Jump to content

Talk:List of Amtrak rolling stock

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Amtrak rolling stock)

Inherited Cars

[edit]

Amtrak inherited the Hi-Level cars that inspired the Bi-level Superliners, but they're not listed in the article. Can we include the inherited cars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.109.115.31 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P42DC service information

[edit]

I think is getting way too detailed and this function is better performed by the railfanning sites we link to. If a locomotive is actually scrapped or permanently stored then that's probably worth noting, but if it's out for a month or so because of a cab fire and there's every expectation that it's coming back then I don't think we need mention it. Mackensen (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started drafting a replacement article based on Amtrak's most recent Fleet Strategy article; see User:Mackensen/Amtrak rolling stock. This keeps detail to a reasonable minimum. Mackensen (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Mackensen. It's much more manageable of an article than the current one, which is not easy to maintain given the high level of detailed information. The only suggestion I have is to include a note saying that the numbers shown in the "In service" columns of the current fleet tables are as of the end of 2011. These given numbers are just a snapshot in time and would certainly be quite different as of today, so it might be better to not include them. Thanks for the good work! JJHW17 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Regarding numbers, it's a difficult balance to strike. The article needs to give an impression of how much equipment Amtrak has, but I really don't want to get involved of the day-to-day details of how many P42s are fit for duty and such. As written the introduction refers to the fleet strategy article; obviously in the case of the Sprinters we would have to diverge. Mackensen (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loading gauge

[edit]

Should there be some mention made of which cars can only be used on western routes?--agr (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current wreck damages on P42s

[edit]

I have updated the list. 185 seems to re-enter service in a while, after the wreck in North Carolina on March 11, as it was seen carried to Beech Grove on a CSXT train a few days ago. 154 was in the wreck in Indiana on October 28 last year, so that one is out for a long while already and therefore into the list. 62 is out due to a wreck and resulting fire in Texas in November 2014. 24 caught fire in the mid section a few days ago on a Hiawatha train in Milwaukee, and is likely out for quite a while, too. On the other hand, 90 and 120 are back in active service. 90 is running the CA Zephyr for a few weeks now, after re-entering service in late April; 120 was the lead unit on train 29-04/30-05 this month and seems to serve as back-up unit at Albany-Rensselaer currently. --Thogo 00:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Amtrak rolling stock. 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:

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) 03:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P42s leased to MARC?

[edit]

The table says that two P42s are leased to MARC. Which engines are that? I have revenue Amtrak service assignments for all active Amtrak engines in the last few weeks (the other ones are at Beech Grove, or on the way there in the case of #1 and #130). --Thogo 17:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Amtrak rolling stock. 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:

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) 09:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corridor Clipper

[edit]

Are we sure this car is Amfleet I-based? It looks to me like it has the same trucks as all rebuilt Metroliners, leading me to think it is a former Metroliner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.47.66 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was rebuilt from wrecked Amfleet I #21191. That may be why it has unusual trucks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Former Passenger Cars Table

[edit]

There is a problem with the column heading on the table of former passenger cars. I think that Years of Service needs to move to the right by one column, but I don't know what the column with 6, 11, 5 is supposed to be. It is definitely not Power Type. Is that the number of railcars in each group? 76.90.104.68 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. –Daybeers (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem and I think I have corrected it. --RickyCourtney (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private cars?

[edit]

@RickyCourtney: You say in your recent edit summary that Amtrak has ended private car service, but this link https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/privatecars/Amtrak-Private-Car-Guidelines-062118.pdf has guidelines for such service dated Jan 1, 2019. Am I missing something?--agr (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shot of ALC-42 over Amtrak Chicago Yard authorized?

[edit]

@Sea Cow: You have a drone shot of an ALC-42 above Amtrak's Chicago yard, and I was just making sure you had the authorization to fly your drone above the yard to take this shot as is required by law? Piemadd (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean FAA authorization, if this was a restricted zone, it’s a fair question, but I don’t think it’s valid reason to remove the photo. If you’re asking about capturing an image of private property, Amtrak has no reasonable expectation of privacy for a piece of equipment sitting on an outdoor rail track. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about a picture being taken of private property, more of the fact that the drone would have to have been flown over an active rail yard to take said photo, which from what I can tell is at least in the grey area of legality, if not outright illegal. Maybe not a reason to take down the photo, but taking photos through trespassing via drone shouldn't be encouraged in any way. Piemadd (talk) 08:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there is any policy here or on Commons that speaks to this question. This discussion could use broader visibility, say at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please forward me the FAA regulation that cites I cannot fly over an active rail yard? Thanks, let's not accuse people of breaking federal laws before actually even providing them the regulation. :) Sea Cow (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to formally apologize. There isn't any sort of federal or faa regulation regarding flying over ALL critical infrastructure (such as rail yards according to the CISA), though areas related to electrical generation, water processing, etc do seem to be restricted. I think you technically broke Chicago 10-36-400 (b) (3) by flying over a property without permission, but that would only be enforced if amtrak went >:( on you. My apologies once again. Piemadd (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the FAA can enforce airspace restrictions, and hence no individual municipality can make laws enforcing airspace restrictions, at least that's the way I interpret the federal laws. So I choose not to pay attention to the Chicago ordinance, of which I'm very aware of. Sea Cow (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this was illegal, and I don't think it is, but if it was, it would be the illegality equivalence of jaywalking. I am pretty familiar with the Amtrak yard given I have been at the yard for photography projects with Amtrak, and you would only need to fly your drone out 50 ish metres to take that picture. Plus the photo looks like it was taken above a platform and not the actual tracks so it's more "safe"? I don't know but I'd have to agree with Piemadd about the lack of restrictions. Oliver Withers (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as Commons and Wikipedia are concerned, we care about "is it legal for us to host this image" and not "was it legal for the image to be taken". The first is very cut and dry - whether there are issues with copyright, subjects restricted by US law, etc can generally be discussion knowing only the image and the circumstances of its publication. The second does not affect the legality of hosting the image, and would be nearly impossible to determine without knowing exact circumstances. (Your jaywalking equivalence is extremely accurate here - there's no possible way we could determine whether or not someone was legally crossing a street!) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the metadata, this image was taken by a DJI brand drone. In my experience, the DJI control systems will not allow its drones to fly in FAA restricted airspace without the operator requesting and receiving authorization from the proper authorities. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have that experience as well, though I have found that it doesn't prevent you from doing everything. It seems to only use the FAA's database on restricted flying zones, and that seems to be incomplete (doesn't include restrictions on flying over FAA restricted critical infrastructure). Additionally doesn't seem to take into account any local restrictions as well, hence why it gives you the "check with local regulations" popup before flying. Piemadd (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially you contact the FAA to get authorization, then you "tell" the drone that you did your due diligence and got authorization. Sampix (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back the "Trainsets" section?

