Talk:Amtrak Cascades/Archive 1

Archive 1

Amtrak Cascades

I moved this back to Amtrak Cascades because it seems to always be called that, even in places like [1] where nothing else has Amtrak before. --SPUI (talk) 20:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is my source for the information as well. If even Amtrak calls it the Amtrak Cascades, they by golly they should know. BobGreenwade 16:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• The station personnel refer to the trains as "the Cascades", including in announcements. IMO, this is what they should be called and Amtrak is wrong to put their name where it doesn't belong. "I rode Amtrak's Empire Builder train" sounds OK, "I rode Amtrak's Amtrak Cascades train" doesn't. ...Actually, I wonder if they got the idea from Amtrak California? If so, the thing is that there aren't any trains called the Amtrak Califorina; it is instead a group of train services with their own names.--Jason McHuff 01:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Station Stops and schedule

I'd like to come up with a table of station stops and scheduling that indicates how a trainset travels throughout the day - the current list of train numbers isn't very readable. I'm looking for something similar to work from, but having little luck. If someone else has any ideas as to how to do this, please discuss them here.

When Station Stops get an overhaul, I plan to place it nearer to the top again.

Uh, that's a bit too much info. There's no point in having the exact times; it will be less up-to-date than the official site. --SPUI (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The official site only shows this information via PDF (which many users can't view, especially from public computers), and it's updated once a year. The schedule I've made will be valid until July of 2006. The current paragraph on station stops is confusing and poorly written.Bensch 14:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

While this much is true, it would be a bit much to include here for several reasons: first, to be of equal use to everyone someone would have to do this for every route on the system; second, the times do periodically change in mid-season (twice a year, not annually, by the way); third, the format may likewise not be readable on all computers (though I don't consider that a serious concern here); and fourth, if someone's using a public computer without Adobe Acrobat Reader installed they can still get the full published schedule sent in the mail for free (not to mention that we should wonder why anyone would put up a public-access computer without Acrobat Reader).BobGreenwade 16:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just come up with a better paragraph then. Bob, SPUI, any comments on what I've done so far (criticism appreciated, this is the first time I've done any major article edits)? What would you like to see next? I'd like to do a history of the route from 1993 on, but I'm not sure where to put it - if it got its own section, I can see quite a bit of duplication being likely, but it doesn't seem to fit either in the base article or in the partnership section. Any advice? --Bensch 16:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Point Defiance Bypass and Vancouver Rail Project maps are from the Washington State Department of Transportation, a public agency, and can be used. Please note the discussion comments in the Pt. Defiance Bypass image page.--Bensch 23:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

From: http://wsdot.wa.gov/privacy.htm: All of the information collected at this site becomes public records that may be subject to inspection and copying by members of the public, unless an exemption in law exists. The provisions of RCW 42.17. 260(1) state that: "Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section [RCW 42.17.260(6)], RCW 42.17.310, 42.17.315, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by RCW 42.17.310 and 42.17.315, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with RCW 42.17.310 and 42.17.315 when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing." --Bensch 23:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Public record is a completely separate thing from public domain (copyright). The site says "Copyright WSDOT © 2005" at the bottom. Unless it is released under a suitable license that allows commercial use we cannot use it. --SPUI (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I've contacted the WSDOT Ombudsman's office. I will get specific permission, how would I indicate that here? --Bensch 23:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Specific permission is not enough. Wikipedia is meant for wide distribution in many forms. --SPUI (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted to the version with your image. I'll talk to the WSDOT about releasing their page contents into the public domain (or find case law if such exists), and I'll be more careful about that in the future. By the way, that's a great image you made - how'd you do it? --Bensch 00:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Inkscape is good for making SVGs (though I actually used Macromedia Freehand, then converted to SVG in Adobe Illustrator, then did final editing in Inkscape; I don't know the details of embedding Images in Inkscape). As for the base map, that's from TerraServer-USA. --SPUI (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was more curious about where you got the alignment. I'm still waiting on information requests from both WSDOT and Sound Transit on exactly where the connection between the Lakeview subdivision and the Freighthouse Square alignment will be. --Bensch 00:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I do question whether specific permission is not enough. It looks like there's precedent of that here.

