Jump to content

Talk:Empire Service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Train numbers

[edit]
# freq from to notes ca. 1999
48 7D BUF NYP Lake Shore Limited
49 7D NYP BUF Lake Shore Limited
63 7D NYP NFL Maple Leaf
64 7D NFL NYP Maple Leaf
68 7D SDY NYP Adirondack
69 WD NYP SDY Adirondack
71 WE NYP SDY Adirondack
238 WE ALB NYP
240 WD ALB NYP
242 WD ALB NYP Hudson Valley Service ALB-NYP
244 Sa ALB NYP Hudson Valley Service ALB-NYP
246 WD ALB NYP Hudson Valley Service SDY-NYP
248 7D ALB NYP Hudson Valley Service ALB-NYP
250 gone Hudson Valley Service ALB-NYP
251 WD NYP ALB Hudson Valley Service NYP-ALB
254 Sa-M ALB NYP Hudson Valley Service ALB-NYP
255 F NYP ALB
256 Su-F ALB NYP
257 WD NYP ALB
259 WD NYP ALB Hudson Valley Service NYP-SDY
260 T-F ALB NYP
262 Su-F ALB NYP
264 gone Hudson Valley Service ALB-NYP
265 Sa-R NYP ALB Hudson Valley Service NYP-ALB
267 WD NYP ALB Hudson Valley Service NYP-ALB
268 Su NFL NYP
269 WE NYP ALB
271 WD NYP ALB Hudson Valley Service NYP-ALB
272 Sa ALB NYP
273 M-R NYP ALB
275 WE NYP ALB
277 F-Su NYP ALB Hudson Valley Service NYP-ALB
279 WE NYP ALB
280 Sa NFL NYP
281 WD NYP NFL Mohawk NYP-NFL
282 Su NFL NYP
283 7D NYP NFL Empire State Express NYP-NFL
284 WD NFL NYP Mohawk NFL-NYP
286 M-Sa NFL NYP Empire State Express NFL-NYP
287 WE NYP NFL Water Level Express NYP-NFL
288 Su NFL NYP Water Level Express NFL-NYP
289 gone Oneida NYP-SYR
291 Sa-R NYP SDY Ethan Allen Express
292 M SDY NYP Ethan Allen Express
293 F NYP SDY Ethan Allen Express
294 T-F SDY NYP Ethan Allen Express
296 WE SDY NYP Ethan Allen Express

I'm confused as heck in providing the corrected information for the bus services at the three Buffalo Amtrak Stations;

Niagara Falls should include NFTA 52

Buffalo/Exchange should include NFTA 6, 7, 8, 14, 16, 36

Buffalo/Depew should include NFTA 6B, 6C, 6D

Allamericanbear 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit tag

[edit]

I'm finding a lot of articles (including this one) which have been tagged for Copy editing without any obvious reason. Am I missing something or is there an over-zealous tagger out there? Biscuittin (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only guess on this specific article is that it's a bit list heavy. Slambo (Speak) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dining

[edit]

There is the claim that there is no dining between New York and Albany. Is that only true for trains limited to that distance? What about snack car service in through trains that continue to Montreal or Buffalo?Dogru144 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrified route

[edit]

The wikipedia article on railroad electrification in the United States says the following about electrification of the Hudson Line of Metro North, south from Croton Harmon: The Hudson Division electrified line is still in use by Amtrak for inter-city passenger service. Metro-North Railroad, a commuter railroad, uses both Divisions and has extended electrification. Do the Amtrak engines have dual use (diesel and electric?).Dogru144 (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:NJT Arrows III ALP-44.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higher speed

[edit]