[edit]

With the current order of STADLER FLIRTS, this will be the first multiple unit trains used by Amtrak for quite a few decades. I've noticed that the section titled "trainsets" has been removed and the rolling stock that was in that section was moved to either "Locomotives" or "Passenger cars." I feel this section should return or organize the FLIRTs, Venture sets, Talgo, Acela, and Avelia Liberty trainsets. The FLIRT does not fit into either "passenger cars" or "locomotives' since it's both at the same time, and splitting up the acela and Avelia sets between categories just feels wrong. Any thoughts?

- Rckania (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that bringing back the trainsets section would be a good idea. Describing the current Acela trainsets and the like as their locomotives and cars doesn't seem fitting to me. Piemadd (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am strongly in favor of the chart, but especially toward the bottom it gets pretty hard to tell what's going on. Can we figure out a way to make the chart more straightforward? Perhaps we could figure out a way to simply list the units comprising a trainset. For example, the Talgo Series 8 would be "2 sets: cab car - coach X12 - Charger SC-44". Or something like that that gets the message across more simply, avoiding all the subdivisions I see in the Siemens row, where it's hard to tell apart the different trainsets.
Thanks!
-AAEexecutive (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better Siemens Venture Picture?

[edit]

The current Siemens Venture picture doesn't show off a lot of the car (looks more like a picture of the door than the car itself), thoughts on changing it out with something else? cc @Sea Cow (sorry for the ping) as it is your picture currently and I see you have quite a few in your library. I would add my own pic (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siemens_Venture.jpg) but its more of a scenic shot that happens to have a venture car in it. Piemadd (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siemens Ventures on the San Joquins now in service

[edit]

A Venture set has now been in service on the San Joaquins has been in service for a few days now. This has been evidenced by multiple videos, photos, riders, ect. The article should be updated to reflect this reality, however, there seems to be a bit of back and forth on this whenever someone tries to update it, and the update keeps getting undid (by the same person). So, how should we update this article to reflect the current reality? Rckania (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Until there are reliable sources like news articles or press releases, the articles should not be changed. User-generated content like tweets and Youtube videos are not considered reliable and we cannot be making changes to articles based on them. Wikipedia is not the place to breathlessly repeat every foamer claim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, given that there are multiple sources and proof of them in service, these sources are pretty reliable. Who knows when, if ever, there will be a press release. Continuing to insist that they are not yet in service when they in fact are, is just lying. Rckania (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated content, not matter how much of it, will never meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. Wikipedia is not a news site; its policies prioritize accuracy over instant updates. If you want to edit Wikipedia, then comply with those policies have patience; Trains will probably have a story within a few days. If you are not willing to follow the standards of the Wikipedia community, then this is not the site for you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you just need to be less of a dictator when it comes to scorces. Also, using the term foamer is offensive to the entire railfan community. 2601:1C0:5001:B6B0:F582:E110:23D2:AFC4 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a month now. I think it is safe to say that the cars are now in service. Rckania (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources to back that claim? Wikipedia:Verifiability didn't stop being policy in the last month. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is numerous video evidence of it. That's pretty reliable. Do you want a reliable source to prove the earth is round? 131.230.42.94 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Pi is literally the bane of my Wikipedia existence. Every time i make an edit i think is good, this guy hauls himself onto the article and instantly reverts it. Trimetwes fan1003 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock table image size too small?

[edit]

I feel that the current 100px image size on the rolling stock table is too small. While it may be fine for those reading on a mobile device, as someone who reads from a desktop browser, I have trouble seeing them. I did change them to 175px but that was reverted and it was recommended that I bring it up in the talk page. Should I make them a larger size?
- TheTransitFanNY Talk 17:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a balance between visibility of details and creating large amounts of whitespace in the table. I don't think there's any standard size for images in tables like this. 175px seems like a rather arbitrary size. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
175px is just the size I tend to use when making tables like this. I could use a different size to see what fits. 175px may be a little large for this table now that I think about it, maybe 150 or 125 may work. What do you think?
- TheTransitFanNY Talk 20:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Amtrak_rolling_stock&oldid=1249789106"