous sentence describes how the ATO system applies "maximum" acceleration or braking force to reach the target speed set in the cab signal, but this sentence seems to assume that this "maximum" would be the emergency braking force. As I have yet to encounter a PATCO train that has received a 0 mph cab signal while traveling at 65 mph, I can state with a fair degree of confidence that the braking force applied is within the range that allows standing passengers to remain standing where they are.

There appear to be other statements of this type in the article that I think need either researching or removing. Marketstel (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Issues in location of Philadelphia stations need to be resolved

The map is quite useful. It indicates Philadelphia stops. However, there are serious discrepancies between the map and the chart of stations. The map lists a few Philadelphia stations; yet the chart only indicates one station at Locust Street. Also, the upper portion of the map is cut off. Are other stations obscured by the illustration box's position?

It is misleading to place an intersection with Market Street in connection with the PATCO station at Locust Street. There are six blocks between Locust Street and Market Street. So, it is misleading to suggest that this station is convenient to the regional trains at the Market Street Station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogru144 (talk • contribs)

Not sure what version of the chart you're looking at, Dogru, but all five Philly stations are listed in the station list. And the map is complete. --Jfruh (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

History question

If I'm reading the history section correctly, up until 1968, the Bridge Line ran from Camden up the Broad Ridge spur and Broad Street lines to Girard, while Broad-Spur Line trains ran down from Girard over the spur and into the Locust Street Subway. Is that true? Were the Bridge Line and the Broad Street Lines operated by the same agency at the time, or did trains from the two agencies run through the same stations? How were fares handled? --Jfruh (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Late answer to the question:

This says that the Bridge Line was operated by Philadelphia Rapid Transit (PRT), and had four stations: 8th & Market, Franklin Square, Camden-City Hall and Camden-Broadway. The article has more on the history of the project. Evidently the Broad-Ridge spur was owned by PRT, but was eventually sold to SEPTA? --Rpresser 15:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ridge Avenue Spur and Locust Street Subway, like the Broad Street Subway itself, were and are still owned by the City of Philadelphia. The city leased the subway to the Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company (reorganized as the Philadelphia Transportation Company in 1940) to operate. The Delaware River (Bridge) Joint Commission had a similar lease arrangement for the Bridge Line subway in Camden and the Ben Franklin Bridge rapid-transit tracks. As the Delaware River Port Authority (which succeeded the DRJC in 1952) also owns and operates the PATCO Lindenwold High-Speed Line (the route's formal name), there is no longer a lease arrangement for the Camden subway or bridge crossing, but the DRPA does lease the Philadelphia portion of the route from the city's Department of Public Property (successor to the Department of City Transit, which built the tunnels). SEPTA likewise leases the Broad Street Subway, the Ridge Spur, and the Broad Street Line rolling stock from the city (which is why the city seal appears along with the SEPTA logo on BSS cars). Marketstel (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Article title

This article is about the the rail line, not the agency itself. Admittedly the rail line seems to be the only thing the agency operates, but still, shouldn't the title of the article be PATCO Speedline or some such? --Jfruh (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Category for renaming

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Did a little cleanup

• Seemed strange to have NJT and SEPTA connections listed above the fold while Amtrak was below, so condensed those into a single section and put them below the TOC.

• Clarified the nature of the connection at Walnut-Locust: the underground stations are contiguous.

• Moved the "History" section up: somehow seems more pertinent than which Teamsters local is currently representing the employees

I'm amenible to countersuggestions on any and all of this.

