From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clocker

I'd like to dispute the characterization of Clocker service as "part of Regional service". (I note that Clocker (Amtrak) now redirects to Regional (Amtrak). The Clocker has its own identity (it is not referred to as Regional service in the National Timetable), history (the very first Amtrak train on A-Day was a Clocker out of Penn Station), and operations (NJT passes are honored, NJT ALP-46s are on loan to Amtrak to operate the trains until NJT takes over the service in 2006.)

Especially in light of the looming takeover, the separate identity should be maintained, both on this page, and on a non-redirecting Clocker (Amtrak), which of course will be edited and moved as appropriate come 1 January 2006. I will refrain from making the edit myself until there is a concurring opinion, out of respect for my fellow editor. -- CComMack 00:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You seem to more about it that I do; I was just going with Amtrak's site (which lists Clockers on the Regional page). Do Clockers stop at every station, like Regionals? -- SPUI 00:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clockers make every station stop between 30th Street and Penn Station NY, including more rarely used ones like North Philly, Cornwells Heights, and New Brunswick, in contrast to Regionals, which usually skip those stops.
Y'know, I should just buckle down and write the article now, shouldn't I.  :-) -- CComMack 01:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clockers are NOT part of Regional. Remember they were to be Acela Commuter? No matter, in 6 months, they'll be NJT trains. -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 22:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply
And, of course what I meant by "in 6 months, they'll be NJT trains" was "in 4 weeks, they'll be NJT trains". Last Amtrak Clocker was this past Friday - 4 new NJT trains from Trenton this morning. I've updated the Clocker page appropriately, though it really needs a section on the Pennsy Clockers. -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Originally, The Clockers were a series of trains that connected New York and Philadelpha on a hourly schedule, meaning that they departed hourly on the hour. They supplemented the Boston-Washington; New York-Washington; New York-Trenton Commuter Trains, and New York-New Brunswick Communiter Trains, and shared track space with the numerous through trains to destinations outside of the corridor. The Clockers all stopped at North Philadelphia, Trenton, Princeton Junction, New Brunswick, and Newark. I am talking BEFORE World War II. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

NEC endpoints and branches

If you look at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/rc95151b.pdf, you'll see that, officially, the NEC includes the Keystone Corridor, the Empire Corridor, and even the Atlantic City line, even though Amtrak only owns 10 miles of the Empire and 0 miles of the AC line. Any ideas on how to note that? -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Amtrak "serves" the Altantic City Rail Terminal via the NEC. However, the actual service is limited to ticket sales. If you purchase a ticket to ACY on amtrak.com or from a QuikTrak machine, you will recieve a separate ticket for $7.25 from PHL to ACY; it is an Amtrak ticket but the NJTransit ticket collectors accept them without asking questions. The trains are all operated by NJTransit. As far as I can tell there is no schedule coordination. But the schedule is listed in the system timetable, and Amtrak does own 6 miles of the Atlantic City line (see page 6 of the GAO document you linked to). -- Adam613 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC) reply
It appears that oficially, possibly at another level, the NEC only goes from Washington to NYC. From NYC to Boston, the lines are the Amtrak Hellgate Line (where does the NEC become the HG?), Metro-North New Haven Line, and Amtrak Shore Line. The other Amtrak lines are the Chicago Line, Post Road Branch, "Harrisburg - Philadelphia", Main Line (Shore to Atlantic City), Hartford Line, and Michigan Line (?). [1] -- NE2 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply
According to this huge PDF, the Hellgate Line goes at least to Harold Interlocking ( Sunnyside Yard). It's not clear what the name of the line between Penn Station and Harold, dispatched jointly by Amtrak and the LIRR, is called. Maybe it's just the East River Tunnels. -- NE2 12:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This list transcribed from the 1975 Conrail Final System Plan (should it be moved out of the user space and into the talk space, like to Talk:Consolidated Rail Corporation/Amtrak lines acquired from Conrail?) shows that the Hellgate Line does go to Penn Station, assuming no change since 1975. The line from Penn Station to DC is shown as the "Main Line", but that term is also used for the Philadelphia to Harrisburg Main Line. -- NE2 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Conrail System Map Showing The Proposed Allocation Of Conrail Lines & Rights, July 9, 1997

Love the map!

