User talk:27.145.130.36

Modular metro is not a classification of rail vehicle so the term cannot be used as evidence or fact that both bangkok bts skytrain and bangkok mrt blue line including mrt purple line are heavy rail. There is no evidence that these systems are heavy rail metros. They don't seem to have higher capacity with very short rolling stock like 3-cars train and their average and top speed are not as fast as the real heavy metro abroad except of course for the longer station's platform which is for future upgrade from medium capacity rail system to heavy ones and a very expensive ticket. As the lines became extended, they became more crampy for passengers and the service risk to become as inadequate as the SRT Airport link. This is due to lack of experience and greedy mindset by the operators and owners of these systems. Nothing seems standard with these fake heavy rail metros since they are not heavy in terms of capacity and speed and thrust. The fact that these operators are having trouble in extending their rolling stocks which would explain everything about the type of rail vehicles that they are operating. Mrt Blue Line and MRT purple line and as well as BTS Skytrain do not seem to have locomotives with enough thrust power to pull and push longer rolling stock or to carry more passenger wagons and this is the current issue with these systems. They are suppose to be MCS or medium capacity system transit but they are still crazy to extend the lines to the point that the space is becoming more cramped up especially during rush hour while the tickets are expensive. The service are becoming more inadequate as more passengers increased due to line extension. Please admit the facts and correct rail classification terms that I had posted as a correction to the current edit.

'''MY CONCLUSION IS THAT THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY LIGHT METROS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO CUT THE COST DUE TO THEIR GREEDINESS SIMILAR TO SRT AIRPORT LINK CURRENT ISSUE BUT EXCEPT SRT AIRPORT LINK TRAINS ARE EMU TRAINS AND STILL COULD BE EXTENDED WHICH IS WHAT THEY HAD FAILED TO DO AND THEY INCREASED MORE ELEVATED STATIONS IN A LINE THAT WASN'T PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED TO CARRY HIGHER CAPACITY OF PASSENGERS! THEY ARE ALSO CRAZY TO USE THE SAME TERM AS "ROT FAI FAR" IN THAI FOR ALL THESE SYSTEMS INCLUDING THE UPCOMING MONORAIL AND THE NEW EMU AIRPORT CITYRAIL TRAINS WHICH IS MISLEADING TO THE PUBLIC. '''


 * You need to source it regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you stop changing Bangkok's BTS and MRT to a light rail line?
Would you stop changing Bangkok's BTS and MRT to a light rail line? Because it isn't a light rail line.

Before we go any further, this reply will only address one topic. Bangkok's BTS, MRT and Airport Rail Link (ARL) isn't a light rail line. Anything off the scope will not be touch upon.

Light rail systems usually has smaller tram-like rolling stock. Carriage tend to be smaller and shorter. Bangkok's BTS, MRT and ARL rolling stock is no where near a light rail rolling stock. All of the systems use trains that have a length of around 20m-22m per carriage.

Please check the following page below for more detail on Light rail.

Light_rail

If BTS, MRT and ARL is light rail. Then what the Yellow and Pink Monorail line supposed to be? Or what a tram line suppose to be?

I agreed that the line between Light, Medium and Heavy rail is quite blur. That is why the word "rapid transit" is use.

Rapid_transit

And this is a quotation from you.

"Mrt Blue Line and MRT purple line and as well as BTS Skytrain do not seem to have locomotives with enough thrust power to pull and push longer rolling stock or to carry more passenger wagons and this is the current issue with these systems."

You clearly don't understand how multiple unit works. The trains itself don't have locomotive(s). Motors were attached to carriages (passenger wagon) so the carriages can powered and drive themselves. If they add more carriage, yes train will be heavier. But it will have more power to move said weight too.

Electric multiple unit

Operators won't add more carriages because of greedy mindset is off the scope here. System already using a large non light-rail train. And technically, can handle even larger (longer) trains. Thus, it isn't a light rail.

WASDPro (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

My Reply to WASDPro: What about you educate yourself on what is a Light Metro and a Heavy Metro, EMU-speed trains and Light Rail such as Streetcars or Trams and then we will debate
Please provide me evidence that Bangkok BTS and MRT can extend their current rolling stock longer than what it is now with more thrust power from its locomotive and that it can travel faster like metros in the UK and US. '''THE ENTIRE BANGKOK BTS AND MRT METRO NETWORK IS A MEDIUM-CAPACITY RAIL SYSTEM NETWORK AND NOT JUST THE TRAINS THEMESELVES! THIS IS ALSO WHY THEY HAVE MORE RAIL CURVATURE ANGLES LIKE FROM 70 DEGREES TO 90 DEGREES BUT THIS DOES NOT WORK WITH HEAVY RAIL NETWORK SINCE THE TRAINS COULD DERAIL AT HIGHER SPEED! LIGHT METROS TRAVEL AT SLOWER AVERAGE SPEED SO IT IS SAFER FOR THEM TO MAKE A 70-90 DEGREES TURN. HEAVY METROS RARELY MAKE 70-90 DEGREES TURN BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY COULD RUN SLOWER BUT 60 DEGREES TURN IS STILL COMMON IN A HEAVY RAIL NETWORK BUT 60 DEGREES CURVE RAILS WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE SLIGHTLY TILTED IN A HIGHER SPEED ZONE TO AVOID POSSIBLE DERAILMENT AND TO ALLOW TRAINS TO RUN FASTER WHILE TURNING. THE BANGKOK BTS AND MRT SYSTEM WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR CARRYING MEDIUM CAPACITY OF PASSENGERS DUE TO THEIR GREEDINESS BUT THESE OPERATORS GO CRAZY TO EXTEND THESE LINES MORE WHICH SURPASSED RECOMMENDED 25KM OR 26KM (BTS SUKHUMVIT LINE IS AROUND 38KM LONG AND STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION WHILE TAIPEI WENHU LINE IS AROUND 25KM) WHICH ARE NOT ADEQUATE FOR MEDIUM-CAPACITY SYSTEM OR LIGHT METRO. WHAT THEY NEED NOW IS TO UPGRADE THE ENTIRE LIGHT METRO RAIL SYSTEM NETWORK TO A HEAVY RAIL METRO NETWORK WHICH WOULD BE DIFFICULT AT THIS POINT. HOW MANY MORE EVIDENCES DO YOU NEED?''' They are essentially "Light Metros" and not either light rails like trams or heavy rails. They do not have enough capacity like heavy rails do. Wake up from your ignorance. The passengers had been waiting for years for them to extend the current rolling stocks and now the service is becoming more inadequate. Thus, it is about thrust power of locomotive on how many cars it can pull rather than just the length of the rolling stock itself but of course, most people would already raised their suspicion when BTS and MRT still refuse to extend them in the first place while the cost of their tickets are higher nowadays and the trains are cramped up during rush hour. Why ordering new rolling stocks which would be more expensive due to new locomotives? It is the locomotives that are more expensive than the passenger wagons. If they are heavy rails then just extend the current rolling stocks to avoid more traffic congestion. You sound like a Thai PR agent ignoring rail vehicle classification and with no evidence to backup your claims. Where is the evidence that Bangkok's BTS AND MRT rolling stocks could be extended and can travel faster than 50kmph on average (not top speed)? There is no proof so stop denying the facts that I had posted. Accept the facts and educate yourself on the difference between light rail, medium capacity system or light metro and heavy rails. Metropolitan trains/metros are not EMU trains but are Sub-EMU trains because their top speed are lower than EMU train's since they do not travel very far and they are classified as mass rapid transit system. City rail trains are EMUs or electric multiple units such as the bullet trains or high speed rail or even regional trains (requires electric wire poles near rail). Monorails are monorails and not metros and yes, they are light rails and slower than most metros. The pink and yellow lines should have been metros like they had promised but they lied to the people by using the term "rot fai far" which means metros in Thai just like they failed to extend BTS line but built BRT system to cause more traffic on the roads which was such a shame. Slow monorails must run in Disneyland or Airport campus but I bet they will make it run more than 20km or 25km distance at slow speed. For example Japanese monorails would tend to run at 45kmph at average speed and from only 11km - 17.8km distance. Educate yourself on these terms and rail classifications before we even debate. I have the rights to edit wikipedia in a correct manner based on facts and evidences that I had observed and what I heard from others but for you to tell others to reject their rights and stop mentioning facts based on evidences would clearly proof that you got problems with facts and logic. Can you proof that my facts are wrong and that I have no evidence to backup my claims? Certainly, you don't so stop it and my message to BTS and MRT: EXTEND YOUR ROLLING STOCKS TO IMPROVE YOUR SERVICE IF YOU REALLY HAVE HEAVY RAIL METROS! WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT ANY LONGER DURING RUSH HOUR! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR????!

