Talk:Capitol Corridor

message: This article conflicts with the Pacific Surfliner article in its first paragraph because it claims the Capitol Corridor is the third-busiest Amtrak route after the Northeast Corridor and the Pacific Surfliner.
However, the Pacific Surfliner article claims in its lead paragraph that it, also, is the third busiest route, behind the Northeast Corridor and the Keystone Service.
I'll try to do some research to find out the true ranking, and then I reckon I'll try my first significant edit as a Wikipedian. :-)
Anyway, this is also me trying out the talk page. Hope everyone is well! Comodude 01:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Capitol Corridor is the third busiest Amtrak route, because I found one article said that the Keystone service had a ridership of 1,068,572 in FY2005  and Capitol Corridor had the ridership of 1,260,249 in the same fiscal year . So we can safely and correctly say that the Capitol Corridor is the third busiest Amtrak route. --Will74205 08:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked at Amtrak's January 2006 report  on page 26 and confirmed that Pacific Surfliner is indeed number two and the Capitol Corridor is number three, so I'll make an edit on the Pacific Surfliner page with a correction. - Comodude 03:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Really the third busiest line?

message: I have a schedule right in front of me that says the length of th eline is only 170 miles, not the longer distance stated in the article.  That seems more reasonable for San Jose to Auburn anyway--does anyone know the reason for the discrepancy? -- SCZenz 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is from Sparks, NV to San Jose, CA, as listed on the simplified Amtrak schedule on Amtrak's website. Should we just list the length between the stations that have regular train services? --Will74205 21:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are currently no Capitol Corridor trains outside the SJ-Auburn route—so that seems to be the sensible distance to give. -- SCZenz 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!--Will74205 06:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length? 

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

message: :Image:Capitollogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Capitollogo.gif

message: No mention is made of the speed of the trains on this line.  71.139.18.11 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would need to find a good source to add it to the article, but I recall reading that the maximum speed along a few stretches is 79 mph. There was talk of the state of California funding some signaling improvements to increase the amount of trackage with that limit, but no serious talk as far as I know of supporting maximum speeds above that. For the core Sacramento<->San Jose route, the average speed (including stops) is 43 mph, according to the fastest published itinerary (133 miles in 3 hours, 5 mins). --Delirium (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum Speed of the Trains 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Capitol Corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011095434/http://www.capitolcorridor.org:80/about_ccjpa/message_to_riders/issue17_04jun.php to http://www.capitolcorridor.org/about_ccjpa/message_to_riders/issue17_04jun.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061013025022/http://www.capitolcorridor.org:80/about_ccjpa/press_room/060609_ServiceExpansion.php to http://www.capitolcorridor.org/about_ccjpa/press_room/060609_ServiceExpansion.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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