Jump to content

Talk:California Zephyr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sightseeing

[edit]

How about a section about the train's sightseeing value? From west to east: from SF, CA to Elko, NV; from Helper, UT to Denver, CO and from Omaha, NE to Chicago, IL are sections generally under daylight. I think the Helper to Denver section is the most magnificient part of the trip. Are there any other good sightseeing spots you have to travel at night?

How's the east to west trip? -- Toytoy 14:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

If the train is on time (ha ha) the sections over Soldier Summit, Utah and the Palasade Canyon (between Battle Mountain and Elko Nevada) are kinda neet. But on several runs the train is late enough such that those are in the day time. There is also one spot just west of Salt Lake City (key word one spot) where from the tracks you have a great view of the Great Salt Lake. But I've never caught this in the day on the train, only when I've made the trek by car.
Davemeistermoab 14:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest/Southwest?

[edit]

It says that the Zephyr runs in the Southwest. Is the Bay Area in the Southwest? ςפקιДИτς 03:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of northern California. After growing up in Los Angeles, I don't think of the San Francisco Bay Area as southwest (for me, it's just the West), but if you include all of California as part of the southwest, then yes. slambo 17:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Here's the wiki answer: Southwestern United States.--Lordkinbote 04:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Lounge car pictured is from Prospector, not CZ

[edit]

The lounge car pictured in this article does not appear to be a CZ lounge in either the pre or post Cable Car configuration, but is more likely from the Prospector, an overnight Denver-Salt Lake City train. In fact, I suspect the picture is of the lounge portion of the diner-lounge that ran on that train.

User:Sjlevine34 11:38, June 2, 2006

Interesting, what makes you say that? Information regarding the photo can be found here [1] please WP:Cite. --Lordkinbote 20:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I don't want to be so arrogant to put a link to my own images on this page, but if you are interested it may be intersting to add http://www.flickr.com/photos/prasenberg/tags/californiazephyr/ to the external links. This is a large set of images from my recent trip on the Zephyr. It might give readers an impression on what the scenery is like. Prasenberg 09:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image discussion

[edit]

There is discussion about the possible deletion of the current lead photograph for fair use restrictions. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 20:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Arangements

[edit]

Would someone add a section on how the three original railroads handled the finances of the train?

How did they split the take? How did they properly divide the equipment? etc . . .

Thanks

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.178.88.168 (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I saw a documentary show on RFDTV two weeks ago (as part of the stations "Trains and Locomotives" programming) about the California Zephyr (last week the show was about the Daylight series of trains, and this week was the development of the 4-4-0). In it they mentioned that the equipment ownership was split according to the percent of mileage that each of the three railroads operated when the service was inaugurated. I imagine that revenues were similarly split. I haven't added it myself because I didn't think fast enough when the show aired to record it so we could have a reliable reference and I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere in my reference collection yet. Slambo (Speak) 11:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak Stations

[edit]

Q: Links to Amtrak Stations that don't really exist have been re-added to the station stops section of the article. They have were added earlier and removed. Do they belong?

I would argue no. For example the Amtrak Depots in Green River, Utah, Winnemucca and Elko Nevada, etc. aren't depots at all. Really just railroad sidings where they open the doors. No buildings, no staff, nothing. At least the stop at Elko has a covered bench in case it's raining... but the stop at Green River and Elko truely have nothing. Davemeistermoab 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scenery

[edit]

The article mentions about the spectacular scenery but gives little example. The history section is excellent though. Does anyone know which side is best to see the scenery if travelling from east to west? LordHarris 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course scenery in all directions, but sitting on the north side of the train will get you the best views on two of the route's most spectacular segments -- the ascent of the Front Range west of Denver, and the crossing of Donner Pass in California. Pitamakan 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to give examples of "the best scenery" and conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy. After all, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm actually surprised no one has tagged the scenic claims as they are now with a "citation re quested". Although Amtrak claims the CZ is one of their most scenic routes in their own literature, so a source wouldn't be difficult. I've never had a problem. There's been enough empty seats on the train to move to the other side if something looks more interesting on the other there. Davemeistermoab 00:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning is in order for this article?

[edit]

IMO this article is starting to get "scattered". By that I mean I count 4 different places where the article mentions the current iteration of the CZ follows "almost" the same route as the original. Similarly the D&RG operating a descendant train is mentioned in 2 different places, with almost identical wording. This is a pet peeve of mine. Anybody mind if I do some pruning? Davemeistermoab 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption for Photo

[edit]

Having just arrived in Galesburg, Illinois, Train No. 5 — the California Zephyr, led by GE Genesis P42DC locomotives #132 and #167 — "cools its heels" for a few minutes before continuing west on September 27, 2004.

What is "cools its heels" supposed to mean? Is it running late, and will soon be running even later? Is it early, and waiting to get back on time? Is this a scheduled wait? Or does the railroad slang term "cools its heels" refer to something specific?

Slang should be avoided in encyclopedic articles. 66.234.220.195 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on the second list of station stops?

[edit]

Originally, this section was to show the list of station stops on the original route of the CZ. However it has since evolved to be a 2nd listing of the the current station stops, with more formatting and information than the first listing in the infobox? Any opinions on how we should handle this? I do thing that there should be a section on the differences in the route, but not sure if it should be in prose or list format. Any ideas? Dave (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image?

[edit]

This edit: [2] changed the lead image. IMO it should be undone, but would like input first, as I may be somewhat biased. My reasoning:

Can I get some opinions on what should be the lead image? Dave (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. Aesthetically, I think the Galesburg photo is a little nicer - the composition is better, the train is easier to see in thumbnail size and even the lighting is a bit better. But you're right, the Glenwood Canyon photo is unique to the Zephyr and the two trains meeting there is certainly unique. Between the two, I think the Glenwood Canyon photo makes for a better photo for an encyclopedia (as it is a photo unique to the Zephyr), so I'd be in favor of reverting to it - but only until a nicer and less generic photo of the Zephyr becomes available. 184.56.92.166 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good point, I guess we can wait until more pictures come in before making any firm decisions. Dave (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving rolling stock

[edit]

I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into the new section "Lists of Surviving Rolling Stock" but I have some concerns. For one, I can't find the corresponding list on the referenced website. For another, if there's an authoritative list there, which the website proprietor surely updates, wouldn't it be better to just link to that instead of reproducing it? We don't have articles on any of the individual cars, and that's unlikely to change. We already have a section discussing museums with ex-Zephyr equipment. The list also takes up a disproportionate amount of space. It might make sense to create and curate a wholly new article called List of California Zephyr rolling stock, which would include all rolling stock 1949-1970. Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update; it's apparently derived from the selections here. The dispositions appear to be word-for-word in some cases, which is both unavoidable and problematic. Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on California Zephyr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on California Zephyr. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Zephyr. 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:

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) 08:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

California Zephyr History

[edit]

You dont know about the predessesor of California Zephyr (Exposition Flyer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ Pachano (talk • contribs) 03:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to everyone who worked on this entry!

[edit]

I rarely say this, but copyediting this Wikipedia entry was a pleasure. So a sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to this delightful, informative article. Any editors who have the time/inclination may want to add more in-line citations to bring California Zephyr into compliance with WP guidelines. Otherwise, a fantastic job all-around. Thanks again. Kinkyturnip (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 31 move

[edit]

@Pi.1415926535: Why did you move the Amtrak information to another article and create California Zephyr (Amtrak train)? I would assume readers are looking for information on the (still-operating) Amtrak train, which started service in 1971, rather than the previous train that ran from 1949 to 1970. It's tough, as this is a case of conflicting guidelines from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Though the California Zephyr article has a lot more detail and information in it and has long-term significance, the Amtrak train is still running today, so it also has long-term significance. The question is what are most readers looking for? –Daybeers (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the CZ article was getting big and the split was probably a good thing. I also agree that the Amtrak iteration is likely to be the primary topic, and I think California Zephyr should lead to the Amtrak iteration. I say give it a day or so and if nobody can justify the WP/D&RG/CB&Q Califoria Zephyr as the primary topic, let's go ahead and swap the primary topic. Dave (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly,the reason that I separated the Amtrak train is that there didn't seem to be a good name for the previous train, as it was operated by three railroads. I wouldn't be opposed to California Zephyr (1949–1970), though that's still a bit clunky. There are also a *lot* of internal links to fix regardless, and whatever the end result, would you mind helping check them? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should reach consensus on a name before moving. I do like California Zephyr (1949–1970), but you're right that it's a bit clunky. What can I help with the internal links? –Daybeers (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried and I can't think of anything better. The best I can do is California Zephyr (original) and California Zephyr (Western Pacific). However to understand the latter one would have to know that is referring to the fact that it is the WP portion of the route that is the primary difference between the two, which someone first reading this article would not likely know. So I think your idea is the best so far. However, if the decision is to keep the original iteration as the primary topic, I would say the current iteration should be California Zephyr (Amtrak), not (Amtrak train). IMHO that's redundant. Dave (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Amtrak train might be the primary topic, I'm unconvinced. Fully support splitting the article; it really is two trains with the same name. The route is different in places, the equipment is different, the ownership is different, and there's a gap of 13 years. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using the infamous (and highly reliable and utterly scientific ;) ) first page of Google hits test yields the following (regardless of weather I use USA, Canada or UK localization [3]: 9 results on the first page, plus 3 YouTube videos. The YouTube Videos are all of the Amtrak iteration. Of the 9 weblinks, number one hit is to Amtrak.com, number 2 is to the Wikipedia article with a blurb that resembles the pre-split state of the article (i.e. Google hasn't figured out the article has been split yet). Of the 7 remaining, 6 are referring to the Amtrak iteration and mostly trip reviews and media coverage only 1 is of the pre-Amtrak iteration. So despite my sarcasm above, Google seems to imply the Amtrak iteration is the primary topic. Also, the first iteration has ran for 21 years, the Amtrak iteration has run for 35 years and counting.Dave (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to do a formal RM after agreeing on what this article would be called. I'm completely fine with California Zephyr (1949–1970) as the title for the pre-Amtrak article. Maybe it's clunky, but it's also immediately obvious to most people what train we're talking about. Most people will get to it via navigation or search anyway; no one's typing it out. Using dates as a disambiguator has precedence in other areas. "Original" is odd-looking, and getting the private companies involved just complicated things. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has sat for almost 6 days, and nobody has so far objected to the name California Zephyr (1949–1970). So unless someone objects soon I'll start moving the pages. Dave (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pages moved. There's a LOT of wikilinks to fix, but I'll wait a few days to see if there is any push to move the pages back before I make changes that affect other articles. Dave (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Train Jam

[edit]

Train Jam took place on this train from 2014 to 2019, with plans to revive it again soon. Considering Train Jam is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, I do think it should be mentioned in this page. I didn't add it myself as I wasn't sure whether to put it under history or in its own section or what, so in the interests of not messing up your article I'll let the previous contributors decide. Gave2haze (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not created a dedicated heading for it, but certainly ok to mention in the article.Dave (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Column alignment wrong for Emeryville in list of stations

[edit]

The table listing all stations and connections needs the Emeryville data shifted one column to the right. I tried for a few minutes, but I don't know the wiki markup. (Mostly a read-only user.) Perhaps some kind soul can fix that and delete this? 75.226.117.179 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_Zephyr&oldid=1242608103"