Medium-capacity rail system (Light Rapid Transit or Light Metro)

Well these do not look like trams or street cars in most cases because they are medium capacity trains and they look just like Bangkok's BTS and MRT system:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.145.130.242 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

--

'''Well!! lets begin and please be civilized'''

Before I reply to your answer in detail. Lets clear something up.

This was quote directly from Medium-capacity rail system that you use to support your view.

"The definition of a medium-capacity system varies due to its non-standardization. Inconsistencies in international definitions are even reflected within individual countries. For example, the Taiwan Ministry of Transportation and Communications states that each MCS system can board around 6,000–20,000 passengers per hour per direction (p/h/d or PPHPD),[2] while the Taiwan Department of Rapid Transit Systems (TCG) suggests an MCS has a capability of boarding around 20,000–30,000 p/h/d,[3] and a report from the World Bank places the capacity of an MCS at 15,000–30,000 p/h/d.[4] For comparison, ridership capacity of more than 30,000 p/h/d has been quoted as the standard for metro or "heavy rail" standards rapid transit systems,[5] while light rail systems have passenger capacity volumes of around 10,000–12,000 p/h/d[4] or 12,000–18,000 p/h/d."

Now, lets check from the design criteria of BTS Sukhumvit line

https://www.mrta.co.th/en/projectelectrictrain/bangkok-and-vicinities/greenline/

In rolling stock section

"The 750 Volts DC rolling stock with 3 to 6 cars will be used. The system should have a service capacity of more than 50,000 passengers per hour per direction." Which is more than Medium-capacity rail's 30,000 passengers per hour per direction.

It said "should" but this is a poor translation of what written in Thai. Please check Thai version.

https://www.mrta.co.th/th/projectelectrictrain/bangkok-and-vicinities/greenline/

Now, shall we begin?

You will be in Bold

--

Please provide me evidence that Bangkok BTS and MRT can extend their current rolling stock longer than what it is now with more thrust power from its locomotive and that it can travel faster like metros in the UK and US. -> First thing first, all BTS and MRT lines use electric multiple units (EMU). Quoting from said Wikipedia page, EMU is "Self-propelled carriages using electricity as the motive power. An EMU requires no separate locomotive, as electric traction motors are incorporated within one or a number of the carriages"

It's not locomotive-hauled trains that use locomotive. Carriage can powered and drive itself. And because of that, they can make the train longer without having to worry about power(I guess when you said thrust, you meant power or torque). As long as the platform supports the length of the train.

Here is a Photo of BTS train in 6-car configuration. Click

Here is a Video of BTS train in 6-car configuration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZFXFQ3i71w

--

'''THE ENTIRE BANGKOK BTS AND MRT METRO NETWORK IS A MEDIUM-CAPACITY RAIL SYSTEM NETWORK AND NOT JUST THE TRAINS THEMESELVES! THIS IS ALSO WHY THEY HAVE MORE RAIL CURVATURE ANGLES LIKE FROM 70 DEGREES TO 90 DEGREES BUT THIS DOES NOT WORK WITH HEAVY RAIL NETWORK SINCE THE TRAINS COULD DERAIL AT HIGHER SPEED! LIGHT METROS TRAVEL AT SLOWER AVERAGE SPEED SO IT IS SAFER FOR THEM TO MAKE A 70-90 DEGREES TURN. HEAVY METROS RARELY MAKE 70-90 DEGREES TURN BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY COULD RUN SLOWER BUT 60 DEGREES TURN IS STILL COMMON IN A HEAVY RAIL NETWORK BUT 60 DEGREES CURVE RAILS WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE SLIGHTLY TILTED IN A HIGHER SPEED ZONE TO AVOID POSSIBLE DERAILMENT AND TO ALLOW TRAINS TO RUN FASTER WHILE TURNING.

THE BANGKOK BTS AND MRT SYSTEM WERE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR CARRYING MEDIUM CAPACITY OF PASSENGERS DUE TO THEIR GREEDINESS BUT THESE OPERATORS GO CRAZY TO EXTEND THESE LINES MORE WHICH SURPASSED RECOMMENDED 25KM OR 26KM (BTS SUKHUMVIT LINE IS AROUND 38KM LONG AND STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION WHILE TAIPEI WENHU LINE IS AROUND 25KM) WHICH ARE NOT ADEQUATE FOR MEDIUM-CAPACITY SYSTEM OR LIGHT METRO. WHAT THEY NEED NOW IS TO UPGRADE THE ENTIRE LIGHT METRO RAIL SYSTEM NETWORK TO A HEAVY RAIL METRO NETWORK WHICH WOULD BE DIFFICULT AT THIS POINT.''' -> I don't know how to begin here. Curve will sharp or gentle is measured in length (like meters) and degrees. Earth is 360 degree, but it isn't sharp, isn't it?

If you only say 90 degree turn is a sharp turn. Thus, not a rapid transit. Then why you said London underground is heavy rail? London Underground's Circle line turn more than 360 degrees (because it looped back and formed a circle, as the name imply).