Only one nit: the section from the Rhode Island state line to South Station is owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Operated, dispatched, etc, by Amtrak, but owned by the Commonwealth. -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Map still needs updating. -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Height Restrictions

It would be nice to have a list of areas too short for the bi-level cars, and what their heights are. JNW2 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Amtrak and Massachusetts

The article says "Amtrak now operates and maintains the portion in Massachusetts", apparently without any citation. Is that true now that Amtrak does not operate the MBTA commuter rail trains? JNW2 07:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Number of parallel tracks

It would be nice if this article clearly stated how many parallel tracks there are in the various parts of the Northeast Corridor. JNW2 ( talk) 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Bridges

A list of movable bridges in the Northeast Corridor might be a nice thing to have. (Or maybe a list of all the bridges clearly showing whether each is movable.) It would be nice if such a list stated how many tracks wide each bridge is. JNW2 ( talk) 02:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Electrification

It would be nice to let people know this is an AC line, and where are some famous "neutral sections" along the line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.125.151 ( talk) 03:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Why does the NY-Boston section average only 80 kph?

According to the High-speed rail in the United States article,

"Travel time between Washington and New York is 2 hours and 45 minutes, or an average speed of 83mph (130 km/h). While New York and Boston are closer together, travel time on this segment is 3 hours 39 minutes, resulting in a low average speed of only 51mph (80 km/h). With a 15-minute layover in New York, the entire end-to-end trip averages 68mph (110 km/h)."

The fact that on average, the system only moves at 1/3 or less of the speed it should be capable of seems like a fairly major fact. Why doesn't the article include this information, a discussion of the reasons why this is the case, and of the prospects of improvement? -- pde ( talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

There are several reasons as to why service from Boston to New York is so slow. Firstly, the former New Haven's Shore Line consists of many twists and turns, as well as infrastructure that dates back to the depression era between New York and Providence. This problem rears its big ugly head south of Stamford because the state of Connecticut owns these tracks, which upgrades are funded and performed by the state of Connecticut, not Amtrak. The other reason, though not nearly as big a contributor as to why the Boston-New York section is so slow, is because Metro-North does not allow Acela Express trains to tilt in a curve, limiting them to 90mph/145kph. Mcoov ( talk) 03:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Infrastructure

The history and station listings are good, but there's a huge gap in the article: the lack of information about infrastructure. Information on the current electrification (not when it came about, but information on it) is currently scattered in the Amtrak's 25 Hz traction power system, Amtrak's 60 Hz traction power system, and New Haven Line and some bits can be copied. Information about the welded rail, signaling, and number of tracks is also buried elsewhere or not present. I don't really have the expertise to do much, especially with the electricity section, but perhaps someone else? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 18:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed. I will be doing a review of the Infrastructure section over the next week. PeterEastern ( talk) 08:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

K Tower caption

K Tower is not the only interlocking tower on the Northeast corridor south of Philadelphia. Here is one in Delaware: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=39.765771,-75.485347&spn=0.000593,0.001206&t=h&z=20&vpsrc=6 UNCMike ( talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

There are several towers along the line left over from the PRR days, but they are no longer operational. Amtrak's Philadelphia control center (upstairs in the 30th St. Station) controls the NEC between DC and just west of Trenton, NJ. See http://www.amtrakhistoricalsociety.org/p9706.htm Caseyjonz ( talk) 04:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I think the K tower photo caption should say "..only remaining staffed interlocking tower..." then. I would think that the 'no longer operational' interlocking towers are in fact operational, they just aren't staffed. They probably house signal and switch instrumentation, parts storage, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UNCMike ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Statistics incongruent?

