Talk:Pittsburgh Light Rail

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Streetcars

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Streetcars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Streetcars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StreetcarsWikipedia:WikiProject StreetcarsTemplate:WikiProject StreetcarsStreetcars articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pittsburgh High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Pittsburgh Light Rail.

Google Maps[edit]

Google maps has just added a bunch of info about T stations. They are displayed on the map and if you click on the station it gives you a schedule of departures (pf unverified quality).

Here is a my map I have created of some of the stations.

In order to integrate the Wiki pages about stations with a Google Map (or Mapplet), I suggest that a Wiki page be created that contains a table containing all the information about all the stations. I have no idea if Wiki pages about trains & maps do anything like this for other regions.

That table can then be used to automagically (via some unknown software) generate Wiki pages for the individual stations AND a Google Map of all the stations, with appropriate cross links between the two.

I'm now going to edit the Pittsburgh Light Rail page to add a Google Maps section. If somebody doesn't like it, it can always be taken out.

I'm removing it, since we wouldn't add information like "Rand McNally shows Amtrak stations on their maps". --NE2 03:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

umm, Google Maps provides station clickable info about current departures which Rand McNally doesn't. Also each entry for an individual station links to maps for that station so why should there not be a top-level link to a map of all stations? It seems that you want to be neutral and not favor Google. So be it. Maybe there is a neutral way to include various map services that mark all stations and provide current info, but at the moment Google is the only one that can deliver. I'll defer to a general consensus, however I think it is good to promote a new capability, even in imperfect form, rather that wait for some ultimate solution that is neutral. I created my Google map of T stations when I wanted to take the T (which I rarely do) and found the Wiki info more helpful on the current rigamarole needed to get to Mt. Lebanon than the official PAT pages. And yes, I added the main page link as some sort of a challenge. I.e. it is straightforward to create by hand a Google Map that shows stations. However to cross link that map with Wiki pages on stations takes more effort which should be automated. I favor putting a link to an incomplete imperfect Google map on the main page as a challenge for someone to construct the perfect complete one and/or show how to do it in other mapping services. However from your expressed opinion it seems like you would delete any external map of all stations.

I don't think it's useful to say which map services include it. Is there something like [1] that we can add to external links? --NE2 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shortest[edit]

reportedly the shortest subway? shorter ones have existed in the past, but what about ones in operation today? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.18.104 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Well, it's not a subway so much as a light rail system that runs in a tunnel. Just off the top of my head, though, I can't think of a metro system with a shorter underground portion. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rail gauge[edit]

How can we be sure that the gauge of Pittsburgh Light Rail is really 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) or 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm), and not 62.5 of the defunct Pittsburgh Railways? Peter Horn 21:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - http://oldtrails.com/LightRail/Pittsburgh/Beechview/raillpit15.htm and http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/pgh-transit.txt agree that it is broad gauge. I can find no mention of a regauge in any article. The Siemens-Duewag U2 LRT vehicles also shared track with the PPC when Drake was active and then the same PPCs had to await new standard gauge bogies when moved to San Francisco for the F line - http://www.streetcar.org/mim/streetcars/status/index.html Scillystuff (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Light Rail → The T (Pittsburgh) – The article name should reflect the name of the system; "Pittsburgh Light Rail" is descriptive but "The T" would be better. Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not necessarily "better", IMO. The current title follows the first option of WP:NCDAB: "When there is another term or more complete name that is equally clear and is unambiguous, that may be used". It is also questionable whether, per the second option of WP:NCDAB, the disambiguating word or phrase of The T (Pittsburgh) would be more clear than The T (light rail) or even the shorter The T (rail). Again, per the guideline, proper nouns like "Pittsburgh" should be avoided as much as possible. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree about using the definite article "The" in the proposed page title, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Looking at their official web site,[2] "the T" is not always capitalized, so that means that the "the" is not part of the proper name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Question "The T" is not so descriptive. In Portland, we call it "the MAX", yet the article is at MAX Light Rail. Would you be opposed to T Light Rail? See also Denver, RTD Bus & Light Rail. Cliff (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to draw a parallel with Transport for London's metro system, which they and everyone else refer to as the Tube, but is presented here as the London Underground. 86.25.184.150 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright violation(s)[edit]

24.3.230.77 (talk · contribs) has been adding a lot of prose to the article, so I did a quick spot-check of this edit. I found that it copied text from a copyrighted source. I'm not going to dig through every edit the user has done; rather, I've rolled back all of the edits as a blanket precaution. If the user wishes to make some of the edits again but do it properly this time, those edits are still available under the article history, but obviously, copyright violation isn't tolerated. —Bill Price (nyb) 23:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Track gauge[edit]

I've posed some questions at Talk:SEPTA_Subway–Surface_Trolley_Lines#Track_gauge about this track gauge. Please take a look. -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Station naming[edit]

I noticed while browsing earlier today that Cards84664 moved the names of all T stations from "xxx (PAT station)" to "xxx station (PAAC)". May I ask what the motivation is for moving all these articles en masse, and was consensus obtained in doing so? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The governing guideline is WP:USSTATION. Some them probably don't need to be disambiguated at all, so that's worth a look. As for choosing PAAC over PAT, I can't speak to that. I'm probably the one who settled on PAT as the disambiguator in 2007; I would have based it on my personal knowledge of the system. Mackensen (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I went with PAAC because "PAT" is only mentioned by Google when looking for the PA's website. I'll agree that not all of the stations need the disambig, this is just to start off. Cards84664 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing here though is that no one calls the Port Authority of Allegheny County the PAAC; the full initials are used only in the Port Authority's real-time transport tracking system (PAAC TrueTime). In almost all other contexts, PAT (which, if you've seen the article on the Port Authority, stands for Port Authority Transit) is the preferred abbreviation, and people from the local area — myself included — use that abbreviation when referring to the agency and the services it provides. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Downtown subway" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Downtown subway. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#Downtown subway until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (+) 11:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

The current name gives the false impression of a proper name where one doesn't exist. PRT, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have any specific branding for the light rail lines; even "The T" has disappeared from the brochures (see e.g. [3]). The annual reports (see [4]) refer to the "light rail" lines, with no further branding. I'd suggest Light rail in Pittsburgh as a better name. Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]