Jump to content

Talk:Portland Streetcar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment

[edit]

According to the August 10th, 2005 Citizen Advisory Committee minutes[1], the Gibbs extension is also planned to be continued south to Lowell Dr.

Street, not Drive. Basically, this will serve the southern part of the South Waterfront redevlopment area and end near the Willamette Shore Trolley. Actually, the WST used to go up to RiverPlace; some of the present extension uses the former trolley ROW. The long term hope is to use the rest of the trolley line for an extension to Lake Oswego

Also, aren't streetcar operators TriMet employees and doesn't TriMet help pay for operations? If so, the only real difference from MAX is who owns it.--67.160.146.193 22:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 18 of this PDF, the answer is yes. --Jason McHuff 03:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure but I think that Vintage Trolley service has resumed. For example, see [2]. I am pretty sure though that they cannot run on part of the RiverPlace extension (too steep a grade)--67.160.146.193 05:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coupling

[edit]

I was informed that and was shown that Portland Streetcars can be coupled on a visit to the Portland Streetcar yards in the summer of 2004. The couplers are hidden under the cabs at each end behing the "bumper" skirts. The only time that streetcars are coupled is when a crippled streetcar needs to be towed back to the yard. This is done by dispatching a rescue train and copling it to the stricken vehicle.


Some pictures I found of such an instance:

-Ajbenj

Situations in which MAX can't handle some areas serviced by street cars

[edit]
  • Steepnees of the area. The street cars might as well be mountain goats next to a MAX train.
  • Manueverability. MAX trains can't turn as sharp. However, most street car turns are broader than that required by cars.
  • Width. As noted in the article, MAX trains are much wider.
  • Length. It would take two street cars coupled, as shown here, to equal the length of one MAX car.--Will 05:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this all conjecture? MAX cars can handle grades up to 7 percent. The minimum curve radius of a Skoda T10 is 60 feet while the MAX cars are 82 feet; streetcar curves aren't sharper than the sharpest MAX curve and aren't built to the streetcar's minimum. A single MAX vehicle is 92 feet long while a streetcar is 66 feet long, which puts a difference of 23 feet between the two and not 46 feet (i.e. the streetcar is three-quarters the length of a single MAX car). Furthermore, a mere 8.4 inches difference in width (that's 4.2 inches on either side) is not "much wider"; a standard commuter railcar (10 feet 6 inches) would be "much wider".
71.181.219.209 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a new route or did it replace buses?

[edit]

Was the route of the streetcar once a bus route, or was it an all-new route? --NE2 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is REAL late but...It is a new route that serves some new (highly-redeveloped) neighborhoods, but ridership on some bus lines that serve the area the streetcar serves has gone down. According to a TriMet document I have, the percent change in ridership on Line 15 (which passes the NW end of the streetcar) between 1999-2004 is -25.1%. Jason McHuff (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments wanted on Streetcar, MAX maps

[edit]

I have made maps of the Portland Streetcar and MAX Light Rail systems and submitted them to Picture Peer Review. If anyone would like to, feel free to comment on them there. Thanks, Jason McHuff (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs updating for MAX at PSU

[edit]

Six months after the opening of the MAX Green and Yellow lines on the transit mall, the map in the Portland Streetcar article has yet to be updated to reflect that the streetcar now crosses those lines in the area of PSU Urban Center. The configuration of the rail lines is rather complex in that area, and I have no idea how to make the revisions myself. (And apparently neither does Peteforsyth, who originally added the "update needed" tag to that section of the article last September, but did not mention it here, on the article's talk page.) Can someone with Wikipedia route diagram expertise please tackle this? SJ Morg (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astra

[edit]

"Cars 001 through 005 have been in operation since 2001, while cars 006 and 007 were added in 2002. These seven were built by a now-defunct joint venture between Škoda Works and Inekon, and are Škoda 10 T models, originally also called Astra 10T."

The name is either Škoda 10T or Škoda Astra, not Astra 10T. 10T is company designation, while Astra is marketing name (see other Škoda models, i.e. Škoda 05T (Vektra), Škoda 13T/14T/16T/19T (Elektra), and newest Škoda 15T (ForCity).

Maybe you can also consider putting in also Škoda Tram infobox, so that the reader can easily reach other models.

