Talk:Hi-Level

Corridor Capital
Corridor Capital owns 50 of the Hi-Levels and yes, Corridor Capital is in line to do something with the Hoosier State. It's not clear to me whether they're going to operate it or consult, nor whether the Hi-Levels would be employed. I'm hearing all kinds of things and there hasn't been much news coverage yet. At the very least the Hi-Levels would have to be made ADA-compatible and it's not clear from Corridor Capital's website whether that's been done yet. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
--Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your most recent edit:
 * Citations don't belong in the lead for a good article that's been nominated for featured status; see MOS:CITELEAD.
 * You removed the existing citation for the planned retirement, leaving an uncited fact in the last paragraph.
 * The link to the Pullman-Standard redirect is deliberate; some day someone will write up the separate history of that company and it'll be easier to clean up the links.
 * Totally fair points. I think I was looking for a citation that didn't require a subscription and/or wasn't archived, but I must've forgotten to add it back in when my searching didn't turn up anything. I hope it's okay if I add back the date information for the retirement. –Daybeers (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Car 39971
This edit introduced some specific claims which aren't verifiable in the existing sources:
 * 1) that the Hi-Level lounges were rebuilt in 1995 (as opposed to the mid-1990s)
 * 2) that the Pacific Parlour Car refurbishment cost $500,000 per car
 * 3) that the unrefurbished lounge was No. 39971
 * 4) that No. 39971 remained in service, was stored, parted out, and made some runs
 * 5) that No. 39971 was sold in 2003 to David Hoffman of Northern Sky Rail Charters

I don't doubt that any of this is true, but we need sources. Claims 1-2 belong the article. I think claims 3-5, if verified, could be stated as "The sixth lounge, No. 39971, was sold to Northern Sky Rail Charters in 2003." Interesting that it didn't wind up with Corridor Capital. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mackensen, I apologize for not adding the source. Here is one that is very well respected in the community and can be reached out to for further information: http://pacificparlourcar.com/ The information I added on the Parlour Cars being rebuilt in 1995 and refurbishment at $500,000 a car is from Matt Donnelly. I'd have to find you a better source, but I trust anything he says. As you may know, he's the Brand Communications Specialist at Amtrak and has led other high-profile projects at Amtrak such as the Amtrak exclusive model trains program and the Amtrak Exhibit Train. Another option would be attempting to get in contact with Brian Rosenwald who directed the Pacific Parlour Car project. Let me know what you think. -GenesisFan99, 5/15/18, 21:04 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenesisFan99 (talk • contribs)
 * The sources have to be verifiable, which typically means they're published somewhere. I don't think we can use http://pacificparlourcar.com, because the text on that site is at least partially copied from our article:
 * Report for the Santa Fe section
 * Report for the Amtrak section
 * There's probably unique information from the Taberns but identifying it would be difficult. There's also the threshold question of whether this is a reliable source. There's no absolute bar on using a self-published source but we need to establish that the Taberns are experts in this field. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ex-Amtrak disposal
Per Trains News Wire and various other sources Amtrak has listed the five ex-parlors for sale. I think we should hold off mentioning this until there's a buyer. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like they've been acquired by the Steam Railroading Institute for excursions: Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit reverted
@https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mackensen&action=view why was my edit reverted? There was no copyright infringement, subscription needed, or opinion stated. The 2 prototype cars did differ in the way stated and, they do still exist. I spoke to a party who belongs to a group attempting to buy said cars and, naming them may be a detriment to their quest. Rrguy (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The design differences between the prototypes and production models are discussed in the Design section; I didn't think it warranted a mention in the article lede. Regarding disposal, I think it's still a true statement that Corridor Capital owns most of the cars; if there's a newer published source discussing their state then we should incorporate that. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Very nice article
Mackensen, I rarely glance at the main page (because ITN and DYK give me headaches), and when I do, I rarely read the TFA, but this article was an exception and a pleasure. Re this, no need to respond while you are busy with mainpage (it can wait), but my thinking was that it doesn't hurt to clarify that it was "Santa Fe's", as it hinges on how we define long distance, and major ... and that adding that may help avoid similar from someone else. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, that's most kind of you! I agree, and I think Frailey probably discusses this in Twilight because there's a section on the Kansas City Southern's operations. Something on the order of "...with the exception of ten cars Kansas City Southern ordered in 1965 for something or other, the last major order until Amfleet..." Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Frailey would thank you for adding that :) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead photo needs color correction


Normally I just fix images that are so messed up, e.g from bad scans of old prints or slides, but this one says not to, since it's from the National Archives. I can upload a derived color-adjusted image if editors agree that it's OK to fix this. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks okay to me, in that 1970s way, but I'm interested to see what a color-corrected derivative looks like. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's my quick stab at a correction. That brown sky might seem right for Los Angeles in 1974, but not for Albuquerque (it's a cloudy day, based on the shadows, so not the usual blue either). Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fabulous, that's a real improvement! Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks better as adjusted. Eric talk 15:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, much better. Very nice work with the colors and the levels. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)