Talk:eBART

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit Mid‑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

Mid

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit (assessed as Mid-importance).

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:eBART.

Incompatebility

"eBART tracks and trains are incompatible with those of the main BART rapid transit system, making it impossible for trains to move between the two systems;" This statement is not entirely true. Stadler Rail may not be able to manufacture variable gauge trains but CAF and Talgo are quite able to do so. The train would consist of regular passenger cars which would be hauled by a diesel electric locomotive on the EBART system and by an electric locomotive on the BART system. Safety concerns exclude variable gauge electro-diesel locomotives. Peter Horn User talk 20:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EBART. 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/20160304102100/http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/news/2014/04/26/stadler-rail-delivers-trains-to-oakland/ to http://www.stadlerrail.com/en/news/2014/04/26/stadler-rail-delivers-trains-to-oakland/

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) 14:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Since BART has deprecated the "eBART" name and simply called this BART to Antioch, I am going to be WP:BOLD and merge the article to the Antioch-SFO/Millbrae line article. Calwatch (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. eBART is notable enough to have its own article and we don't rely on official names alone; the WP:COMMONNAME at this point is eBART. James (^talk/_contribs) 04:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell no. Terrible idea for a merger. Completely different technology and an independently notable project - plus you've provided exactly zero evidence that "eBART" is depreciated. eBART should be given a paragraph or two in Antioch-SFO/Millbrae line, but merging is clearly the wrong option. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to BART's own FAQ the term is BART to Antioch. "What is eBART and BART to Antioch? eBART is the project to build a new rail system that continues transit service from BART's Pittsburg/Bay Point Station to Antioch. This rail system uses standard gauge (4’-8 ½”) track with state-of-the art Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Vehicles. Once opened, the service will be called BART to Antioch." It will be interesting to see what the media does, but the articles so far have called it the "Antioch BART extension" [1] and "BART to Antioch" [2] without once making reference to the term "eBART".

Also, this article from the San Jose Mercury News confirms that it is simply known as "BART to Antioch". [3] Therefore I would state the common name is "BART to Antioch" or simply "BART". Calwatch (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're cheery-picking sources, as I noted on Talk:Bay Area Rapid Transit. And the naming is the least important issue here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because BART made it a single line on a map does not make this section of the system indistinct from the rest of the service. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree to keep this a separate article for now. We should be keeping an eye on how secondary sources refer to it, not just BART. --Jfruh (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the name ends up changing, this article should remain separate as a discussion of a distinct part of the BART infrastructure, like the Berkeley Hills Tunnel article is separate from the article about the line. --Jfruh (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop updating the name of the line in the history section

The "History" section begins like thus:

For further extension into Contra Costa County and to extend the Pittsburg/Bay Point–SFO/Millbrae line, the DMU system was chosen as an alternative to the existing BART infrastructure because it was claimed to be both less expensive to implement and would more easily allow further extensions.

"Pittsburg/Bay Point–SFO/Millbrae line" links to Antioch–SFO/Millbrae line, the current name of the line, and there have been several drive-by editors who have gotten rid of the piped link so that the visible text is also "Antioch–SFO/Millbrae line". This is obviously wrong and confusing, as it basically means we're saying "They decided to extend the Antioch–SFO/Millbrae line to Antioch" -- that is, the name "Antioch" is only in the name of the line because the extension was built, and this sentence is written from the perspective of the time before the extension was built. I've added a note in the HTML in the article to this effect. --Jfruh (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Light rail vs. commuter rail

These kinds of DMU systems are edge cases between the US light rail and commuter rail categories, and the division can be kind of arbitrary (why is the River Line in New Jersey considered light rail but Capitol Metro in Austin commuter rail?). But APTA lists eBART as a commuter rail line, which why we have it included on our List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership page and not the corresopnding light rail page. Thus, I would propose moving the link to eBART from the light rail template to the commuter rail template, though I'm posting the proposal here and on the talk for those two templates for discussion first in case anyone is opposed. --Jfruh (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be moved for consistency between the page and the navbox. Being the page is sourced to the APTA, a definitively reliable and authoritative source, I say go ahead. oknazevad (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are definitely tricky edge cases; I'd be fine with the change for now. In the longer term, we need a way to accurately categorize them. My first thought would be to have a list of these light rail/commuter rail hybrid systems (I've actually seen some industry sources call them "hybrid rail") under the light rail article separate from the main list, and also include those that are called "commuter rail" by reliable sources like APTA in the commuter rail list. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Line length discrepancy

Anyone have an explanation for the discrepancy in the value for this line's length – this article is using a source that claims "10.1 miles", but BART's own System Facts page states "the BART to Antioch extension from Pittsburg/Bay Point to Antioch, 9.1 miles". I would trust BART's page over a source from c.2015.

Can anyone justify the article's current 10.1 mile figure over BART's own 9.1 mile figure? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly, neither of those is actually accurate for the revenue portion of the line, which is about 8.6 miles. BART's figure appears to include the non-revenue trackage to the maintenance facility, and the 10.1 miles is just plain wrong. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Negative tone of article

I made some changes to the article for a more neutral tone, taking out the words "incompatible", "impossible", and "forced," among others. A WP article should be about facts, not about an implied comparison with something that doesn't exist. (In this case an extension of the standard BART service.)

I have ridden the eBART, when it first started, and found it very comfortable and convenient. It seems to me that it speeds up service because the eBART trains are coming into the Pittsburg station at the same time BART trains are coming there from the other direction. This allows the BART trains to provide more frequent service on their routes, at the small inconvenience of riders having to change trains. Mightyherculescalifornia (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]