Talk:Union Pacific Railroad/Archive 1

Archive 1

5511 Question

You mentioned in your article that the 5511 was offered for sale. What is your reference or source for this? I have not heard that and although the 5511 looks good on the outside, have heard that restoration to running condition would take more than it would be worth.

This page at steamlocomotive.com mentions a rumor that it was offered for sale as of 2004, but doesn't go into further detail. I searched around UP's site, but didn't find anything about the locomotive at all even though it is stored at the Cheyenne roundhouse as part of the steam collection. I'll check my other resources at home this week to see if I can find anything else. slambo 16:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jay Gould

See my comment at Jay Gould, because I think there is a bit of conflict between the two articles. Jimbo 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited "Current Trackage"

There is no longer such a beast as "Cheyenne Service Unit". We are now umbrellaed under the Denver Service Unit. SAWgunner 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)SAWgunnerSAWgunner 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Union Pacific Railroad/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

• No citations; I see no point in the #References section;
• Most parahraphs are one or two sentences. Iolakana|^T 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

wikiproject Missouri

i've deceided to be bold and remove the Wikiproject Missouri tag at the top, as the Railrod has no major trackage in Missouri (well, no more than say, Texas, or Iowa) and there are very few mentions of Missouri in the article

Alexander101010 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Officers Remaining from Southern Pacific Railroad

At this time (Jan 2006), I think the only senior UP railroad officer surviving from SP is Rollin Bredenberg. Anyone have any information to the contrary?

I Work in UP's Police Dispatch and I've never heard of the guy. 69.58.249.133 10:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Rollin Bredenberg never worked for UPRR. While he was with the SP in the late 70s and early 80s, he jumped ship to the ATSF along with other members of the Krebs Contingent after the failed ATSF/SP merger. Last I heard he was still in the employ of the BNSF Railway as Vice President of Service Design and Performance.

--Sunktanka (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a typo

Hey: this is a little confusing: "UP was entangled in the Crédit Mobilier scandal of 1872. Its early troubles led to bankruptcy during the 1870s, the result of which was reorganization of the Union Pacific Railroad as the Union Pacific Railway on January 24, 1880" Is this just a typo or was the Union Pacific really reformed as the Union Pacific? Dr Mullet 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Officially changing from "Railroad" to "Railway" or vice versa is actually a common method to keep the same operating name of a company while legally creating a new company. So, it is correct. Slambo (Speak) 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

I passed this article for GA status. I noticed a couple spelling mistakes and that incomplete list tag in the article. You should improve on these. FunPika 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to review this article in addition to your review. The reason why I believe this addition review is necessary is because the logo has no fair use rationale and reference section is confusing. These problems violated GA criterias. For now the article will remain in GA status until I complete a in-depth review. However, status may change after my review. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The logo now has a Fair use rationale. Meaning no offense, but next time feel free to be bold and add it yourself - in the case of logos, the rationale is obvious. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 20:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It takes longer to review the article than checking fair use rationale in logos/images. The reviewer didn't even know the criteria so I'm pretty sure I'll find something that needs to be improved. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And as a not-so-impartial editor, I was a little surprised to see this promoted to GA so easily. I think there's quite a bit more that could be done here especially in referencing the text. Slambo (Speak) 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Common line names

From [1]:

1. Overland Route
2. Sunset Route
3. I-5 Corridor
4. KP Line
5. Tucumcari Line
6. TP Line
7. Spine Line
8. OKT Line
9. WPRI Line
10. SI Line
11. SPCSL
12. Coast Line
13. Central Corridor
14. Rabbit Line
15. T&HC Line
16. Dalsa Line
17. Tennessee Pass
18. Modoc Line
19. Feather River Corridor
20. Northwest Corridor

Each of these could probably be a separate article. --NE2 11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're (not) history

If I could source it, I'd add something about the use of Irish immigrant labor (not Chinese, like most people think; that was the Central Pacific Railroad) & the land grants that made railways so profitable in their early days. Also, I'd mention railways today don't get the subsidies & general revenue spending highways do (which maybe isn't for here...), based on (I think) It's a Sprawl World. Trekphiler 06:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese labor on the UP didn't start until the RR reached Utah, due to the fact the Mormons at the time really didn't want the "vice and sin" that came with the Irish/Swedish/American?etc labor brought. I also missed the original track route. Sherman, WY was the highest point on the RR before it was moved. Any thoughts? Mt.holliday (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced

I'd like to know where the source is for the following:

The Pacific Electric Company in Los Angeles was a subsidiary of the Union Pacific.