Or am I just tired?

In the "Current Rail Services" under subheading intercity passenger services, the first paragraph says:

"According to a 2003 study, Amtrak accounted for about 14% of all intercity trips between Northeast Corridor cities and its branches. The rest of these intercity trips are taken by airline, automobile, or bus.[30] A 2011 study estimated that in 2010 Amtrak carried 6% of the Boston-Washington corridor traffic, compared to 80% for automobiles, 8-9% for intercity bus, and 5% for airlines.[31] Amtrak's market share of passenger traffic between New York City and Boston has grown from 20 percent to 54 percent since 2001, and 75 percent of travelers between New York City and Washington D.C. go by train"

Is this confusing? L.cash.m ( talk) 10:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

In a word, yes. I think the problem is that we're mixing and matching stats from all three major endpoints. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Chronological order

Any objection to a change in the order of the sections? As of now it goes history --> future --> current. Without arguing importance of each section as a reason for the order, I believe that chronological order would make the article flow better and thus provide a better experience for the reader. L.cash.m ( talk) 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Sound good. Current --> history --> future is also workable as it puts the part the most readers want first. I use both; see Shore Line East for an example. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Station Listing Inconsistencies

The Station Listing table contain seemingly random interlockings and yards (they mainly appear in the New Jersey portion). I say to remove this since most people don't really consider these stations (I know they are according to the timetable, but the layperson doesn't). Also, if you include every single interlocking, this is going to be one huge table.

Also, the table contradicts itself with division post. There is one in Hamilton, then one is mentioned in Trenton. I don't know if it was ever in Hamilton, but I know it was in Trenton and was moved to HOLMES interlocking (Holmesburg Junction). Kc2hmv ( talk) 03:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Concur on removing interlockings and yards, as well as long-abandoned stations. I'd like to think about creating a separate article - List of Northeast Corridor stations and junctions or something like that - that would list all junctions, former stations, etc. That's interesting historical information worth having, but it's too detailed for the main article. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 04:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Agreed. There's a constant risk of scope/information creep. Say, while I've got everyone's attention, I raised a similar issue at Template talk:Northeast Corridor and I'd like to get some input. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I've forked the everything list to List of Northeast Corridor infrastructure. As of right now I see no reason not to list historical stations on there as well - at very least stations which lasted into the Penn Central days when the corridor was first unified. I've reduced the article list down to the 108 active stations, plus ZOO Junction and C Interlocking which are necessary as milepost reset points. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply
I just found out about this now, and you created it back in July 2013. In any case I added the navbox and an extra category. Maybe there's a way you could add a link to the list in the navbox, I don't know. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 14:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Miner's Lane death

Hi, Pi.1415926535 (nice handle!). I can offer a few reasons for moving the discussion of the 2005 death at the Miner's Lane grade crossing, including 1) this is already a very long article, and 2) the history of the Northeast Corridor includes many deaths, by car-train collision, during construction, falling on tracks, etc., and so why give particular attention to this one? I generally dislike deleting well-cited info, so I decided to move this tidbit into the notes. Speaking of which, I'm not sure I understood your edit summary ("the article does not use prose footnotes"). Um, so? Plenty of WP articles do; I don't see any reason why this one shouldn't. PRRfan ( talk) 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, it currently doesn't use footnotes. Text footnotes and citations are best kept separate, so the Miners Lane accident shouldn't just be thrown in that list - you'd need to set up a separate Notes architecture. I'm also very wary of text footnotes in general; because you don't instantly see them at the bottom of the page as you would with a book, it's not immediately obvious to newcomers to scroll over the letter to view it.
The article is long, but not unwieldy. The station list will shrink when I or someone else clear out all the interlockings and former stations in the list, and some of the other lists may be able to be cleaned up as well. Sooner or later I'm going to get really bored at work and fork the history section to the dedicated article it deserves.
Contentwise, the Miners Lane accident is one of the most notable incidents on the corridor during the Amtrak era, due to the effects it has had on Acela operations and grade crossing protections elsewhere. (Anecdotally, the ICTS system now used to allow 110mph operations through grade crossings in the Midwest is a direct response to this incident.) Several other high-profile accidents on the corridor should probably also get mentions: Gunpow in 1987 and Back Bay in 1990 for how they influenced automatic train protection systems, and Fairfield due to the publicity and the questions it's bringing up about maintenance. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 00:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, that all makes sense, and it would be great to get the "so what?" of the accident into the article. But as currently formatted, the Miners Lane sentences kinda stick out like a sore thumb. Any ideas? PRRfan ( talk) 13:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC) reply