--

HOW MANY MORE EVIDENCES DO YOU NEED? -> I need citation. Not claim nor yelling.

--

'''They are essentially "Light Metros" and not either light rails like trams or heavy rails. They do not have enough capacity like heavy rails do.''' -> They were designed as a Heavy rail. I already provided you a citation above. Do you read Thai? I think I can find a detail design of some system for you. But it is in Thai.

--

Wake up from your ignorance. -> Please be civilized and not injecting something toxic every few sentence. TYPING IN CAPITAL LETTER DOESN'T HELP TOO SOFTEN THE TONE TOO. IN FACT, IT MAKES IT SOUND AGGRESSIVE.

--

'''The passengers had been waiting for years for them to extend the current rolling stocks and now the service is becoming more inadequate. Thus, it is about thrust power of locomotive on how many cars it can pull rather than just the length of the rolling stock itself but of course, most people would already raised their suspicion when BTS and MRT still refuse to extend them in the first place while the cost of their tickets are higher nowadays and the trains are cramped up during rush hour.''' -> You should complain and redirect your anger to operators or Ministry of Transport, not Wikipedia.

--

'''Why ordering new rolling stocks which would be more expensive due to new locomotives? It is the locomotives that are more expensive than the passenger wagons. If they are heavy rails then just extend the current rolling stocks to avoid more traffic congestion.''' -> I don't know what you are trying to say here. As I said above, Bangkok's rapid transit use EMUs not Push-Pull trains. They don't have locomotives. They are all passenger wagons that can drive themselves. My best guess is that you are trying to say that why order more train sets rather than extending it to 5 or 6-car train. If that is what you try to say, that is because they want to reduce the headway of the train. In other words, they want to make trains come at shorter interval, rather than at the same rate but bigger trains. Why? because you don't have to wait very long if you just miss a train.

--

You sound like a Thai PR agent ignoring rail vehicle classification and with no evidence to backup your claims. -> Please be civilized and not injecting something toxic every few sentence.

--

Where is the evidence that Bangkok's BTS AND MRT rolling stocks could be extended and can travel faster than 50kmph on average (not top speed)? -> It's a metro system (rapid transit). Not a commuter train. It preferred frequent stops and trains to come frequently so people can easier accessing it rather than speed. And heavy rail isn't categorizes by speed, but passenger per hour per direction it can handle.

Where is your evidence that train can't be extend then? I already posted a video clip and photo of BTS in 6-car configuration.

--

'''There is no proof so stop denying the facts that I had posted. Accept the facts and educate yourself on the difference between light rail, medium capacity system or light metro and heavy rails. Metropolitan trains/metros are not EMU trains but are Sub-EMU trains because their top speed are lower than EMU train's since they do not travel very far and they are classified as mass rapid transit system. City rail trains are EMUs or electric multiple units such as the bullet trains or high speed rail or even regional trains (requires electric wire poles near rail).''' -> Please check the definition of EMU via the Wikipedia page I provided above. Some of the photos you provided weren't EMU either, but a Push–pull train. I'm not sure who should get educated. Me, or a person who can't even separate if a train a multiple units or traditional push–pull train.

--

Monorails are monorails and not metros and yes, they are light rails and slower than most metros. -> You are correct. Except for that some monorail, Pink and Yellow line included, travels at a maximum speed of 80km/h. Which is equal to most metro line.

--

The pink and yellow lines should have been metros like they had promised but they lied to the people by using the term "rot fai far" which means metros in Thai just like they failed to extend BTS line but built BRT system to cause more traffic on the roads which was such a shame. -> That is opinion territory and I will not go in that. But the story behind this is that they already explored an idea of bulding Pink and Yellow line as a metro. But they conclude that demand would be too low and a full metro system is an overkill. Thus, a smaller and cheaper system should be built. And they choose monorail.

--

'''Slow monorails must run in Disneyland or Airport campus but I bet they will make it run more than 20km or 25km distance at slow speed. For example Japanese monorails would tend to run at 45kmph at average speed and from only 11km - 17.8km distance.''' -> Sao Paulo use Monorail. Infact, they use same model of train (Bombadier Innovia Monorail 300) as Bangkok's monorail. They are plenty of monorail system running in the city around the world. Here are examples.

Sao Paulo Monorail

Chongqing Rail Transit Line 2

Chongqing Rail Transit Line 3

Tokyo Monorail

You already know that those systems exist. As you use Tokyo monorail to support your stand. Why you saying that Slow monorails must run in Disneyland or Airport? If you think Pink and Yellow line monorails is slow, it use the same rolling stock as Sao Paulo Monorail. Which can do 80km/h. Which is equal to Tokyo monorail.

If you want proof or citation. Here are the link to Bombadier Innovia Monorail spec.

http://www.monorails.org/pdfs/INNOVIA%20300.pdf

--

'''Educate yourself on these terms and rail classifications before we even debate. I have the rights to edit wikipedia in a correct manner based on facts and evidences that I had observed and what I heard from others''' -> Wikipedia needs citation. Not claims. You can edit it to medium-capacity system, light rail, boat, ship, airport, space delivery system or whether you want. As long as you do the citation. And people think it's not a fabricate citation just to support your point. And I (everyone) holds power to asked Wikipedia admin to revert and stop a non-citation change. And investigate into the account behind said action.

--

'''But for you to tell others to reject their rights and stop mentioning facts based on evidences would clearly proof that you got problems with facts and logic. Can you proof that my facts are wrong and that I have no evidence to backup my claims? Certainly, you don't''' -> I just did. In fact, I don't see any evidence backing up your claims. No one seeing it either, and that is why your change keep getting reverted by more than 1 people.

--

'''and my message to BTS and MRT: EXTEND YOUR ROLLING STOCKS TO IMPROVE YOUR SERVICE IF YOU REALLY HAVE HEAVY RAIL METROS! WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT ANY LONGER DURING RUSH HOUR! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR????!''' -> You should complain and redirect your anger to operators or Ministry of Transport, not Wikipedia.

