Talk:Acela/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

High speed?

I see this has been discussed a couple of times already. To Europeans, calling a railway that hits the dizzy average speed of 82 mph on Victorian rails "high-speed" may cause them extreme amusement and necessitate keyboard replacement. I wish there was some way to concisely and neutrally point out that while this is considered fast in the US no European country would consider this fast at any time since about 1936. Is there? --John (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed this from the lead. It is ok to say it is the fastest in the Americas.--John (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We do need a way to capture the laughable premise that to Americans this is a high speed train but to Europeans and Chinese it would be a slow commuter train. Any thoughts? We definitely can't just say "high-speed" without qualification. It isn't. --John (talk) 10:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't POV push. It is high-speed by UIC standards. Are there faster trains? Sure, but that doesn't matter when it meets the definition issued by the international standards body. We've had this discussion before, and there is decided consensus to keeping it labeled properly. Please don't remove it again. That would be edit warring to push a POV against consensus and an objective definition. oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well done for at least responding here rather than blind-reverting. As regards edit-warring it takes two to tango. I raised my question here over a month ago. If you've had such a definitive discussion it should be easy to point me to it. Do so, please. --John (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

See the above discussions you already mentioned in your first post. No one responded because they didn't think it was worth it when there's already been such extensive discussion. And you might want to note that you were reverted by two different editors both pointing to the extensive prior discussion. oknazevad (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a strong consensus in the discussions from 2009, 2014 or 2016 to keep this material in the lead. It looks ridiculous. Why is it capitalised, by the way? Did you think it was someone's name? The whole article is in a dreadful state, and I can perhaps get an inkling why from your tone. The fact that this has been raised repeatedly over the years is evidence that I am not the only one who doesn't think it is quite right. Rather than blind-reverting, name-calling, and referring to a supposed consensus, why not try to cite good sources, and use them to argue for a workable compromise? --John (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no compromising on facts. Fact is Acela meets UIC definitions. oknazevad (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The UIC doesn't issue a definition of "high-speed rail." The UIC relies on the European definition, which Acela doesn't meet. The UIC says, however, that Acela has made laudable efforts to improve speed, which is why it lists it as "high-speed." -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the usual problem we get on these pages. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Sources please, or it's going again. --John (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

. Here's the UIC's list of high speed lines. Acela is included. oknazevad (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oknazevad, there's no need to insult me. What I said about the UIC is correct - they don't have their own definition of "high-speed rail," which is why talking about "UIC definitions" doesn't actually make sense. They adopt the European definition, which excludes Acela, but then say that they're listing Acela because of its efforts to improve speed - not because it meets any technical definition of "high-speed rail." My view, which I've stated above a few times, is that we shouldn't label Acela "high-speed rail" in the lede, since that's a somewhat misleading label for such a system. We can discuss Acela in the context of high-speed rail later in the article. I don't see what harm is done by such an approach, and it seems to me to be obviously more informative to the reader. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in August: "This article also shouldn't vary from Wikipedia's article on high-speed rail; that article has an involved discussion in the lead and elsewhere about what high-speed rail is. By Wikipedia's internal definition, as written, the Acela Express is high-speed. We need to be internally consistent." What's changed? Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What's changed is that someone has called out your bullshit. --John (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You are out of line, and your language is unacceptable. Calm down, or I'll not hesitate to lodge a complaint on the admins noticeboard. KirksKeyKard (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Bring it on, son. --John (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd characterize it as bullshit to call for internal consistency between articles, but as you like. Are you going to offer to fight everyone here? Otherwise, and in the absence of new sources, I think we're about done here. Mackensen (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I have full-protected the article for three days to prevent everybody going over 3RR and getting a silly block. I am hopeful there is another way of wording the lead that side-steps this argument, and is something everyone can live with. As a starter for ten, why don't we just take the words "and High-speed" out of the opening sentence altogether, leaving us with "The Acela Express, colloquially abbreviated to Acela, is Amtrak's flagship rail service along the Northeast Corridor". That makes sense, dodges the words that have caused the above dispute, and doesn't appear to be factually incorrect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say the first reason why we shouldn't do that is that by our very own definition (high-speed rail) the Acela Express is high-speed rail. Reliable sources call it that. News articles call it that. Removing those words invites well-meaning editors to put them back in. Far from resolving the dispute, such an edit would exacerbate it. When I asked for a source to justify the change, John (talk · contribs) said he had "called out [my] bullshit." I don't mind the profanity, but I do take it as evidence that there's no source to be found, else I assume he would have provided it. This talk page is littered with editors who think it's risible that the Acela Express (barely) meets the definition of high-speed rail as adopted by Wikipedia. They're entitled to their opinion, and I'm not sure I disagree. What they are not entitled to do is to edit-war in favor of their opinion, without sources, and to attack other editors who have the temerity to ask them to justify their edits. Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's not okay to edit war and using terse language while arguing your point doesn't generally help it get across. However, I would like to find some way of closing this issue out, otherwise it's likely to happen again. If you can't agree here, I think you'll have to consider WP:DRN. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Using one Wikipedia article to argue for carrying misleading info on another is absolutely bullshit. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as you all very well know. If you dislike being called out for bullshit, the best remedy is to refrain from making bullshit arguments. Ritchie, your suggestion is the one I made several weeks ago but there is a group of railfans here reverting. I tend to agree that a wider discussion is required. Point of principle here, as someone who generally possesses a clue; do I need consensus here to add a {{dubious}} tag to the article? --John (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with tags like {{dubious}} (and tags generally) is they should be a trigger to get something resolved. I think it's more than obvious from reading this discussion that there is disagreement over a claim in the opening sentence, so for me the tag is superfluous at this stage. I don't think any of you are going to see eye to eye on this one, so my recommendation is to take it to DRN and slug it out there. The problem when you call someone's bullshit "bullshit" is you stop talking about what's best for the article and start talking about whose bullshit is bigger. That just leaves a big pile of bullshit in the middle of the talk page, and frankly I don't like the smell of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The UIC definition is used in both articles. I'm not aware that there's anything dubious about the UIC definition. If there is, then that should be settled more broadly on the high-speed rail article. Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to just say that I'd like John to show more civility here. While I agree with your factual point about "high-speed rail," the other editors here deserve respect and are editing in good faith. I agree with Ritchie333 that "high-speed" shouldn't be in the lede. It's controversial to label Acela as such, since it clearly falls far short of the most widely used international definition of "high-speed" (the European definition). Earlier on this talk page (see this diff), I cited a number of news articles that discuss the discrepancy between Acela and what's typically called "high-speed rail." I think it's clear that the "high-speed" designation is controversial, and I think it's best to discuss it in the body of the article, rather than in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well. I have found in life that one generally gets the respect that one earns. Editors reverting material back into articles that is controversial and also badly formatted generally go down in my estimation. If it hurt anyone's feelings to 'call ... bullshit "bullshit"' then I nevertheless apologise. We certainly can't use one article to argue for material in another. As Thucydides411 has said, there are plenty of sources which disagree that this 80 mph route on Victorian rails is "high-speed", and other than the truly silly argument about consistency across articles, is there a good reason to carry this frankly silly claim in the lead? --John (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The UIC definition is used in both articles. I'm not aware that there's anything dubious about the UIC definition. If there is, then that should be settled more broadly on the high-speed rail article. Mackensen (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the consistency argument I think I mentioned a couple of times. See also WP:CIRC and WP:SYNTH. If the sources in the real world say that the Acela Express is high-speed, but only in a marginal or technical sense, and (as it seems) all the editors here also agree with that (rather obvious) fact, why would anyone edit-war to keep The Acela Express (/əˈsɛlə/ ə-sel-ə; colloquially abbreviated to Acela) is Amtrak's flagship and High-speed rail service along the Northeast Corridor (NEC)... (complete with the spurious capital H!) in the lead? --John (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIRC has no bearing here, inasmuch as the UIC is external to Wikipedia. It's not WP:CIRC to use the same external source to support the same claim in two different articles. It's also not clear what relevance WP:SYNTH has to this discussion either. High-speed rail tracks the UIC definition, which is 250 km/h for new build and 200-220 km/h for existing, upgraded lines. The Acela Express meets that standard. The UIC includes the Northeast Corridor (as North East Corridor) in its list of high speed lines, giving the maximum speed of 240 km/h. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone considered tacking a nota bene footnote to the "high speed rail" phrase in the lede to explain the situation more fully? Acela is kind of a fringe case, depending on which source you look at it may or may not qualify for the designation. The Congressional Research Office would call it "higher speed rail," the USDOT/FRA would call it "high speed rail - regional" and as noted above the UIC calls it "high speed rail" with no qualifications. For the sake of internal consistency since our own high speed rail relies on the UIC definition I would keep the sentence as is, but I do think it's worth noting that the classification is not unanimous. C628 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Mackensen, Acela does not meet the standard that UIC quotes in the link you gave. In the link you gave, the UIC is quoting the European standard, which deals with average speeds, rather than peak speeds. UIC notes in its publications that some systems do not meet the technical definition of high-speed rail (e.g., Acela, because it does not achieve average speeds of 200-220 km/h over most of its route), but that they are nonetheless included in UIC lists because they've made "laudable efforts." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@C628: yes, I think such a footnote would be a reasonable thing. For anyone seeking a discussion and explanation it's there, but doesn't catch up the general reader in an unexpected aside. @Thucydides411:, I've looked on the UIC site and failed to find the qualifications you're describing. Under "WHAT IS HIGH SPEED RAIL?", there is no discussion of average speed vs peak speed, nor any mention of the "laudable efforts" of Amtrak. Could you please describe to me where you're seeing this text, or better yet provide a direct link? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What about language like

"While Acela meets the industry benchmark for high speed rail as defined by the International Union of Railways (at least 200 kilometres per hour (120 mph)), it is considered "higher speed rail" or "regional high speed rail" according to various US government standards.

? C628 (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good starting point. We should add something about the Northeast Corridor being an upgraded route; if it were new-build it wouldn't qualify under any metric. I think an addition along the lines of "Other definitions of high-speed rail, such as that of the European Union, exclude the Acela Express altogether" would be helpful as well and perhaps satisfy the concerns of John and Thucydides411. Mackensen (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

So how about

"Acela Express meets the industry benchmark for high speed rail as defined by the International Union of Railways (at least 200 kilometres per hour (120 mph) on existing and upgraded track). However, it is considered "higher speed rail" or "regional high speed rail" according to various US government standards and other definitions of high-speed rail, such as that of the European Union, exclude it altogether."

C628 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

We'd want suitable citations of course, but in general I think that's a reasonable description of the situation that informs the reader without bogging them down. What do other editors think? Mackensen (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a viable solution, except I would manage without the "however" and we should mention the percentage of the route (~10%?) that the train can go at high speed. --John (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the latter might be better explicated in the main text as it quickly takes us down a complicated path of peak speed vs average speed, the usage of which varies between standards. We'd also want a source nailing down the actual percentage; I know it's not high but I also don't know that information off the top of my head either. Perhaps the nb could link to the main text? "See #Operating speeds for further discussion" or some such? Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The UIC isn't an acceptable authority because it is bases itself on local standards of members. That is, Amtrak itself, in this case. This is essentially a circular argument. Anmccaff (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're challenging the use of UIC as a source because of independence concerns then that's a broader conversation which shouldn't take place here. My own take is that the UIC is independent from its members. As an organization, it has chosen to adopt and promote a particular standard. If it did so in consultation with its members, then it's like every other industry group and doesn't make it any less reliable. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You may well have a point about raising this in a wider forum; where would you suggest? I do think it is worth finishing this conversation here though as we seem on the verge of something we can all live with. --John (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

On the question of the independence of the UIC, I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains would make sense. Another possibility is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but I have no experience with that forum. I think you and I, at any rate, are in agreement on the wording of the endnote, or at least close enough for unprotecting. If we're not in agreement on the reliability of the UIC then that's a blocker to moving forward and we'll need to resolve that first. Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much that I disagree that the UIC is a reliable source within its own parameters, and neither do I dispute that it is the pre-eminent international organisation dealing with rail transport. It's just that the form of wording that we have agreed is unsatisfactory fails because it attempts to over-simplify a rather complex situation by only relying on one body's definition. An analogy; the United Nations is often taken as the general arbiter of what constitutes an independent nation and perhaps plays a similar role to the UIC in rail transport. But if we relied purely on UN membership as the criterion of nationhood, Taiwan would not qualify, and Switzerland would not have done pre-2002. Would we want to state simply in Wikipedia's voice that Taiwan is not a country or that Switzerland was not a country prior to 2002? Clearly not, as this would over-simplify a rather nuanced situation in a way that many people would consider contentious or even ridiculous. Similarly while we should of course mention in the body of the article and/or a footnote that the UIC considers this service to be "high-speed", we should not attempt to over-simplify it in the lead when there are so many sources which point out how marginal and technical the Acela's membership of this category is. --John (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The circular argument is completely false. The UIC committee for high-speed rail is composed of members from many countries, and much like Wikipedia, a consensus has to be reached. If the UIC has deemed that the Acela service in the USA is worthy of inclusion in it's list and map, then that is the outcome of a vote from all members of the committee. If you can prove (with a verifiable source), that the UIC behaves in any other way, or simply relies on evidence from Amtrak itself, then you need to present that. KirksKeyKard (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Mmm. Interesting to have your view. That isn't really how Wikipedia works though; first of all we don't need negative evidence not to say something, we need positive evidence to say it. Secondly, this is not about WP:V but more about WP:NPOV. I think we have reached an agreement that it is not reasonable to use the form of words highlighted in red above. Simply calling it a "high-speed" service in the lead does not meet our summary standards as it is not a fair summary. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

What does that mean? The phrase "Mmm. Interesting to have your view." Is that because I am a "regular" editor, rather than an "editor of long-standing", therefore my view is of less importance? KirksKeyKard (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mackensen, the UIC has unfortunately launched a new website, so all the old links to their documents are now broken. I cited their passage on high-speed definitions above, in this diff. I can't find their old publications now, but if you Google "UIC high speed laudable efforts," you'll see that the documents at least used to exist on the UIC website. Here's the UIC's exact statement: "But it is also necessary to take into account those railways which are making laudable efforts to provide high speed despite a basis of old infrastructure and technology which is far removed from that employed by the railways of western Europe." The definition of "high-speed rail" given on the new UIC website is not very technical. For example, it does not say what "speed" it is referring to - does it mean peak operating speed, or does it mean the speed typically achieved along most of the line? This may be because the link we have is more of a marketing page than a technical document. At least in the past, the UIC documents referred to the European definition when defining "high speed," and the European definition is clear that its speed definitions refer to the speed generally achieved along most of the line, except in cities and topographically difficult sections of the line. Given that the UIC doesn't seem to give its own technical definition of what "high-speed rail" is, I don't think we can speak of "the industry benchmark for high speed rail as defined by the International Union of Railways." What we can speak of is the UIC listing of high-speed railways, even though we don't know what criteria were actually used to compile that list. Therefore, I'd change the working draft to the following:

"The International Union of Railways lists the Acela Express as high-speed rail. However, it is considered "higher speed rail" or "regional high speed rail" according to various US government standards and other definitions of high-speed rail, such as that of the European Union, exclude it altogether."

Do other editors agree that that's a more accurate wording? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No. The UIC explicitly states that the information is sourced to members; it's compiling, not assessing. It often leaves the US off completely; e.g. this. Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be content with that wording. I might consider saying "Global industry body International Union of Railways..." just to emphasize that the criteria it uses is applied to systems around the world as opposed to the local/regional standards of the US/EU. But maybe that's redundant to "International." C628 (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, UIC doesn't have specific criteria that it applies to determine whether a system is "high speed" or not. At least in its 2013 publication (which I cited above), the UIC references the EU definition, but then notes that it's also including inferior systems that have made "laudable efforts" at improvement. That doesn't seem like a technical standard. Anmccaff, can you link to a document that shows how UIC sources its "high speed" list?

Emphasizing that UIC uses a standard set of criteria seems incorrect, if indeed UIC doesn't have well-defined technical criteria for listing a system as "high speed." As far as I can tell, the European definition is the closest we have to an international definition of "high-speed rail." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the majority of acknowledgement of sources is in the graphics, not the text: look at the maps. Anmccaff (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

So as far as I can tell EU Directive 98/48/EC seems to be the relevant one. "Annex 1" in that link has the specific language which I shall quote here anyway:

• • • • Infrastructure: "The infrastructure of the trans-European high-speed rail system shall be that on the lines of the trans-European transport network identified in the framework of the guidelines referred to in Article 129c of the Treaty: those specially built for high-speed travel (or) those specially upgraded for high-speed travel."
      • "High-speed lines shall comprise: specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h (or) specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h (or) specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case." Acela meets the second one--the northern part of the NEC was electrified in 2000 for Acela service, giving a top speed of 240 kph; additionally Amtrak is upgrading infrastructure in New Jersey for 160 mph (~260 kph) service.
      • Rolling stock: The high-speed advanced-technology trains shall be designed in such a way as to guarantee safe, uninterrupted travel: at a speed of at least 250 km/h on the lines specially built for high speed, while enabling speeds of over 300 km/h to be reached in appropriate circumstances (or) at a speed of the order of 200 km/h on existing lines which have been or are to be specially upgraded (or) at the highest possible speed on other lines." The Acela trainsets meet the second and third criteria.

For additional references' sake, the older UIC language can be found at an archived version of their high speed rail page, which in addition to including the EU language for confusion's sake employs both the "laudable efforts" phrasing and the current "upgraded to 200 kph track" criteria, to say nothing of the fact that it floats the notion that 160 kph could actually "be considered as high speed." All in all I frankly am no longer convinced that Acela actually fails the EU high speed criteria (unless I have horribly misinterpreted their language and all the bits I take to be "or" are actually supposed to be "and") I remain of the opinion that the best permanent solution is to retain the "high speed rail" phrasing in the article's lead sentence with an explanatory footnote. C628 (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

While the NEC's ridership is impressive, its services often are not. The average speed on the entire route is 135km/h with only short sections in Rhode Island and Massachusetts capable of accommodating the Acela Express' top speed of 240km/h. doesn't seem like a compelling source for the northern part of the NEC was electrified in 2000 for Acela service, giving a top speed of 240 kph to me. It seem, in fact to imply the opposite -"short stretches". Other, rather longer stretches, drag the speed into the forties, and sixties. Only for about 30 miles out of a little over 200 can the Acela go near its top speed. Anmccaff (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Checking, it appears there are only 23 miles past New Haven where top speed can be obtained, and the route overall averages less than 70mph. Is that "high speed?" Anmccaff (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose it's a good thing that I never made any claims about the average speed then. In fact, the phrase "average speed" does not appear once in the entire EU document, nor in either version of the UIC pages, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. C628 (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe the directive cited by C628 (talk · contribs) was superseded by Directive 2008/57/EC in 2010. This doesn't make a material difference, as contains a similar definition in Annex I:

The high-speed lines shall comprise:

• specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h,
• specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,
• specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case. This category also includes interconnecting lines between the high-speed and conventional networks, lines through stations, accesses to terminals, depots, etc. travelled at conventional speed by ‘high-speed’ rolling stock.

The second criteria describes the Northeast Corridor. For vehicles, it says the following:

The trans-European high-speed rail system shall comprise vehicles designed to operate:

• either at speeds of at least 250 km/h on lines specially built for high speeds, while enabling operation at speeds exceeding 300 km/h in appropriate circumstances,
• or at speeds of the order of 200 km/h on the lines of section 2.1, where compatible with the performance levels of these lines.

The Acela Express meets the second criteria. There is no discussion of average speed, only of maximums. Mackensen (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No. That's a definition of a particular system, "the high speed" lines, defining it as including certain low and lower speed ancillaries. There are lines which meet the specifications which are not part of the system, and there are lines which do not even come close which are. See this for a list. Lines capable of 120mph not listed in Annex I are not part of the "high speed lines" for the purposes of this document, but part of the "conventional lines". Anmccaff (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This document tracks the language of the other documents. I believe the unamended version can be found at Decision No 1692/96/EC. The plain language seems clear enough: specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h (emphasis). For all that, the document implies that even 250 km/h is more a guideline than a hard-and-fast-rule: specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h. It's clear from Article 19 that Annex III is not intended as an exhaustive list (if that's the list you're talking about). The attached maps show both "high-speed" and "upgraded high-speed", a distinction whose meaning is informed by the definition given in Article 10§2. Nothing in that document would lead me to conclude that an railway line upgraded for high-speed operation permitted maximum speeds in excess of 200–240 kilometres per hour (120–150 mph) by purpose-designed trainsets is not a high-speed line. Mackensen (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

To begin with, this link - I believe the unamended version can be found at Decision No 1692/96/EC leads to a genuinely rotten cite, in which most of the relevant substantive information, which is mostly graphic, is replaced by >REFERENCE TO A FILM>. Not helpful, that.

Nothing in that document would lead me to conclude that an railway line upgraded for high-speed operation permitted maximum speeds in excess of 200–240 kilometres per hour (120–150 mph) by purpose-designed trainsets is not a high-speed line. Then the US Midwest is absotively chock-a-block littered with "high speed rail lines." The engineering takeaway from the M497 was that ordinary tangent line in good repair had no problems with those speeds, even with (relatively) stock equipment. But no one considers some lightly rusted track out in the cornfields HSR, and rightly so.

