Talk:City Terminal Zone

Template:City Terminal Zone LIRR
I removed this again for the same reasons I used the last time it was removed (as said in the edit history), and at the current deletion discussion regarding it. The City Terminal Zone is not a rail line, but a general descriptor to three separate lines, each of which has a separate article already containing a route digram. It is redundant and unneeded.oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oknazevad, you said that only rail lines should have maps, right? Could you explain why? The map here shows the interconnection of the lines within the zone, which cannot be seen on the maps for the other lines, right? If that's so, the map here isn't redundant to the others, because it's the only thing that illustrates that. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actully, the connections can be seen on the others. See Template:Atlantic Branch, for example. oknazevad (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Is City Terminal Zone just a fare zone, or does it represent something else? If it's just a fare zone, the enitre article may not be necessary. Oknazevad, the argument you make about the map being redundant to the other line maps--would you also consider the entire article redundant to the other line articles? --Bsherr (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a little more than just a fare zone, though that's part of it (it's zone 1 on the LIRR fare zones). It's in part offset because there is a separate timetable published for it, but that just summarizes what's on other timetables for the shared portion of the system. The big thing about the LIRR, and the City Terminal Zone in particular, is that any train from east of Jamaica can be through-routed to any of the western terminals (though there are exceptions). The CTZ is the manifestation of that principle, and therefore deserving of an article. But that also emphasizes my issue with the line diagram: once a trin goes through Jamaica, the other lines are irrelevant to that train. At that point, the trin is on one of three distinct, separate lines.oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that helps. So, just to follow up on your last point, the map actually ends at Jamaica, so presumably it does not overlap with the other line maps in that regard. While the other line maps do show connections, none of them provide the useful overview of the entire City Terminal Zone. It seems to me that if City Terminal Zone is worthy of an article, it's worthy of the map. At the least, if it's worthy of that station pseudo-map, it's worthy of the template map. No? --Bsherr (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and no on the overlap, as the other line maps do include the portions west of Jamaica. I can see your point about the overview nature of it, though that overlap still bothers me. I wouldn't recommend tking out the portions west of Jamaica from the individual line maps at all.oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oknazevad, ordinarily, when a template is being discussed for deletion, we don't remove it from the articles that include it for the smae reasons that are being asserted to delete the template. Because of this, I'm going to reinstate the template. Since others at the TfD have also referred to the appearance of the template in the article, it's useful to keep it there for purposes of illustration. This will also help us to consolidate the discussion at the TfD. I'll make mention of this discussion there. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering one of the reasons it had been TfDed was that it was unused, and that its reinsertion into the article was an experiment to see the layout, which simply doesn't work (you should see how unreadable the article is on an iPhone with it there), I don't think that taking it out was a bad thing at all.oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, I understand it was unused, but it was unused because you removed it from the article in February! To me, it doesn't appear unreadable. But, another possibility is collapsing the map by default. Would that improve the article's readability to you? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont play "gotcha", it looks immature.
 * Anyway, I wouldn't characterize my edit of February as a "removal", which implies doing away with some established part of the article. I'd call it the "revert" portion of the BRD cycle. The creator boldly added it to the page, and I reverted him, based on two things. Firstly, the same reason I oppose it's inclusion now; I consider it redundant to the individual line maps. Secondly, because the quality of the template was so piss-poor, with absolutely incorrect spelling, capitalization and coding, that it was embarassing. As no further discussion was made in protest of my move from six months ago, I didn't think much of it. Train2104 noticed it was still in the category for LIRR maps and asked about it at WT:NYCPT, where I reiterated my original stance. It was after that that it was brought to TfD, which lead go an "experiment"al inclusion in this article (to use Dan's word for it). Considering the layout issues I've seen with it (especially that it doesn't align right properly, which causes all sorts of havoc), I think it's a failed experiment. oknazevad (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, the damn diagram is still factually incorrect. Just realized that it is critically wrong. It depicts Hunterspoint Ave as being east of Woodside and as being on a completely separate line from Kew Gardens, Forest Hills and the aformemtioned Woodside. All of these are completely incorrect. As such I am removing the diagram immediately so that no reader is misinformed by it. Regardless of process, etc., we still cannot let factually incorrect depictions remain. oknazevad (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, great! You mentioned quality errors in the TfD, but you weren't specific before. If we improved the quality of the template, would you support including it in the article? What if we fixed it so it presents clearly on the article page? --Bsherr (talk) 06:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's fixed up, maybe, but truthfully, I just don't see a need for a line map template on this article at all.
 * This article has its roots in the separate CTZ timetable. This timetable is going to lead at least some users to search for the term "City Terminal Zone". We can best serve those users, in my opinion, with an article that first briefly states what the Zone is. (All stations easy of Jamaica in Fare Zone 1, along the four possible routes which a train can take west of Jamaica.) Then include a list which stations are in the Zone, and which routes could contain those stations. That's what the chart is for. To me, that chart is far more important than the route map. I oppose doing away with it.
 * I did some cleanup work on the chart, while I was thinking on it. The addresses and links to the MTA website (which probably changed with that sites recent redesign anyway) were unneeded. The distance from Penn Station column was largely meaningless, as only four stations on the list can actually be reached from Penn Station. And the closed stations, especially the ones from decades ago, are of little relevance to this operational designator (the real nature of the CTZ). So I simplified the chart. oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you thought about having City Terminal Zone redirect to a City Terminal Zone section of Long Island Rail Road? --Bsherr (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That, and I guess what's confusing me is this: The significance of the CTZ is that, as you said, any train from east of Jamaica can be through-routed to any of the western terminals. The table doesn't show that, but the map does. Given that, why would you prefer the table to the map? --Bsherr (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, I see it the opposite way; the table does a better job showing the through-routings than the map, as the left side columns visually identify which go where, wheras the map just shows, well, Im not sure what, as it incorrectly shows separate lines where none exist. 01:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the map needs to be made correct, of course. I'm asking, if the map were made to be correct, would it not be a better visual representation of how the lines are interconnected? Instead of the discontinuios color bands of the table, the reader would see four, continuous lines, no? (Also, did you see my other question above?) --Bsherr (talk) 01:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I'm beginning to understand how we might not be connecting. I'm envisioning the template as a route map, not as a physical depiction of the tracks. For example, on the NYC subway map, the J and M trains, despite having different colored lines, run on the same track. Are you envisioning it as a layout of the track? --Bsherr (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it exactly. That's how those diagrams are intended to be used, as line diagrams, not service diagrams. While possible, even preferable to include shared trackage on multiple diagrams, such as the ones for the Pascack Valley Line and the Bergen County Line, each one is intended, as I understand it, to give a diagrammatic depiction of the physical line and the stations along it. Succession boxes, known as S-line templates, and station lists, like the one already here, are where service patterns, which can be very highly varied and inconsistent for commuter lines, are best described. Though prose is still the best option. oknazevad (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What if, instead of the template and table, I designed an image based on Commons:File:LIRR schematic.svg, but just for the CTZ? --Bsherr (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work, but why not just use the existing file with an appropriate caption? oknazevad (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One reason may be that most of the image is irrelevant to the CTZ. Also, did you see my comment above about whether you'd consider merging the article into the LIRR article? --Bsherr (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In so much as the diagram contains more than just the CTZ, it could be considered irrelevant, but I can think of no image that better shows the idea that trains flow from all the different branches (except Port Wash, of course!) through Jamaica and on to the different terminals than that diagram. And I thought I already mentioned why I consider this separate article neccessary: the existence of a separate timetable will lead users to expect a separate article, even if it's a short one. It's the same reason I created SEPTA Main Line, which was prompted in part by the existence of the separate "Glenside Combined"-named timetable, which is a redirect. (The name comes from the other reason; it is a common term in less formal usage, and I felt it'd be a potential search term.) And before you ask, yes I put in a line template, following the "shared trackage" principle mentioned above. Unlike the CTZ, where there's almost no shared trackage outside of two stations, the SEPTA Main Line, is a single, physical rail line from which branches, well, branch off. Like the LIRR Main Line. oknazevad (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
So, we've got the schematic diagram cropped from the one at the main article, but it still has the same issue of having the HPA/LIC trains off the Main Line appear as a completely separate line that the NYP trains, when they don't diverge until Harold Interlocking shortly before the East River Tunnels. Any chance that you could merge the two. While it is atypical that trains toward LIC would stop at Forest Hills, except in a pinch, outbound it's more likely, and I'm just concerned that an unfamiliar reader would misunderstand it as four lines, not three. (Of course, there's increasingly a chance that it'll be only two in the near future, as there's only one LIC-bound train a day that actually uses the lower Montauk, the LIRR having moved its corresponding outbound train to the Main Line at the May 2010 schedule change. The inbound's days are numbered, I fear.) oknazevad19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I made some improvements/corrections. I used the official map on the web site as my guide. And I added an arrowhead after Jamaica to indicate the continuation. What do you think now? --Bsherr (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I give two thumbs up. Same changes should be made at the original at main article. Thanks much!oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good review! I'll add the other diagram to the to-do list. Hah, the hazard of doing good work, I suppose. --Bsherr (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Table merge