The main argument there is for fair use. The permission is secondary. --SPUI (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the citation of 623,000 riders in Fiscal 2005, as there is no quoted source and I can't find one. --Bensch

I've added back the 623,000 riders in FY 2005 with a reference. --callmematthew

Please cite Amtrak's funding of one Cascades round trip. --Bensch

Anyone care to discuss problems of Amtrak timekeeping and its causes? --Dampflok (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Funding

"Funding for the route is provided separately by the states of Oregon and Washington, with Union Station in Portland serving as the dividing point between the two. As of July 1, 2006, Washington state has funded four daily round trips between Seattle and Portland. Washington also funds two daily round trips between Seattle and Bellingham, with one of them extending north to Vancouver, BC. Oregon funds two daily round trips between Eugene and Portland."

I thought Amtrak funded one round trip between Seattle and Portland, and Washington funded the other three? Anyone have a citation for the claim of 4 trains funded by Washington? Alphalife (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I happened to check out ODOT's passenger rail page, and take a look at this. It says "Amtrak Funded Trains" "Represents trains 500 (Pdx-Sea) and 509 (Sea-Pdx)." Jason McHuff (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Times

Shouldn't this article give roughly how long it takes between the major stops, and consequently the average speed? TastyCakes (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Seems pointless having an article about a railway service and not mentioning the stops, times and speed. I did eventually find a sentence saying 3 hours 30 minutes for the whole journey. Is that right? That's 3 hours 30 minutes for a 150 mile journey? Are trains really that slow in North America? I was expecting an hour and a half tops.--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 00:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed rail is that slow in the U.S. with a top speed of 70 miles per hour (110 km/h) on level ground and maybe 35 miles per hour (56 km/h) where there are curves. That's why trains get very little use. Well, they also don't go very many places that people want to go, and they are quite expensive compared to driving, buses, etc. —EncMstr (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't quite right. Rail speed limits in the United States may be helpful. On tracks without ATC or the equivalent the maximum passenger speed is 79 mph. That's a less a technical limitation than a safety precaution. Several routes have been upgraded to 90 or 110; the Northeast Corridor ranges from 125 to 150. The Cascades terrain is quite hilly, equivalent to Austria. High speed rail of any kind would be prohibitively expensive. Note also that the full length of this corridor is 467 miles, and there's a customs check for those trains traveling to and from Canada. No trains travel the full length from Eugene to Vancouver. Eugene-Seattle, which is direct, is 6 hours 30 minutes. Over 310 miles that's an average of 47 mph, including stopovers. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Image in the infobox

I still haven't got any answers about this;

Where is this train?

Is that image at King Street Station or somewhere else? The image has been tagged for renaming, and I'd like to be able to give it an appropriate one. ----DanTD (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is King Street. Alphalife (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish I had read this message earlier. ----DanTD (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Start year

The article previously claimed that this route began in 1993. I'm not sure where 1993 comes from; the first trial run of Talgo equipment wasn't until 1994 and even then the Cascades brand isn't introduced until 1998 when the new US-assembled equipment began running. I think there are two correct answers for the route's start date: 1971, when Amtrak took over from the private railroads; or 1998, when the new equipment and brand were introduced. I think it makes more sense to treat this as a corridor, and to fix the start date at 1971. Otherwise, we should spin off Mount Rainier (train) into its own article. There are definitely enough sources to make that work. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Proposed changes

The section's getting really unwieldy and combines both long- and short-term projects. Some of these are completed and some of them aren't and I'm not convinced that all of them (e.g. the various grade separations) are even notable. Does anyone have any bright ideas for a reorganization? Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

An easy start would be to ditch the bullet points. Paragraphs look better than bullets, take up less room (because the bullets don't occupy full rows like text do, plus they're spaced wider), and make it easier to incorporate images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Map

Hi I prepared the map for article - I will be glad for help from editors with two matters:

• Fixing minor bugs in map (mainly track aligment in cities) - please add comment with innacurancies on WikiCommons discussion page of map
• Selecting the right place for map in article

Thanks Jkan997 (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• The map looks good, but is it necessary? It largely duplicates the station listing, admittedly with geographic context. There's the added issue that the current placement causes images from the history section to get moved to the wrong place. I've corrected that with {{stack}}, but it's still not ideal. It's often quite difficult to work tall images into articles. Mackensen (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

between Lakewood and Olympia

Appears, rather, between Dupont and Lacey, no? Anmccaff (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)