Turboliner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 20, 2017. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the RfE page, here's what the problem is (if it's not apparent already...)
The Turboliner was a trainset used by Amtrak on a number of routes from the 1970s up until the 90s. There is a bunch of information already here about its current state of affairs, but the older history sections have absolutely nothing in them. It would be great if a railfan or someone else with knowledge on this topic really filled in the holes. There are also some sites with info provided using HTML comments at the end of the article. lensovet 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Some were equipped with third rail shoes to enable entry into the underground tunnels approaching Grand Central Terminal and New York Penn Station in New York City. The third rail in these stations is not the same!!! Peter Horn User talk 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the quoted classified ad provides useful information, but it is in fact an advertisement. Also, I could not find the ad in any of the citations. Next time I have a chance, I think I'm going to rewrite this section to be more encyclopedic unless anyone can give me a good reason not to, anyone? Parcanman ( talk) 03:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the following information about the RTGs from the article. I've searched in vain for a reliable source to verify it, and these details aren't central to the article. Note that in the case of the headlights I read two NTSB accident reports, one from 1976 and one from 1980, and they didn't mention the headlights as a contributory factor nor did they recommend a change. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
However on the cab ends they were modified with standard knuckle couplers and European buffers were removed at those locations. Bells were also added under each cab. Amtrak later installed oscillating headlights on the cab ends for better grade crossing recognition because motorists would often mistake the Turbos' dual headlights with automobiles on the parallel U.S. Rt. 66 on the St. Louis line, resulting in several grade crossing accidents. The oscillating lights were mounted between the original headlights, later changed to above the windshield. In addition the RTG's original French air horns were modified to blow simultaneously instead of alternating as in typical European practice
During the energy crisis of the late 70s, several modifications were performed to reduce fuel consumption, such as the addition of a higher power and more efficient main engine. This allowed the sets to run with only one of the two main engines operating, resulting in saved fuel. The 380V/50 hertz alternator that supplied head-end power to the coaches was driven by a smaller turbo engine, the Astazou.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The359 ( talk · contribs) 08:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello to whomever is going to handle this review. Not an immediate pass, but nothing too major that can't be dealt with in a week's time.
Hello, thanks for taking this review on. I'm busy in real life for the next couple days but I'll try to address these points as soon as possible. I would just note quickly that separate infoboxes were adopted early on for the sake of the reader; the RTGs and RTLs had different manufacturers, different introduction dates, different withdrawal dates, different physical appearance, and different formations. Combining the infobox would mean row after row of "fact (RTG)", linebreak, and "fact (RTL)". That's a poor experience for the reader. That's the same idea behind having a simple pair of images at the top to highlight the difference appearance of the two types, with the separate sections following, each with its own infobox. Finally, the bogies are highlighted for the RTL because there's no actual free-use interior shot of one. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've made some corrections, but there are some questions which I can't answer because I don't have reliable sources which address them. There's a lot of contradictory information about the Turboliners floating around. Addressing your points below:
As for the rest of your responses, specifically the lack of references for some questions I raised, do you feel the topic is adequately covered for GA status? If you feel the article needs further referencing to cover the topic correctly, perhaps a withdrawal or delay of the GAN might be necessary? The359 ( Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Everything seems to be checking out now, so congrats, you have another GA under your belt. The359 ( Talk) 09:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27#Category:Gas_turbine_locomotives_of_France, which could have some relevance here too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The link from the Solomon template yields a 404, and it's not available on archive. So the link should be abandoned as the publication data are sufficient. Kablammo ( talk) 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"The RTL Turboliners were wider than the RTG Turboliners (10 feet (3.0 m) versus 6 feet 1⁄2 inch (1.8 m))": the InfoBox says that RTGs were "9 ft 5 1⁄2 in (2.9 m)" wide which seems more reasonable.
"The RTL Turboliners were capable of third rail operation, allowing them to enter Grand Central Terminal, and, later, Pennsylvania Station in New York City": why does third-real capability allow RTLs to enter GCT and PS? Emissions restrictions maybe?
"permitting a cruising range of 950 mile": does a train really have a "cruising" range? Would "operating" range be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zin92 ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"RTG" is an initialism for Rame à Turbine à Gaz; how was the name "RTL" arrived at? ("TL" = "Turboliner", perhaps?) 209.209.238.189 ( talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Turboliner is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 20, 2017. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the RfE page, here's what the problem is (if it's not apparent already...)
