Talk:MARC Train

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MARC Train is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Why the name change?

What's the reason for the name change on all the instances of MARC? Is there a source that this is an "official" name? On the MTA Website, there's no indication that the name is anything other than just "MARC". --Jfruh 07:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the new name is no improvement over the old one. According to Trains.com the MARC name was adopted in 1984 and originally represented "Maryland Area Rail Commuter," but current branding seems to favor MARC and Maryland Rail Commuter, as seen at MTA's site as not to mention [1] [2] [3](PDF)[4][5]. FWIW, Google returns
  • "Maryland Rail Commuter" train - 968 results
    • "Maryland Rail Commuter" site:state.md.us = 62
  • "Maryland Area Rail Commuter" train - 413
    • "Maryland Area Rail Commuter" site:state.md.us = 0
  • "Maryland Area Regional Commuter" train - 362
    • "Maryland Area Regional Commuter" site:state.md.us = 0
  • "Maryland Rail Commuter Service" train - 338
    • "Maryland Rail Commuter Service" site:state.md.us - 4
I think the article should be moved to Maryland Rail Commuter. - choster 17:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Per [6] and [7], it is Maryland Rail Commuter Service. After all, the name is referring to the service, not one who uses the service. Although, I will concede that material at mtamaryland.com uses the term MARC Train a lot. SixSix 05:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I ride the MARC daily. Every piece of literature I've seen says "MARC train," and that is the only use I see on http://www.mtamaryland.com , including their annual report. If ya ask me, "MARC Train Service" is the official name. Al 20:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, as I finally found an official statement from the MTA [8] which confirms that—regardless of what it was before—MARC Train Service is now the de facto name. Time for a name change for this page, I guess? SixSix 15:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah Google returns about 56,800 results for "marc train", 109 for "marc train" site:state.md.us . Al 20:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with your conclusion, I'm not too crazy about using Google search result counts to prove or disprove such things. SixSix 15:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Me either. But since Google results were shown above I just wanted to add another data point. I ride the MARC daily, and there is nothing on either the MTA website or any documents, including the tickets, that say anything other than MARC. No "also known as", no "dba", nothing of the kind. The title of this article should be MARC Train. Al 17:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think part of the problem is that people (myself included :) ) have wanted to believe that MARC was an acronym, instead of just a name that does not necessarily "stand" for something. At any rate, we're almost there: I think we're down to whether or not to include Service as part of the title. Per link #8 above, it would seem as though Service is part of the official name, so at the moment I'm leaning towards MARC Train Service, but as an occassional MARC rider, I agree that I only ever see MARC Train in passenger-targeted material. SixSix 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that is USED to stand for something, but now is just the name. (In much the same way that AT&T used to stand for American Telephone & Telegraph, but now is now officially AT&T Corporation.) In any event, MARC Train Service looks like a winner to me. Al 18:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I haven't exactly been contributing to this debate, so I apologize for throwing a spanner in the works here. But I don't really see the point of including "service" in the title; that strikes me as just a descriptive noun rather than part of the name of the service. Frankly, I think even having "train" in there is a little silly, though I admit that the MTA's Web site refers to it inexplicably as "MARC Train" throughout. What's wrong with just using "MARC"? --Jfruh 23:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I see this as an issue of what the official name is, rather than what any one individual's opinion is about what it should be. To that end, please see (for the second time...) [[9]], where, right there in the second paragraph, it says The local rail passenger service now called MARC Train Service. While I don't think anybody disagrees that, in colloquial usage, MARC or MARC Train is more common, I think the article title is supposed to use the official name. Once the article is renamed, we can add something to the article along the lines of "more commonly known as MARC or MARC Train" to the article and/or add redirect pages for them. Finally, there are other meanings of MARC, so I don't think it should just be MARC. SixSix 20:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) would seem to suggest that MARC Train would be better. MARC indeed would probably end up as a disambiguation page. Al 17:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Based on that, and on my inability to find any naming guidelines that specifically address the naming of pages about governmental agencies or railroads, I'm in agreement with MARC Train. There already is a disambiguation page for MARC, BTW. We'll just have to adjust the one entry to point to MARC Train instead of Maryland Rail Commuter Service. SixSix 00:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. --Jfruh 02:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been bold and gone ahead. (Obviously.) Al 12:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Al. I think any time you can get three people to agree on anything on the internet, it's a minor miracle. To top it off, it looks like someone already fixed all the pages that had previously pointed to Maryland Rail Commuter Service; thanks! SixSix 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
That was me, goofing off when I should have been working. Al 12:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents

