This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Sprinter (rail service). |
On 9 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sprinter (rail line) to Sprinter (rail service). The result of the discussion was moved. |
The original Escondido station building is now part of collection of historical buildings at Grape Day Park, located about a mile from the present day Escondido Transit Center. Vista Station is almost certainly new as well; looking just as you would expect a new commuter/light rail station to look. No cite, but I assume it's not necessary when removing "citation needed" content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pithecanthropus4152 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Is "commuter rail" the best category for this service? It sounds to me a lot like south NJ's River LINE, which is generally thought of as a light rail system. I know it uses DMUs (like the River LINE), but it will also feature a flat fare equal to local bus service and all-day 30-minute headways. I'm not saying there's a hard and fast answer to this question, but I think we're going to see more systems that blur the boundries between the two categories. -- Jfruh 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur that the definition is confusing, though for different reasons. Commuter rail is FRA-crash compliant and can therefore be run mixed with freight trains and commuter trains (such as Sounders). Will this operate mixed with those? Light Rail is not crash compliant and therefore must be seperated from crash compliant rail (River LINE is seperated by time, freight can only run at night after all LRVs are off the line). Also, it appears that the Desiro DMU's may not be crash compliant. Can someone explain these issues and expand the article? Skabat169 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The most important thing is to go by what reliable sources say. In this case, it is generally called a diesel light rail line. -- NE2 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Well, Sprinter is daspatched by metrolink by a san diego sub. train dispatcher and operates over San Diego Northern trackage and shares the right of way with the pacific sun railway. It sounds like heavy rail. Thats what NCTD calls it & I work for them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.124.223 ( talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I will edit this article to show clearly that it uses vehicles that, while not FRA Freight line compliant, are not in any way light rail. Wikipedia is a worldwide, not U.S. resource and the term light rail is not appropriate.-- Wickifrank ( talk) 21:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to extend the system to Fallbrook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.214 ( talk) 18:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Who wrote this article, a car/bus manufacturer? This is one of the most preposterously biased articles I've seen on wikipedia. Can someone do a little research and balance this out some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.35.10 ( talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this piece IS biased. It's a puff piece for the Sprinter, presumably posted by the NCTD/Sprinter bureaucracy. Missing are the following items:
1. The ORIGINAL cost estimate of the Sprinter. Figures are hard to pin down, but the original "conceptual" cost was about $50 million. Like almost every such passenger rail project, the Sprinter projected cost was grossly underestimated -- over and over, at every stage.
2. The NCTD readily admits that about 3/4 of the Sprinter riders are former BUS riders. This article gives the impression that its ridership comes mostly from former CAR riders. The Srinter has had little impact on highway 78's usage and congestion -- certainly compared to widening the highway with another lane (at a fraction of the Sprinter cost).
3. There are little or no reduction in travel time compared to buses. Indeed some buses were cancelled, in part to encourage people to use (and therefore justify) the Sprinter project.
4. SIX years after the Sprinter rail service started, the ridership is still only 2/3 of the Pollyannaish projected usage. Actually, the original usage was projected at about 15,000 a day, but was dropped after the project was approved to "only" 12,000 or so. Again, this "error" is a very common tactic used to sell the public on the "need" for light rail expenditures. And this actual ridership would be lower except the district decided to lower fares to encourage some more usage. Probably a good idea, but from a REVENUE standpoint, the project is doing poorly.
5. The "fare box" revenue covers less than half the operational costs, and pays not a dime towards the half billion dollar capital expenditure.
6. Presumably there is no sinking fund for eventual replacement costs, so another major $100+ million capital expenditure looms in its future (as seen with the BART experience).
7. Assuming Sprinter operates similar to other light rail lines, the PER PASSENGER MILE energy (BTU) usage is about the same as buses and cars -- though the newer cars and buses are actually now MORE energy efficient than most light rail. This is counter-intuitive, but given the low AVERAGE light rail usage, it usually works out that way.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rider ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The image File:Compass Card.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coaster (San Diego) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 02:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coaster (commuter rail) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sprinter (light rail). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sprinter (light rail). 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
When the article says:
Due to its shared right-of-way with freight trains serving businesses in Escondido, the Sprinter platforms had to be set back from the tracks a sufficient distance to provide enough room for employees riding on the sides of freight cars.
It fails to explain what that means for riders trying to board a train on a passenger platform. I assume this does not mean there is a wide gap between the passenger platform and the train whe it’s in the station. Are the passenger trains wider then normal freight trains so that the passenger train doors are right next to the platform edge whenthe trainin in the station while the freight trains, being narrower will have a larger gap between them and the platforms so workers hanging the side don’t sidswipe the platform whe passing through a station? this should be clarified in the article by someone who knows the answer. Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 17:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)