I think that also, a good many people seeing a system that could only handle, say, 120mph that was operating at 120mph, with average speeds near 120mph, might be a little more inclined to call it HS than one with equipment good for 180 that dawdled along at sixty-five, even if it occasionally kicked up its heels on a flat straightaway. The point which both the EU and the UIC rightly belabor is that HSR is a system, and the NEC falls short as such, even if a few parts and pieces meet cherry picked "criteria." Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The language I quoted is found in both versions of the document. I linked out to the site because it includes the relevant legislative history. Moving on, I fail to see what the M-497, an experiment from the 1960s, has to do with the present situation. These documents all post-date that test, and the M-497 was never placed in revenue service. The tracks that it was tested on are currently limited to 79 mph at most. Under current US regulations the tracks which permit regular operation at 125 miles per hour (201 km/h) or higher are Class 7 and above. These are found only in the Northeast Corridor, and given all the attention lavished on that route and all the changes and upgrades found there and nowhere else probably qualify as "specially upgraded." That's the whole point, and that's what differentiates the NEC from passenger routes elsewhere in the United States. No one is claiming that those lines are high-speed. To address your other points, none of the sources brought forward thus far establish average speed as a disqualifying criteria. No source disqualifies the NEC on these "system" grounds; whatever they might be, nor sets a limiting factor for how large a system must be to "qualify" as high-speed rail. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

18 miles of the route is high-speed, of 457. That's under 4%. So that's about the weight the "high speed" claim needs in the lead. See my Switzerland analogy above. Sometimes real life is complicated. We don't do our readers any favours by simplifying to the degree that we mislead, as the current lead does. --John (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither of these is an acceptable source. Vranich's book is from 2004 and was written to advocate the re-privatization of passenger rail in the United States. The Stasiuk book is self-published and to the best of my knowledge Stasiuk is not a recognized expert in rail transportation. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Half right. Stasiuk is self published. Vranich, on the other hand, is an actual expert, albeit one with a definite POV. I've never heard him accused of intellectual dishonesty, though. Taking his point of view with a grain of salt? Yeah, maybe. Saying he was lying? I don't think so. Saying the info is old? Maybe, but...

AMTRAK's own position appears to be that there are now only 35 miles of full-speed track on the whole run...so 12 years and bignum dollars hasn't increased it much. Anmccaff (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

So Amtrak's claim is still under 8%! And of course, they too are an unsatisfactory source for their own achievements. This has now crossed the line into being the most surreal discussion I have had in over 10 years here. --John (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, and this is why I cautioned about Vranich. Definitions matter. Amtrak's specific claim is The Acela Express is the fastest train in the Western Hemisphere, with a normal maximum speed of 150 mph (241 kph) on two sections of its route between Boston and New Haven, CT, (35 total miles). Its top speed is 135 mph (217 kph) between New York, NY, and Washington, DC. The 150 mph standard is of course the minimum for new-build; both the UIC and the EU set 200 kph (124 mph) for specially-upgraded track. A high-speed system comprehends both. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My reading of the European standard,

• specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h,
• specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case,

is that upgraded rail lines are "high-speed" if they are equipped for 200+ km/h along most of the route, except where certain types of constraints, like tunnels, sections that pass through cities, etc. require lower speeds. But if large stretches of the line simply aren't equipped for 200+ km/h, not due to topographical/town-planning/etc. constraints, but rather due to poor infrastructure, then the line doesn't meet the European standard for "high-speed." At least, that's what the two clauses above seem to me to mean. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

We have no source discussing the average speed on the Northeast Corridor, nor the reasons for lower than 200 km/h operation. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Timetables are readily available. Anmccaff (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I have one of my own, albeit from 2010. I'm glad to see one introduced as a source. Stating the maximum track speeds on the corridor would be a start, although we'd simply be speculating on the reasons for them over various stretches. It also doesn't give us the average operating speed of the service. Even if it did, what's somehow missing from this discussion is any source which uses average speed as a definition of high-speed rail. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have another idea then, what about differentiating from the service and the equipment? Make the initial sentence something to the effect of "Acela Express is a passenger train service operated by Amtrak that uses high speed trainsets to provide an express rail service in the Northeast Corridor." It makes no judgement on the system as a whole being high speed which is obviously a point of contention but retains the high speed language to indicate that it has characteristics of unequivocal high speed rail, as well as being unique among Amtrak trains. Obviously the whole kit and caboodle would have to be discussed further later in the article. C628 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No source has been provided which qualifies the high-speed definition based on average speed. We'd be engaging in OR. To the contrary, we have multiple sources which support the original endnote. Mackensen (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside, of course, from OFE, which suggests that if something is "high speed" it ought to go fast, d'ya mean? Anmccaff (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Mackensen, no source uses average speed, but the European definition requires that the upgraded tracks support 200+ km/h over most of the distance, excepting areas with certain constraints (e.g., difficult topography, cities). I don't think Acela meets that standard. There are also the UIC documents which list Acela as "high-speed," but that doesn't appear to be on the basis of any technical definition, and is probably based on Amtrak's designation of Acela. The major sources we have for designating Acela "high-speed" are then Amtrak's own designation, and newspaper articles. But I've cited newspaper articles above that dispute the "high-speed" designation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Folks, this is, as John (talk · contribs) said, getting surreal. We started four days ago arguing about the UIC's definition. I think there's grudging acceptance from most that the Acela falls under the UIC definition, although I think at least one person rejects the UIC's independence. We heard for a little while that the EU's definition was more exclusive. When we actually looked up the EU's definition we found that it matched the UIC's definition. There are now claims that the EU's definition requires that the upgraded tracks support 200+ km/h over most of the distance. No source has been advanced to support this claim. No source uses average speed as a qualifier. Even though we're now awash in technical definitions, Anmccaff now says that we should just use Plain English: which suggests that if something is "high speed" it ought to go fast, d'ya mean. I shouldn't have to state this, but Wikipedia is written from reliable sources; we're not just shooting from the hip. Thucydides411 has raised the point that newspaper articles dispute the "high-speed" designation. This is true. Newspaper articles aren't written by professionals; we discussed all this in August. If we want to use them to discuss the public perception of the service then that's fine. To use them to establish the actual standard for categorizing a service seems unwise, especially when we have better sources available. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Everything you say is true, but we are discussing how to summarise this in the lead. I don't think it's viable to continue to characterise this without qualification as "high-speed"; obviously the various arguments about who does and doesn't call it high-speed, that only a tiny segment of track is actually high-speed, all that, can go in the body. For the lead we can either not mention it at all (favoured by me and User:Ritchie333) or mention the claim but footnote how dubious and marginal the claim is. True, we work from reliable sources, but we need to be careful not to pick reliable sources with the result that we end up saying something silly like "Taiwan is not a country" or "Acela Express is a high-speed line" in the lead. --John (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"High-speed rail" with explanation on the lede is fine, but to say it is not high-speed is also incorrect. Are we still working on the following proposed text?

