Talk:Northeast Corridor

Incidents

Should this article contain a section listing all accidents on this line? 71.178.188.117 (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, I don't see as how they are relevant but one has to consider what researchers are looking for when they use Wikipedia. Most likely people are looking for information about the line, how it operates, where it goes, where the stations are, it is most likely few researchers would care about accidents and incidents as a primary search criteria. But also if the extant article included incidents, it would have to be all inclusive -- editors working on the effort would need to attempt to include all known incidents, which is a daunting task. Also if the extant article had a list of incidents, there should be an effort to flesh-out all of the rail line Wikipedia articles to list those line's incidents -- which is a daunting task. Damotclese (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely appropriate either, as Damo notes, if we did it for one series of tracks, we should do it for all of them. Maybe there is a Wiki page which lists locomotive incidents where this would be appropriate. TrainsOnTime (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A section with one-sentence summaries or bullets of major fatal crashes may be appropriate - there haven't been that many fatal ones recently. But in general the incidents should go under the history section of the services, and in here where it's already been added, and not in the article about the physical line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more in this particular case. The Northeast Corridor is the busiest and thus most important railroad grade in North America with as many as 2,200 intercity passenger, commuter, freight and other movements daily over its rails. Seventy-seven percent of all non automobile passenger travel between Washington and New York uses the Corridor with its overall ridership increasing yearly. The loss of life (and hundreds of other non-fatal injuries), destruction of equipment, and massive disruption of the operations of many services (Amtrak, multiple local and state commuter lines, freight lines, etc) resulting in a loss of productivity to the national economy of up to $100,000,000 daily, and as an example of the importance of the adequate upgrade and maintenance -- or lack thereof -- to the health, welfare, security and economic strength of both the Northeast region and country as a whole makes the 2015 Frankford Junction derailment by far the most significant and impactful event of any type to have occurred on the Northeast Corridor -- if not the entire rail system on the United States -- in many decades.

To ignore the significance of this major if not transformational event in the main article on the Northeast Corridor would, in my opinion, constitute encyclopedic malpractice. A brief three paragraph section recognizing the Frankford Junction derailment and its multiple impacts is thus hardly either inappropriate or overkill. It is instead a necessary and needed section wholly comporting with its importance to the history and operations of the Northeast Corridor as a whole. The 2015 derailment in Philadelphia is thus far more than just an "incident", but could well end up also being a sea change event in the history and operations of the Northeast Corridor as well as how the Corridor will be viewed and treated and supported politically by US and regional governments in the years to come. Centpacrr (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The text about the 2015 crash belongs back under the History section. Even if the crash someday becomes "transformational," it's certainly not yet, and speculation like "could well wind up" isn't much of an argument for inclusion. Finally, there's an entire article about the crash; details like "4º left hand curve to the north" belong there, not in the main NC article.PRRfan (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I cannot agree with what I find to be such a shortsighted view for the reasons stated above and the following events that have already happened. Centpacrr (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but I find your speculation uncompelling. Even if, say, Congress votes tomorrow to double Amtrak's budget, the event will still be part of the NC's long history. How about this: find some citations that show — not speculate — that this will be a "transformative" event, and then we can revisit its placement as a separate section. PRRfan (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe, sir, that this derailment in not going to lead to any changes in the way Amtrak and the many other rail lines that use the Northeast Corridor are going to operate in the future? Really? With respect, such a view seems to betray a lack of appreciation or understanding of the history of railroading (and other modes of transportation) and how their operational and safety procedures evolve and change in the light of major accident events such as this one. I refer you to the mission statement of the NTSB which states: "The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – railroad, highway, marine and pipeline. The NTSB determines the probable cause of the accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents." Respectfully, the expectation of such changes is not "speculation" but just common sense.

