Talk:Ethan Allen Express

"minor, not encyclopedic" GCW

:Keep, encyclopedic. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. --Patrick 10:27, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:Keep. Stubs are supposed to exist so people who think they aren't complete will expand them. Jamesday 12:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added some detail to the References so that there'd be something more than just numbers with external links in the References list at the end of the article. However, I don't know how to set it up when two references link or appear to link to the same source so that the information isn't repeated in the References list. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, segments don't have eyes. They don't "see", per se. This may be "journalism" but it isn't encyclopedic language. Either there had been passenger service or there hadn't. Just the facts. Dressing it up in informal language to "appeal" to people is tv-ish. Student7 (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the cited article says so, but how's it possible for a train that runs one round trip per day to have 11,068 minutes of delay in a month? That's an average of 3 hours late. And this delay was eliminated by track work between Rutland and Whitehall, which is only 27 miles.

I think that might be a mistake in the Progressive Railroading article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N1n2n3n4 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Talk:Ethan Allen Express/GA1}}

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Ethan Allen Express}}

What do rides on this line cost?

What is served in the cafe area on train and how affordable is it?

Where/ how can tickets be obtained?

Why is there talk of a "round trip" when there is only one route?

Are all train stations accessible via public transport? 2A02:3031:1:D517:1:1:56B7:4545 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:This isn't a forum, but if you think this stuff should be clarified in the article, keep in mind this isn't a travel guide like WikiVoyage.

:* Pricing depends on various factors and changes over time so it might be hard to say accurately and concisely. Most Amtrak route articles don't mention pricing.

:* Cafe details also vary and usually aren't listed in articles, see above.

:* Ticking info is more a WikiVoyage thing and can easily be found by a web search.

:* In American English, "round trip" means "there and back", but doesn't necessarily imply any sort of loop or second route. A train service with "one round trip per day" consists of two departure per day: one train running the route in each direction. This phrasing is consistent across all Amtrak articles.

:* Connection info is already present in the "Station stops" section of the article.

:QuincyMorgan (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the splitting of ridership numbers into two separate sections - one in the 'Ridership and Funding' section that is currently almost exclusively filled with funding and the other in the history section. If we are going to have a ridership section, why would it not contain all of the information within the article on ridership. If we want to move it into the history section, why would that history stop before the most recent fiscal year data. It just makes that data harder to find and more confusing. If there is some standard being kept here, please let me know. Otherwise I would strongly recommend undoing this split. Ixgauth (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

:In my opinion, current ridership belongs with other details of current service, while broad trends in ridership belong in the history section. The post-2022 increases in ridership are more relevant to the Burlington extension that precipitated them than to other aspects of current operation. We don't need to include every single year's ridership in the history - just significant changes or long-term trends. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, I can see that point of view. I think there are two things that feel like they're holding back the current version. First, the history should, in my opinion, include the most recent numbers as it gives an up-to-date history of the project. I think that could just take the form of doubling up on writing in the FY 2024 number in the history section to show that the trend has continued. I recognize that requiring ridership data for every single year is a bit unnecessary as more and more of them become relevant. But, given the limited number of years this new service has been in place, I think we might need all of them to show a good trend in the data.

::Beyond that, I still think listing the section as generically 'Ridership' when more of the broad information on ridership trends are found in the History section seems like it will be difficult for readers to navigate. Ixgauth (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)