"The International Union of Railways lists the Acela Express as high-speed rail. However, it is considered "higher speed rail" or "regional high speed rail" according to various US government standards and other definitions of high-speed rail, such as that of the European Union, exclude it altogether."

If so I would add that Acelas is not just high-speed rail by the international standard, but also as per US Federal Law. According to the law (US Code Title 49 § 26105), public ground transportation on rails with service which is "reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more than 125 miles per hour" is a high-speed rail. So we should not mislead that US standards have it only be "higher speed rail" or "regional high speed rail". Acela is in fact the only high-speed rail by US government/legal standard. Z22 (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I am also a bit confused here. If EU Directive includes the high-speed rail definition of 200 km/h (124.274 mph) for upgraded line which is what Acela is on. Therefore, Acela is high-speed as per an international body, European Union, and US Federal Law, right? Acela goes above 124.274 generally speaking everywhere it goes except a portion of Connecticut, so we are not talking about tiny sections. Z22 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on all reliable sources from the above discussion, the text should be more like:

"The International Union of Railways, the European Union and the United States federal statutes qualify Acela Express as high-speed rail. However, there are disputes based on its operating speeds that the service should not be called high-speed."

Then, add a sub-section called "high-speed definition controversies" to the body under the operating speeds section and there we can include reliable sources on both sides of the argument. Z22 (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

No. The statute cited does not define HSR, but projects eligible for planning funding assistance. The (US) Feds use several different speeds, ranging from "above 90" ("emergent"0 to 50. Certain states use others; I think the highest is 165mph.

More importantly, though, there is no dispute that the Acela occasionally does high speed, but rather that it it is not enough to justify calling the service as a whole HSR. Anmccaff (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's clarify each point. The US federal law does "qualify" Acela as high-speed rail. It also does "define" the term of high-speed rail in the context of "high-speed rail" corridor planning and development, and "high-speed rail" technology improvements.

The second point. Your reference to HSR ranging from 90mph is not from the statutes. It was from the "Vision for High-Speed Rail in America" document published by USDOT as a strategic planning document. It is not a legal document and has no bearing on the US federal law.

And what relation do you think "federal law" has on what can be defined as HSR, outside, say, of operating constraints? Anmccaff (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The third point about the occasional high-speed claim. If we use high-speed definition of 124.274mph per EU standard of upgraded lines, Acela is not occasionally high-speed. Acela regularly reaches the speeds between Boston and Connecticut (out of Boston going 125mph up to 150mph, out of Providence around 140-150mph until entering CT), and from New Jerry to Washington DC (north Jersey climbing up to 135mph, from South Jersey to Philly around 125mph, after Philly 125mph, from Wilmington to Washington DC around 135mph). The only segment that is shamefully not high-speed is in New York and Connecticut. Considering the entire length of service, the NY-CT problematic segment is not the majority of the line. Z22 (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If that's true, how does it manage to average 82 mph? --John (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Horriblely run rail line. European and Asian lines make a station stop in seconds. Amtrak trains including Acela make each stop in minutes! A high-speed rail line, yes. A poorly run one, also yes. Z22 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. See the timetable, and note the minimal difference between semi-express and multistop routes.

Easy...it isn't. Amtrak's own CEO states otherwise; see below Anmccaff (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is nonsense. The average mph increased for the entire line by 29% excluding stops (based on refs in the article). That should theoretically bring the avg speeds up from 81.7mph to around 105mph for NYC-D.C. segment. Max 135mph and avg of 105mph if stops are properly managed is not nonsense. Tokaido Shinkansen of 175mph max and 137mph average (78% avg/max) is in line with theoretical 105mph average / 135mph max (about 78% avg/max) if stops are properly managed. Z22 (talk)17:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Mackensen, you're misreading the European definition. It requires that upgraded lines generally support 200+ km/h, which is only true on small segments of the Northeast Corridor. The only exception the European definition gives to that is if there are difficult geographic features, city planning constraints, etc. That isn't the case for Acela - it generally travels at less than 200+ km/h because the infrastructure hasn't been sufficiently upgraded. Maybe certain sections of Acela's route meet the European definition, but most of it doesn't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Small segments on NEC that support 124.247mph? How many miles are small segments? From Washington DC to Willington excluding Susquehanna bridge is about 105 miles. From Philadelphia to Elizabeth NJ excluding Trenton and Morris Interlocking is around 66 miles. From after Connecticut to Boston is 72 miles. So about 243 miles of speed limit above EU definition is not small segments. Total is more than half of length. Z22 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't find a good source that lists the speed limit along each segment, but according to this chart, the speed limit on the Northeast Corridor is only above 200 km/h for about 55 miles between NYC and Boston, which is less than a quarter of the total distance. Basically, Acela travels above 200 km/h through part of RI and MA, but not at all in Connecticut or NY state. The Philadelphia to DC stretch is better, with about three quarters of that stretch being above 200 km/h. From NYC to Philadelphia, the speed limit passes the 200 km/h mark for about 30 miles, out of about 80 miles total. So there's an argument to be made that Acela is high-speed between Philadelphia and DC, but that argument is harder to make elsewhere along the Northeast Corridor. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to also account for the exception of lower speeds due to "topological, relief or town-planning constrains ... and line through stations ... at conventional speed by 'high-speed' rolling stock." This is pretty much saying that there is an understandable exception of lower speeds when accessing through the city cores. You don't expect to have speed limit of 124.247mph though stations at major cities. Let's re-analyze your finding case by case. For Boston to mile 84, the entire segment should be covered under the definition with exception to account for Boston and Providence city core access. So we are talking about 72 miles, not just 55 miles. For NY to Philly, the entire stretch from Elizabeth to Philly excluding Trenton and Morris Interlocking should be covered to account for Elizabeth and Philadelphia cores. That's another 66 miles, not just the 30 miles. For Philly to DC, the entire stretch from Wilmington to DC should be cover to account for Wilmington, Baltimore and DC cores. However, the Susquehanna beige is infrastructure related issue so we take about 9 miles off. That comes down to 105 miles. Total is 243 miles which is more than half of Boston to DC. Z22 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, going back to the lede thing, I like the new sentence. Looks like a good compromise without keeping this debate going forever:

