Talk:Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts)

	Trains Portal
DYK	July 29, 2019

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

Mid

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).

Renovaction, Bus Service

The main article currently states "A currently stalled plan to renovate the building and bring bus service to the station has been in the works for several years." That text doesn't quite make it clear whether it's referring to the condemned 1926 station building, or Amtrak's new modest facility. Also, what bus service? Intercity bus service, or local bus service? Is there some transit authority or private company that would be likely to operate that bus service? JNW2 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extension north to Northampton?

The article speculates on the prospect of commuter service and restoration of the station itself.

Has there been any discussion of restoring service to Northampton? (The track is already there.) This would provide a connection to schools, collectively, with tens of thousands of students, e.g., Smith (in Northampton itself), U Massachusetts, Amherst, Hampshire, Mt. Holyoke in Greater Amherst. Dogru144 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Train platforms

Are there high level platforms at this station? JNW2 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article name change needed

The article title is currently "Springfield, Massachusetts (Amtrak station)" which seems incorrect. The article is not about the city of Springfield. Perhaps "Springfield Union Station" or "Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts)" would be better? doncram (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: {{{result}}} ~~~~

Springfield, Massachusetts (Amtrak station) → Springfield Union Station — Relisted once again, consensus to be moved, not a consensus to the title. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 02:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for additional input. There seems to be a consensus to move somewhere, it's just a question of agreeing about what the new name should be. Jafeluv (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use name for station given in article, which is apparently the common name for the place. Amtrak station stop association is just one association of probably many other railroad companies through time. doncram (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Revised Proposal below. doncram (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — IAW WP:TITLE
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The reasoning for the move makes sense to me. --Orlady (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As Orlady pointed out, the reasoning makes sense, but I prefer Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts), due to the distinction between this and Union Station (Springfield, Illinois). I'd also like to see more on the former railroad lines and past trains that used this station, such as those covered on the Union Station (Chicago) article. ----DanTD (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is about the station, not the town-name, so "Union Station" should be part of the main title rather than a disambiguator. If "Springfield Union Station" is what it's called, then that should be the main title phrase. If that is ambiguous (per DanTD), then that can be disambiguated as "Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts)" vs "Springfield Union Station (Illinois)". Putting "Springfield" into the disambiguator doesn't solve anything, and it apparently goes against common-name usage too. DMacks (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support rename to Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts) since it is not the only Springfield Union Station. Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Illinois) is also called Springfield Union Station. ~~I would support a move to Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts).~~ Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised proposal Thanks to all for commenting. Okay, I see that the Illinois article has long been including some usage of "Springfield Union Station" in the body of its text. Odd that it is not mentioned as a bolded alternative in the lede, and odd that Springfield Union Station has only ever existed as a redirect to the Massachusetts one. Anyhow, I would agree to having Springfield Union Station be a disambiguation page pointing to "Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts)" and to "Union Station (Springfield, Illinois), known also as Springfield Union Station" as here in this draft Springfield Union Station (disambiguation). I believe the draft is wp:MOSDAB-compliant. Note, I don't agree that this MA one should be called Union Station (Town, State), because its actual name is Springfield Union Station. The article name should be format Name (Town, State). Revised Proposal then is both:

Springfield, Massachusetts (Amtrak station) → Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts) and

Springfield Union Station (disambiguation) → Springfield Union Station.