P&W owns part of the corridor?

[citation needed]!

The entire corridor is owned by Amtrak except Boston to the RI state line which is owned by the Commonwealth of Mass (Amtrak manages) and New Haven to the New York state line (or CP SHELL, I never remember) which is owned by State of Connecticut. I guess I need to dig up some cites and fix. -- plaws ( talk) 13:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC) reply

i agree with you, so i fix it. SRich ( talk) 18:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
I'm a little confused with your edits. While the information you wrote is true now, I'm not sure what it was like in 1976, which is how the sentence started. Daybeers ( talk) 03:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The operational pattern of the movable bridges

It seem to me after reading this and several sub-articles that some of the movable bridges are normally closed and open for water traffic and some are open and close for train traffic. It is implied, but not stated, that the Amtrak Old Saybrook – Old Lyme Bridge is operated in the later mode, possibly the only one on the corridor? The Shore Line East article implies that the Thames River Bridge and Mystic River Railroad Bridge also operate this way, but the Thames River Bridge article implies that it is closed expect for river traffic. This needs to be clarified. Z gin der 2014-06-11T01:02:22Z

North to south routing

The article currently is almost exclusively written with the line beginning in the north and going south. I just edited the infobox to use this convention, previously the ownership was listed from the south to the north. Considering that the mileposts start in the south should the article be switched to south to north. Z gin der 2014-06-12T19:05:06Z