--Dr memory 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I propose all of the station articles are merged here. Each are stubs and only have one or two sentences. Furthermore, it's unlikely that they will be expanded by anyone or even whether it could be expanded more. If that would make this article too long, then perhaps a List of Port Authority Transit Corporation stations could be created, though I don't see the need for all of the stations. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, with the modification that some of the stations link to articles that are NOT exclusively PATCO stations -- e.g. 8th and Market (PATCO Station) which is a redirect to 8th and Market (SEPTA Station), Walter Rand Transportation Center which is a big article of its own, and Lindenwold (PATCO Station) which is a redirect to Lindenwold (NJT STation) Those articles should be left alone. Rpresser 15:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

True, I didn't put the merger on them because they are more than just one little station. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If anywhere, they should be merged into the places that the stations are in, not the line. For instance, Ashland (PATCO station) would be part of Ashland, New Jersey. --NE2 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but what about Philadelphia? 3 articles being merged there wouldn't make much sense. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are equivalent to subway stations, and they have their history. Maybe a single article on the Locust Street Subway or Locust Street would be a good target, or they can be left alone. --NE2 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger. There is enough detail available for a (usually) short article on every station, with history of its origins, be that Locust Street Subway, PTC Bridge Line, or Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines, along with current station details including facilities, architecture, ridership, and available connections, all of which can be verified and cited. Attempting to merge all of the station articles here or elsewhere would be too irregular and too sticky a process. —CComMack (t–c) 01:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true, it could, but generally the station articles haven't been edited for months since they were first created. Based on that, it seems unlikely someone is interested in doing it now. If someone wants to expand them in the future, their page histories will still be there. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also oppose, as the articles, while not beautiful, have enough info to stand on their own. American Patriot 1776 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Obsolescence discussion needs work.

"At its inception, this system was state-of-the-art, but it quickly became obsolete. Often, tickets were damaged by magnetic sources such as cell phones and PDAs that did not exist at the creation of the system."

The use of the word "quickly" makes it sound as though the system became obsolete shortly after it was installed (I'm not sure that was the intent.), yet the obsolescence is attributed to cell phones and PDAs, which did not come into widespread use until decades after the system's installation. There have also been other magnetic sources, like purse clasps, which have existed since the system's inception and are capable of de-magnetizing the old (low-coercivity) magnetic tickets.65.216.251.162 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fares

Why doesn't the article say what the current single-trip fare is and if there are weekly/monthly passes, etc?Avman89 (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

PATCO High Speed Line

In local newspapers, this rail line is usually referred to as the PATCO High Speed Line or PATCO High-Speed Line. The Courier-Post uses the name "PATCO Hi-Speedline" in its articles ([1]), the Philadelphia Inquirer calls it the "High-Speed Line" in another article ([2]), and CNN refers to the route as the "PATCO High Speed Line" ([3]). I think that PATCO High Speed Line would be a more appropriate article title because WP:TITLE states that article titles are based on what reliable sources call the subject. --Apollo1758 (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

From Chicago "L"'s lede:

"Chicago's "L" provides 24-hour service on some portions of its network, being one of only four rapid transit systems in the United States (the Chicago "L", the New York City Subway, PATH, and Philadelphia's PATCO Speedline) to do so."

From PATCO Speedline's lede: PATCO Speedline operates 24 hours a day, one of only six U.S. rapid transit systems (the others being the New York City Subway, Staten Island Railway, the Red and Blue Lines of the Chicago 'L', the PATH lines, and certain lines of the Minneapolis-St. Paul METRO) to do so.

Something seems to be off here.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Page Move

Your recent page move is wrong. There is nothing on the PATCO webpage that states "Lindenwold Line", unless you can find one. Please revert your page move. In future please discuss page moves beforehand. Morphenniel (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• There was also no mention of “PATCO Speedline” either. Lindenwold Line is referenced at each station if you look at the pictures. I would be ok changing it to “PATCO Line” which is referenced in SEPTA literature or PATCO (Philadelphia-Camden)” as the website itself says “PATCO”. This article is not very active, so I doubt anyone actually cared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irkediambed (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Active or not, moving an article with a longstanding title should definitely be discussed. And SEPTA does not own PATCO so their usage is not defining. I've requested this be moved back. It should remain. oknazevad (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: "Speedline" is all over here.