The Acela Express (/əˈsɛlə/ ə-sel-ə; colloquially abbreviated to Acela) is Amtrak's flagship, which contains segments of high-speed rail service along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) in the Northeast United States...

Make sense, right? I still like to propose an explicit named sub-section under operating speeds section to discuss the disputes (by the sources, not by us) of whether it is high-speed so that we have both sides of the argument there. I'm getting tired of coming back here at the talk page every month or so. Let's get it out there on the article. Z22 (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks for grammar purposes, but I think it does address most issues. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the lede is much better now. I added in a few commas where they were warranted, but didn't make any larger changes. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

49 USC 261

The cited "125" isn't a direct definition of high speed rail, or of the US federal government's definition of it, but of what the fed's will assist in paying for. The "125 mph" is specifically identified as "For purposes of this chapter", not universal. Anmccaff (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

PS:Note also that the chapter specifically excludes the NEC. Anmccaff (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your excellent finding is noted. At this point, I don't think we expect to use this reference in this article. My guess is that there is no context to continue a discussion about this particular US code to further improve this article. On a side note, your edit (with some minor tweaks by other editors) seemed to be sufficient to solve the problem with the lede to the point that a few other editors agreed that the new lede is much better. Z22 (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the edit to remove a sentence that claims about 125 mph. Since the ref doesn't directly say that, the removal of that sentence should be fine unless someone has a better reference that has the same claim. Z22 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed simply to keep it from spreading further before necessary nuance is added to it. This section of the US Code does suggest, strongly, very strongly, that Congress sees 125mph -or higher as the floor for new HSR, but it isn't directly stating that; it is merely saying that if you grant funds appropriated for HSR planning for a system than can not reasonably expect to make 125, you can be sent to jail. Anmccaff (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Post-9/11 security contributing to success?

A real part of the Acela's success was the terror attack on the World Trade Center. Shouldn't it reflect here somehow? With increased airport security, the time difference between a flight and a trainride diminished drastically, and the risks of something horrible happening to a train are, of course, intrinsically less. Anmccaff (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If you can source it, then it should be added. PS, I changed the sectio beader to be more descriptive of the question, per the talk page guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

March 2017 Acela Derailment at Penn Station

Is it worth adding a section under "notable incidents" to cover this derailment? As far as I can find, it's the first derailment of the Acela and, along with the NJT derailment days later, has led to considerable attention paid to NYC rail infrastructure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overturn 91 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Acela Express. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?mid=860
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207140808/http://www.empire.state.ny.us/moynihanstation/default.asp to http://www.empire.state.ny.us/moynihanstation/default.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.axthetax.org/commuter-rail/_12.html

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) 10:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acela Express. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5mqx3xasj?url=http://www.axthetax.org/commuter-rail/_12.html to http://www.axthetax.org/commuter-rail/_12.html

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) 23:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Operating speeds/speed limit sections

Hello! I just added some new, updated information to the Speed limits section, and I realized this section is very similar to the Operating speeds section. Should these be merged? Daybeers (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Any thoughts on this? Daybeers (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Length of 150 mph sections

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I'm a little confused at what to put for how long the Acela reaches 150 mph. I changed it a few weeks ago to what it currently says, 33.9 miles, because that's what it says in the cited employee timetable. I don't think that is correct, however. Some other sources say it's only about 28 miles. Can someone help me with this? Also with deciding what to do with the operating speeds section, discussed above. Daybeers (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Station stops

Look, it lacks a citation. It does not get a "bye". Put up a citation and it can stay. QED. Markvs88 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is already cited in the article multiple times. And in the general references in the fitters. Just because you don't bother reading the whole article doesn't mean it isn't there. Now, more importantly, once reverted you should not remove it again. oknazevad (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not how this works, I am in full compliance with the citation policy and I'm surprised an editor of your experience is making this arguement. The list of stations needs a citation, period. Alternatively, you may restore it and tag it with an Unreferenced section tag, but you have no right whatsoever to tell anyone that a whole section doesn't need citation on your say-so. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a citation, or more properly an additional call to a reference already in the article, yet you still removed the material without looking. Come off it. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it was a dead link. I fixed it, but have deleted all of the non-Amtrak content out of the rightmost chunk of the table as it is not referenced from that source. Markvs88 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