I see someone added details about the February, 1996 crash. Are there any other incidents that we can use to flesh out an "Accidents" section? Al 12:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The only other MARC accident of note that I can recall occurred two or three years back at Penn Station. If I recall correctly, a northbound Amtrak was entering the station, coming out of the tunnel that is south of the station, and could not stop in time before it hit a southbound MARC either waiting in the station or waiting to enter the tunnel. Something about the engineer never having driven a diesel before (she had only driven electrics up to that point) seems to come to mind. It should be on the NTSB site; I'll check it when I have more time. SixSix 17:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
NB Palmetto (#90) sideswiped SB MARC (#437) due to the engineer not being experienced enough with diesels. NTSB accident report[10]. A quick search of the NTSB site finds no other reported accidents. Skabat169 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Considering it's a grand total of about 26 miles, does it strike anyone else as odd that the Penn line isn't simply extended to Newark, Delaware, where one could transfer to SEPTA? The track's already there, and it already goes to Perryville, it seems like it would be a rather easy thing to do. Any insights into why it doesn't? Doregasm 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just found my own answer: http://www.wilmapco.org/studies/Track%20A%20Feasability/PhaseII.htm Doregasm 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about that very idea a great deal, and wondered if I was alone in that regard, but I see I'm not! What does that site actually reveal in terms of a concrete answer, though? It does outline a feasibility study, but doesn't really hint at any progress that's been made (if there is any, which I doubt). Snowman83 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess if the problem is just the amount of freight traffic going through a limited number of tracks, any regularly scheduled commuter rail would be impossible. I tried e-mailing them for more updated information, but never heard back. Doregasm 09:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I found a mention of the report in DART's (DE's transit funding arm of the DOT) Long Range Transit Plan at http://www.dartfirststate.com/reports/00-25/dtclrp.pdf#search=%22MARC%20site%3Adartfirststate.com%22 (see pages 17 and 19). Note though that this only shows the study funded through 2005, so odd that a report can't be found. Keep in mind that a commuter rail extension such as this would require money to build stations, add interlockings, buy more equipment (MARC is already short on capacity as it is), and more annual cost (for maintenance, crews, and payments to Amtrak for track usage). My guess would be that the projected ridership was too low to justify the costs. A shame though, and something that could easily become worthwhile with worsening traffic and higher gas prices in the near future.
Skabat169 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station shutdowns: remove this section?

Now that these stations look to stay open in the immediate future, I think this section ought to be either greatly reduced or removed altogether from the article. What say you all? --Jfruh (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A mention should remain as historical fact, but it should defenitely be reduced and/or edited into another subheading. Skabat169 22:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
We should just take it out boyds and dickerson are still in service. The article seems to be inacruate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs)
The article is not inaccurate: it correctly states that MARC considered closing them, but they remained open in the end. SixSix 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that an item like this loses its significance at some point after the event. If there is any possibility that this issue will arise in the near future, I'd say keep it around a while longer. However, I haven't heard anything to this effect, and this year's legislative session passed with no further mention of this issue, so I'm guessing it's dead.
So, I guess the question then becomes how to "de-significant-ize" the topic. Just a thought: how about referencing a footnote from the respective stations in the station list, something to the effect of: "In an early-2006 plan that was ultimately canceled, station was scheduled to be closed due to low patronage." SixSix 16:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I just went ahead and did it. Sorry, but...it just seemed like the best way to implement it. I think it looks good now. SixSix 16:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brunswick Line crash section

