Talk:M1/M3 (railcar)

Plural title

[discussion moved from user talk:Mzajac#Budd Metropolitan —MZ]

Being the person who authored the article, I must draw objection to your renaming the article. Unlike similar series, the proper name of the car class is the Metropolitans as it was a branding name for a class. A singular car is known under its class name of (M1, M3) by not only staff, but even riders as well. As it is, the branding names have fallen out of favor given it has been three decades since their original manufacture and two decades since Budd left railroad manufacture.

Given that the renamed article gives what technically is an incorrect name, I ask that it be moved back to the article Budd Metropolitans given the fact that the original article is the correct name. Scrabbleship 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad to leave it at the plural title if I was mistaken; my apologies.

But would one of the Budd Metropolitans be called a Budd Metropolitans, or a Budd Metropolitan? —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 03:00 Z

The name was a branding, not a class name. The M# code is what a single car or a train of cars would have been. Given that the branding name has fallen out of favor (I had chosen this name for the article solely because the two classes of cars are nearly identical and compatible), they're basically known as M1(A)'s or M3(A)'s by riders, employees of both the LIRR and Metro-North, and even the press per the coverage of the arrival of the M-7.

Seeing that they're known more by name than class, I'm going to propose this compromise: Moving the article to something along the lines of M1/M3 (railcar) given that those names are actual model names of the cars.Scrabbleship 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't move articles using cut-and-paste. Wikipedia's GFDL licence requires the edit history to be preserved. And it's polite to respond to a question on the talk page before going on and making possibly controversial changes. —Michael Z. 2006-07-24 05:43 Z

I would be okay with that move. Let me know if you need help moving the article (use the "move" tab above). Regarding the Cosmopolitans, I suggest you split the article if it makes sense due to the subject, not just for convenient naming. Regards. —Michael Z. 2006-07-26 06:25 Z

WikiProject Trains assessment

There is good information here, but I feel there are still some missing features:

• There are no references. Statements like "arguably revolutionary" use weasel words that must be backed up with verifiable citations.
• There is virtually no mention of their design (including their seating capacity), development and manufacture, just that X number were built for Y railroad.
• The images only show the ends of the cars; an image showing an entire car would be helpful (and could make a good lead photo)

So, looking back at the assessment scale, I think this article is up to B class, but there is still work to do to get it up to GA class. Slambo (Speak) 10:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Grumman Turbine M1 not a prototype for the MUs

To whomever wrote the passage, Prototypes for the M series had low level doors, but they were removed from the final design—none of the Metropolitan MUs had these doors. These doors were installed specially for the turbine-powered trains, which were intended to run "dual-mode" between electrified territory and non-electrified. Linking to a photograph and making an erroneous claim is not proper sourcing.

71.173.13.185 (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Hadn't noticed that, but it's clear that it's the turbine test cars in that image (the USDOT logo and exhaust vents are pretty obvious). Don't know who made that error, but it doesn't matter. oknazevad (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

{{Infobox train}} would be nice. Peter Horn User talk 22:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I just started hiding an unfinished one in the article. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1/M3 (railcar). 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/20080807131725/http://mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/cap_amendment.pdf to http://mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/cap_amendment.pdf

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).

• 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) 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)