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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
most likely no. the reason is that if you read SANBAG documents,SanBag is thinking of making it light rail because it is cheaper(think of it as the same type of light rail as the sprinter in san diego county). having said that though, the documents also suggest it still will be part of the metrolink system. the stations for the redlands extension are already built. since this expansion is based on the former san bernardino traction rail line/pacific electric local loop line. the reason that this extension is taking a long time to complete is because SanBAg wants to install new rails because somehow the old ones they do not meet todays current transit code(yet they run freight rail through their). the other reason is that SANBAG is also taking a long time, it that they want this line to be a complement to the SBX bus service running the same length. this means that the line will have to be modified to accommodate the elongated buses. if it does become a normal commuter rail, SANBAG is thinking of naming it the redlands line( though future expansion will eventually reach yucaipa with the possibility of reaching twentynine palms) . just like the perris valley line
Javiern (
talk)
21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
San Bernardino Line. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
A user keeps changing the name of the extension from Downtown San Bernardino Extension to San Bernardino extension claiming that using downtown is "promotional". The project, headed by the SBCTA calls it the Downtown San Bernardino extension, which is how it should be referred. Here is the source: [1]
Best,
First, cease edit-warring. You falsely claim that you are "returning to the original" in your edit summary, but the original wording of the page was "Redlands extension". In fact,
I changed the section title to San Bernardino extension. Second, given your extensive history of boosterism for the allegedly-existing area of "downtown San Bernardino", a healthy skepticism is warranted. The
official title you link to above is "Downtown San Bernardino Passenger Rail Project", not "Downtown San Bernardino extension". However, that title is not used in third-party sources. "San Bernardino extension" is adequately informative without being overly specific (i.e., boosterism), and avoids CRYSTALBALL issues of over-specificity, given that the scope of the project may change, as it did when the extension to Redlands was modified to be a separate system with DMU and Metrolink locomotive interlining.
James (talk/contribs)
18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
An additional point is that "Downtown San Bernardino" would be an inaccurate descriptor as Metrolink service will continue to downtown Redlands, per this source:
[1]James (talk/contribs)
23:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Given that both "San Bernardino" and "Downtown San Bernardino" do not fully and accurately reflect the projects' extent, I propose a return to the "Redlands extension" section title. Would that be acceptable to you
User:House1090?
James (talk/contribs)
22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply