Talk:IRT Ninth Avenue Line

untitled

It seems notable that this "elevated" went through a tunnel (due to the topology) and had subway-like partly-underground stations. As for the opening of this section, [1] says "and was extended to meet the Jerome Ave. IRT in 1918"Jason McHuff 23:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This and all articles on the elevateds should be called "El" articles, not IRT articles. This one should be "Ninth Avenue El." They were not commonly known as IRT lines but have come to be known down history as El lines.

Question: there is a famous photo of a journey on the Ninth Ave. El at the Smithsonian website. Can I freeze-frame and copy here? --ScottyBerg (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyBerg (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A metro only from 1872

The first 1868 version was a cable hauled railways between two stations - a railways line, elevated but like many others and not a metro. It became the world's second urban metro in 1972, after the 1863 Metropolitan Railway in London, when more stations were added to the two station line. Metros do not have to be underground. 94.3.125.209 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Original track gauge

What was the original track gauge? Peter Horn User talk 17:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Pure nonsense

The phrase "changed the wheel widths on the rolling stock" makes no sense and should read ""changed the wheel spacing on the axles of the rolling stock". However the problem is that one can not change the spacing of the train wheels on an axle or on the wheel set. The wheels are mounted with a press fit at perhaps 20,000 lb/sq in (1,410 kg/cm²). So, as for moving the wheels on the axle, good luck. One changes the wheel sets or even the trucks. Peter Horn User talk 01:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IRT Ninth Avenue Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050806015341/http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beach/ to http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beach/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IRT Lexington Avenue Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Opening day discrepancy

The text body states that the line opened on July 3rd, but the sidebar indicates it opened on July 1st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elead1 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of deaths on September 11, 1905

Sources 8 and 13 reportedly give different accounts of the number of fatalities, although I suspect something was simply mistyped as in the summary paragraph '61' is reported as the number of casualties whereas later in the article it's reported as 13 deaths and 48 serious injuries which conveniently adds up to the 61 reported entirely as casualties in the summary. I have no access to view either source 8 or 9, so instead will update the summary to report the only numbers I can actually find from the first hand account of the New York Times the next morning, which is 12 dead, 42 injured (the NYT article does mention that 5 of the injured were expected to die, although I couldn't find any followup) Maxx233 (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but you misinterpreted the word casualty (person). "Casualties" in this context actually means the number of victims (injured plus dead), not the number of dead alone. The figure of 61 victims is correct, and the two sources do match up.

I've removed the NYT source because it was a primary news source. The NYT is typically reliable, but breaking-news sources about major incidents like this are often inaccurate, as the full details of the incident don't come out until later. – Epicgenius (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

All primary sources I can find from around that time only list 12 deaths, 42 injuries - not just NYT. The NYT gives a comprehensive listing of injuries and does say that 5 were expected to die, 2 of which were expected to die by the next day. So it's not unreasonable to think that at least one of those people did indeed actually die soon after. But I'd be somewhat surprised if so many additional injuries came to light, as the NYT even lists pretty minor injuries like a broken nose for which the person didn't even go to the hospital - so it seems odd that they'd have missed so many additional major-enough injuries that someone writing a book 50 years later would somehow have uncovered them. I'd be interested to see if those books cite a source themselves, but assuming they don't - what is the proper protocol? Are we to blindly assume the books 50 years later are correct, or cite reputable reporting? Not being defensive or accusatory - it's an honest question as I'm new to this Maxx233 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I would check reliable sources published months or years after the crash, when the precise number of people were killed or injured is likely to be clearer. If reliable sources disagree on how many victims there were, we can note such in the article. As Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Age matters says, Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate) ... Sources of any age may be prone to recentism, and this needs to be balanced out by careful editing; this is especially true in this case.

The reason I don't advise using primary news sources is that there's a possibility that additional people reported being injured later, without contemporary news sources picking it up. Breaking-news articles tend to be less accurate in this regard. In this case, the NYT reported that 12 people are known to have been killed and that 42 people are known to have been injured, of which some were likely to die. But without a subsequent article that reports whether these people actually died, we can't definitively say that "12 people died and 42 people were injured". Even if the NYT reported injuries as minor as a broken nose, we wouldn't know if they missed other people with minor injuries, unless we had more up-to-date sources—we'd only be relying on what the NYT reporter said the day after the crash. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)