Incidents

Should this article contain a section listing all accidents on this line? 71.178.188.117 ( talk) 03:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Probably not, I don't see as how they are relevant but one has to consider what researchers are looking for when they use Wikipedia. Most likely people are looking for information about the line, how it operates, where it goes, where the stations are, it is most likely few researchers would care about accidents and incidents as a primary search criteria. But also if the extant article included incidents, it would have to be all inclusive -- editors working on the effort would need to attempt to include all known incidents, which is a daunting task. Also if the extant article had a list of incidents, there should be an effort to flesh-out all of the rail line Wikipedia articles to list those line's incidents -- which is a daunting task. Damotclese ( talk) 16:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think that's entirely appropriate either, as Damo notes, if we did it for one series of tracks, we should do it for all of them. Maybe there is a Wiki page which lists locomotive incidents where this would be appropriate. TrainsOnTime ( talk) 20:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
A section with one-sentence summaries or bullets of major fatal crashes may be appropriate - there haven't been that many fatal ones recently. But in general the incidents should go under the history section of the services, and in here where it's already been added, and not in the article about the physical line. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I couldn't disagree more in this particular case. The Northeast Corridor is the busiest and thus most important railroad grade in North America with as many as 2,200 intercity passenger, commuter, freight and other movements daily over its rails. Seventy-seven percent of all non automobile passenger travel between Washington and New York uses the Corridor with its overall ridership increasing yearly. The loss of life (and hundreds of other non-fatal injuries), destruction of equipment, and massive disruption of the operations of many services (Amtrak, multiple local and state commuter lines, freight lines, etc) resulting in a loss of productivity to the national economy of up to $100,000,000 daily, and as an example of the importance of the adequate upgrade and maintenance -- or lack thereof -- to the health, welfare, security and economic strength of both the Northeast region and country as a whole makes the 2015 Frankford Junction derailment by far the most significant and impactful event of any type to have occurred on the Northeast Corridor -- if not the entire rail system on the United States -- in many decades.
To ignore the significance of this major if not transformational event in the main article on the Northeast Corridor would, in my opinion, constitute encyclopedic malpractice. A brief three paragraph section recognizing the Frankford Junction derailment and its multiple impacts is thus hardly either inappropriate or overkill. It is instead a necessary and needed section wholly comporting with its importance to the history and operations of the Northeast Corridor as a whole. The 2015 derailment in Philadelphia is thus far more than just an "incident", but could well end up also being a sea change event in the history and operations of the Northeast Corridor as well as how the Corridor will be viewed and treated and supported politically by US and regional governments in the years to come. Centpacrr ( talk) 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The text about the 2015 crash belongs back under the History section. Even if the crash someday becomes "transformational," it's certainly not yet, and speculation like "could well wind up" isn't much of an argument for inclusion. Finally, there's an entire article about the crash; details like "4º left hand curve to the north" belong there, not in the main NC article. PRRfan ( talk) 16:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
With respect, I cannot agree with what I find to be such a shortsighted view for the reasons stated above and the following events that have already happened. Centpacrr ( talk) 18:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
That's fine, but I find your speculation uncompelling. Even if, say, Congress votes tomorrow to double Amtrak's budget, the event will still be part of the NC's long history. How about this: find some citations that show — not speculate — that this will be a "transformative" event, and then we can revisit its placement as a separate section. PRRfan ( talk) 18:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Do you really believe, sir, that this derailment in not going to lead to any changes in the way Amtrak and the many other rail lines that use the Northeast Corridor are going to operate in the future? Really? With respect, such a view seems to betray a lack of appreciation or understanding of the history of railroading (and other modes of transportation) and how their operational and safety procedures evolve and change in the light of major accident events such as this one. I refer you to the mission statement of the NTSB which states: "The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – railroad, highway, marine and pipeline. The NTSB determines the probable cause of the accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents." Respectfully, the expectation of such changes is not "speculation" but just common sense.
By the way, I have also not used the expression "transformative event" (actually I wrote "..major if not transformational event..") in the article's main space, only in my comment in here. You are, of course, free to have a different view (although I am puzzled why anyone would), but there is no requirement for editors to provide "citations" in postings in talk page discussions to support their opinions or observations, and I see that you have not provided any citations or sources to support your position either. (Here's just one however: "Obama calls for greater infrastructure spending in wake of Amtrak crash") Centpacrr ( talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
It's really not complicated. Your argument that this crash deserves to be in its own section, not the History section, rests on your beliefs about future events. Prediction is difficult, especially about the future, as the saying goes, and so that sort of thing is covered by WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Bring the citations, and convince the world. (By the way: there's no need to start Talk comments with bullets; to indent your comment, add a colon to the initial series.) PRRfan ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Nothing I have placed in the main space of the article constitutes speculation or predicts future events. It is simply an objective recitation of fully sourced and cited facts presented without a POV about the most serious accident to have happened on the Northeast Corridor in almost three decades, and one which completely disrupted service on the busiest rail corridor in North America for days. As such it deserves this level of coverage (three paragraphs) on that basis alone irrespective of what are likely to be the subsequent consequences of this fatal derailment in the months and years to come. Centpacrr ( talk) 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

