Talk:Northeast Corridor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Clocker

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (?).Conrail System Map Showing The Proposed Allocation Of Conrail Lines & Rights, July 9, 1997 --NE2 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NEC endpoints and branches

message: 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)
replies: text: Map still needs updating. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Love the map!

message: 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)
thread_title: Height Restrictions

message: 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)
thread_title: Amtrak and Massachusetts

message: 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)
thread_title: Number of parallel tracks

message: 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)
thread_title: Bridges

message: 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)
thread_title: Electrification

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why does the NY-Boston section average only 80 kph?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  K Tower caption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statistics incongruent? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chronological order 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Station Listing Inconsistencies 

message: [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)
replies: text: i agree with you, so i fix it. SRich (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  P&W owns part of the corridor? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Northeast Corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110207210953/http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/Gateway.pdf to http://lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/Gateway.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Freerepublic.Com? Seriously? 

message: Please refrain from adding references or citations from conspiracy web sites. Damotclese (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  freerepublic.com is not a valid reference or citation source 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150513191336/http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=%28select+2724%29 to http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-RAILROAD&query=%28select+2724%29
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150908212202/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110509/midtown/new-york-awarded-350-million-for-highspeed-rail-projects to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20110509/midtown/new-york-awarded-350-million-for-highspeed-rail-projects
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930021404/http://www.northeastbizalliance.org/blog/ to http://www.northeastbizalliance.org/blog/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ACSES not accurate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Northeast Corridor reversion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CN tag spamming 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Datecomma 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Insert "BOSNYWASH?"