doncram (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Personally, my initial reaction at seeing that is simply: "yuck!" It may be the most correct treatment, but... is that seriously the best we can do? A 12 syllable (yes, I actually counted) phrase?
— $V = I * R$ (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About the only way to shorten the names would be to drop the state. I'm not sure that would follow all of the guidelines for naming on these articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside: I've generally fixed disambiguation by (City) or by (State) for U.S. places to (City, State) when going through disambiguation pages of theatres, houses, etc. Seems best to use (City, State) almost always, to me. I see the Illinois one has been renamed to Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Illinois), which, if revised proposal goes through, would have them in parallel. Fine by me, as S U S appears to be the actual name of both of them (MA verified by NRHP name; IL not NRHP-listed). doncram (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised proposal. It makes sense to disambiguate US locations with both city and state. Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts) would be unambiguous too, but since the format "(City, State)" is so commonly used, I can support that. Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A disambiguation page is not needed if there are only two of them. Now if it was shortened to Union Station, then there would be a need for dis, and it already is one. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is consistent with disambiguation guidelines to have a dab page, especially where neither of 2 entries is clearly more salient. That way a search on "Springfield Union Station" goes to the dab, not arbitrarily to one of the two. It seems to me that the modified requested move should be implemented. Then any further discussion about the dab, at its Talk page. This requested move discussion has been open way longer than necessary, IMHO! doncram (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOVE TO CLOSE hey, this has been running forever and a day. My request in the revised proposal to move :Springfield, Massachusetts (Amtrak station) → Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts) has gotten two votes, mine and Jafeluv's, and no actual opposition. There was a question, there was an IP editor disagreeing about the need for the disambiguation page, but no opposition to the principal move. Someone, please make the principal move and I will just manually edit the disambiguation page move, if necessary. There is not going to be any more discussion. Please! doncram (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts). Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts) may be consistent with what's been done in some other instances, but I do not find (in WP:Naming conventions) an established Wikipedia convention on how this kind of feature should be named when this kind of ambiguity exists, and the repetition of "Springfield" is unnecessary and looks rather silly -- some people might say it's "anal". If this change is made, for consistency, also move Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Illinois) to Springfield Union Station (Illinois). --Orlady (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I supported that above. The votes prior to the revision, supported the move without disambiguation before the problem with multiple stations of the same name was identified. So we are down to how to disambiguate. I think that a rename to Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts) to match Springfield Union Station (Springfield, Illinois) should be made to follow the existing pattern and what is normal for NRHP places. After this move then if anyone wants to discuss changing those two, then lets do that in one nomination. But for now, fix the current name to something better! Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with the full city-state names as an interim measure in order to take this to a conclusion, but it really isn't good precedent. With people, Wikipedia disambiguates with as few words as possible -- for example, a U.S. TV actor named John Jones might be "John Jones (actor)", and would only become "John Jones (American TV actor)" if there are other American actors named John Jones. A similar principle (i.e., avoid including unnecessary place name detail in titles) ought to apply to articles about schools, train stations, jails, courthouses, etc. (Bradford High School is a good example of "keeping it simple"), but I see that unneeded repetition is widespread in naming these articles -- like the two instances of Abilene High School. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Any objections if I make the move that has consensus? After the move Orlady or anyone else can bring up reducing the city, state to just state as a new discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Per the discussion. The move with consensus acknowledges that there is still an issue that affects this article and others about the level of disambiguation (city, state) v (state). This issue needs to be addressed in another discussion that covers all affected articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP edits

Pi.1415926535, I undid your revert of the IP's three edits because those edits look reasonable in substance and helpful in terms of copy editing. Could you explain specifically what's wrong with them? We should use a light touch when dealing with new editors who might join us in improving these articles. If the first experience is that they get reverted, they will just quietly go away. At least try to incorporate some of the helpful changes, and correct any specific error. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made no actual grammar improvements, and in several places made it worse ("trackages connects", removing "complex"). There is no reason for the editor to remove the list of what lines historically ran into the station, especially since they did so under a false edit summary. Making that edit under the title of "fixed grammar" is misleading at best and malicious at worst. This is not a new user who is about to be scared off; they have made hundreds of edits over several months, many of which have been reverted for poor grammar or removing information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owner

According to Amtrak Great American Station website is Amtrak the Owner of the Union Station building and not Springfield Redevelopment Authority. The Parking lot is owned by the Springfield Redevelopment Authority. Tracks are owned by Amtrak and CSX.^[1] SRich (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OLIVER is a really handy tool for determining property ownership in Massachusetts. Amtrak owns the currently-used station building (constructed in 1994 to replace the 1973-built waiting room in the tunnel), the area where they lay over the Shuttles, and the platforms themselves. CSX owns the railroad itself (both rails and land, it appears). The SRA owns Union Station, the new bus terminal site (former baggage building site), and the new garage (former Charles Hotel site); they bought them for a song when the Charles Hotel burned in the late 1980s. I'll explicate this further when I have time to fully expand the history, but for now here's a source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for researching this. Based on this information it would be correct then to say that Amtrak owns the existing station building and the SRA owns the soon to be active Union Station building on the north side of the tracks. I see that you just updated this in the Infobox a moment ago. Thanks. FFM784 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi I have search in Oliver, and you where right for a part. The new union station is owned bij SRA, but the ground and platforms are owned by Amtrak and a smal part bij Consolidated Rail Corp(Conrail?). So I think that the tracks are shared owned by CSX(conrail) and Amtrak SRich (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ SPG

NHHS style

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I noticed AirportExpert (talk) has been going through all the stations on the New Haven–Springfield Line and changing their infobox style from Amtrak to NHHS for the upcoming Hartford Line. I don't necessarily object to this, but I'd like to make sure others are okay with it, and wonder how it is decided which one to use if there are multiple services using one station. Does the one with more frequencies or more passengers get it, or is it the one who owns it? Or is it just personal preference of the editors? Not that it matters, but I personally think the NHHS style is ugly compared with the Amtrak one. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prevailing method is to have the style match the actual signage whenever possible. Meriden, Wallingford, and Berlin have been fully upgraded, including NHHS signage. Hartford, Windsor, and Windsor Locks still have Amtrak signage. I don't know for sure about Springfield, but given that it's outside CT I believe it retains Amtrak signage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, thanks! I'm not sure either, but I would agree that it probably still has Amtrak signage. –Daybeers (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] SPG

[1]