No one's saying anything in the article is speculation; rather, I (and Epicgenius, to judge from his unilateral ) disagree with your contention — which you have sought to buttress with speculation about a "sea change" that alters how railroads "are going to operate in the future" and how they will be treated politically "in the years to come" — that this crash is yet worthy of its own section instead of placement under History. Separately, we also disagree about whether details such as the exact curvature of the track and the age of the locomotive belong in this article about the entire Northeast Corridor, or are perhaps better placed on the page devoted to the event itself. As for your attempt to delete the section, and thereby remove from public view valuable and well-cited information simply because you disagree with edits to your writing, is, I fear, not in keeping with Wikipedia spirit or custom. May I humbly suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles? I think you and I might more fruitfully collaborate on this collectively edited encyclopedia, as we seem destined to do from time to time, if you held a little less tightly to your prose. PRRfan ( talk) 03:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@PRRfan: It truly puzzles me why you insist on pablumizing objectively presented fully sourced and cited material, removing relevant detail, introducing misleading fudge factor language that does not comport with the sources, and doing so unilaterally without either seeking or achieving consensus. Centpacrr ( talk) 02:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Ah, here's another bit of Wikipedia custom that I might suggest you read up on: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Do you actually think that I think that I am "pablumizing" or introducing "fudge factor language"? If so, please be assured that I am simply seeking to present information in the clearest and most concise way. To that end, I'm more than happy to discuss any individual edit. Perhaps you would care to point one out that you object to? (And again, no need for that leading bullet in your Talk comments.) PRRfan ( talk) 03:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually I was wondering why you had failed to assume good faith on my part and didn't bother to first contact me to discuss any suggested changes you thought might improve this section on the derailment which you could have seen was material that I alone had developed, sourced and contributed to the NC article. When I saw that this thread was opened I then explained in detail above why I did it the way I did.
Instead of having the courtesy of contacting me with whatever thoughts you might have had on what I contributed and attempting to reach a compromise with me as the original author of the section, you instead took it upon yourself to unilaterally alter the text so that it no longer accurately reflects the sources and introduced misleading language. You also removed without explanation fully sourced relevant detail that i included because I found that it helped elucidate and provide context to the section that, as I mentioned above, I alone had taken the time and effort to create and contribute to the article.
I have been writing professionally for almost half a century, and am the author of seven published non-fiction books (four of which are on North American railroad history) as well as more then 1,000 articles so I am not a novice at this. As for the bullet points, I add them because it makes it easy for me to find my comments in long threads. As this in not in the main space they certainly do not violate any WP MOS. Centpacrr ( talk) 04:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I also must agree with the previous editor's commentnig on your use of bullet-pointing, that is rather annoying, no offense intended. The volunteers working on the project have conventional ways of doing things, and "being special" doesn't look very professional, it looks like you're trying to stand out and be special which is probably not what you intend. Again, no offense intended. And "siring" someone is insulting, I might add. Damotclese ( talk) 15:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
There is already a section that talks about the future (LOL) However I think that enumerating significant, major incidents on this railroad is reasonable if they are kept short and link to external pages.
Also that person bullet pointing, yes, that's an ego issue I've seen another person who edits virus pages like I do have. It looks bad but thankfully they only do it in talk pages. (That ego thing: the person thinks he's an author so that makes it okay.)
Any way a little prognostication in the article seems reasonable so long as they don't go full Jean Dixon. BiologistBabe ( talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thank you, PRRfan for fixing that, I also wondered why the article was jumping off in to future speculation which is contra-indicated by Wiki guidelines. And if I may add, each time there is a loss of live in transportation infrastructure -- not just rail but also roadway, airway, and waterway -- we see predictions in the mainstream media and in industry about how the incident is going to change things, however the reality is that we see incremental improvements, not a "sea change." Certainly none of the seer casting predictions of how things are going to change ever come to fruition. It's good to keep Wiki articles clear of such things. TrainsOnTime ( talk) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Anyway, I think only the notable incidents should be mentioned, i.e. ones that caused injuries or deaths. They should each be mentioned in one-sentence bullet point. Epic Genius ( talk) 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed with Epic that only notable incidents should be included. Otherwise, train articles will start to look just like a list of incidents. For the the notability of the train incidents, I'm not sure whether the fact that there are injuries or deaths should automatically make it qualified. There are just too many accidents at grade level crossings where no one on the trains as the casualties. It's a very sad reality that we have too many of that type of accidents. I don't think we can list them all, otherwise, we will turn Wikipedia into a database. Z22 ( talk) 15:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Only if every track line has a list of incidents would it be suitable for the extant article to include them. What is probably not a good idea is to single-out a track line for special notice, not unless there is a rail line that has a chromic problem with incidents, then I could see it being relevant. To update every Wiki page that covers rail line sections to enumerate all the known incidents would be a very difficult task. Damotclese ( talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
A list of incidents should be included only if a list is short and each incident links to a suitable reference or citation. I see other people commenting about the need to do the same for other pages for railroad tracks which makes sense. If you do it for this page, you should do it for other significant railroad tracks. BiologistBabe ( talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

