This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ashmont鈥揗attapan High-Speed Line article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this line in fact now closed as it was scheduled to be? The MBTA site still talks about the June 24 closing in the future tense. 鈥擳he preceding unsigned comment was added by GMcGath ( talk 鈥 contribs) 13:45, July 20, 2006.
Yes, it closed as scheduled and I have been riding the shuttle bus to Ashmont since. The current bus schedule can be found at [1], and the bus route map is at [2]. Note that the bus follows two routes: one over River St. and one over Brook and Central. There's also a van that only stops at Ashmont, Valley Road, and Capen via Eliot St. because both bus routes miss those two stops. (The Eliot route used to be handled by a bus that also stopped at all the other stops too, but it was replaced with the van either Summer or Fall of 2007.)
Also, there is no chance whatsoever that the trolley line will be back in service until at least early-to-mid 2008. I've been watching the construction at Ashmont and they're just starting to put up the roof beams. Currently, the back 1/3 of the inbound platform and a slice along the outbound platform are gone (to build roof columns). Walls are nowhere near finished, and they're still moving moving dirt around in some parts of the site. The station has to be at least most of the way done before the trolley line can reopen, as the temporary blacktop ramp leading from the temporary fare-collection hut to the inbound platform covers part of the trolley track.
Some good news about the trolleys: There was an item in the Metro a couple months ago stating that the Mattapan trolleys will have air conditioners installed when they come back. (Previously they just had a fan in the roof.) Many of the trolley stations are being worked on too.
Oddly, the shuttle buses' auto-announcer still says "Ashmont Station - Change here for Subway, Bus and High Speed Line"... 24.60.196.199 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"To reference the route as a 'high speed line' is a misnomer as the route is neither characterized by a fully dedicated, grade separated right-of-way, nor by high-speed rolling stock." This is rather odd... The High-Speed designation refers to it's dedicated right of way (I'm not sure what "fully dedicated" means- nothing else runs on the tracks, and there are only two relatively minor grade crossings) as opposed to the other streetcar lines ran by the Boston Elevated Railway in the 1920s, which ran directly in streets (see the "E" Green Line) or at best in medians (see the "B", "C", and "E" Green Line) with many at-grade crossings- this allowed a significant speed advantage over the other lines between Mattapan and Ashmont. -- 71.124.173.134 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the infobox to be consistent with the text, which it had previously contradicted. Could somebody insert the two grade crossings into the route map diagram? Reify-tech ( talk) 15:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this entity a heritage streetcar line?
An editor replaced "...is a heritage streetcar line..." with "...is a partially grade-separated light rail line...", but added "...and exclusively uses historic PCC streetcars for rolling stock..." in the second paragraph, with an edit summary of "This line is not a "heritage streetcar" by any definition, including that found on Wikipedia. That this misnomer is found in multiple places on Wikipedia illuminates the perils of allowing edits by those without no direct knowledge of the place described", but another editor disputed this with an edit summary of "What you feel about it is not relevant - it is by definition a heritage streetcar, one that also provides regular transit service".
So who's right? I'm not seeing this line as a "streetcar". It runs on a railroad right of way and stops at a limited number of stations that have actual structures and names, I think. Sounds like light rail to me. There are a couple of grade crossing (places where it crosses a street directly rather than via a bridge) which is also true of many light and heavy rail lines.
However, it's also not clear that a "heritage streetcar" needs to be a "streetcar". Our article Heritage streetcar says "heritage streetcar operations can include upkeep of historic rail infrastructure". The Ashmont鈥揗attapan line does use old PCC streetcars which did formerly operate as on-street trolleys add which use overhead lines commonly used by trolleys.
On the other had I get the vibe that heritage streetcars are usually 1) tourist attractions which 2) are fairly recent creations, or re-creations of long-vanished lines, and which 3) are not really an integral part of the region's main commuter transport system. (The reader may insert the term "twee" here at her discretion.) None of these applies to the Ashmont鈥揗attapan line. However, note that I say "usually" so maybe there's some play here, given the PCC thing and all.
My personal take is that Ashmont鈥揗attapan line is the way people in Mattapan get to work and always has been so I'm sort of disinclined to call it a "heritage streetcar" line. They use old rolling stock, but not in an antiquarian way but because that's what they have. Herostratus ( talk) 12:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent arguing (in the good sense), laddies. Thinking about what should go in the lede, though, got me to thinking about what is important about the line, which got me to to thinking what is important generally, such that I got sidetracked and wrote The Important Book. So it goes. So being in the mind of that book, if I may indulge in a bit of fancy:
The important thing about the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line is
that it takes people to town.
It has its own right of way,
and it uses old streetcars,
and it is not really high speed,
and it rattles and clatters,
and it is a poor stepchild of the MBTA.
