Talk:Empire Service

Comments

 * Has there been any followup as to High Speed Rail in New York State? Nyrmetros 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Train numbers
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)

Copy edit tag
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)


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

Dining
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)

Electrified route
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)

Higher speed
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)


 * 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)

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130908005447/http://atlantic.at.northwestern.edu/ingest-newberry/item/amtrak-nationwide-schedules-intercity-passenger-service-effective-july-12-1971 to http://atlantic.at.northwestern.edu/ingest-newberry/item/amtrak-nationwide-schedules-intercity-passenger-service-effective-july-12-1971

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

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

Requested move 23 April 2018

 * 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)

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)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And before that, Empire Service to Empire Service (disambiguation). Is this move necessary? It would need a massive list of links to be changed: see Special:WhatLinksHere/Empire Service (train). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary topic based on page views alone. I would not worry about the links. The vast majority of those are becaus of the transclusions of Amtrak navboxes and would only take a couple of edits to fix. oknazevad (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. In addition to the above, it's the only topic with this exact title, so we can disambiguate naturally. Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes, but that's not where the article is. Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It's NOT a named train. In fact the January 2018 Amtrak Empire Service schedule 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Okay, then what about this press release from Amtrak about track work on the Empire Corridor this summer? It refers to the Empire Service in italics. –Daybeers (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * As I pointed out above, the Google Books results do not support that claim. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. There is no other article currently on WP that is or could reasonably be titled Empire Service. Station1 (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with comment right above this. I think it's a little ridiculous for to claim Empire Service (radio) gets 1000 page views per day, when it's really the BBC World Service article that does. Plus, they're the one who created the redirect, which I personally don't think was needed in the first place. A hatnote would be just fine. –Daybeers (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Agreed., please respond to Mackensen's points. –Daybeers (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Can we come to consensus on this then? –Daybeers (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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.