You really need to stop this deletionist behavior. Try looking for sources before simply deleting content that has been in articles that are established. You need a better reason. - Morphenniel (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Morphenniel. No, I do not, and I suspect you know that. However, now that the section has a citation I can now look it over for errors in content and will not erase the entire table. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've never liked the inclusion of these station stop lists on individual train articles (see my comment in 2013 at Talk:Capitol Limited#Station stops). It's crufty. It's definitely not sourced to Amtrak's timetable--not all the bus connections. It's a horrible violation of the principle that Wikipedia is not a timetable. Those details belong on the individual station articles, if at all, and all the stations are already linked from the route map in the infobox. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Mackensen, I've made the edit and have accordingly removed all non-Amtrak content. I don't know how much of it was inaccurate, but it appears that at least *some* of it was. Markvs88 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the station lists can be useful, though not when they're overloaded by a preponderance of local transit. (In particular, for routes where there have been station change, open/close dates can be made clear in a table whereas they might get lost in the text.) Perhaps the local transit could be reduced to just the operators/systems (MBTA Bus, PATH, NYC Subway, Amtrak Thruway Motorcoach, etc) - that would be much more compact, changes only rarely compared to listing all routes, fully possible to cite, and would strike a balance by providing useful information without merging on being a travel guide. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I could see adding other railroads that operate on the same tracks (LIRR, Metro North, Shoreline East, etc), but IMO all of the ground transportation in an article about a specific train is way off topic. IE: the New Haven Union Station had a "connection" entry for a shuttlebus to a parking garage(!). That sort of thing should remain in station articles. Markvs88 (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a shuttle bus doesn't need to be included, but I like Pi's idea of including operators/systems. On another note, when you saw that dead link that is already called in many places in the article, you didn't think to update it or even fill in the reference aside from just the bare link? Maybe rethink that decision when you decide to personally attack other editors, as you did in this edit. Thank you. –Daybeers (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I can get behind other operators on the rails as described above, as this is a train service article. As for that: I left it alone to see if the other editors were interested in actually improving the article or just fighting me over a sacred cow. Given the amount of time that passed, I have that answer. Calling that a personal attack giving a pass on the prior edit summaries ("blindly reverting" "stop edit warring" "ou really think ") after I'd pointed out above in this very talk that I would have been happy with a CN tag or a valid source is weak. Markvs88 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Local transit connections are a large part of last-mile transportation from train stations, so I think that might be valuable information to include. In regards to not addressing other personal attacks, I would agree that some of the editors involved in this situation haven't used the best choice of words. However, seeing one editor attack another doesn't make it okay for a spectator to do so. Additionally, if you would have been okay with an unreferenced section tag, why not start with that before deleting the entire section? –Daybeers (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, in the station articles it makes sense. In this article IMO it doesn't make sense to include anything that wouldn't ride on the same rails as a connection. For an example, no one adds what's off of every exit on the highway articles, nor how to claim their bags on airliner articles. Other Amtrak articles like Vermonter (train) and Keystone Service don't have a station list (much less connection information). Thank you, I appreciate your recognizing that, and I don't disagree with you regarding reprisal.

Why didn't I tag it? Easy: I'm sick of things like Williams School (Connecticut), where I tagged an article 8 years ago and uncited cruft keeps getting added back in, which is exactly what the IP editor did before I blanked the section. The station stops section had been around for years without a citation, and per wp:burden there really shouldn't have been any controversy with deleting it. Markvs88 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think other editors should weight in on the connections piece. Regarding tagging, I think the bigger issue here is you did nothing about a reference used several times in the article whose link you knew was dead. And you surely didn't need to delete the entire station stops section, only the parts that were going to be more difficult and possibly infeasible to cite. –Daybeers (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I am all for reaching a consensus, but I would only take issue if the consensus goes for inclusion and the old listing is put back in without sources. Re the "bigger issue" -- again, I wanted to see if anyone else cared to actually improve the article or not. Last time I looked, this isn't a paid gig and I'm under no contract that I must edit *your way*. Surely, I did need to delete the entire station stops section as it was wholly unverifiable. Once Oknazevad put the link to the timetable (note my prior entry of "what timetable?" in the history!) I had something to work with. Markvs88 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Acela Nonstop

The newly-announced Acela Nonstop service (nonstop between NYC and DC), will we mention it in this article or will we create a new article solely about it (treating it not as a varient of Acela Express, but as a unique service)? SecretName101 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's just a regular Acela train making no intermediate stops. Worth a sentence or two here and that's all the coverage it needs on Wikipedia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Name of train

According to Amtrak's website here, it appears the name of the train has been shortened from Acela Express to Acela. This article should probably be moved to Acela to reflect the new name and all mentions of "Acela Express" on Wikipedia should be shortened to the new name. Dough4872 15:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Does seem to be the case. I'd like to see a news release from Amtrak before changing anything. I suppose someone could ping media relations. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I do not see any press releases from Amtrak mentioning the name change. However, the name change is probably nothing but a cosmetic change (since a lot of people probably just called it the Acela anyway) that there may not be a press release. Dough4872 21:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Once/if it becomes firmly clear that the name is changing, we should consider taking the opportunity to create separate articles for the service and the equipment. It's very possible that like Metroliner, the histories of the service and the equipment will diverge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535:, @Dough4872:, @Mackensen: I tried to move the page to “Acela” a few weeks back, and it didn’t let me. But if you check the official route page, the booking page, an e-ticket, or the signs onboard, you’ll see that the “Express” has been dropped. I’m on the train now and can testify to this. I doubt they’re going to put out a press release about this, since it’s a pretty minor change. I see no reason to wait to move the page. Cpotisch (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the marketing change. I have no objection to a move at this time, although we'll want to respect historical usage and note the former name. It's likely to remain common usage for the foreseeable future. Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Pi.1415926535, what was your idea for separating the articles for service and equipment? – Daybeers (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)