After recent additions, this one incident takes up a sizeable chunk of a not particularly long article. I would propose moving it to its own article with a link from here. What say you all? --Jfruh (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that big a chunk. Besides, it's certainly not big enough for its own article. I think it should stay right where it is. —Wrathchild (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just question whether a single accident that happened more than a decade ago is such a defining part of the essence of MARC that it merits such an amount of space here. By comparison, the Sept. 11th attacks, which are more recent and have certainly had more reprecussions, merit only two sentences in the United Airlines article. --Jfruh (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's taking up that much space, honestly, and moving it to its own article doesn't make sense to me. I suggest that it is very much a defining event in the history of MARC as it is, apparently, the only fatal accident in its history (not counting trespassers struck by trains). I'll see if I can get a photo or two of the multiple memorials that are on the grounds of the Brunswick station. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessup

If anyone wonders Jessup station is closed it was a camden line stop and it is not there check the timetable at the stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs) 19:19, April 10, 2007

I asked you on your talk page why you keep removing it. You didn't respond. What's your source? I still see it on the official site. [11][12][13] I'm a regular MARC commuter and I haven't seen any announcements from MTA Maryland or anything in the newspaper about a station closing. So what's the deal? —Wrathchild (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you been on MARC? Just check th timetables. If you been on the camden it is not on the timetable and we did not stop there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.95.84 (talk • contribs)
Did you read what I wrote? Yes, I am a MARC commuter. Admittedly, on the Brunswick line, but I still don't see where the Jessup station is closed in any source. Neither the timetable cards nor the official MTA website show that the Jessup station is out of service. Only one train stops there in the mornings and evenings (two on some holidays). Is that perhaps what is confusing you? In any event, your say-so is a primary source, and is thus not a valid source for Wikipedia. We need something else: the official website to say they're not stopping there, a newspaper article, something. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes i did read what you wrote. On nbc 4 they said Jessup was closed. It was a while back. Check the CAMDEN timtables they do not stop there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyhmrp (talk • contribs)
I just looked at the Camden Timetable, and what do you know, one train a day still stops there. Just like Wrathchild said. So I put Jessup back on the list. By the way, please don't put your comments on this page such that it looks like part of someone else's comment. --Jfruh (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, keep it civil. Please. Second, I accessed the schedule here. It shows train 850 and 847 (plus 852 and 841 in bad weather) stopping at Jessup. Therefore, I consider the station open. I have not verified this by physically standing on the platform and watching the trains stop, but I would consider the timetable from MTA's website good enough for now. Skabat169 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(← Unindent) Speaking as a disinterested 3rd party, a railroad timetable is a reliable source. One's personal experience, watching from the platform, etc. would be original research. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Official timetables are indeed reliable sources. What was seen on TV may have been a number of things: perhaps a consideration of closing it, or perhaps a temporary closure at some point for maintenance, or perhaps a short closure due to an incident. There are plenty of things: all of which could be easily proven if they are indeed true. For example, go to Jessup and get a photo of a sign saying closed. Or find the NBC4 article on their website and link to it. The burden of proof is to prove it is closed, as right now there is plenty of evidence to say it is indeed open. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MARC Train Logo.png

Image:MARC Train Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crashes and incidents: what qualifies to be listed

I do not think that every last suicide and grade crossing (car vs. train) incident should be listed in the Crashes and Incidents section, unless they result in deaths or injuries to MARC passengers or significant damage to MARC equipment. Rationale:

  • The article is about MARC, not highway-rail crossing safety, suicide by train, etc. If the incident does not have a noteworthy affect on MARC passengers or equipment, it should not be included.
  • An incident that ultimately results in nothing other than a delay to MARC passengers is not noteworthy; delays happen all the time. Therefore, a suicide or highway/rail incident that causes nothing but a delay is not noteworthy.
  • By virtue of their frequency, suicides and highway/rail incidents in and of themselves do not qualify as noteworthy (unfortunately).
  • The article will become unmanageably long if every single incident is listed.

Therefore, I propose removing the existing entry about the June 2007 suicide, and watching the section for any other such "minor" entries that do not qualify as "noteworthy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SixSix (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)