And please, signed your post WASDPro (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

My second reply to WASDPro: Civilized people needs evidence to observe and debate too and not just telling others to shut up or stop editing on an open source and putting words in their mouth
Whether you think that I am a civilized person or not but that is not the point here. Alright, I might not be civilized (your opinion) when it comes to observation of evidences which is kinda strange since I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN OBSERVE IT AND I HAD MANY DEBATES WITH INTELLECTUAL PEOPLE IN THE PAST WITHOUT ANY ISSUE but the point is that you still have no evidence that my points that I had posted earlier are wrong in the first place and you kept on telling me to stop editing wikipedia or just shut up while it is an open source for everyone to edit it or to express themselves so everyone like me and you has the rights to edit it but it must only be based on logic and what we see. If you don't agree with my points and my observation then tell me why you disagree. '''CIVILIZE PEOPLE DO NOT JUST GO AND TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO ON THIS WEBSITE AND PUTTING WORDS IN OTHER'S MOUTH. DID I EVEN SAY THAT IT IS A LIGHT RAIL OR LRT? NO I DID NOT SO STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND YES I WILL EDIT IMPORTANT POINTS BASED ON EVIDENCES THAT I CAN OBSERVE AT THE MEANTIME. ''' --

It seems like you are good in listening to propagandas lately from MRTA website. They are not reliable source either. You know that there is a lot of corruption and censorship when it comes to construction projects in Thailand. Nothing is standard here. MRTA website is definitely not the first place or reliable source that people with brain would go to search for an answer. MRTA is not transparent just like the BMA and the Ministry of Transportation. Nobody trust those clowns. -- If your heavy metro needs 4 locomotives then it looks like your metro trains have a problem there because heavy metros do not really need up to 4 locomotives but just 2 for thrust power. Yes, I had seen that video and the photo long time ago but that did not convince me since I am not stupid to be fool by their fail experiment which is now a floating propaganda on internet. It was a failed idea so they scrapped it. BTS had a photo of them testing on 6 cars but with this Medium Capacity Locomotive, they failed miserably because the train depart very slow so they scrapped this idea. It was an experiment to see if BTS locomotive can push and pull more than 4 cars but it failed and it was very slow. However, that photo is still circulating the internet as propaganda to fool viewers. If they can push and pull 6 cars then I dare them to extend all of their rolling stocks now instead of spreading this video online which is going to be used by third parties to support this false claim. This is why they had ordered new rolling stocks which would cost even more money for them.

Technically, yes, they can unite 2 Medium-capacity rail system rolling stocks together and push and pull up to 6 cars as a test experiment but they would depart very slow due to low thrust power FROM 2 LOCOMOTIVES so this is why they had cancelled this extension of train plan. Unless maybe if they use 4 Locomotives like in this video to do the job but that would look ugly and they would still have to order more new locomotives too. If they connect 4 locos then passengers cannot move from one loco bogie wagon to another. Some trams also use all 4 locomotives to push and pull the rolling stock like the ones in California. I conclude that extension of BTS and MRT rolling stock was a failure. For instance, SRT did this to all their meter gauge trains with lower thrust which is not what Japanese manufacturers recommend so this is why most of Thailand's railway trains are not in service since they broke down easily at short time. In Japan, they still use this meter gauge DMU type train but it is very short and it is for short distance so passengers can enjoy beautiful panorama view of mountains at slower speed. --

Yes, trains do make a sharp turns like the one at Siam station. Go and look it yourself but they cannot definitely go fast at that point but sharp turns should be rare on a heavy rail network. -- No I wasn't even yelling at you but I find it strange that you still need more evidences to agree with me even if there is not enough citations on the internet. The citations are the evidences themselves and how they currently operate the system. Now the service is becoming poor which is hard for anyone like me to deny. Right? --

Citations might never be made if MRTA AND BTS fail to release Siemens' engineer sketch diagram of the models that they are using. I am still looking for citations that I can never find which is suspicious but anyway, there is still no evidence that these models and pull up to 5-6 car wagons because if they can then it would financially make sense for them to extend the rolling stock rather than just buy new ones and cramping up or choking the system with more traffic. Well, anyway, they are not suppose to be only in Thai language but also in international language so anyone can read it. Thai language sources are the worst ones that you can use to educate yourself so this is why I always rely on international sources or articles in English language. There many propaganda in Thai language and sometimes information are not even available to the public. -- Well many passengers and reviewers are giving low ratings to these operators nowadays because the service is poor and becoming more inadequate while they are ripping our wallets so we have good reasons to be angry at these operators? -- Ignorance people does not know what is an LRT or Light Rail and a Light Rapid Transit system (Light Metro) based on what you posted earlier. This is enough for civilized people to say that you are ignorant. "Ignorance" is not the same as "stupid". -- Yes I had already redirected my anger on a review website but to tell me to shut up on Wikipedia simply because you disagree with me is certainly not a right thing to do. I have good reasons to be angry but my anger could never erase the facts or evidences either. Mininstry of Transport of Thailand is a joke and this is why they still could not figure out on how to solve 2-3 hours traffic jam issue for decades! Waste of time to talk to corrupt fools. I don't respect them after I see poor urban planning and poor results from these projects. Corruptions like bribing is common in Thailand so what do you expect? -- Are you aware that a good train operator would have to extend their current rolling stocks before making order for new rolling stocks in order to financially manage better? Even in developed countries, we do order new rolling stocks especially when we can no longer extend our rolling stocks to fulfill the capacity of passengers. The locomotives are more expensive so better avoid that in case if it is necessary. Your rolling stocks are still too short so wake up and look at the evidences. MESSAGE TO MRT AND BTS: IT IS TIME TO EXTEND THEM! -- Yes, you do sound like a PR agents hired by these operators but if you are not then I apologize. -- Ah, a failed experiment video of a 6 configuration cars that requires 4 locomotives is not even enough to proof that they can extend it with only 2 locomotives because if they can then they better do it to all of their current rolling stocks and save money. You know why more than 50% of SRT Trains are currently under repair? Because they over used them which is over their capacity that manufacturers recommended like they allowed a weak meter gauge locomotive to pull more than 4-5 cars (6-8 cars if I remember) so at the end they are dead. It is shocking statistic number. Even worse is that they do not repair them correctly by using cheap spare parts. Nothing is standard in Thailand. This is due to their greediness and incompetent. This is how far they can go just to give you an idea what is going on here with public transportation. -- I am from a Train country so I don't need your lecture on what EMU trains are and I am also a metrophile guy. If my photos of EMU Trains are not EMUs then you are basically saying that we Australians and we Europeans are idiots to put outdated non-EMUs trains in service to connect different cities. EMU is electric multiple unit and not meter gauge DMU trains like what SRT of Thailand still uses excluding Airport link. Non-EMU trains are good for shorter distance but nobody are as crazy as Thai SRT to make it go more than 50km-60km distance or turn it into an intercity train. Intercity trains (non bullet trains) requires 200km/h speed of locomotive and must be long in length. PUSH AND PULL trains does not tell on whether it is an EMU or sub-EMU but it is only a method of moving the wagons. Push and Pull trains would have 2 locomotives, 1 in front and 1 in rear. Many metros also use push and pull method because they tend to have 2 locomotives. For instance, only 1 BOBOBO or BOBO Locomotive can also do push and pull with semi-conductor wagon without the engine at the rear while semi-conductor or semi-drive wagon can also be use to control the locomotive when locomotive is going in reverse mode and yes mostly are EMU trains especially the ones with pantograph on its rooftop but they are not classified as push and pull train due to having only 1 locomotive.