But the important thing about the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line is
that it takes people to town.- after Margaret Wise Brown, The Important Book
In other words, "is a heritage streetcar line" doesn't belong as among the first things we want to present to the reader. Whether justified or not, some readers are likely to be all like "Oh, I get it it, it's like the YesterYear Trolly they put in down in the Quaintville section of my town" or whatever and we don't want that.
Whether it belong somewhere down in the body of the text is a fraught question with no right answer, I think. Normally the answer is "go to the sources". But... while the APTA is alright, it probably does not exercise detailed oversight of the APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site, which is sponsored by the Seashore Trolley Museum, and which may be authoritive but may not be neutral since they have a vested interest in there being more heritage streetcars I suppose. So what we'd want is the New York Times saying ""The other day, this reporter rode the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line, which is a heritage streetcar line...", but even then... first of all, NYT or no, it's just some reporter who probably isn't an expert giving his opinion or repeating what some person told him -- I don't know as they fact-check to this degree of rigor (probably not), and secondly, that's always going to tend to yield positives. You're not likely to find the Los Angeles Times saying "The other day, this reporter rode the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line, which is definitely not a heritage streetcar line..."
So I dunno, it's sort of a matter of opinion. So how to thread the needle. We maybe don't want to be like "Hey, it's a heritage streetcar line, period, and you can take that to the bank" but on the other hand omitting any mention at all that it's kinda-sorta-maybe like this thing that people call a heritage streetcar line is not a service to the reader either. Tricky problem.
Speaking just for myself, 73.53.29.108 makes sense. Intent, or maybe the general vibe, matters, I think. Two guys in my town might drive a 1963 Ford Pickup. One's a banker who's lovingly restored it with original fittings and matched the original paint and draws admiration for his retro panache when he pulls into the golf club. The other guy's just trying to get one more year out of an old rustbucket he got for free when his grandpa died so he can keep the overhead down on his handyman jobs. Is it helpful to describe both as "antique motor vehicle aficionados". Herostratus ( talk) 03:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been told that this might stir up a hornet's nest, but I'm going to state my opinion anyway. As far as I know, and due to the fact that this isn't really addressed specifically in the heritage railway article, a rail line that exclusively uses historical or historical replica (pre-1960) equipment by accident instead of on purpose is not disqualified from being labeled as a heritage line. Consider the San Francisco cable car system, a rail system similar in this regard to the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line, in that it has operated continuously since the 1870s with the same style of equipment and still provides a valid public transit function. Under the currently-accepted status quo from this discussion, this system would not be considered a heritage operation, even though it has National Historic Landmark status and several of the rail vehicles and the lines themselves are over 100 years old. I ask you this: is the San Francisco cable car system a heritage system, or no? What does your gut instinct tell you? If your answer is "yes", the same line of thinking ought to be applied to the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line. I think we can all agree that the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line is a very unique rail line (in North America, at least). Because of that, I feel that it is worthy of being labeled as a unique type to make note of its historic character, and I believe that unique type should be heritage light rail. Jackdude101 ( Talk) 21:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section. More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.
Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.
I am going to place a {{ dubious}} tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.
If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. May I suggest that a consensus for a particular page title be garnered before another move request is attempted. ( non-admin closure) 聽 Rules聽of聽enpagement聽 Paine聽 03:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line 鈫 Mattapan Trolley 鈥 The official name of this service seems to be "Mattapan Trolley", according to the MBTA's website [3] [4] [5] and many media sources [6]. In fact, the name "Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line" only appears once in a single document on the MBTA's website [7], and Google searches for the term actually show results for "Mattapan Trolley" [8]. As per WP:UCRN, I think this page should be moved to the proposed name. 鈥 Dream聽out聽loud聽( talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 鈥 Dream聽out聽loud聽( talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There is currently only one count of inconsistency on MBTA's website, and that is the rail map carried over from the old website, and even that just says "Mattapan Line". Please also refer to the Transit feed data, which is matched on Google Maps. There is not a single mention of "High-Speed Line" on the MBTA website, and the timetable for the trolley has been separated from the Red Line timetable, also carrying the "Mattapan Trolley" name. Cards84664 (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. I would suggest giving this a pause and waiting for sources to become more clear before revisiting the issue. Dekimasu 銈! 21:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Ashmont鈥揗attapan High-Speed Line 鈫
Mattapan Trolley 鈥 Doesn't match official sources, Ashmont is not in the title.
[9]
[10]聽
Cards84664
(talk) 04:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
power~enwiki (
蟺,
谓) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.
B dash (
talk)
06:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ashmont鈥揗attapan High-Speed Line article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this line in fact now closed as it was scheduled to be? The MBTA site still talks about the June 24 closing in the future tense. 鈥擳he preceding unsigned comment was added by GMcGath ( talk 鈥 contribs) 13:45, July 20, 2006.
