This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Trains: Passenger trains Mid‑importance Trains Portal 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Amtrak Capitol Corridor.

This article conflicts with the Pacific Surfliner article in its first paragraph because it claims the Capitol Corridor is the third-busiest Amtrak route after the Northeast Corridor and the Pacific Surfliner.

However, the Pacific Surfliner article claims in its lead paragraph that it, also, is the third busiest route, behind the Northeast Corridor and the Keystone Service.

I'll try to do some research to find out the true ranking, and then I reckon I'll try my first significant edit as a Wikipedian. :-)

Anyway, this is also me trying out the talk page. Hope everyone is well! Comodude 01:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I think Capitol Corridor is the third busiest Amtrak route, because I found one article said that the Keystone service had a ridership of 1,068,572 in FY2005 [1] and Capitol Corridor had the ridership of 1,260,249 in the same fiscal year [2]. So we can safely and correctly say that the Capitol Corridor is the third busiest Amtrak route. -- Will74205 08:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I looked at Amtrak's January 2006 report [3] on page 26 and confirmed that Pacific Surfliner is indeed number two and the Capitol Corridor is number three, so I'll make an edit on the Pacific Surfliner page with a correction. - Comodude 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a schedule right in front of me that says the length of th eline is only 170 miles, not the longer distance stated in the article. That seems more reasonable for San Jose to Auburn anyway--does anyone know the reason for the discrepancy? -- SCZenz 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I believe it is from Sparks, NV to San Jose, CA, as listed on the simplified Amtrak schedule on Amtrak's website. Should we just list the length between the stations that have regular train services? -- Will74205 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, there are currently no Capitol Corridor trains outside the SJ-Auburn route—so that seems to be the sensible distance to give. -- SCZenz 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC) reply

Done!-- Will74205 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think listing bus agencies that serve the different stops is in the best interest of the article, if we were to do that we would have to add AC transit to Fremont, and Coliseum, and VTA to Diridon, as well as likely several more changes, I added BART and Caltrain connections because I figured they were notable. I don't think AC transit connection is notable and I suggest we remove it. -- JVittes 09:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Image:Capitollogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No mention is made of the speed of the trains on this line. 71.139.18.11 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Would need to find a good source to add it to the article, but I recall reading that the maximum speed along a few stretches is 79 mph. There was talk of the state of California funding some signaling improvements to increase the amount of trackage with that limit, but no serious talk as far as I know of supporting maximum speeds above that. For the core Sacramento<->San Jose route, the average speed (including stops) is 43 mph, according to the fastest published itinerary (133 miles in 3 hours, 5 mins). -- Delirium ( talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capitol 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011095434/http://www.capitolcorridor.org:80/about_ccjpa/message_to_riders/issue17_04jun.php to http://www.capitolcorridor.org/about_ccjpa/message_to_riders/issue17_04jun.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013025022/http://www.capitolcorridor.org:80/about_ccjpa/press_room/060609_ServiceExpansion.php to http://www.capitolcorridor.org/about_ccjpa/press_room/060609_ServiceExpansion.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Using the Hiawatha Service tables as a template, I have not been able to integrate these into this article without breaking the formatting of subsequent sections. any help getting these placed herein would be appreciated. - MJ ( talk) 20:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Traffic by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year	Ridership	%±	Ticket Revenue	%±	Ref.
2007	1,450,069	–	$18,059,715	–	[1]
2008	1,693,580	016.79%	$22,306,774	023.52%	[1]
2009	1,599,625	06.55%	$22,160,890	00.65%	[1]
2010	1,580,619	01.19%	$22,872,085	03.21%	[2]
2011	1,708,618	08.1%	$25,720,252	0	[2]
2012	1,746,397	02.21%	$27,927,540	0	[3]
2013	1,460,455	016.37%	$27,699,783	0	[4] [note 1]
2014	1,419,134	02.83%	$27,105,046	02.15%	[4]
2015	1,474,873	03.93%			[5]
2016	1,560,814	05.83%			[5]
2017	1,607,000	02.96%			[6]
2018	1,706,849	06.21%			[7]
2019	1,777,136	04.12%			[7]
2020	898,007	049.47%	–		[8]
2021	354,373	061.54%			[9]

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).