Talk:Surfliner (railcar)

	Trains Portal
DYK	June 21, 2014

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.

Merge to "California Car (railcar)"

I believe the difference between "Sufliner" cars and "California Cars" is not significant enough to warrant a separate article, since they shared the basic design requirements and same users. The different Cafe location, Cab/Baggage cars, restroom location, can be included in a general "California Car" article with a few paragraphs describing the differences. --Will74205 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beside the different builders the differences are not significant. So I think it should follow the NJT Comet cars example and merge into one article, including the 3rd gen cars.--Will74205 (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against The Surfliner cars are built by a totally different manufacturer (Alstom) than the California Car (Morrison-Knudsen), are more than 8 years newer and have a different history. While they are closely related they are different car types. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against What RickyCourtney and the fact that both articles already exist. Merging them would do more harm than good. Sturmovik (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another argument against the merger is that the third-generation cars will not be used exclusively in California. It will be awkward to have a page on railcars used in Illinois, Michigan and Missouri titled "California Car". RickyCourtney (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California Car II

There is very little evidence that these are called California Car II. User Will74205 cited this discussion thread on Trainorders. The problem is that this discussion took place 7 years ago (when the cars were brand new) and it was only called a California Car II by one user. Since that time Amtrak has made it clear in official fleet documents (see page 22 & 77) that these cars are called Surfliner cars and the older cars are called California Car. I think having this mention of California Car II is confusing to readers especially considering the term is used so infrequently. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Surfliner is the most common name, but in the Amtrak PDF it listed 78 California Cars, which is the number of the original cars plus the add-on Surfliner order assigned to the Northern California fleet. So I believe the name "California Car" should at least be mentioned in the Sufliner article since some cars are officially referred to as "California Car", or better yet merge the two articles.--Will74205 (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another official document (the design specs for the new 3rd generation cars) that refers to the two car types as the California Car and the Surfliner. No mention of "California Car II" anywhere. I wouldn't be so against the name if it was in common usage amongst rail fans ("toaster" is listed for the EMD AEM-7 and plenty of people use that name). But the truth is that very few railfans call the Surfliner cars "California Car II", neither does Amtrak or Caltrans making it unencyclopedic. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to On-Track-On-Line.com roster, maintained by David Warner, they are Surfliner cars. Author of said page is coincidentally the author of the most comprehensive book on the Amtrak fleet published to date, "Amtrak by the Numbers" which calls them Surfliners as well. Furthermore, the author of the page is also, according to his LinkedIn "Program Director Capital Acquisition" (at Amtrak)"Responsible for vehicle specification writing and continuing document configuration control and change management in support of Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Section 305 Next Generation Corridor Equipment Committee (NGEC) as well internal Amtrak purchases" Which to me, makes them the most credible source possible, as they were likely involved in the naming of said fleet.66.65.95.149 (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please google "California Car II" and results are not zero. Some railfans are using the name, and the Amtrak PDF counts "some" of them as "California Car", so I don't see why it would cause confusion or inaccurate to include the name in the article.--Will74205 (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that Capitol Corridor makes no distinction between 1st Gen. California Cars and 2nd Gen. Sufliner cars in its report [1]. Rather, as with Amtrak, all 1st Gen. and 2nd Gen. cars assigned to Northern California fleets are counted as "California Cars". This also supports the merge of two articles.--Will74205 (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California Car II appears to be an entirely made up name for this fleet. I will challenge such as unencyclopedic if nobody puts in a citation which actually backs up what is said.

1. Googling California Car II yields only this page, and unrelated pages through the third page of results.

2. Capitol Corridor also includes Superliners in the count of 84, as there are 68 original Cal cars, 12 North Cal Surfliners, and 4 North Cal Leased Superliners. As

Superliners are clearly not California cars, I do not see how such a statement can be construed to mean Surfliners are California cars.

3. The Amtrak list calls them Surfliners, contrary to what you are saying. California Car line lists car dates as 1995-1996. These cars are from 2000-2002. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (Same person as 66.65.95.149)[reply]

These are all very good arguments against using this name. As was mentioned above it seems that this user wishes to include the "California Car II" name to support the merging the Surfliner article with the California Car article. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate but related issue. It is already proven the "Sufliners", at least the ones with the Northern California Fleet, are counted as "California Car". So it would be a fact to be include, or at least mentioned, in the article.--Will74205 (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Along the line of this, let me change the phrase to "second generation California Car bi-level passenger cars used in California".--Will74205 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's take this logic one more step back in time. The design of both the Surfliner and California Car was based on the Superliner. Therefore I propose we call these the second generation of Superliner derived bi-level intercity railcars. At one point the Surfliner and California Car were just mentions at the bottom of the very lengthy Superliner page. When more information was added about these cars that the decision was made that they were unique enough to warrant their own separate articles. The problem is they don't fit neatly into a single page since there is the California Car, the Surfliner and an as of yet unnamed third generation of Superliner derived bi-level intercity railcars. What would we call it? "California Car" would become outdated in a few months when they start rolling across the midwest, "California Car, Surfliner, and Future Unnamed Model" doesn't really come across as memorable and neither does "Bi-Level Intercity Railcar" (which is arguably what they really are). There is a similar problem of the Superliner I cars (built 1978–1981 by Pullman) and the Superliner II cars (built 1993-1995 by Bombardier) being different, but they have a simple name to tie them together. It would have been preferable if these cars were called the California Car I and the California Car II... but they weren't. We as wikipedians can't force Amtrak to change the name simply because it would allow us to have a single article. I don't see the harm in having two articles, but I can see the harm of us basically inventing a title for these cars. On Wikipedia it's encouraged that you be BOLD, understanding that the change may be reverted if it's controversial, so that editors can discuss the change and find a consensus (See WP:BRD). This has become dangerously close to becoming an edit war with one member continuing to make a change that others find controversial without a consensus being found. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think this is a reasonable compromise. --Will74205 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it alone. This is the same situation as the SEPTA Silverliners and the NJT Arrows and the Commuter Comet coaches and the Amtrak Horizon's. The names are fine as they are. Redirect as necessary.Sturmovik (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]