Yes, it closed as scheduled and I have been riding the shuttle bus to Ashmont since. The current bus schedule can be found at [1], and the bus route map is at [2]. Note that the bus follows two routes: one over River St. and one over Brook and Central. There's also a van that only stops at Ashmont, Valley Road, and Capen via Eliot St. because both bus routes miss those two stops. (The Eliot route used to be handled by a bus that also stopped at all the other stops too, but it was replaced with the van either Summer or Fall of 2007.)
Also, there is no chance whatsoever that the trolley line will be back in service until at least early-to-mid 2008. I've been watching the construction at Ashmont and they're just starting to put up the roof beams. Currently, the back 1/3 of the inbound platform and a slice along the outbound platform are gone (to build roof columns). Walls are nowhere near finished, and they're still moving moving dirt around in some parts of the site. The station has to be at least most of the way done before the trolley line can reopen, as the temporary blacktop ramp leading from the temporary fare-collection hut to the inbound platform covers part of the trolley track.
Some good news about the trolleys: There was an item in the Metro a couple months ago stating that the Mattapan trolleys will have air conditioners installed when they come back. (Previously they just had a fan in the roof.) Many of the trolley stations are being worked on too.
Oddly, the shuttle buses' auto-announcer still says "Ashmont Station - Change here for Subway, Bus and High Speed Line"... 24.60.196.199 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"To reference the route as a 'high speed line' is a misnomer as the route is neither characterized by a fully dedicated, grade separated right-of-way, nor by high-speed rolling stock." This is rather odd... The High-Speed designation refers to it's dedicated right of way (I'm not sure what "fully dedicated" means- nothing else runs on the tracks, and there are only two relatively minor grade crossings) as opposed to the other streetcar lines ran by the Boston Elevated Railway in the 1920s, which ran directly in streets (see the "E" Green Line) or at best in medians (see the "B", "C", and "E" Green Line) with many at-grade crossings- this allowed a significant speed advantage over the other lines between Mattapan and Ashmont. -- 71.124.173.134 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the infobox to be consistent with the text, which it had previously contradicted. Could somebody insert the two grade crossings into the route map diagram? Reify-tech ( talk) 15:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this entity a heritage streetcar line?
An editor replaced "...is a heritage streetcar line..." with "...is a partially grade-separated light rail line...", but added "...and exclusively uses historic PCC streetcars for rolling stock..." in the second paragraph, with an edit summary of "This line is not a "heritage streetcar" by any definition, including that found on Wikipedia. That this misnomer is found in multiple places on Wikipedia illuminates the perils of allowing edits by those without no direct knowledge of the place described", but another editor disputed this with an edit summary of "What you feel about it is not relevant - it is by definition a heritage streetcar, one that also provides regular transit service".
So who's right? I'm not seeing this line as a "streetcar". It runs on a railroad right of way and stops at a limited number of stations that have actual structures and names, I think. Sounds like light rail to me. There are a couple of grade crossing (places where it crosses a street directly rather than via a bridge) which is also true of many light and heavy rail lines.
However, it's also not clear that a "heritage streetcar" needs to be a "streetcar". Our article Heritage streetcar says "heritage streetcar operations can include upkeep of historic rail infrastructure". The Ashmont鈥揗attapan line does use old PCC streetcars which did formerly operate as on-street trolleys add which use overhead lines commonly used by trolleys.
On the other had I get the vibe that heritage streetcars are usually 1) tourist attractions which 2) are fairly recent creations, or re-creations of long-vanished lines, and which 3) are not really an integral part of the region's main commuter transport system. (The reader may insert the term "twee" here at her discretion.) None of these applies to the Ashmont鈥揗attapan line. However, note that I say "usually" so maybe there's some play here, given the PCC thing and all.
My personal take is that Ashmont鈥揗attapan line is the way people in Mattapan get to work and always has been so I'm sort of disinclined to call it a "heritage streetcar" line. They use old rolling stock, but not in an antiquarian way but because that's what they have. Herostratus ( talk) 12:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Excellent arguing (in the good sense), laddies. Thinking about what should go in the lede, though, got me to thinking about what is important about the line, which got me to to thinking what is important generally, such that I got sidetracked and wrote The Important Book. So it goes. So being in the mind of that book, if I may indulge in a bit of fancy:
The important thing about the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line is
that it takes people to town.
It has its own right of way,
and it uses old streetcars,
and it is not really high speed,
and it rattles and clatters,
and it is a poor stepchild of the MBTA.
But the important thing about the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line is
that it takes people to town.- after Margaret Wise Brown, The Important Book
In other words, "is a heritage streetcar line" doesn't belong as among the first things we want to present to the reader. Whether justified or not, some readers are likely to be all like "Oh, I get it it, it's like the YesterYear Trolly they put in down in the Quaintville section of my town" or whatever and we don't want that.
