Content deleted Content added
→Length: new section |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=▼
|action1date=21:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
{{WikiProject California|class=GA|sfba=yes|importance=low|sfba-importance=low}}▼
|action1link=Talk:Caltrain Modernization Program/GA1
{{WikiProject Trains|class=GA|importance=low|portalSAweek=51, 2017}}▼
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=802075579
|action2=GAR
|action2date=14:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
|action2link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Caltrain Modernization Program/1
|action2result=kept
|action2oldid=1269388834
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=Transport
}}
▲{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
}}
▲{{DYK talk|19 April|2017|entry= ... that federal funding for the '''[[Electrification of Caltrain|project to electrify]]''' Bay Area commuter railroad [[Caltrain]] was pulled days before construction was scheduled to begin?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Electrification of Caltrain}}
Line 18 ⟶ 33:
{{ping|Mliu92}} I think the 2021 brochure is in error about the length of a 7-car set. The older brochure indicated a car length around 85 feet, which is standard for US passenger equipment; it seems extremely unlikely that they would have switched to a much shorter car. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 23:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
: Thanks - agreed. It also copies the truck configuration, power output, and tractive effort verbatim from the 6-car brochure, despite the addition of (apparently) another passenger trailer with two powered trucks, so I think they didn't check it very thoroughly before posting it. I'll update the article and revert the title back to a six-car consist. Cheers, [[User:Mliu92|Mliu92]] ([[User talk:Mliu92|talk]]) 00:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
== YouTube NTSB links ==
* {{youtube |id=bIkIuooZLxQ |title=NTSB San Bruno, CA Media Briefing (3/11/2022)}}
* {{youtube |id=vFNxmgodRI8 |title=NTSB San Bruno, CA B Roll 3/11/2022}}
Cheers, [[User:Mliu92|Mliu92]] ([[User talk:Mliu92|talk]]) 14:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
== EMU numbering ==
Putting this original research here for now, as I don't have a verifiable source other than observation:
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:100%;text-align:center;"
|+Caltrain EMU numbering scheme
!(2n+2) !!(2n+1)6 !!(2n+1)5 !!(2n+1)3 !!(2n+1)2 !!(2n+1)1 !!(2n+1)
|-
|<--South ||Bike ||Pass. ||Pass. ||Bike ||Pass+W/C ||North-->
|}
Notes:
* Caltrain EMUs have a seven-car consist, consisting of two cab cars (on the north and south ends) and five passenger cars (in between)
* Caltrain EMUs carry three-digit numbers on the leading (north and south) cab cars
** All three-digit numbers are in the 300s
** All north cab cars are odd
** All south cab cars are even
** The lowest three-digit number is 301
** Leading elements are paired so the south cab car is one (integer) digit larger than the north cab car. I.e., if a train has 305 as the north cab car, the south cab car is 306.
* Caltrain EMUs carry four-digit numbers on the middle cars
** All four-digit numbers are in the 3000s
** All four-digit numbers are based on the north cab car's three-digit number
** The car immediately south of the north cab car uses the north cab car's three-digit number with a "1" appended to it. So for instance, the car immediately south of 305 is 3051
** Four-digit cars are numbered sequentially from north to south, skipping 4 (e.g., car numbering jumps from 3053 to 3055); I speculate this is to accommodate eight-car trains in the future
** Bike cars are 3xx2 and 3xx6
** The only restroom (labeled WC) is in 3xx1
Cheers, [[User:Mliu92|Mliu92]] ([[User talk:Mliu92|talk]]) 14:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:Updated train layout: https://stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/kcal0823e_us.pdf -- in the drawing on page 2, north is oriented to the left.
== GA concerns ==
I am concerned that this article no longer meets the [[WP:GA?|good article criteria]]. Some of my concerns are outlined below:
*There is an "Overview" section which seems to be a second lead for the article. This should be combined with the lead.
*There is an orange "update needed" banner at the top of the "Environmental effects" section, and an "needs update" tag at the end of the first paragraph of "specific modifications"
*There is some uncited prose in the article.
Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to [[WP:GAR]]? [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 22:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
==GA Reassessment==
{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Caltrain Modernization Program/1}}
== There is a mistake. The "messenger wire" hangs in a catenary curve, not a parabola. ==
Hanging ropes, chains, cables, if pulled down by a uniform force of gravity, assume the shape of a "catenary curve" not a parabolic curve. In the description of the electrical system, it talks about a messenger wire from which the conductor is suspended. It says this is curved as a parabola. It should say catenary curve. [[Special:Contributions/73.231.66.144|73.231.66.144]] ([[User talk:73.231.66.144|talk]]) 02:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:I've made the change. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 03:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
| |||