# Talk:Amfleet

Even 16-foot tall Superliners fit "under catenary" (overhead electrification) at Washington Union Station and possibly other locations.  This comment in the Usage section needs to be clarified.
71.241.74.20 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what needs to be clarified beyond the fact that it's the Baltimore and New York City tunnels that restrict the use of tall cars.  Superliners do indeed serve Washington Union Station.  --KJRehberg (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
What needs to be clarified, as you noted, is that it's the tunnels and not the overhead wires that are the factor in the special usage of the Amfleet cars; there are also certain low-clearance bridges, and of course high platforms, since Superliners can use only low platforms.  This is not exclusive to Amfleet either, since Viewliner, Horizon and (what's left of) Heritage fleets share that usage from time to time.
71.181.174.226 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how this fits into encyclopedic content, especially at the opening of the article.  Perhaps it needs to be purged?
70.105.198.155 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
'Canned' AmcanLorenzoB (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone sneaked references to "Amcans" and "Amtubes" into the end of the introductory paragraph, with an offhand comparison to the Horizon cars, which came years after the Amfleet's introduction and are not understood to be a comparative reference for the purpose of generating "in-joke" nicknames.  This isn't a railfan's reference; it's general.
71.241.74.20 (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

How come Amtrak never made Amfleet sleeping cars? (The closest that I can think of is that Amfleet business car with that silly porch, and that doesn't really count.)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Train equipment lasts a long time if maintained and Amtrak has limited funds so it has not been able to update equipment as often as it would like to.  This meant that the Heritage fleet of sleepers were used until the Viewliner sleepers were built.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.147.58 (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone added this info table to the page.  The info should really go into the infobox (most of it already is), but I didn't want to just delete it all so I'm reproducing it here in case anyone wants to add the bits back in places. 

Please list in detail the issues that need to be resolved.  Maintenance tags should not be splattered all over articles merely because they could be improved.  Maintenance tags are for seriously deficient articles where the public needs to be warned not to rely upon them.  I do not think this one is so bad, but am open to being convinced. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 17:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As a note, before getting started, I erred in my initial edit. I meant to simply restore the tags and accidentally reverted the entire edit instead. I have no qualms with the change to the lede. As for the issues outstanding:
References: The usage section is entirely uncited. The Car types section is almost entirely uncited, except where I have added citations. The paint schemes section is entirely uncited. The specifications and build section is almost entirely uncited. This is an article where the references could and should be improved. That is what these tags are for. I don't accept your qualification that maintenance tags are for "seriously deficient" articles; I don't think that understanding is accepted by the community. That said, an article where well over half the content is uncited probably meets your more stringent standard.
Tone: This is better than it was, but the paint schemes section in particular is conversational and feels like railfan lore (which I've been trying to stamp out).
Out of date information. This is less serious than before, but the Usage section isn't anchored in time and therefore is wide open to outdated information. It should be refactored.
These are all problems and are tagged accordingly, as a warning to readers and as an invitation to editors. If you think these templates are overused then you should go gain consensus for your view but I don't think it's one that's widely shared. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
How about instead of passive aggressively tagging issues you fix them yourself?Sturmovik (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, a few things on that. Number one, I'm not the original adder of the tags ([1]). though I agree with them. Number two, I'm not the one who added the unreferenced information. Number three, if you examine the article history, you'll see that I rewrote the history section with references, thereby dealing with part of the problem. I regret that I have not had time to complete my work, though I am always happy to collaborate with others. Like everyone else, I have real-life commitments and cannot do everything at once. In particular, I spent most of the last few months, when I was editing at all, dealing with Oanabay04's massive copyright infringement (said issue remains unresolved but progress has been made). Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe I have now addressed all these issues; I have removed all the tags. There are still some fact tags but they don't justify the big maintenance tags. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately all our images of Amfleets appear to be of coaches and the modern configurations of cafes and dinettes. I'll try to dig up a free image of a lounge or club car. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions that proposals for Amfleet replacement are due in by May 2019. Now it's July. Was there any word on what came by then?
70.77.36.121 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)