By the way, I have also not used the expression "transformative event" (actually I wrote "..major if not transformational event..") in the article's main space, only in my comment in here. You are, of course, free to have a different view (although I am puzzled why anyone would), but there is no requirement for editors to provide "citations" in postings in talk page discussions to support their opinions or observations, and I see that you have not provided any citations or sources to support your position either. (Here's just one however: "Obama calls for greater infrastructure spending in wake of Amtrak crash") Centpacrr (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's really not complicated. Your argument that this crash deserves to be in its own section, not the History section, rests on your beliefs about future events. Prediction is difficult, especially about the future, as the saying goes, and so that sort of thing is covered by WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Bring the citations, and convince the world. (By the way: there's no need to start Talk comments with bullets; to indent your comment, add a colon to the initial series.) PRRfan (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I have placed in the main space of the article constitutes speculation or predicts future events. It is simply an objective recitation of fully sourced and cited facts presented without a POV about the most serious accident to have happened on the Northeast Corridor in almost three decades, and one which completely disrupted service on the busiest rail corridor in North America for days. As such it deserves this level of coverage (three paragraphs) on that basis alone irrespective of what are likely to be the subsequent consequences of this fatal derailment in the months and years to come. Centpacrr (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No one's saying anything in the article is speculation; rather, I (and Epicgenius, to judge from his unilateral edit) disagree with your contention — which you have sought to buttress with speculation about a "sea change" that alters how railroads "are going to operate in the future" and how they will be treated politically "in the years to come" — that this crash is yet worthy of its own section instead of placement under History. Separately, we also disagree about whether details such as the exact curvature of the track and the age of the locomotive belong in this article about the entire Northeast Corridor, or are perhaps better placed on the page devoted to the event itself. As for your attempt to delete the section, and thereby remove from public view valuable and well-cited information simply because you disagree with edits to your writing, is, I fear, not in keeping with Wikipedia spirit or custom. May I humbly suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles? I think you and I might more fruitfully collaborate on this collectively edited encyclopedia, as we seem destined to do from time to time, if you held a little less tightly to your prose. PRRfan (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@PRRfan: It truly puzzles me why you insist on pablumizing objectively presented fully sourced and cited material, removing relevant detail, introducing misleading fudge factor language that does not comport with the sources, and doing so unilaterally without either seeking or achieving consensus. Centpacrr (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here's another bit of Wikipedia custom that I might suggest you read up on: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Do you actually think that I think that I am "pablumizing" or introducing "fudge factor language"? If so, please be assured that I am simply seeking to present information in the clearest and most concise way. To that end, I'm more than happy to discuss any individual edit. Perhaps you would care to point one out that you object to? (And again, no need for that leading bullet in your Talk comments.) PRRfan (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was wondering why you had failed to assume good faith on my part and didn't bother to first contact me to discuss any suggested changes you thought might improve this section on the derailment which you could have seen was material that I alone had developed, sourced and contributed to the NC article. When I saw that this thread was opened I then explained in detail above why I did it the way I did.

Instead of having the courtesy of contacting me with whatever thoughts you might have had on what I contributed and attempting to reach a compromise with me as the original author of the section, you instead took it upon yourself to unilaterally alter the text so that it no longer accurately reflects the sources and introduced misleading language. You also removed without explanation fully sourced relevant detail that i included because I found that it helped elucidate and provide context to the section that, as I mentioned above, I alone had taken the time and effort to create and contribute to the article.

I have been writing professionally for almost half a century, and am the author of seven published non-fiction books (four of which are on North American railroad history) as well as more then 1,000 articles so I am not a novice at this. As for the bullet points, I add them because it makes it easy for me to find my comments in long threads. As this in not in the main space they certainly do not violate any WP MOS. Centpacrr (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I also must agree with the previous editor's commentnig on your use of bullet-pointing, that is rather annoying, no offense intended. The volunteers working on the project have conventional ways of doing things, and "being special" doesn't look very professional, it looks like you're trying to stand out and be special which is probably not what you intend. Again, no offense intended. And "siring" someone is insulting, I might add. Damotclese (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

There is already a section that talks about the future (LOL) However I think that enumerating significant, major incidents on this railroad is reasonable if they are kept short and link to external pages.

