Talk:Arrow (rail service)

Headings

I've put a series of headings in, to try to make it easier to keep the piece updated as to the historical status and current status of the project: in other words, to enable readers to see quickly what happened in the past and what (if anything) is happening now. At the moment, that means when construction is going to start; during the construction phase, how it's progressing. If and when the line is open, the whole narrative can go into the history section and "Current Status" eliminated, and then the section headings reorganized along the lines (pun intended!) of those on existing Wikipedia pages for operational railways. LDGE (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Redlands Passenger Rail Project. 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/20120205180546/http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-transit.html to http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-transit.html

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) 11:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrow and Metrolink

If you look at the new Arrow website ( [1] ), it's been fully branded as a part of Metrolink: it's called "Metrolink Arrow" throughout, the pictures of the stations, even the ones that will only be served by Arrow trains, show that all the signage there says "Metrolink" rather than "Arrow", and passengers use the same ticketing machines and system that Metrolink uses. Should we be including Arrow as one of the lines on the Metrolink page, and making the connection between the two of them clearer here? --Jfruh (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as the page name goes, I think we can keep "Arrow." But I think we can make it more overt that while it's owned by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, it's operated by Metrolink, ticketed by Metrolink, and fully integrated into the Metrolink system. Also, we need to fully rewrite the section talking about phasing. They skipped phase 1 and skipped right to phase 2 of using DMUs on the route. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it should stay as so right now. I been looking at SBCTA and Metrolink documents. Only four trains will operate as metrolink, and those won't stop at every station. The other stations will be served by Arrow. If anything. Arrow will operate the same way sprinter does in oceanside based on metrolink board documents and it is considered a contracted service. This is similar when metrolink started out and service was contracted out to amtrak at that time. The only reason we ended up in such situation is because omnitrans' financial problems and SBCTA didn't want calpers pension debt. I agree it is weird though.

I know in the past I added a small segment in the metrolink article, but it can be expanded further to acknowledge the difference. You might have to comb through board meeting agenda's for sbcta from 2018 to now to see when they amended the agreement. the original agreement was going to use a different ticketing system. it is clear they changed it. Law enforcement on Arrow was planned to be handled by SB county Sherrif. Not sure if that is still the case, it probably changed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:74B6:E52F:BA04:B961 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point when you make the distinction between trains "operating as metrolink" and "served by Arrow." What I'm trying to say is that, if you look at the page about Arrow on the Metrolink website that I linked to above, it does not appear that Metrolink is drawing a distinction between its services and Arrow -- it's treating Arrow as another Metrolink service (going so far as to call it "Metrolink Arrow"), with a unified fare system. The photos make it pretty clear that the branding in the Arrow stations is all Metrolink -- there doesn't seem to be any separate Arrow signs or logos or anything like that, even in stations that are only served by Arrow and not by "normal" Metrolink trains that travel on to LA Union Station.

I realize that SBCTA is the driving force behind Arrow but remember that Metrolink is a composite agency, funded and directed by representatives of the transit agencies in the counties it covers. So for instance SBCTA has a say in what happens on even the "normal" Metrolink service in San Bernardino County. I'm not advocating any rash moves but once Arrow truly opens for service we might want to consider treating it as a seventh Metrolink line or even as part of the San Bernardino Line, since that appears to be how Metrolink is treating it. A useful comparison might be eBART, which is a similar DMU system that is integrated into the BART system and branded as part of the Antioch–SFO+Millbrae line. --Jfruh (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The logos are there. go in person. I have 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:B1E1:F153:E907:EF1A (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)