Talk:Avelia Liberty

Phrasing
I have replaced the statement 'it is related to the Pendolino family of high-speed trains' by the statement that it is related to the TGV family of high speed trains. TGV trainsets have always consisted of articulated sets of trailer cars {usually 8 cars except on the TGV Atlantique and the Eurostar trains} with power cars at each end which carry no passengers. The Avelia Liberty is of this exact type. On the other hand, Pendolinos are distributed-power trains with no power cars, underfloor power equipment distributed throughout the train and all cars carry passengers - entirely different from the Avelia Liberty and all TGV's.

Also, Pendolinos generally have a design speed of 250 km/h, while TGV's have always operated at higher speeds, with current TGV's operating at 300 km/h (187 mph) which is also the design speed of the Avelia Liberty, or 320 km/h on the most recent high speed LGV lines in France. The only feature the Avelia Liberty shares with the Pendolino is the tilting mechanism, something entirely new on an articulated train from Alstom. Prospero10 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think your overlooking an important fact. The supplier classifies the new trains as a part of the Pendolino family.  I'll find a reference and revert your changes. KirksKeyKard (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The supplier clasifies the new trains as part of the Avelia family, a name given retroactively - as is clear from the large number of 1100 trains cited by Alstom - to the family of Alstom high-speed trains including TGV's. The reference is in the last paragraphs of Alstom's announcement, which I have included as Reference 2. Prospero10 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Acela?
Why does the "official rendering" have Acela branding? Mirza Ahmed (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
The first photograph does not need to be an "action shot." It only needs to show the train clearly from a good angle. I had replaced the previous photograph with this supposedly "underwhelming" image because it is still a good close-up and it has a smaller file size (300 kb instead of over 12 Mb). Not everyone has fast Internet access. I also noticed that the image you prefer is actually a screenshot, as can be seen from the file format, PNG rather than JPEG. Clearly, the original uploader did not know to save as JPEG to reduce the file size. (JPEG is better for photographs; PNG is optimized for computer graphics.)

As for the lead section containing citations, there is no fixed rule against it, as can be seen from this guideline. There is nothing wrong with including citations right from the start. After all, citations are there for verification. Nerd271 (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The "action shot" is better – it shows more of the train in better lighting. File size is irrelevant for this purpose (viewing the article shows the rendered thumbnail image, which is typically under 100kb regardless of the size of the original file), and the png displays just fine.
 * I also see no need for citations in the lede. The lede is just a summary of the article; there are no controversial BLP statements nor direct quotes in this lede that require citations. All the information currently cited in the lede is already cited in the prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn’t have said it better myself. The action shot is better for all the reasons Pi.1415926535 listed. I’ll also add that with few exceptions, articles about planes and trains feature an action shot like this. Also, you are correct, there are no hard rules against citations in the intro, however this is a non controversial topic, and citations are provided in body of the page. So why clutter the intro, which is supposed to be a brief, high-level overview of the page. Most GA or FA class articles covering similar topics have no citations in the intro for this very reason. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the "action shot" per the consensus here - I also believe it is the superior image by far, and per Pi the technical concerns aren't a real issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 Turini2 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Acela II
The only decent direct source I can find that Amtrak have ever referred to this train as "Acela II" is in this Railway Age story "Amtrak Acela II project lead Michelle Tortolani shows off the café car." However, other sources I have found state things like "Michelle Tortolani, Amtrak assistant vice president for the New Acela Program" !

As far as I can see, other sources do not back up that Amtrak ever referred to this train as the Acela II. Whether this is due to assumptions (it's the second generation Acela train after all) or laziness by journalists - I'm unsure. Fanblogs and other articles referring to the train as "Acela II" obviously don't count as a valid source.

I therefore propose removing that assertion from the article. Turini2 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. I haven't seen much use of the "Acela II" name either. We shouldn't use the name unless we have reliable sources using it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This place is the only one I have seen that calls the Avelia Liberty the Acela II. (How come no one has called it the Freedom Train?) Nerd271 (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)