R160Bs 9123-9162 on the E and F

[Railfaner100 0]

Why did the Coney Island yard give away R160Bs 9123-9162 to the Jamaica yard for and service when they were originally assigned to the and lines in the first place for Coney Island?

[R44 5278 0]

They were just spare trains.

[Railfaner100 0]

Is it true that the Jamaica yard also recevied R160Bs 9103-9122 from the Coney Island yard for the and ? I am just asking this, because i read on wilkipedia on the R160B article and it said that R160Bs 9103-9232 are running on the and , while R160Bs 8713-9102 are running on the , and lines.

[MTR Admiralty 4]

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=802503

[R32 3348 10]

Don't believe everything Wikipedia says.

[MTR Admiralty 4]

Don't believe everything Wikipedia says.

Same, because anyone who knows how to type could spin out any information, however real or however false.

 

To be safe, I'll see what happens before making any general conclusions.

[Maserati7200 31]

I usually don't believe wikipedia either (when it comes nyc transit) even though I edit there.

[Maserati7200 31]

You should believe what Wikipedia says to increase your knowledge on any subject.

 

I do. I often browse on wikipedia to learn about certain subjects. Just last week I started read an article about New York City from the late 1800's to early 1900's and made my way all the way to an article on George W. Bush. However when it comes to current events in nyc delivery (i.e. R160 delivery and the R179) I take it with a grain of salt. I know foamers tend to mess with info.

[Y2Julio 206]

I do. I often browse on wikipedia to learn about certain subjects. Just last week I started read an article about New York City from the late 1800's to early 1900's and made my way all the way to an article on George W. Bush. However when it comes to current events in nyc delivery (i.e. R160 delivery and the R179) I take it with a grain of salt. I know foamers tend to mess with info.

Wikipedia is a good basis to start your research on what ever subject as long as you go to other sources to confirm what you've read. Keep doing what you're doing. :tup:

[Eric B 1,024]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to cite their [credible] sources. (Else, there's a good chance the article or statements in question will be challenged).

So if one wants to use Wikipedia for projects, as was said above, keep in mind that it is primarily for basic information. The thing to do is to go to the sources. Use the Wiki as a starting point for information, rather than the final source.

[R44 5278 0]

Note that most of the wikipedia articles have no sources. The R179 article and certain R160 matters have too much speculation than facts.

[MTR Admiralty 4]

For me the issue with Wikipedia is, if there are confirmable sources on those pages backing up the article and its information, than its largely true. If there are very little sources and that you know yourself that the information is untrue, it is untrue.

Like on Wikipedia, if you see that 9872 is listed in service on those pages, you know for sure that's false.

[LRG 216]

Wikipedia is not the end-all, be-all place to gather information. Heck, there's less chance of finding what you want in Wikipedia because most of the time, it's inaccurate, and when people all try to edit a page at once, it gets pretty nasty.

 

Well, I'm heading to college next year. I really hope that the sources I need to find for any papers will be ready for me. B)