Contents

Talk:42nd Street Shuttle

	42nd Street Shuttle has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 9, 2017 Good article nominee Listed
	Afact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 21, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that trains on the 42nd Street Shuttle, the shortest route in the New York City Subway system, run a distance of 2,700 feet (820 m) in 90 seconds?

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Rapid transit / in New York City Mid‑importance Trains Portal Sel week 10, 2018 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 Rapid transit. This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as High-importance). New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

S - Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle (New York City Subway service) → S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service) – This New York City Subway line is more commonly known as the "42nd Street Shuttle," rather than the lesser-used "Grand Central/Times Square Shuttle." [1] This page was recently moved to the current name, and I moved it back, citing the reason just given. However, the same user inexplicably moved it again, without giving any reason for doing so. — Larry V (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as per move request. — Larry V (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. 42nd Street Shuttle is the common name and on Wikipedia we usually use the most common name as the article title. It is also the name the NYCTA uses on its timetable and web site[2] -- Cecropia 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support; why was this moved anyway? Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know, Imdanumber1 initially moved it without providing any move summary, then did so again after I moved it back (providing explanation myself). — Larry V (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; the MTA calls this line the 42nd Street Shuttle. So should Wikipedia.

Add any additional comments

What's the point of this whole discussion? Just do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I.M. Rich (talk • contribs).

Done -- Cecropia 14:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to iron out these page titles. The current title S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service) is correct by style, usage and consensus. The former titles redirect here. I have also move protected this article so that anyone can edit it but only an admin can move it. If anyone attempts to move this again contrary to accuracy and consensus, he or she will be subject to blocks as a vandal, beginning with 24 hours. -- Cecropia 03:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have discussed this first before I moved the page. Excuse me for the trouble. Besides, page discussions make things a lot easier. Look at the A-C (New York City Subway Service). The split of the article was my idea, and so I think page discussions save trouble. --imdanumber1 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current name of this article was chosen before I became heavily involved in the subway project, so I am not fully briefed on the history. The issue was apparently contentious enough that, at some point in the past, the article was move-protected (and still is).

The very sensible standard at WP:NAME says:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

The same article says, "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."

The name of the present article seems to flunk that test, and badly. No one on earth would think of "S - 42nd Street Shuttle (New York City Subway service)" as the name of this article, unless that person were an expert on the WikiProject New York City Subway. It is an ugly name, and has far more qualifiers than necessary to disambiguate it from other names.

Recently, Second Avenue Line was renamed Second Avenue Subway to conform with the usual guideline that things should be named for what the average person calls them. Why on earth isn't this article called, simply, 42nd Street Shuttle?

My question would apply with equal force to S - Rockaway Park Shuttle (New York City Subway service) and S - Franklin Avenue Shuttle (New York City Subway service), but I thought I'd ask it here first. Marc Shepherd 14:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be something about the fire that occurred on the shuttle back then? All about the wooden platforms and the first truly automatic train which ran on electrical signals. I read about it on NYC Subway.org Herenthere (Talk) 23:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty finding a reliable source to support the claim that this line is known as "the 8" by Transit Operations? Does anyone have such a source? -Seidenstud 14:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few sources of varying reliability:

• "Many New Yorkers wonder why there is no such thing as an 8 train, and yet there is. The S, or Shuttle, train was once the 8—current lingo only for MTA employees in the know."
• [3] is written by a NYCTA worker, and says that "The Times Square Shuttle is currently designated 8 in RTO use." It's definitely not reliable though.