It looks like more people think a list of incidents should be included than those who do not, but yeah, if the list is one sentence, short and to the point, that seems reasonable. TrainsOnTime ( talk) 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply

As there seems to be little interest in the significance of this derailment and its extensive disruption of and long term impact on the operations of the Northeast Corridor, I am removing the section that I contributed completely and will let others produce a list of accidents if they wish to. NGDGU Centpacrr ( talk) 16:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
For now, I've tucked four sentences about the 2015 crash into a new "21st century" subhead under History/Amtrak. PRRfan ( talk) 21:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Per consensus, I've shortened the text about the 2015 crash to one sentence, and added a hatnote pointing to the extensive article on it. Centpacrr ( talk), may I suggest you direct your considerable passion for the topic to that page? PRRfan ( talk) 14:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I will accept a single sentence per consensus, but it can't ignore the three most important elements of the derailment besides the human casualties: 1) that it was the result of extreme speeding on a sharp curve; that the curve was not protected by ATC, and; that it caused rail travel on the NEC between Philadelphia and New York to be completely disrupted for six days. In addition there were not "238 passengers and crew" on the train but "238 passengers and five crew" for a total of 243 souls on board. I have fixed all of these while retaining a single sentence. I have also restored four of the reference citations supporting the information in the sentence which had all been removed as well as the train number (TR#188) as there are 27 daily northbound Northeast Regional runs every weekday. Centpacrr ( talk) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northeast Corridor. 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: 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. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Freerepublic.Com? Seriously?

For a citation needed, an editor has suggested a link to a freerepublic.com web page. That's not considered a legitimate source for suitable information, it's a Republican propaganda web site. Can't we find a serious, legitimate citation to link to for that? Damotclese ( talk) 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

While FR isn't an unbiased source, the article currently linked is being used for dates, one cost/time figure, and one noncontroversial political fact. While I agree that it should be replaced with unbiased sources (preferably academic sources with good bibliographies), it's not being used for POV pushing right now so it's better than nothing. (I don't exactly see Kew Gardens 613 being an anti-rail activist....) Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I am fully in support of rail and I am a democrat and I support Bernie Sanders. I had no knowledge of the bias of the source. I was looking on the internet for sources, but this was what I could find. I might need to look in some books to fine credible sources. Sorry about that.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 21:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree that FreeRepublic.com is politically biased, but it's not like the rail facts in the given source are being disputed, nor is the source being used to tilt the article toward a non-neutral viewpoint. For the record, I am also a Democrat, and disagree with many of FreeRepublic's articles. I recommend that a more reliable source be found, though. epicgenius ( talk) 01:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Replaced all but one citation. The linked article appears to be from the United Rail Passenger Alliance; none of the cited information was wrong but I'd rather not use them as a source. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Ah, I see that someone else already noted the absurd use of a far right wing c0nsp1raz7 Christian Republican propaganda web site. Yes, freerepublic.com is not a legitimate source unless one is covering an article on Christian Republican extremism. Damotclese ( talk) 18:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

freerepublic.com is not a valid reference or citation source

Please refrain from adding references or citations from conspiracy web sites. Damotclese ( talk) 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Northeast Corridor. 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: 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) 04:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

