Talk:Cardinal (train)

message: I have ridden this train. I ran out of steam writing about the beauty of Wilmington, Delaware, where lot's of Amtrak's unrepaired equipment can be seen. By the time I got to New Jersey, I just ran out of words to describe the "beauty" of Newark, New Jersey, etc. I almost made it to New York. Maybe someone else can help finish this article!!
Vaoverland 12:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really...subsidizing mass transportation is not the proper role of govenrment. Kurt Weber 21:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The article doesn't make clear whether the Hoosier State service is subsidized by the State of Indiana or not. Some googling doesn't turn up anything, but the frequency of service given the length and population is suspiciously high, so some sort of explanation (if one exists) would be useful. --Delirium 23:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of Indiana subsidizing any Amtrak runs.  The NICTD runs the South Shore Line from Chicago to South Bend, but that's a different thing (to them). --plaws 23:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsidized?

message: I'm reading through the discussion about 
about trains vs routes vs trainsets and have to say, the Hoosier State and the Cardinal are two different trains, serving different customers (leaving aside that the former is mostly a way for Amtrak to move equipment from Chicago to the Beech Grove shop!) that happen to share a route.  This is not like Acela and this is not like the Cal Zephyr.  SPLIT THEM!  --plaws 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement! these are two different trains, we should have separate articles. Tomas417 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you and I are, apparently, the only ones that care, I'll start splitting the articles ... --plaws 16:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the flames begin.  It's done.  --plaws 17:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again 

message: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=James%20Whitcomb%20Riley lists the service as stopping in Muncie, Indiana at one time.  Perhaps someone can give some details on this?  --70.228.177.119 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears it took that route from 1974 to 1985: see http://www.delgreenways.org/History/depot_story.htm  --69.205.54.39 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This post indicates that the train went through Muncie until April 1986.  --IndyHiker2008 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical route -- Muncie? 

message: The image :File:CardinalLineLogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:CardinalLineLogo.png

message: I'd like to see a different image used in the infobox on this article. My problem with the current image (top left) is that it shows a GE Genesis pulled up at Charlottesville with four Amfleets and a Viewliner. This could be almost any train in the east. There is nothing about this picture that says "I'm the Cardinal." Whatever benefits Amtrak derives from using common rolling stock throughout the system it does make it harder for an individual train to stand out.
That's why I'd like to substitute the second image, which shows the Cardinal in the New River Gorge. The geography of the route is its most positive distinctive aspect, and it makes sense to me to show the Cardinal in that setting instead of the classic trackside shot, which adds very little to the article.  has objected that the train is hard to see in this image. That's certainly true at the 300px constraint but the actual image (3888x2592) shows the train quite well, and more importantly to me shows it in the middle of a distinguishing geographic feature of the route.
Anyway, I'd like to have a third opinion and I'm quite willing to be overridden. There could probably be better pictures from the Gorge but I think any picture meeting the characteristics I've outlined above would be an upgrade. Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to suggest this Creative Commons-licensed image from Flickr as an alternative: . Bitmapped (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good catch--I've uploaded that one to commons as well. I could definitely live with that one. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That third option is definitely the winner. I prefer to show the train in full view (i.e, the first over the second) but the third combines a  close view of the train with a station served only by it - in a very attractively laid out picture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image to use in infobox 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Cardinal (train)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "FY2013":
From Piedmont (train): 
From San Joaquin (train): 
From Downeaster: 
From Capitol Corridor: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Cardinal (train)]] 

message: I'm on mobile and unable to check all the numbers correctly, but the current version of the page lists the change from FY2019 to FY2020 as 209578->63223 (down 40.0%). That math is obviously not correct, so I went to check the references. The link to Railway Age did not resolve correctly, but looking at the FY2020 report from Amtrak themselves lists ridership on the Cardinal as 105364->63223 which IS a 40.0% decrease. Looking at the FY2019 references, it's clear that for at least some years the Capitol Limited line item was listed on this page instead of the Cardinal (in 2019 the Capitol Limited was listed as 209578 in the FY2019 report, although slightly revised in the FY2020 report).
2601:143:8000:4780:148B:92D:49C6:A035 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridership numbers mismatch