Also, I said London Underground since that Tube Metro in the photo is part of London Underground System. What on earth do you want me say? And, yes it is a heavy metro line. However, I am not saying that London Underground does not have light metro line at all because it might have shorter lines with lower capacity for passengers too. Anyway, I am not an expert of London Underground but I am 100% sure that they do operate heavy metro lines. -- Monorails can travel a top speed of 80km/h but you have to also look at their average speed too. Sometimes trains don't really go at their top speed most of the time. The Japanese monorails also has 80km/h speed but it tends to travel only for 45km/h average speed which is slow like a 50cc scooter of underage kids. I am not against in building monorails but how they build them and how they use them. They call them as "rot fai far" just like the metros which is misleading because when I see the track that they had laid, they do not look like metro's tracks and that is when I realized that I had been fooled like everyone here. I wish that they could be heavy metros but sadly, this is just my dream. BTS skytrain and MRT also has top speed of around 80km/h but they tend to travel at only 35-50km/h which is not fast. In Europe, we have older heavy metros that can travel above 80km/h or perhaps even more than 100km/h on average speed which is kinda dangerous almost like cars on a freeway based on complains from some passengers. -- Because traditionally, we use narrow gauge or something like monorails for shorter distance like running in a university campus or airport or disneyland (if they are really slow). I am not surprise why poorer countries might go for the cheaper alternatives to metros because they are poorer and they wanted to cut the cost. For example, Sydney monorail was such as failure and now they had recently dismantled it. This is why I am not a very pro-monorail kinda guy unless if it is for the poor or for shorter distance. -- The fact that you put words in mouth like "Light Rail" after I had said "Light Metro" kinda proves that you don't know what I was talking about so this is why I told you to educate yourself. Edits on open source website and opinions do not need a citation as long as there is logic behind it and evidence on what we observe. Well, then sue me! I have nothing to hide and we can even talk face to face. We can also have a civilize debate at the court room. No problem. I am just like everyone else who came to wikipedia to edit what I think is more rational and logical. I am not even sure if Siemens are going to release the engineer diagrams or specs of these models. -- Of course, Wikipedia needs citations but sometimes citations are not available to the public online and this is why wikipedia is considered as unreliable source in some areas. You should not be taking things too seriously with open sources but to troll or to bully or to tell others to shut up is not what wikipedia is designed for. I love to debate and to talk about public transportation. If you got a problem with open source then what are you doing here? -- There are many puppet accounts or PR agents on Wikipedia so I am not surprise but I do share same view like millions of passengers in Thailand which is hard to deny. Now, the statistic is showing more unhappy passengers day by day no matter how much you would deny while the trains are getting more cramped up with very long queue lines of passengers on the platforms during rush hour. I don't care much to be honest because I am not the owner of these transportations but this is just a bit of my contributions to wikipedia to defend the truth and logic. -- Again, educate yourself on the difference between Light Rail and a Light Metro and an EMU train and then we will debate and plus, Bangkok BTS Skytrain and MRT still needs to prove that their current rolling stocks can be extended to increase the passenger capacity which is what we need now and not tomorrow or for Christmas otherwise they could never ever convince me that they are heavy rail metros. Improve the service by increasing the capacity of the trains to avoid long queues during rush hour. I wanted to see longer rolling stocks and not just babblings or propaganda. Citations are the weakest point for open sources like Wikipedia because sometimes it is hard to obtain them. Offline citations like evidences is more important here.

Anyway, Wikipedia cannot guarantee that information being shown on this site would reflect Wikipedia itself or its owner and that it is correct or accurate since it is an open source but what is beautiful about Wikipedia is that at least anyone has the freedom to express themselves or edit these pages that they can enjoy. Nothing is guaranteed here but to sue Wikipedia and editors is just too aggressive and inappropriate even if we have no problem with that. As a civilize person I never sue anyone for their beliefs or for their opinion and I never tell them to shut up and yes they can disagree because I wanted to hear what they say and to why they disagreed with me. There is no rule on Wikipedia that anyone who edit the pages must have full evidence or citations either so this is why there is no guarantee that the information is correct otherwise nobody would dare to come here to edit Wikipedia simply because they have no citation and they had seen something that they wanted to tell but without 100% proof. There are many pages based on opinion and logic or few evidences observed by some editors too and they were not being removed on Wikipedia. It can never be 100% accurate. This is not a newspaper meant to discredit somebody but it is an open source and this is a chat area where anyone can come to express themselves. This is about mass rapid transit that does not even look standard and needs to improve in many areas based on my observation so this is why I came here. Got a problem?

Because you don't sign your post. I have to started a new one.
First thing first. Please sign your post. Wikipedia required you to do that at the end of the conversation.

This is what you said.

-

Of course, Wikipedia needs citations but sometimes citations are not available to the public online and this is why wikipedia is considered as unreliable source in some areas. You should not be taking things too seriously with open sources but to troll or to bully or to tell others to shut up is not what wikipedia is designed for. I love to debate and to talk about public transportation. If you got a problem with open source then what are you doing here?

-

More on what you say

-

Again, educate yourself on the difference between Light Rail and a Light Metro and an EMU train and then we will debate and plus, Bangkok BTS Skytrain and MRT still needs to prove that their current rolling stocks can be extended to increase the passenger capacity which is what we need now and not tomorrow or for Christmas otherwise they could never ever convince me that they are heavy rail metros. Improve the service by increasing the capacity of the trains to avoid long queues during rush hour. I wanted to see longer rolling stocks and not just babblings or propaganda. Citations are the weakest point for open sources like Wikipedia because sometimes it is hard to obtain them. Offline citations like evidences is more important here.

-

I've read your post. I don't care what you think or personal hatred or believe. It's your problem. But Wikipedia has policy on editing.

Please read before you start editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

In "Adding information to Wikipedia" section it specify.

''However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that '''content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced content may be challenged and removed''', because on Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content ''

I don't care how hard it is to find a citation. If you don't have it, your edit will be removed. End of the story. That's Wikipedia policy. Not mine. If you don't like it, you have 3 choices

a. Accept it

b. Asked them to change policy. And while waiting for policy to be change, followed the current policy.

c. Stop using it.

If you insist on not following the policy. They might force you to stop using it. This is not threatening from me. But a warn of goodwill.

What you are doing (edit without citation) is also considered disruptive editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing

Again, I don't care on what you think or believe. You edit something, you add citation. I already specify this in my last reply.

And Wikipedia is not where you start spreading your thought or opinion. Read the policy provided by the link below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

More on what you say

-

Anyway, Wikipedia cannot guarantee that information being shown on this site would reflect Wikipedia itself or its owner and that it is correct or accurate since it is an open source but what is beautiful about Wikipedia is that at least anyone has the freedom to express themselves or edit these pages that they can enjoy.

-

It isn't. Policy specify that. End of the story.