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Škoda was the (primary) manufacturer; the model designation is just 10 T (or 10T - that is how it is usually written in the US, even in official brochures), not "Škoda 10 T". Astra was a marketing name used for a line of models, initially including both the 03T and the 10T, and in English it is perfectly OK to use both the series (or "line" [of products], or "brand") name together with the specific model designation (10T) within that line, so "Astra 10T" is correct (for the period referred to, about 10 years ago). However, for reasons unknown to me, the Astra name never caught on with the export model, the 10T, so although there were several magazine and newspaper articles mentioning it originally, eventually I stopped seeing any references to "Astra" in connection with the 10T. The Škoda Tram infobox is not sufficiently closely related to this article to be appropriate for including there; readers who really want info. on other Škoda tram models will easily be able to reach those pages it by clicking on the wikilinks to Škoda 10 T in the article. SJ Morg (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OKCimmerian praetor (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Feb 2012 source issues

[edit]

The tag I applied is specific to source 64 (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46134&). Those require logging in. Is the source available on a public site? If not, we need a new source. Will (Talk - contribs) 11:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an alternative. It is a public PDF as I write. Could someone besides me review it for appropriateness? Will (Talk - contribs) 11:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified the source and replaced the old one (which seems to be a dead link) with it. As I could not find the information for the last sentence in the new source, I replaced it with another based on page 47 of the new source. wctaiwan (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this. The original link did not require logging in, at the time it was added and for some time afterwards, but I had not noticed that this had changed. The linked document is at the city of Portland's official website, so it just means they changed the URL for the page, without redirecting the old one to the new. SJ Morg (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Line

[edit]

Needs update to show new route. --ben_b (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the map. Unfortunately, it's created by a bunch of complex templates (see WP:RDT) and I couldn't make head or tails of it. David1217 What I've done 02:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles section in need of updating.

[edit]

Hello all,

In light of recent deliveries of United Streetcar rolling stock (see, for example, Portland Tribune 08/26/13), I wanted to suggest that the Vehicle sections focusing on the Škoda/Inekon & United Streetcar rolling stock be reworked in it's entirety. As I've no editing credit, I didn't want to go in and muck about only to have my edits rejected en mass. My thoughts were to re-write those sections by combining the sub-sections "Current fleet" & "U.S. built streetcars", retitling that section to something like "Current rolling stock". Then creating two tertiary sections, one that focused on the history of the initial Škoda/Inekon & Inekon rolling stock, the other on the United Streetcar rolling stock.

thoughts?

Yours,

Capt'n Haddock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.195.84 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and make the changes you deem needed. To better manage your edits, communicate with other interested editors more effectively, and receive notifications of changes, etc., create an account, but that is not required. Not doing so just makes it harder for you to keep track of things.
There are some street car fanatics who will help. To better be inline with expectation, I suggest looking at other streetcar articles and imitate their style and content. —EncMstr (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loop Service

[edit]

The CL Line has been renamed the "Loop Service" with two loops (designated "A & B") which travel in clockwise and counter clockwise directions.[3] I'm planning on making a page for the line (similar to the NS Line (Portland Streetcar) page.) My plan right now is to use the name "Loop Service (Portland Streetcar)". Any thoughts or objections before I do? JohnMcButts (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Portland Streetcar is calling the three routes NS Line, A Loop and B Loop. I don't think it would be necessary to have a separate page for each loop but maybe "A & B Loops" would be a more accurate title. Just my 2 cents. --RickyCourtney (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Portland Streetcar. 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:

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) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other Proposals Section

[edit]

The "Other Proposals" Section that is flagged as in need of a source has some of the expansions supported in a map of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. However, finding these segments require significant clicking around, and I do not see a list of the proposals elsewhere in great detail. There are small references in the TSP Master Projects List. I would recommend keeping the section, but on the condition that more readable sources may be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francehopper (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section is pretty pointless. Unless there's a solid plan in place with secondary-source coverage, then it's not worth including. SounderBruce 23:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TOD

[edit]

--Truflip99 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future

[edit]

--Truflip99 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Park–Hollywood

[edit]

--Truflip99 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

[edit]

--truflip99 (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Color for B Loop

[edit]

This is a very minor style change, but it appears that Portland Streetcar have changed the color for the B Loop from a Cyan/Light Blue to a Purple color. The new system maps for Both TriMet and the Streetcar show it. I've been looking for an announcement of some kind, but haven't had any luck so far.

The colors aren't used extensively on the streetcar articles here, but they should get updated at some point. JohnMcButts (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portland_Streetcar&oldid=1209830221"