Talk:Superliner (railcar)

Intercity cars split

I think the section talking about the Bi-Level Intercity cars should split into its own article. While the design of these cars is based on the "design baseline" of the Superliner, they are their own car type. In addition, properly covering all three types of this car is nearly as long as the different types of Superliner cars. RickyCourtney (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the "Bi-Level Intercity" phrase a proper noun, or just a description? I've noticed that the capitalization for the phrase is inconsistent in the existing article and the status of the noun should probably be resolved before a new article is spun off. --AlikaAlex 03:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikaalex (talk • contribs)

In any case, they are NOT "Superliners" and were never branded as such. They are California Cars and Surfliners. They may have the same shape as Superliners, but they were built separately and have very different interiors. Given that they are confined to their own routes and not used across many different ones, it may be best to simply merge the content into the route articles. Jason McHuff (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a good case for separate articles on the equipment, especially as the California Cars float around. I would locate these at Pacific Surfliner (railcar) and California Car (currently a redirect). Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Good points by all. I've now split the section into two articles, California Car (railcar) and Surfliner (railcar). At the moment the California Car page has more on how the intercity cars came to be, while the Surfliner page has more on the future third generation intercity railcar. RickyCourtney (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

We've used File:Auto Train lounge.jpg in the article since April 2006 and in the lead since September 2006. I find this unsatisfactory inasmuch as this is about the least representative Superliner in existence: one of five Superliner I dining cars converted for lounge use on the Auto Train. Unless you ride the Auto Train you'll never encounter one. The image itself is comparatively small (709 × 477, 127 KB), though of good quality for all that. What I'm wondering is what sort of image could replace this? An action shot of one of the Western trains, showing a couple cars? A zoomed-out shot showing many cars but none distinctly? A close-in shot similar to the current one, but of something more representative like a coach? Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I really like the composition of the shot you have up now, but personally, I think we should have a picture that depicts the current "Phase IVb" livery. Hopefully we can find an equally nice, but more recent photo and shift the Phase II photo to the history section. --RickyCourtney (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time with the Superliner images on Commons and it's just hard to match Roger Puta's skill (Drew Jacksich is pretty good too). I've added a Phase IVb image of an S-II to the history section. Given the Superliner's importance in rescuing Amtrak in the 1980s I think you make a case for featuring an S-I in Phase II in the lead. Mackensen (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Safety

This section is cited to a single report and could probably be shortened. More importantly, Superliners ran on the final run of the International, which implies that something happened. Either Amtrak addressed the accessibility issue, ignored the TSB, or got a waiver. Anyone know? Mackensen (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Per Sanders (2006), Amtrak replaced the Superliners with Horizons because to augment capacity on Western trains. I believe he's relying on unpublished correspondence from June 7, 1999, which predates the accident. He doesn't mention the accident. It's possible he's wrong, or Amtrak planned to withdraw the Superliners anyway. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

First Empire Builder with Superliners?

The image at right was published in Amtrak NEWS to illustrate the article about the first Empire Builder equipped with Superliners. The printed caption reads "The Superliner-equipped Empire Builder rolls out of Chicago heading for Seattle." The image shows an EMD F40PH, three coaches or sleepers, a diner, and another coach or sleeper. Sanders (2006), based on reports in various railfanning publications, reports the following for the October 28 consist: two F40PHs, a baggage car, a Hi-Level step-up transition coach, two Superliner coaches, a Superliner diner, and a Superliner sleeper. I'm trying to find a contemporary news account (if any exist) to explain the discrepancy. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The Amtrak NEWS caption is "The Superliner-equipped Empire Builder rolls out of Chicago heading for Seattle". It could be that this was not the very first train, or that this is the first of two training sets that Amtrak ran earlier in the month. The second train was only four cars, but the first was "three coaches, a diner, and two Amtech training cars" according to Amtrak NEWS, which would be a plausible match for this photo. I'll try my hand at getting Sanders' sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It's actually the press run from October 11. More later. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Aha, so it is the first of those two training / display trains. Makes sense! I'll update the filename etc when you have time for the additional details. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

George Drury has an almost identical shot published in the January 1980 edition of Trains. He must have been standing next to the Amtrak NEWS photographer. It's identified as the October 11 press run out to Lisle. The same issue includes a shot of the Empire Builder's first revenue run on October 28 and definitely has a Hi-Level in the consist. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh interesting! So I was wrong, this was not either of the longer display/training trips, but just a short hop. The photo matches perfectly with the NYT description of the event. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Lines served in infobox

I think the lines parameter in the infobox should be limited to routes where Superliners are regularly assigned. In practice this is the Western long-distance trains, the Heartland Flyer because it exchanges equipment with the Texas Eagle, the Capitol Limited, the City of New Orleans, and the Pere Marquette. It's common for Superliners to rotate out to the other Midwestern corridor routes in the winter but that's not a regular assignment. Similarly Superliners sub in on the Amtrak California routes but that's not their regular assignment (leaving aside the wreck repairs painted up to look like Surfliners). If we included routes where Superliners are no longer used we'd have to include the Cardinal, plus potentially any of the discontinued routes which had Superliners. We'd wind up with a very long list, and that's better handled in prose in the History section, if at all. Mackensen (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems logical to me. It's probably worth putting a hidden note to explain the logic to future editors. --RickyCourtney (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Coach interior picture

Question about the excellent File:Upper Level of Superliner I.jpg uploaded by TJH2018 (talk · contribs). According to the caption it's No. 34960, Sequoia Grove, one of the California wreck repairs. It's not representative of Superliner I coaches, though it's a great picture. I think if it's going to stay where it is it needs to be clearly labeled. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Sorry about that, I actually forgot about the refurbed wrecks being given to Caltrans. That's my fault. The main reason why I replaced the image was due to the fact that I was able to snag a photo of an empty Superliner (which in my opinion, is quite unusual). Feel free to mention it in the caption! TJH2018talk 15:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Superliner (railcar). 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/20160207120429/https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/717/203/ATK-15-032%20Amtrak%20Coast%20Starlight%20Business%20Class%20Pilot%20Revised.pdf to https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/717/203/ATK-15-032%20Amtrak%20Coast%20Starlight%20Business%20Class%20Pilot%20Revised.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/897/154/Amtrak-Five-Year-Service-Plans-FY17-FY21.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170108093952/https://www.amtrak.com/media/train_tour/superliner/superlinerSLEEPER_CONTROLLER.html to https://www.amtrak.com/media/train_tour/superliner/superlinerSLEEPER_CONTROLLER.html

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) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Derivatives

I think it's worth mentioning the direct derivative types - the California Car and Surfliner, plus the ill-fated third generation - in the article rather than merely as See also links. I'm not sure where the best place to put it would be - perhaps at the end of the lede of the Design section? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• That's a legacy of the split. Maybe a section called "Further development", summarizing the history of the new orders and some of the more noteworthy design changes? Mackensen (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've done my best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)