Also that person bullet pointing, yes, that's an ego issue I've seen another person who edits virus pages like I do have. It looks bad but thankfully they only do it in talk pages. (That ego thing: the person thinks he's an author so that makes it okay.)

Any way a little prognostication in the article seems reasonable so long as they don't go full Jean Dixon. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, PRRfan for fixing that, I also wondered why the article was jumping off in to future speculation which is contra-indicated by Wiki guidelines. And if I may add, each time there is a loss of live in transportation infrastructure -- not just rail but also roadway, airway, and waterway -- we see predictions in the mainstream media and in industry about how the incident is going to change things, however the reality is that we see incremental improvements, not a "sea change." Certainly none of the seer casting predictions of how things are going to change ever come to fruition. It's good to keep Wiki articles clear of such things. TrainsOnTime (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I think only the notable incidents should be mentioned, i.e. ones that caused injuries or deaths. They should each be mentioned in one-sentence bullet point. Epic Genius (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Epic that only notable incidents should be included. Otherwise, train articles will start to look just like a list of incidents. For the the notability of the train incidents, I'm not sure whether the fact that there are injuries or deaths should automatically make it qualified. There are just too many accidents at grade level crossings where no one on the trains as the casualties. It's a very sad reality that we have too many of that type of accidents. I don't think we can list them all, otherwise, we will turn Wikipedia into a database. Z22 (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Only if every track line has a list of incidents would it be suitable for the extant article to include them. What is probably not a good idea is to single-out a track line for special notice, not unless there is a rail line that has a chromic problem with incidents, then I could see it being relevant. To update every Wiki page that covers rail line sections to enumerate all the known incidents would be a very difficult task. Damotclese (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A list of incidents should be included only if a list is short and each incident links to a suitable reference or citation. I see other people commenting about the need to do the same for other pages for railroad tracks which makes sense. If you do it for this page, you should do it for other significant railroad tracks. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like more people think a list of incidents should be included than those who do not, but yeah, if the list is one sentence, short and to the point, that seems reasonable. TrainsOnTime (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As there seems to be little interest in the significance of this derailment and its extensive disruption of and long term impact on the operations of the Northeast Corridor, I am removing the section that I contributed completely and will let others produce a list of accidents if they wish to. NGDGU Centpacrr (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For now, I've tucked four sentences about the 2015 crash into a new "21st century" subhead under History/Amtrak. PRRfan (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Per consensus, I've shortened the text about the 2015 crash to one sentence, and added a hatnote pointing to the extensive article on it. Centpacrr (talk), may I suggest you direct your considerable passion for the topic to that page? PRRfan (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I will accept a single sentence per consensus, but it can't ignore the three most important elements of the derailment besides the human casualties: 1) that it was the result of extreme speeding on a sharp curve; that the curve was not protected by ATC, and; that it caused rail travel on the NEC between Philadelphia and New York to be completely disrupted for six days. In addition there were not "238 passengers and crew" on the train but "238 passengers and five crew" for a total of 243 souls on board. I have fixed all of these while retaining a single sentence. I have also restored four of the reference citations supporting the information in the sentence which had all been removed as well as the train number (TR#188) as there are 27 daily northbound Northeast Regional runs every weekday. Centpacrr (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northeast Corridor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Freerepublic.Com? Seriously?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

freerepublic.com is not a valid reference or citation source

Please refrain from adding references or citations from conspiracy web sites. Damotclese (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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) 04:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ACSES not accurate

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)

Northeast Corridor reversion

Moved from User talk:Epicgenius § Northeast Corridor reversion

 – – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

PS I've just given the "Origins" section, a revamp, which includes the map you reverted. If you don't like it, I'd be pleased if you'd take the matter to the Northeast Corridor talk page and not simply hit "revert."96.245.167.33 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

---

The above discussion concerns my revert of the IP user's image and was originally at my talk page. I have moved the discussion here to avoid duplication. Epicgenius (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

CN tag spamming

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)

Datecomma

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)

Insert "BOSNYWASH?"

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)