I clocked the train at 110 on a small stretch south of albany. In a few other places it goes 90 or so. Why I am I finding train/transit data so lacking of late. Where are the geeks? It shouldn't take a GPS to figure out how fast a train goes. Rail speed limits aren't decided on the fly. B137 (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page says elsewhere that the trains reach 110 on a section north of Albany, since it says between Albany and Schenectady. This could be more recent since that's where it needed double tracking in 2011? B137 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's correct to call this "higher speed" service. There are a couple of short 110 mph (180 km/h) sections, and a longer 90 mph (140 km/h), but most of it is 79 mph (127 km/h).[1] GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Empire Service (train). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 April 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to the plain title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Empire Service (train) → Empire Service – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC move: 66 views per day versus 4 and 0.1 Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, the Empire Service is the exact title of the Empire Service (radio), please see books: The Empire Service was established in 1932. As the name implies, the motivation behind this English-language service was to maintain contact with the many parts of the far-flung British Empire. Foreign language broadcasting was begun in 1938 with an Arabic service directed to the Middle East. It was largely a response to the propaganda broadcasts of Radio Bari, Italy, which were relayed on shortwave from Rome. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not where the article is. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is Hurricane at Hurricane. Where we place articles does not change the meaning of terms in the real world. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is inapposite; hurricane is a common name in present-day use. Empire Service is not. Mackensen (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, target is a dab page A long scale but still relevant case of WP:RECENT "Empire Service was" clearly refers to the Empire Service not to the 1967 Amtrak route. No one outside New York State would think of this even if it gets more page views (which it doesn't 1000 page views a day for the radio service is more than 66), it clearly doesn't pass WP:PRIMARYTOPIC In ictu oculi (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't nearly so clear as you're claiming. Said redirect didn't exist until you created it today. BBC World Service was linked from the dab page, and the dab page has almost zero traffic. The readership on BBC World Service isn't relevant unless people are getting there via "Empire Service", and they aren't. The radio service hasn't been named "Empire Service" since 1939. I think a rail service introduced by the New York Central in 1967, which has been known continuously by that name through two changes of ownership for 51 years and counting, can make a claim for PRIMARYTOPIC over a disused name which lasted for 6 years and has been known by different names for 79. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It exists in books, i.e. the real world. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2012/8674.html And per search results in books the Empire Service is more notable than the train. And the Empire Service article gets 1000 views vs 67 for the train. So no way is the train Primarytopic more than all other subjects combined. The dab page doesn't have to be the only way readers find something. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the BBC World Service article gets 1000 views. We know that all but a fraction are getting there by a method other than the dab page. Have you done any analysis on the book results for "Empire Service was"? Not even all the results on the first page are for the radio service. Direct mentions disappear on the second page, except for discussions of the train service. By the third page we're on to a mix of indirect mentions at best and Star Wars trivia. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been paging through Google Books and it's hardly overwhelmingly in favor of the BBC Empire Service. Plenty of references to the train. Plenty of generic references to "Empire service" which is not the radio, such as services run by Imperial Airways. References to an oil and gas company in Utah. Quite a few references to the Empire Service League. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternaive I would suggest moving this article to Amtrak Empire Service. This name is natural, would be less confusing to our readers and would eliminate any need for disambiguation.--agr (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wouldn't be an improvement over the current name. No source calls it that, but such a title gives the appearance of a proper name. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plus that is an inappropriate way to refer to a named train, which is italicized just like a ship as it to is a proper noun. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's NOT a named train. In fact the January 2018 Amtrak Empire Service schedule [2] lists several named trains, Maple Leaf, Adirondack, Ethen Allen Express, Lake Shore Limited, that are included in the brand. Notably the two daily trains to Niagara Falls are not named at all.--agr (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Weak support: Per my comment above, the present name is not appropriate since Empire Service is not a train. I have no strong opinion about the relative importance of the British radio usage.--agr (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just pointing out that in that very timetable you linked on page 3 (the only point where the name appears in plain text, as opposed to a header) Empire Service is in italics as a named train. Just because the Empire Service timetable lists the names of other trains with overlapping routes doesn't mean that the trains that only cover the Empire Service route aren't so properly named. Yes there are multiple runs of it a day, but that doesn't disqualify it, just as the Acela Express, Northeast Regional, and Keystone Service are also multiple-runs-a-day named trains. Indeed, they're all italicized in the national timetable. oknazevad (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Amtrak is hardly consistent with its use of italics. All Amtrak trademarks are italicized in the System Timetable table of contents, but train names are mostly not italicized in the timetables themselves. The key to me is the word service, i.e. a collection of trains that serve all or portions of a particular route, some of them named. Similarly for Keystone service. There are no specific trains named "Empire Service" as contrasted with actual named trains, such as Maple Leaf or Acela.--agr (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And even for anyone looking for the radio service, coming to this page with a hatnote would be just as efficient as coming to a dab page. Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog: wouldn't a dab work better, as at the moment rather than making everyone download the train page first? "Empire Service was" - all results refer to the radio service. "Empire Service is" naturally older sources, but again all results refer to the the radio service. The train clearly is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per criteria 2 of that guideline; not according to GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, the Google Books results do not support that claim. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daybeers, I created the redirect because the proposal here is going to make the GBook meaning of "Empire Service" more difficult to find. Of course it isn't needed now, but it will be when the train gets placed in front of the main topic in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there's a hatnote at the top of the page, which everyone seems to be in favor of. How will your redirect help anything? Also, if you're going to keep making the Google Book claim, could you please do me the courtesy of responding to my points above? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In ictu oculi, please respond to Mackensen's points. –Daybeers (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "Google Book claim" it's a Google Book reality: "Empire service was". Have said enough here. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose you have. You've ignored repeated requests to engage with evidence that suggests the claim isn't very strong. Either you can't or you won't. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we come to consensus on this then? –Daybeers (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move proposals are usually left open for 7 days. An uninvolved editor will come along and close it. Station1 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empire_Service&oldid=1201750291"