Talk:Toronto subway rolling stock

Untitled

I don't think this page would ever be found by a simple search. Perhaps the title could be more informative? "Toronto Subway and RT Cars"? zaiken 02:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have no objection to changing the name, but the suggested name would violate the capitalization conventions of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. "Toronto subway and RT cars" would be correct. Ground Zero | t 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speculation Re: Retirment of H series cars

The article indicates that the H5's may move to the BD for a few years? Can anyone support that with facts? At a TTC public meeting I asked one of the officials who said that the retirement plan would likely involve A NEW TR trainset (permanently coupled 6 car train) replacing 3 Units (6 "cars") on the YUS - in turn a T1 would be moved to the BD to replace an H4, once all H4's were replaced the switch out would be TR car for H5 on the YUS. I have never seen either the method mentioned in the article, or the method I just put forth having conversed with a TTC official in Writing or in a form VERIFYABLE to wiki standards. It would be my suggestion that until such time as it is evident which road they chose that speculation be removed from the article. Eja2k (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'm more concerned with putting (any) information into a clearer, more usable format (hence the re-done tables). Useddenim (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rolling stock tables

I'm thinking of dividing the Rolling stock table into two: current and retired rolling stock. That would allow us to add pictures without leaving blanks (I don't think Wikipedia has pictures for all of the H-series or G-series). Pictures are very important in the table because I don't think the average reader would recognize the trains by name alone.Reaperexpress (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Against: Two tables requires more updating as vehicles come and go. A gallery would be better, as it also allows for captions. Useddenim (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Against: Agree with previous poster 2 tables would not only create more work and visual clutter, a Gallery would be much better, would allow for captions and would create less visual clutter in the table itself. eja2k 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does the G-4 come before the G-3 in the table?Reaperexpress (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Because they're in numerical order. The G-4s were also experimental, so they were numbered in after the other experimental cars (rather than using up another number block). Useddenim (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean up proposal

This article is a bit of a mess. I have a few suggestions that I would like to gather input on regarding some cleanup and formatting changes.

1. Move all pictures from the table of vehicles to an expanded gallery below the table

• this would help with formatting and clean up some visual clutter in the table and would remove duplicate pictures which are currently in both the table and the gallery

2. Remove the long and rather trivial list of every Toronto Rocket unit and when it has entered service

• This whole exercise seems to be un-encyclopedic and is of little relevance to the article

3. Cut down the section on the Toronto Rocket

• There is already an article about the Train which is linked in this article, duplicating every detail in two articles introduces redundancy and takes away from the focus of this article

4. Introduce a brief sections on the G, M, H and T-1 series fleet with appropriate hat note/redirection to the parent articles

• If the article is a fleet overview having a section on only the most recent train model smacks of recentism

5. Support all changes with properly cited references

• There is a whole lot of unreferenced information in this article

Please discus how you think we should proceed below. eja2k 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I recommend that the minutiae about the Toronto Rocket should be moved to the Toronto Rocket article and leave only an overview of the Toronto Rocket in this article. Otherwise, I agree with eja2k's suggestions. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks sufficiently cleaned up. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean up commencing

I have started the clean up I still don't really like the exhastive listing of when each train enters service it doesn't seem to be relevant to the article and I've been hard pressed to find any other example of such a detailed list on any similar articles. That said untill a final consensuses can be made regarding this Unreferenced data i will leave it here so that it does not become entirely lost. eja2k 19:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbers! Entered service 5381-5386 June - 2012 5391-5396 Prototype Train , on TTC property 5401-5406 October- 2011 5411-5416 July- 2011C 5421-5426 August- 2011 5431-5436 September -2011 5441-5446 October- 2011 5451-5456 mid-October 2011 5461-5466 late-October 2011 5471-5476 mid-November 2011 5481-5486 December 2011 5491-5496 mid-December 2011 5501-5506 late- December 2011 5511-5516 late -January 2012 5521-5526 early- March 2012 5531-5536 late- March 2012 5541-5546 mid-April 2012 5551-5556 late April 2012 5561-5566 mid-May 2012 5571-5576 5581-5586 5591-5596 5601-5606 5611-5616 5621-5626 5631-5636 5641-5646 5651-5656 5661-5666 5671-5676 5681-5686 5691-5696 5701-5706 5711-5716 5721-5726 5731-5736 5741-5746 5751-5756 5761-5766 5771-5776 5781-5786 5791-5796 5801-5806 5811-5816 5821-5826 5831-5836 5841-5846 5851-5856 5861-5866 5871-5876 5881-5886 5891-5896 5901-5906 5911-5916 5921-5926 5931-5936 5941-5946 5951-5956 5961-5966 5971-5976 5981-5986 5991-5996 6001-6006 6011-6016 6021-6026 6031-6036 6041-6046 6051-6056 6061-6066 6071-6076

^C 5411-5416 taken out for a few days in late August 2011 to clean up graffiti

• This looks like original research at best. It would be better for the article if this list were removed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. None of this trivia is sourced. I normally just igonore this because of the overwhelming feel of OR. There probably is a legitimate source - but it's being kept a secret because it may be another wiki. This needs more than cleaned - it needs to be sandpapered down and polished up. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • They have been removed. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Disappointingly, this article is missing key information

Disappointingly, this article is missing key information -- like the vehicle's:

• dimension,
• speed,
• passenger capacity,
• and number of doors.

I am old enough to remember that the old red vehicles had just three doors per side, and were normally operated in trainsets of eight vehicles, while all newer vehicles have had four doors per side, and were normally operated in trainsets of six vehicles. (Six new vehicles were essentially the same length as eight old vehicles.) Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)