More on what you say

-

Yes I had already redirected my anger on a review website but to tell me to shut up on Wikipedia simply because you disagree with me is certainly not a right thing to do. I have good reasons to be angry but my anger could never erase the facts or evidences either. Mininstry of Transport of Thailand is a joke and this is why they still could not figure out on how to solve 2-3 hours traffic jam issue for decades! Waste of time to talk to corrupt fools. I don't respect them after I see poor urban planning and poor results from these projects. Corruptions like bribing is common in Thailand so what do you expect?

-

I'm not telling you to shut up because you disagree with me. I'm telling you to shut up because you didn't add citation. Not adding citation is against Wikipedia policy.

And this is more from what you said

-

There are many pages based on opinion and logic or few evidences observed by some editors too and they were not being removed on Wikipedia. It can never be 100% accurate. This is not a newspaper meant to discredit somebody but it is an open source and this is a chat area where anyone can come to express themselves. This is about mass rapid transit that does not even look standard and needs to improve in many areas based on my observation so this is why I came here. Got a problem?

-

Not only you calling me PR agent, propaganda or whatever. You start threatening me for not agreeing with you? Again, please be civilized.

Oh, one more kinda funny thing. This is what you said.

-

Also, '''I said London Underground since that Tube Metro in the photo is part of London Underground System. What on earth do you want me say? And, yes it is a heavy metro line'''. However, I am not saying that London Underground does not have light metro line at all because it might have shorter lines with lower capacity for passengers too. Anyway, I am not an expert of London Underground but I am 100% sure that they do operate heavy metro lines.

-

Funny is that you said Heavy rail can't turn 90 degree. And you posted a photo of London Underground train. Specifically, Central Line train. And said that it's a Heavy rail. When the Central Line do the sharp, more than 90 degree turn near Shepherd's Bush. That train in photo must travel through that poor train must have travel through said curve multiple times a day.WASDPro (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

My Third Replay to Whoever you are or to whom it may concern
Nobody has to sign anything on an open source website or in this chat area and I don't have an account here but anyway, I am not hiding anything from anyone.

I had just read about Wikipedia having been sued many times too for biased information and also being blamed by many people in the past and also being vandalized due to not being transparent and not being neutral as to what it claimed to be. There is censorship, revenge editing and bribes too. It is a whitewashing website and very unreliable academic source indeed. This is why people like Virgil Griffith came up with the Wikiscanner to identify the editors since wikipedia had problems with people who came in to edit the page which concerns with their embarrassing records or bad image of their business or company that they wanted to remove from wikipedia. Wikipedia is an unreliable academic source. For instance if you wanted to go and read about economic damage caused by apartheid in South Africa on wikipedia then I would not recommend you to do that because since most of those information could never be edit or put into wikipedia due to white washing so you would never be able to even read them. That sounds like being pro-apartheid and having a pro white opinion without citation too and not all information are available. Take it with the grain of salt in case if you still wanted to use this website. However, I already did the right thing as my contribution including information that I am giving in this chat to prove that I am not wrong at all even if my edit would never be accept by the admin.

Anyway, hatred is a very strong word that you used against me. No, this is not about hatred and I don't hate anyone but this is about anger that the passengers could not get the service that they expect to get from Bangkok BTS and MRT after paying expensive tickets and it is about the rights to edit in Wikipedia based on what we see and based on logic and our knowledge even if there is no citation. It is about trying to tell the truth regardless of having citation or not. I am against vandals or people who came here just to edit in favour of a business or company or their own biography which could be misleading to the readers since it would look more positive and does not reflect the truth in reality. Of course, having citation would be better but unfortunately sometimes that cannot be easily obtain but anyway, it isn't an obligation either since it is an open source but if it is a newspaper then it could be a different story especially if it involves ruining the image of somebody and we have no concrete evidence to prove our claims. You see?

'''YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE CITATION TO YOUR CLAIMS EITHER AND YOU ARE TELLING ME TO SHUT UP? SHAME ON YOU! YOU DO NOT NEED CITATION JUST TO COME HERE TO EDIT ON WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN OBLIGATION OTHERWISE NOBODY WOULD COME HERE TO EDIT ANYTHING FOR FEARING OF BEING SUED. IT IS ALSO BASED ON OPINION TOO. IF WIKIPEDIA ADMIN IS BIASED OR DOES NOT AGREE THEN THEY CAN REVERT THE CHANGES TO ORIGINAL AT ANYTIME. I DID NOT COME HERE TO START SOME KIND OF FIGHT AND I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE MY TIME WITH THIS. I AM JUST AN EDITOR WITH CONTRIBUTIONS LIKE EVERYONE. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL AT ALL AND NOT A VIOLATION OF ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY JUST STATED THAT IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SHARE THEN DO IT BUT THEY MIGHT REMOVE IT IF THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU. REVENGE EDITING IS NOT VANDALISM AS LONG AS IT IS REASONABLE WITH EVIDENCES. I CAN SAY THAT YOU ARE DISRUPTING WITH MY REASONABLE EDIT THAT GOES WITH THE EVIDENCE TOO. ANYONE CAN ACCUSE ANYONE OF DOING THAT. AT THAT POINT, OPEN SOURCE ENCYCLOPEDIA WOULD BE IRRELEVANT AND BIASED. HOW IS MY CONTRIBUTION OR MY EDIT CONSIDERED AS DISRUPTIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? PROVE THAT MY CONTRIBUTION OR MY EDIT IS DISRUPTIVE TO WIKIPEDIA THEN. YOU STILL DID NOT WIN THIS DEBATE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO GOOD COUNTER ARGUMENTS AND YOUR VIDEO EVIDENCE IS NOTHING WHICH SHOWED 2 MCS ROLLING STOCKS CONNECTED AND USING UP TO 4 LOCOMOTIVES WHICH IS NOT WHAT MOST HEAVY METROS WOULD DO EXCEPT MAYBE FOR THE 70S AND 80S OLD MODELS IN WHICH PASSENGERS CANNOT MOVE FROM ONE WAGON TO ANOTHER. THAT WAS A FAILURE ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAD TO SACRIFICE THE OTHER 2 LOCOMOTIVES AND MAKING THE ROLLING STOCK EVEN MORE HEAVIER THAN IT REALLY SHOULD BE.'''

Wikipedia is a joke and not neutral but I did what I was suppose to do correctly as an editor and being degraded as being disruptive by you which saddens me. Double standard is common here and this is very inappropriate.

Telling people to stop editing what sounds reasonable on an open source is like telling them to shut up. No I will not shut up. Give me a break. If you wanted to sue me then sue me. I never tell you to stop editing as long as you can agree with evidences. 3-4 cars trains of BTS and MRT of Bangkok are not heavy metros. Accept it.

Civilize people don't tell others to shut up on an open source. If they want to disagree then show me citations that I was wrong. You got no citation to proof that I am wrong either. BTS and MRT did not even prove that they are operating 5-6 cars trains either. NO EVIDENCE OR NO CITATION FROM YOU AND THESE OPERATORS

Trolling is not allowed on wikipedia so stop. Do not vandalize the facts that I had posted since I got enough evidence and anyone with brain can clearly see this evidence of 3-4 cars light metros of BTS and MRT. What you are doing is not funny so stop.