ACSES not accurate

The section which reads "Between 1998 and 2003, this system was overlaid with an Alstom Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES)" is not accurate, ACSES was developed by both Alsom/Amtrak and Safetran Systems (now Siemens.) The ACSES wiki page specifically notes that Safetran equipment is being used, hardware and software. Looking at Google results, looks like Safetran logic encoders, wayside radios, packet switches and other things were used, so this aticle's sentence is incomplete. SoftwareThing ( talk) 20:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Northeast Corridor reversion

 – – Epicgenius ( talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm curious why you removed the map from the Northeast Corridor article. The "Origins" section of that article reads as follows:

"The Northeast Corridor was built by several railroads between the 1830s and 1917. The route was later consolidated under two railroads: the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad (NYNH&H) between Boston and New York, and the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) between New York and Washington."

That doesn't say much and is arguably inaccurate. (Proper wording might be something like this: "Most of what is now called the Northeast Corridor was built, piece by piece, by several railroads, from the 1830s. Before 1900, their routes had been consolidated as two large railroads, namely, the Pennsylvania Railroad, which approached New York City from the south, and the New Haven Railroad, which entered New York from the North. From 1903 to 1917, those two railroads undertook a number of projects by which their lines were connected and which completed, in effect, the Northeast Corridor. These included Manhattan Transfer station, the New York Tunnel Extension, Pennsylvania Station, the New York Connecting Railroad, and the Hell Gate Bridge. Combined, those creations were a twenty-two mile stretch that started just above Newark, New Jersey, on the Pennsylvania side, and just below New Rochelle, New York, on the New Haven side.")

The map you removed makes all that clear. Your edit is as follows:

"remove map of what appears to be the Hell Gate Line and the New York Tunnel Extension in particular"

That gives the impression you didn't even look to see what the map indicated. 96.245.167.33 ( talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

PS I've just given the "Origins" section, a revamp, which includes the map you reverted. If you don't like it, I'd be pleased if you'd take the matter to the Northeast Corridor talk page and not simply hit "revert." 96.245.167.33 ( talk) 08:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment. Regarding the map itself, what I said was correct; the map depicted primarily the section of the NEC corresponding to the Hell Gate Line (i.e. the Hell Gate Bridge and its approaches) and the New York Tunnel Extension (East River Tunnels, North River Tunnels, and approaches to such). However, I can see why it is relevant now. Another thing to note is that the caption is overly long; per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, it should be shortened.
As for "taking the matter to the talk page" - since you explained your rationale here, it would be quite redundant to do so again per WP:TALK#DISCUSS. (Additionally, I think it is only recommended, not required, to discuss on the talk page if something is removed. I did not do so because I believed it was uncontroversial.) – Epicgenius ( talk) 12:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

The above discussion concerns my revert of the IP user's image and was originally at my talk page. I have moved the discussion here to avoid duplication. Epicgenius ( talk) 13:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for getting back to me. I like the changes you made. They tidy everything up. 96.245.167.33 ( talk) 13:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC) reply

CN tag spamming

Whoever dropped 46 instances of the "Citation needed" tag on this article deserves a good trout smacking. Dropping tags like that is not constructive, just use unref section or more citations needed section instead. It's a pain in the ass and a waste of time to deal with this many tags, as opposed to 1 tag per section. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 02:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Datecomma

I'm an idiot. I thought I was removing commas that the previous edit had added, but it turns out I did the exact opposite. Sorry about that. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 19:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Insert "BOSNYWASH?"

Back in the 1980s when I (in the UK) was involved in publishing material about locomotives and trains worldwide, this route was often referred to as the "BOSNYWASH Corridor" (with various capitalisation patterns). Was this a long-lived usage, and (presuming references are available) would it merit mention in the article? I note that the name is mentioned and referenced in the Lede of Northeast megalopolis. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.107.217 ( talk) 06:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Northeast_Corridor&oldid=1206099225"