Talk:Pennsylvanian (train)

Pennsylvanian (train) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 28, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Trains: Passenger trains Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 32, 2013

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pittsburgh Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

"minor, could be included in larger article, basically not encyclopedic" GCW

Keep. Stubs are supposed to exist so people who think they aren't complete will expand them. Jamesday 12:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Keep. This looks fine. Secretlondon 16:04, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

As of November 2004, this train seems to have been discontinued. (Ian R, 30/11/04)

As of July, 2005, the Pennsylvanian is definitely running.

In the Amtrak National Timetable of May 16, 1999 the Pennsylvanian was listed as train numbers 44 (eastbound) and 43 (westbound) not 42 and 43 as stated in this page. Amtrak National Timetable May16, 1999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoPlanesTrains (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox reflects the current situation. This is a deliberate choice. Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of November 2019, the Sample Consist section of the Pennsylvanian page is out of date. Please update when possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.104.168.5 (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former PRR to Chicago?

Does this line have anything to do with the former Pennsylvania Railroad Pennsylvanian that used to stop at Chicago Union Station? ----DanTD (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives?

The photos show diesel locomotives under wires; does Amtrak change to electric locomotives on the electrified section of this train? --84.119.44.177 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pennsylvanian is powered by an overhead electric locomotive (AEM-7) both ways between Penn Station in NY and 30th St. Station in Philadelphia where the switch to diesel electric power is made. Although the Amtrak owned portion of the Keystone Corridor from Philadelphia to Harrisburg is also electrified, the train is diesel powered over this portion as well as the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh section of the grade (which belongs to Norfolk Southern) that is not electrified. Amtrak's NY-Harrisburg Keystone Service also used to change power between electric and diesel in Philadelphia, but since 2009 these trains now make the entire run under electric power with no locomotive change at Philadelphia. Centpacrr (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pennsylvanian (train)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lead fails to adequately summarise the contents. I see a lot of mention of travel times and suburb passing throughs, but not much about history or equipment?
"Sample consist" What is this?
The second lead paragraph needs to be moved into the body

Please fix the above points, so that the article is GA compliant. Thank you. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph to the lede and spun off a new Finance section to address 1 and 3. As to 2, a train's consist is its equipment on a given day and time. The sample consist reinforces the equipment section with an actual example of the Pennsylvanians' equipment on that day. Best. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More review

"1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in)" The measurements are the other way around every other time in the article? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ref some of the unreffed stuff in the infobox please? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add one sentence to the lead discussing the "finances" section of the article? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer

Retrolord has been indefinitely blocked, but I can finish this one up. I should have my comments posted in the next 3-7 days; sorry for the delay in your review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read this through and made a few minor tweaks; feel free to revert any you disagree with. This is a solid, well-written article that's clearly ripe for promotion. I also made the slightly larger change of removing the "Finances" header to make this material a part of "history". It's not out of place there, and avoids the sort of very short subsection discouraged by WP:LAYOUT. Again, feel free to revert and we can discuss.

All else looks good so far. Now I'll go over the checklist and do a few spotchecks, but I suspect this is ready to promote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is strong; spotchecks show no signs of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Train 44 in the infobox

Train 44 was (to the best of my knowledge) nothing more than a Sunday-only schedule variation. It's been gone for years. I don't see much purpose in listing it in the infobox. If we had a source discussing why the Pennsylvanian had a different eastbound schedule on Sundays then that would be worth discussing in the article. Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History since 2011 needs expansion

Hello! I just noticed there is no information since 2011, and there definitely should be, as this is a good article. I don't know much about the route, as I have only taken it a few times, but I was hoping someone else with more knowledge could chime in. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much to say. The service pattern is basically unchanged since 2005. There's plenty of talk about about increasing service on the route but it's just that, talk, and there's not much to say about it. The yearly reauthorizations of PRIIA 2008 payments are covered in reliable sources but don't amount to much. I'll see what I can find. Mackensen (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Daybeers: You removed discussion of PRIIA 2008 with this edit, calling it "irrelevant." I don't understand. State-level funding is absolutely relevant; the Pennsylvanian wouldn't run without it. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mackensen: You're right, I shouldn't have done that. I've added it back with new information and citations. –Daybeers (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A successor to Three Rivers

The Pennsylvanian is recongnized as the successor to the Three Rivers, which ceased service in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.5.122.1 (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pennsylvanian existed 15 years before the Three Rivers, and they were only combined for a short period of time. Listing it as the successor to the Three Rivers is misleading. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Amtrak Pennsylvanian.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]