--NE2 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight was never a number for the 42nd Street Shuttle. Eight was the IRT Astoria Line, and then the 3rd Avenue Shuttle remnant in the Bronx. I can't say what RTO does, but in the schedule department, the internal letter or number for each route is on the PTT as the fifth character in a code beginning "tr00x." This letter or number is also in the URL for the PTT, e.g., "http://mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tecur.pdf" for the E service. By this nomenclature, the only true "S" train is the Franklin Shuttle. The Rockaway Park Shuttle is "H" which was formally the official designation (or HH) for Rockaway Shuttles (earlier HH was the Court Street Shuttle). What is the 42nd Street Shuttle? Zero. Sorry, 42nd Street Shuttle. That's the breaks. -- Cecropia 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what number is really used for 42nd Street shuttle by the NYCTA workers? 8?, or 0? It is confusing! Takuma IshizekiTakuma Ishizeki 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a very minor point that has too much emphasis in the article, even if true. On top of that, we are not sure it is true. I would be happy to just see the statement deleted. Marc Shepherd 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this before, but I've been trying to reformat the infobox in a similar manner to the Franklin Avenue, and Rockaway Park shuttle infoboxes. Why have I been having so much trouble doing it? ----DanTD (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims the line is 0.8 mi long. That seems unlikely. Measuring it on Google Maps, I come up with anywhere from 2300 to 3300 feet. Google Maps doesn't have the exact track locations marked, so I just used various combinations of street exits to approximate. Somewhere in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 mi seems more likely. Is there some official MTA publication which says 0.8? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:42nd Street Shuttle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism.	Copyvio tool finds several sections that are almost directly from [4], and a few NYTimes references are very close paraphrases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] I have removed these copy vios.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Minor changes and news happen on a regular basis; the only recent reverts were of clearly-bad spelling changes by an IP editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking this Good Article review up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is obvious, but who would take the trouble to use this, when it's only 0.4 miles long? Wouldn't it be quicker to walk between the two stations, esp. if you include the time it would take you to walk down the stairs and wait for the train? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is by now way faster. It runs every 1 to 2 minutes, the stations aren't deep, and it is mainly used as a transfer between the 4, 5, and 6 and the 1, 2, 3, A, C, E, N, Q, R, and W. In fact, it has very heavy ridership during rush hours, which is why the MTA is considering removing seats from the cars on the trains. For the very few people that only travel between the two stations, it would still be quicker. It would take 5 to 6 minutes via the Shuttle, including walking, of which only 2 are spent on the shuttle. It would take ten or so minutes to walk. If this isn't clear, please respond. Thanks for the question.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's useful. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: The MTA put three historical pictures of the shuttle up on Flickr, with the license being all rights reserved. I am just making sure, but is it okay to upload these to Commons? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, yes, it fits the requisite licensing criteria (CC-BY 2.0). There's a tool called Commons:Flickr2Commons that you can use to transfer the files over yourself. epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Track 3 will eventually be taken out of service as Track 1 and Track 4 get longer platforms at three Grand Central Station and Times Square Station. For now, track 3 is not being used. Shouldn't this be reflected in this article?

user:mnw2000 20:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of March 2020, due to lack of ridership and train crew availability caused by the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, the S is temporarily suspended, with the 7 providing alternate service.^[1]

Yep - y'all left this one out.

• Per WP:NOTNEWS, we generally don't include this. However, I see it is already included in the Operations section. epicgenius (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I eventually want to nominate this for Featured Article Status, maybe over the summer. I can see a few issues that would need to be resolved before I nominate it, including the use of Joseph Brennan's site, and questionable sources for ad-wraps and movie filming. I also feel as though more research would need to be done on the construction of the original subway in this section, and the Mineola spur for August Belmont. I will also need to add the information from my early 1990s-report about the plan to rebuild Times Square, including an older version of the plan to rebuild the shuttle. Some background on the history of the IRT, and why it was designed as a Z, with a section on 42nd Street should be added as well. Information on the type of subway construction, and the dimensions of the tunneling should be added. Also, information on how construction of the H-system was done should be added, if possible. More research is needed on the 1920s and 1930s plan to create a loop using the shuttle, a new track at 33rd Street station, along 31st Street, up Seventh Avenue and back onto the shuttle. Information on the line's historic signaling would be great, but it would be hard to find. More information on why the 1949 and 1954 projects were never completed should be found. Information on the line's rolling stock should be added as well. More information on the 1964 fire, including suspicions of sabotage should be included. Information on the delays in the project in the early 2000s should also be added.

Are there any other things that you think would need to be done before nominating the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, a better source for its being internally known as the 0 should be added.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, you pointed out the right issues. But besides that, I would ask for a copy-edit, for instance from the Guild of Copy Editors. Grammar-wise, there are a few duplicate links, several abbreviations (like IRT) that might have to be cut down, and a couple of jargon terms. Finally, you have to make sure that, although you are adding relevant info, that the history isn't too long and doesn't delve into too much granular detail. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for the suggestions. In terms of the history, I think that there might be enough for a History of the 42nd Street Shuttle article. Do you agree?--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, there might be enough info for such an article. We'd also have to figure out where the history of the shuttle fits in, relative to the early history of the IRT subway. epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Apparently, the shuttle is out for the whole year. I am not sure how best to describe this in the lead. Other articles might need to be updated. Also, I think the chronology of the article might need to be reworked. The information on the temporary closure of the shuttle is in the operations section. Thanks. --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, that is good to know. In the lead and history sections, it says the shuttle is out due to the reconstruction, but in the body it says the shuttle is out due to COVID. I think this needs to be fixed - it was initially suspended due to COVID but now has been extended to last the entire year for reconstruction. The only articles that need to be updated (if I remember correctly) are the Grand Central and Times Square pages, and the respective service templates. epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to YouTuber/Railfan DJ Hammer, as of November 7th, 2020, Track 3 of 42nd Street Shuttle has officially abandoned. I want someone to redesign the layout map with the Track 3 abandoned. Please check {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qyuANBC1a4} for more information.

Thanks. User:JC1199154

• Update: Thank you Kew Gardens 613 for making changes on the track layout. I deeply appreciate the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC1199154 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kew Gardens 613: @Epicgenius: Could we do something similar to the "Station reconstruction track diagrams" at Wilson station (CTA) to show how the shuttle layout has changed over the last century? Cards84664 16:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cards84664, sure. I can do that. epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently at least on my screen the Good Article "+" sign covers up the dropdown arrow to display the route map in the upper right corner of the screen. Anyone know how to fix this? CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the section from 1980 to 2000s, I put back my statement of the 3-4-3 car assignments at the Times Square station. It was stated by Epicgenius that a reliable source was needed. I used the shuttle DAILY when going to/from work. That would qualify me as a reliable source.Allan (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what a reliable source is. DonIago (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Reliable sources are required to have been, at the very minimum, published. According to WP:PUBLISHED, media can qualify as reliable sources that Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. As such, a personal observation does not qualify as a reliable source. If Wikipedia accepted personal observations as sources, then anyone could potentially make up an observation to add to Wikipedia.

Additionally, the 3-4-3 car assignments are already in the article.The first paragraph of the Operation section says, "Prior to the shuttle's renovation project, shuttle service was provided by three-car trains on tracks 1 and 4, and a four-car train on track 3", citing this source (see page 17). This is a slideshow of a presentation, and there may well be better sources available, but it is cited already. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text states "With the removal of track 3, it remains physically impossible for a train to go from the IRT Lexington Avenue Line to the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line or vice versa by using the shuttle tracks.", but from the diagrams on this page for the 3-track system, it doesn't seem possible to get a track from the Lex to 7th lines even with the third track there. Am I missing something? Tduk (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tduk: Perhaps this should say "Even with the removal of track 3..."? I understand this to mean that trains could cross between the lines via the shuttle tracks neither before nor after the 2020 renovation. Maybe an early proposal or draft for the renovation included construction of a crossover, though a quick search isn't turning up any sources supporting this idea. ^Complex/_Rational 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, it is oddly phrased. It really doesn't need to be there at all. Tduk (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]