Talk:US Standard Light Rail Vehicle

Mean distance between failures?

In the article's litany of charges against the USSLRV comes this line:

"These problems were coupled with a very high mean distance between failure"

Surely high mean distance between failures would be a good thing -- it would mean that the cars would travel on average quite far in between failures. In the context of the sentence, though, it seems that this is intended to be bad. Should the sentence read "very low mean distance between failure"? --Jfruh 13:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is late and it's been long rectified, but given that I was the original writer of the article it was an oversight on my behalf and nothing more. Having ridden the USSLRV on many occassions in the past, I can vouch that it's hard to find positives in it and tried my hardest to do an impartial article even with the proof that Boeing did what they did in its formation. When TA's are having to do public apologies for their unreliability, is it easy to do something totally impartial? Scrabbleship 01:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Scrappleship, didn't mean to impugn your objectivity in any way. I lived in the San Francisco area for some years and had pleny of opportunities to ride in these creaky old vehicles. I mainly just wanted to double-check that my suspicions about the typo were correct. --Jfruh (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible errors or omissions

What is UMTD? Do you mean UMTA? n2xjk 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Boeing Vertol was also involved with the federally sponsored state of the art cars. I'm not sure if the SOAC project should be mentioned here or in its own article. n2xjk 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'd vote for making the SOAC project part of this article, unless contributors fill it up with too much. Dogru144 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo problem in link

Anyone able to find / repair the photo page referred to in the fourth link in External sites? Dogru144 06:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Manchester

I removed the following text from the passage about Manchester; the SF cars had steps that could be raised to the level of the floor, so their existence shouldn't have been an issue, at least not for the reason given.

Finally, the Muni trams have steps up from the street for boarding, where as Metrolink has platforms at the same height as the passenger compartment floor, meaning the steps would need removal, and the doors changed to match.

66.92.14.198 (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)