'''Where is my threat? You were the one who said that you will investigate who is behind this account even though I don't really have one and I am not even hiding. For what? For sueing me? Oh, so you threaten to take legal action against me for just editing on wikipedia? This is why I had said: Well, then sue me!

How did I threaten you? With what? With sticks and stones?? I did not threaten you at all, you silly. Go and see a doctor and get your head check. ABSOLUTELY CRAZY AND BIZARRE ACCUSATION YOU GOT THERE AGAINST ME! CALM DOWN!'''

Well if you sound like a PR Agent then people are going to treat you like one or if you look ignorant then they will treat you like ignorant person so what do you expect, my little friend?

If saying London Underground is a heavy metro based on that photo and it is funny to you then the other Wikipedia page should also be funny because I got that terms and that photo of the Tube Subway heavy rail metro train from within Wikipedia itself which clearly stated it as a heavy metro on a rapid transit page. What a contradiction. However, I do admit that the term "rapid transit" is a broader term than the term "light rapid transit" or "heavy rapid transit" because it could still include both the light metro which is still considered as a type of mass rapid transit system of transportation or a sub category of a rapid transit and this would also include the standard heavy metro so the term could still be confusing for some people especially those who do not have much deep knowledge in rapid transit. There is the light variation and the heavy variation within rapid transit system. They should have called it as "heavy rapid transit" page instead since they used the term "heavy rail" so this would not apply to light rapid transit by definition.

Also, I do admit that I had missed your counter argument that stated that London Underground has a loop route since I was skimping and read it fast so I would like to add that it depends on how big the loop track is and how sharp the rail curvature is or how sharp the turn that the train has to make. Even if it is a perfect 360 degrees circle, but if it is big enough then there won't be any sharp turn like 70-90 degrees curve of rail so the train won't risk being derail at high speed. Also, I did not say that heavy rails could never make sharp turn or 90 degrees turn but I said that it was extremely rare especially in high speed zone like in an 80km/h to 410km/h speed zone and this is because they tend to run faster at higher average speed. From my understanding, sharp turns tend to happen at the very big hub station like the Grand Central Station where EMU trains had to change rail often before they accelerate their speed higher and same thing for the metros or sub emu trains. If a heavy metro must quickly change their direction from north to east or to west then a 70-90 degrees turn would be necessary but again, they cannot go above 50-60km/h (my limit speed estimation) while performing sharp turn otherwise they risk to derail. The reason for sharp turn is to avoid obstacles like buildings, river or due to changing rail and etc or maybe the trains had to make big change to its direction for a particular reason. Thus, any heavy rail vehicles can go in a loop route without making a very sharp turn. It is about how sharp the turn that the trains had to make but not the shape of its route. (It is my pleasure to offer this extra information to you and wikipedia as an additional edit to my third reply in this chat room)

Anyway, I am always happy to find someone talking to me about public transportation since it is very interesting for me and also kinda fun whether you are Mr. Ignorant or Mr. Sue or Mr. Babbling or a troll or PR Agent or OK, a very civilize expert of railway. Whatever... Or.. ok, just sue me and then I will see you again at the court and we can talk about this again later. No problem. '''BUT... THE LOSERS AT THE END ARE THE PASSENGERS AND THE BTS AND MRT SYSTEM IN THAILAND WHICH IS NOT MY PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH SO I DON'T CARE ANYMORE EVEN IF I DID USED THESE SERVICES IN THE PAST THAT GOT ME ANGRY ABOUT THE INADEQUATE SERVICE DURING RUSH HOUR. IF THEY WANTED TO RUIN THEIR SERVICE AND THEIR IMAGE AND IF WIKIPEDIA STILL WANTED TO DENY THIS FACT THEN SO BE IT. I CAME HERE ON WIKIPEDIA TO DO WHAT I WAS SUPPOSE TO DO AS AN EDITOR WITH GOOD CONTRIBUTIONS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.'''

Thank you very much. I'm afraid that I have to go now. This debate is not going anywhere and it does not make any good changes to the pages that I tried to edit them in a better way to educate the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.145.130.242 (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe first thing you should do is start reading. I try to explain you, I sent you a photo, a video clip, a document for you to read. All you do is angrily saying "propaganda propaganda, shut up and listen to me, I was right". You just weren't capable of reading or even try to understand. What you do is read just to yell back at me. So there is no point throwing evidence at you. Finding citation and reference took a lot of time and I will not waste my time finding categorizing it and presenting it just for you to angrily yelling "FAKE, PROPAGANDA, PR AGENT". It's like talking to someone who believe in conspiracy theory. You just wants it to be what you want and hear only what you want. And wants other people to listen and abide to you.

I would recommend you should learn to control your anger mate. You sounds like you really need help. Maybe talk to someone around you.

'''You should start reading about rules and Wikipedia's policy and start following it. Instead of saying F it. I can do what I want.'''

Then start reading about Locomotive-Haul train and multiple units. Since, no matter how you believe, you aren't capable of differentiate those type of train. Start reading instead of saying I am smart, I don't need lecture about those.

Then start reading about power source of train. Like third rail, overhead catenary, diesel-hydraulic, diesel-electric etc.

Then start reading about metro train (rapid transit), commuter train, intercity train and high speed train.

Then start reading about Light Rail, Medium Rail (Medium capacity system) and Heavy Rail.

Then come back to read all of what you just said in this talk page. And told me what you think about it.

But again, I don't think you are capable of doing that. I already posted a definition of Medium capacity system. I'm not sure if you even read it or not. But that article has references. You can try follow those reference and read the source themselves.

Or if you read it but don't like it because it's not what you think. Then it's your problem. I don't care. You can believe whatever you want. But it got no place here, on Wikipedia, until you start citing your claim.

Also, you should start reading about how to measure sharpness of curve too. I already told you it is measure by radius (in cm or meter), not angle.WASDPro (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

What to expect for throwing LIES at people with knowledge
Your so called evidence is nothing but LIES for people with knowledge like me. Just by looking at your video that I had already seen long time ago which showed 2 MCS rolling stocks with 4 Locomotives is enough to make intellectual people wanna laugh and stop debating because we already know what it is. MODERN HEAVY METRO ROLLING STOCK DOES NOT NEED 4 LOCOMOTIVES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? YES OR NO? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T THEN YOU ARE TROLLING. I AM TOO LAZY TO EVEN YELL AT YOU. ACTUALLY I AM NOT EVEN YELLING BUT I WAS SHOCKED AT YOUR ILLITERACY AND IGNORANCE about railway system. You called that EVIDENCE? THAT'S LIES.

SO CONNECTING 3 TRAM ROLLING STOCKS COULD BE QUALIFIED AS A HEAVY METRO TOO THEN. THAT IS NONE SENSE. YOU DON'T JUST CONNECT ROLLING STOCKS OF LOWER CAPACITANCE VEHICLES TOGETHER AND CALLED THEM AS HEAVY OR HIGH CLASS WITH HIGHER TRUST POWER VEHICLE. THAT IS A LIE INDEED. WAKE UP!

PEOPLE WILL BE SHOCK AND YELL AT YOU IF YOU ACT IGNORANT LIKE THIS. THIS IS BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF RAILWAY SYSTEM. YOU TALK ABOUT PUSH AND PULL BUT YOU GOT NO IDEA HOW MANY ACTUAL LOCOMOTIVES A HEAVY RAPID TRANSIT ROLLING STOCK NEEDS WHICH IS INCREDIBLE. YOU COULD BE FIRED AT RAILWAY COMPANY IF YOU CONNECT TO MANY LOCOMOTIVES TO A HEAVY METRO ROLLING STOCK AND WASTING THEM ON PURPOSE UNLESS IF THEY ARE NOT HEAVY RAIL WHICH IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO PROVE TO YOUR STUBBORN HEAD.

PEOPLE WILL BE SHOCK AND YELL AT YOU IF YOU ACT IGNORANT LIKE THIS. THIS IS BASIC KNOWLEDGE OF RAILWAY SYSTEM. YOU TALK ABOUT PUSH AND PULL BUT YOU GOT NO IDEA HOW MANY ACTUAL LOCOMOTIVES A HEAVY RAPID TRANSIT ROLLING STOCK NEEDS WHICH IS INCREDIBLE. YOU COULD BE FIRED AT RAILWAY COMPANY IF YOU CONNECT TO MANY LOCOMOTIVES TO A HEAVY METRO ROLLING STOCK AND WASTING THEM ON PURPOSE UNLESS IF THEY ARE NOT HEAVY RAIL WHICH IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO PROVE TO YOUR STUBBORN HEAD.

GET YOUR LIES AND UNRELIABLE SOURCE ELSEWHERE. THAT IS ONLY MEANT TO FOOL IDIOTS BUT NOT ME. YOU ARE THROWING LIES AND NONE SENSE AT THE WRONG PERSON HERE AND I HAD COUNTER YOUR EVIDENCE VIDEO TOO BUT YOU JUST DON'T LISTEN. WHY THE HECK WOULD A MODERN HEAVY METRO NEEDS UP TO 4 LOCOMOTIVES NOWADAYS? COME ON! YOU ARE WASTING MY TIME TOO. GO AND FIND OTHER JOB.

GO AND READ SIEMENS ENGINEERING DIAGRAM OF THE BTS SKYTRAIN MODELS AND MRT MODELS AND THEN COME BACK TO TELL ME. YOUR WIKIPEDIA IS A JOKE. IT IS ALSO AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE AND MANY ACADEMICS DO NOT EVEN TRUST IT. CITIATIONS, MY ASS. SOME EDITORS CANNOT EVEN EDIT WITH CITATIONS.

NEXT TIME, LET YOUR HEAVY METRO GO AT OVER 80KM/H OR 100KM/H ON A VERY SHARP CURVE (IN DEGREES) AND COME BACK AND TELL ME IF YOU ALREADY GET A NICE CHRISTMAS GIFT. (MY SARCASTIC JOKE. NOBODY CAN BE SERIOUS WITH SOMEONE LIKE YOU)

YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE TO COUNTERING MY COUNTER ARGUMENTS BUT JUST SHOWING MRTA SOURCES AND A VIDEO OF 2 MEDIUM-CAPACITY ROLLING STOCKS USING UP TO 4 LOCOMOTIVES! GROW UP! YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF ANYTHING FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THIS CHAT ROOM SO GET LOST. WE ARE NOT EVEN IN THE SAME LEAGUE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM BECAUSE I DON'T OWN BTS AND MRT AND NOT EVEN WIKIPEDIA AND NOT EVEN HIRING A PR AGENT TO TROLL OR TWIST FACTS BECAUSE I GOT NOTHING TO HIDE. I AM JUST AN EDITOR WHO CAME TO TELL THE TRUTH AND WHAT I SAW. EXTEND YOUR ROLLING STOCKS WITH 2 LOCOMOTIVES AND THEN WE WILL TALK.

THANKS FOR THE INSULTS, (CIVILIZE) GENTLEMAN (MY SARCASM). [COUGH] [COUGH] SURE, SURE, YOU HAVE A GOOD COMPREHENSIVE SKILL THERE BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS A "LIGHT RAIL" AND A "LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM" AND YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH AND STATED THAT I AM NOT CIVILIZE AND I CANNOT READ A CRAP. ROFL!

ABOUT CIVILITY
"CIVILITY" BY DEFINITION COULD BE BIASED IF IT IS IN FAVOR OF ONE'S OWN VIEW OR FAVORING JUST ONE SIDE BUT NOT OTHER AND BEING DOUBLE STANDARD. WRITING IN CAPS IS JUST MY STYLE WHEN I TALK TO IGNORANT PEOPLE OR TROLLS.

Civility
Please read WP:CIVIL. In particular:
 * Please dont write in all caps. Its considered yelling and definitely wont help your cause.
 * Dont attack other editors. civility is required, not optional.
 * Dont use excessive bold. Thanks, Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should do a check on this guy?
Maybe Wikipedia should do a check on this guy? As he violate pretty much all Wikipedia policy. He also keep editing articles relating to Bangkok's rapid transit to his like. Not to the references from the officially released documents, news articles and/or stuffs.

I said it before. But I will say this again

Start reading about rules and Wikipedia's policy and start following it. Instead of saying F it. I can do what I want.

WASDPro (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Multiple Units don't have locomotives
You were quite lucky I started looking for a new citations and documents for BTS. As I planned to revamped BTS Wikipedia page in the near future. One thing puzzles me is why you keep saying locomotives. It doesn't have one. You should check the brochure published by Siemens. On page 3. Siemens multiple units only consist of 3 types of wagon. - Motor car with cab - Motor car - Trailer car

Click

No locomotive here. I don't what you are on about locomotive. And BTS train configuration (new Siemens Inspiro trains by the way), is Mc+T+T+Mc. Mc means motor car with cab and T means trailer car. Please check page 2 of the PDF file below. File is also provided by Siemens.

Another click

And if we go back to the first file about Siemens Inspiro. You will notice that train can can be configured to run in longer configuration, up to 8 cars actually. But since BTS and MRT platform was built to accommodate 6-car train. Practically, that will be the maximum number of car per train they will gonna use. But right now they are using 4-car per train. So yes, train can be extended to 6-car train. If you insist that it cannot be extend or extended and use effectively, please find document(s)/citation(s) to support your point of view. Or why my document is unreliable (citations is also needed, we don't use claim here). Instead of yell back at me it is a fake propaganda document.WASDPro (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)