Whether it belong somewhere down in the body of the text is a fraught question with no right answer, I think. Normally the answer is "go to the sources". But... while the APTA is alright, it probably does not exercise detailed oversight of the APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley Site, which is sponsored by the Seashore Trolley Museum, and which may be authoritive but may not be neutral since they have a vested interest in there being more heritage streetcars I suppose. So what we'd want is the New York Times saying ""The other day, this reporter rode the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line, which is a heritage streetcar line...", but even then... first of all, NYT or no, it's just some reporter who probably isn't an expert giving his opinion or repeating what some person told him -- I don't know as they fact-check to this degree of rigor (probably not), and secondly, that's always going to tend to yield positives. You're not likely to find the Los Angeles Times saying "The other day, this reporter rode the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line, which is definitely not a heritage streetcar line..."
So I dunno, it's sort of a matter of opinion. So how to thread the needle. We maybe don't want to be like "Hey, it's a heritage streetcar line, period, and you can take that to the bank" but on the other hand omitting any mention at all that it's kinda-sorta-maybe like this thing that people call a heritage streetcar line is not a service to the reader either. Tricky problem.
Speaking just for myself, 73.53.29.108 makes sense. Intent, or maybe the general vibe, matters, I think. Two guys in my town might drive a 1963 Ford Pickup. One's a banker who's lovingly restored it with original fittings and matched the original paint and draws admiration for his retro panache when he pulls into the golf club. The other guy's just trying to get one more year out of an old rustbucket he got for free when his grandpa died so he can keep the overhead down on his handyman jobs. Is it helpful to describe both as "antique motor vehicle aficionados". Herostratus ( talk) 03:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been told that this might stir up a hornet's nest, but I'm going to state my opinion anyway. As far as I know, and due to the fact that this isn't really addressed specifically in the heritage railway article, a rail line that exclusively uses historical or historical replica (pre-1960) equipment by accident instead of on purpose is not disqualified from being labeled as a heritage line. Consider the San Francisco cable car system, a rail system similar in this regard to the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line, in that it has operated continuously since the 1870s with the same style of equipment and still provides a valid public transit function. Under the currently-accepted status quo from this discussion, this system would not be considered a heritage operation, even though it has National Historic Landmark status and several of the rail vehicles and the lines themselves are over 100 years old. I ask you this: is the San Francisco cable car system a heritage system, or no? What does your gut instinct tell you? If your answer is "yes", the same line of thinking ought to be applied to the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line. I think we can all agree that the Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line is a very unique rail line (in North America, at least). Because of that, I feel that it is worthy of being labeled as a unique type to make note of its historic character, and I believe that unique type should be heritage light rail. Jackdude101 ( Talk) 21:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The premetro article contained a great deal of original research, and characterized a large number of light-rail or streetcar routes as "premetro" systems for questionable reasons -- like that the light-rail or streetcar system had a short tunneled section. More recently the premetro article has been scaled back, to only include systems that verifiable authoritative sources have called "premetro" systems.
Unfortunately dozens of questionable incoming links were made to the premetro article, from articles like this one, that didn't supply any references that verified systems like this one had ever been called premetro systems.
I am going to place a {{ dubious}} tag next to all questionable claims that provide questionable incoming links to premetro.
If no authoritative references ever called this a "premetro" system that phrase should be removed from this article, link and all. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. May I suggest that a consensus for a particular page title be garnered before another move request is attempted. ( non-admin closure) 聽 Rules聽of聽enpagement聽 Paine聽 03:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Ashmont鈥揗attapan High Speed Line 鈫 Mattapan Trolley 鈥 The official name of this service seems to be "Mattapan Trolley", according to the MBTA's website [3] [4] [5] and many media sources [6]. In fact, the name "Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line" only appears once in a single document on the MBTA's website [7], and Google searches for the term actually show results for "Mattapan Trolley" [8]. As per WP:UCRN, I think this page should be moved to the proposed name. 鈥 Dream聽out聽loud聽( talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) 鈥 Dream聽out聽loud聽( talk) 07:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There is currently only one count of inconsistency on MBTA's website, and that is the rail map carried over from the old website, and even that just says "Mattapan Line". Please also refer to the Transit feed data, which is matched on Google Maps. There is not a single mention of "High-Speed Line" on the MBTA website, and the timetable for the trolley has been separated from the Red Line timetable, also carrying the "Mattapan Trolley" name. Cards84664 (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. I would suggest giving this a pause and waiting for sources to become more clear before revisiting the issue. Dekimasu 銈! 21:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Ashmont鈥揗attapan High-Speed Line 鈫
Mattapan Trolley 鈥 Doesn't match official sources, Ashmont is not in the title.
[9]
[10]聽
Cards84664
(talk) 04:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.
power~enwiki (
蟺,
谓) 16:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting.
B dash (
talk)
06:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)