With the merge of the table, I'm referring only to the information about connecting services presently. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic Branch article already has the connections, so it wouldn't be anything new. And the other two would need more info than is included here. If you think that connections should be added at the station lists at Montauk Branch and Main Line (LIRR), that is a separate discussion, as it would have no effect on this article. It's not really a split/merge discussion at all. oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see how you're thinking about it. Let me clarify. I am proposing that the information on connecting services be merged from this article (removed from this article) into the respective other articles (added to the others). So my intention is that this merge discussion include both whether the connecting services information should be removed from here, and whether it should be added to the others (which is why I put the templates on those articles too). In this way, whether to be added to the others is not a separate discussion, but rather is a part of this one. You're right to point out that the Atlantic Branch already has this information, so it should be checked to make sure it is consistent with what is here. While it may be true that more information can be added later about other connections, that shouldn't prevent the information that is here from being added. (The nature of Wikipedia is that, in a sense, it is always incomplete--there's rarely no more information to add. That's not an obstacle to adding some information.) Does this clarify? --Bsherr (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I see no reason to remove the info from here (but I agree that it should be added to the others). As long as we have a station list here—and such a list is critical to understanding the CTZ, I believe—then there's no harm in including the connections. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one possible reason to remove it here is that it would be redundant to the information in the line articles, right? --Bsherr (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Booooooooooooo!" he jokes. Seriously, it's the difference between Including something additional In a chart that already exists, and outright including a diagram that covers no additional ground and is counter to intended purpose of those diagrams. oknazevad (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it's a throwback to something you said earlier, but I really mean it as a reason for not including it here. Don't you agree? --Bsherr (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on it. I see no harm in including the connections, but wouldn't stop their removal, so long as some form of station list remains. oknazevad (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the template deletion nomination. Please don't merge it out, as the City Terminal Zone has a timetable and therefore an article. I restored the template, collapsible and centered. It's up to you whether to remove the image, the only thing I like about it is the big arrow after Jamaica. &mdash; Train2104 (talk· contribs· count· email) 21:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again based on the fundamental errors that I brought up earlier, namely showing four lines instead of three, and showing Woodside west of Hunterspoint Ave. It's not needed, with the illustration. I agree with the lack of need for any merges at all. If we add the connections info to the Main Line and Montauk articles, that doesn't affect whether or not we keep it here. Its not really a merge.oknazevad (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Sunnyside Station
Let's see if I've got this right; The proposed Sunnyside (LIRR station) is supposed to serve passengers going to Penn Station, not Grand Central Terminal? DanTD (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer this old question, it is supposed to be for both, being located before the split of the tracks to the 63rd street tunnel, and therefore act as the last change point for passengers switching terminals, including especially Port Washington Branch passengers, as they can't change trains at Jamaica. Of course, exact stopping patterns of trains will factor, and vary over time (as all train schedules do; these are 100-year + infrastructure items).oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Shuttle
I noticed on the MTA homepage that if you click on the rail service status for city terminal zone and select Atlantic Terminal, it does list some through services too, not just a shuttle. Is it actually a transfer or do passengers stay on the train through Jamaica?  Cards   84664   13:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Most off-peak service on the West Hempstead Branch, along with a handful of peak runs on the WH, Hempstead, and Babylon (as far as Freeport) branches, go through to/from Atlantic Terminal without a transfer. Complex / Rational  13:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification @ComplexRational. I was under the impression that nearly all service on the Atlantic Branch west of Jamaica was only served by a shuttle.@Cards84664, yeah, looking at the schedules again, it seems that CR is correct. Off-peak West Hempstead trains (including reverse-peak trains) do depart from/arrive at Atlantic Terminal, as well as one peak Hempstead train in either direction, and two AM trains from Freeport and three PM trains to Freeport. However, the Far Rock or Long Beach timetables do not indicate that any trains go through to Atlantic Terminal. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, in combining all this info, I gutted Jamaica station again FYI.  Cards   84664   14:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you gutted Jamaica station worse than the MTA. :D
 * That article still does need updating in several sections to reflect that the old "change at Jamaica" system with multiple simultaneous arrivals/departures is no longer in place as of yesterday. No hurry, though.
 * And no problem! I admit I've probably spent too much time analyzing the new schedules, even beyond how I will personally be affected...  Complex / Rational  14:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I created a whole long document analyzing the draft changes in June, lol. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)