The Turboliner was a trainset used by Amtrak on a number of routes from the 1970s up until the 90s. There is a bunch of information already here about its current state of affairs, but the older history sections have absolutely nothing in them. It would be great if a railfan or someone else with knowledge on this topic really filled in the holes. There are also some sites with info provided using HTML comments at the end of the article. lensovet 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Some were equipped with third rail shoes to enable entry into the underground tunnels approaching Grand Central Terminal and New York Penn Station in New York City. The third rail in these stations is not the same!!! Peter Horn User talk 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 23:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the quoted classified ad provides useful information, but it is in fact an advertisement. Also, I could not find the ad in any of the citations. Next time I have a chance, I think I'm going to rewrite this section to be more encyclopedic unless anyone can give me a good reason not to, anyone? Parcanman ( talk) 03:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the following information about the RTGs from the article. I've searched in vain for a reliable source to verify it, and these details aren't central to the article. Note that in the case of the headlights I read two NTSB accident reports, one from 1976 and one from 1980, and they didn't mention the headlights as a contributory factor nor did they recommend a change. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
However on the cab ends they were modified with standard knuckle couplers and European buffers were removed at those locations. Bells were also added under each cab. Amtrak later installed oscillating headlights on the cab ends for better grade crossing recognition because motorists would often mistake the Turbos' dual headlights with automobiles on the parallel U.S. Rt. 66 on the St. Louis line, resulting in several grade crossing accidents. The oscillating lights were mounted between the original headlights, later changed to above the windshield. In addition the RTG's original French air horns were modified to blow simultaneously instead of alternating as in typical European practice
During the energy crisis of the late 70s, several modifications were performed to reduce fuel consumption, such as the addition of a higher power and more efficient main engine. This allowed the sets to run with only one of the two main engines operating, resulting in saved fuel. The 380V/50 hertz alternator that supplied head-end power to the coaches was driven by a smaller turbo engine, the Astazou.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The359 ( talk · contribs) 08:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello to whomever is going to handle this review. Not an immediate pass, but nothing too major that can't be dealt with in a week's time.
Hello, thanks for taking this review on. I'm busy in real life for the next couple days but I'll try to address these points as soon as possible. I would just note quickly that separate infoboxes were adopted early on for the sake of the reader; the RTGs and RTLs had different manufacturers, different introduction dates, different withdrawal dates, different physical appearance, and different formations. Combining the infobox would mean row after row of "fact (RTG)", linebreak, and "fact (RTL)". That's a poor experience for the reader. That's the same idea behind having a simple pair of images at the top to highlight the difference appearance of the two types, with the separate sections following, each with its own infobox. Finally, the bogies are highlighted for the RTL because there's no actual free-use interior shot of one. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've made some corrections, but there are some questions which I can't answer because I don't have reliable sources which address them. There's a lot of contradictory information about the Turboliners floating around. Addressing your points below:
As for the rest of your responses, specifically the lack of references for some questions I raised, do you feel the topic is adequately covered for GA status? If you feel the article needs further referencing to cover the topic correctly, perhaps a withdrawal or delay of the GAN might be necessary? The359 ( Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Everything seems to be checking out now, so congrats, you have another GA under your belt. The359 ( Talk) 09:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27#Category:Gas_turbine_locomotives_of_France, which could have some relevance here too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The link from the Solomon template yields a 404, and it's not available on archive. So the link should be abandoned as the publication data are sufficient. Kablammo ( talk) 20:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"The RTL Turboliners were wider than the RTG Turboliners (10 feet (3.0 m) versus 6 feet 1⁄2 inch (1.8 m))": the InfoBox says that RTGs were "9 ft 5 1⁄2 in (2.9 m)" wide which seems more reasonable.
"The RTL Turboliners were capable of third rail operation, allowing them to enter Grand Central Terminal, and, later, Pennsylvania Station in New York City": why does third-real capability allow RTLs to enter GCT and PS? Emissions restrictions maybe?
"permitting a cruising range of 950 mile": does a train really have a "cruising" range? Would "operating" range be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zin92 ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"RTG" is an initialism for Rame à Turbine à Gaz; how was the name "RTL" arrived at? ("TL" = "Turboliner", perhaps?) 209.209.238.189 ( talk) 17:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)