Everything that I have shows it as a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific and not the Union Pacific. slambo 20:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. —Morven 21:14, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the SP was merged with UP so I guess UP owns it now. SP doesnt exist anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.62.175 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Petroleum and alternative propulsion

This section could potentially be useful, but the two sentences in it aren't english. Anyone know what to do? 68.38.86.22 (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 accident

There should probably be a mention of the 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

union pacific rr train operating profiles

can any one explain the reason the union pacific rr uses a helper engine on the tail end of coal unit trains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.46.93 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The environmental awareness section

UP doesnt give a crap about the environment, the EPA has a rule that says as long as it leaks within the railyard or on their trackage, it isnt considered pollution. I worked in track maintainance for 6 years, and trust me, you dont want to know half of the sh*t that falls in those railyards, especially at hump facilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.62.175 (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While the editor who added this section (twice) did provide links to reliable sources (thank you very much for that!), the section is worded in a way that sounds disparaging to the company and not neutral. We need to include both the good and the bad, but what we need here is just as Joe Friday is always quoted, "Just the facts, ma'am." Slambo (Speak) 12:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a little bit. Several of the sentences did not reflect the meaning of the sources even remotely. This section still sounds heavily biased, and Cmray has been adding 'environmental' sections to several articles, with the same bias and misquoting of sources. Should I clean all those up, too, or say to heck with it? Thanks Drewster1829 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Have reworded for npov and removed old (May 2008) pov tag.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Truck Competition

A good example of government favoritism for the trucking industry is Interstate 80. This road runs from Teaneck, NJ on the East Coast to San Francisco on the West Coast. It runs parallel to the Union Pacific from the rail road's beginning to its end. Unlike the UP the government pays all costs of the highway and of course the the government pays no property tax. While the trucking industry gets a free ride the rail road has to pay its own way. This is why trucks continue to haul much of their freight. It is also a cause of considerable environmental pollution. As a reference see the Wiki articles on Interstate 80. Ishmael Dott (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Ishmael Dott

Finances

There isn't anything at all written about profitability, does anyone know if UP makes money or if, like Amtrak, they survive off subsidies? Vicarious 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

UP definitely makes money, not just off of freight transport, but for land rental for Level 3, Qwest, Kinder Morgan Pipeline, and others that have fiber optic cables and gas lines buried under the right of way. —Equinox137 04:55, Oct 1, 2005 (UTC)

They make a sh*tload off of intermodal trains and big contracts like "blue streak" which is the UPS mail train that BNSF lost to UP. That thing is mucho $$$$$. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.62.175 (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you got reliable sources that we can cite in the article to verify this information? Slambo (Speak) 11:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In a supreme irony of fate the UP does very well with its coal business now. For about a century the UP ran through remote areas with little or no rail traffic. Added to that under the Pacific Rail Road Act of 1862 it was forbidden to build the branch lines any successful road needed. In the words of 19th century railroad economists it was "like an apple tree with all trunk and no branches." The government had given it enormous amounts of land but land has value only if people want to settle there and even today southern Wyoming is not exactly a center of population. The land does have lignite coal, a resource with little value in the 19th century because it has only 2/3 of the heat content of anthracite coal.

Then arrived the the environmental legislation of the 1970's. It required electric power plants to stop pouring sulphur into the air and anthracite coal is high in sulphur while lignite has very little. The power plants converted to lignite. Today the UP makes a lot of money mining and delivering coal to electric utilities all over the country. We generate about half of our electricity from coal and that will probably increase because of opposition to other kinds of generation. The UP runs mile long unit trains. Some of them never stop; they are filled as they roll along and they are emptied as they roll along. Ref: Albro Martin, Railroads Triumphant.Ishmael Dott (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Ishmael Dott

Ambiguous sentence

"Placing cars containing hazardous materials had traditionally been an operational measure used to safeguard against the likelihood of the tank cars being among the first affected in the event of a derailment and reduce their likelihood of colliding with heavier steel cars."

-- Placing them where? At the end, in the front (it is seemingly implied by the preceding sentence that they shouldn't be placed there) or somewhere else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.134.36 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume it means not at the front - I've tagged that sentence as needing clarification, also needs a citation.

More dubious opinion

"and due to the tremendous size, the area of operation would be very limited." If a Big boy were operating today it could essentially operate in most places the Challenger operates in. That line is conjecture and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.141.197 (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a reference for that alleged fact, I'd be very tempted to file it as WP:OR. (no sense in replacing one dubious opinion with another) WuhWuzDat 06:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ive removed that, but left the rumour (needs referencing) diff Imgaril (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

And more dubious opinion

"Some[who?] have questioned the managerial structure of the Union Pacific and the efficacy of the company's internal affairs departments in dealing with clear tortious actions of some employees. This accusations have recently surfaced in a recent high-profile civil lawsuit against the company: Alvarado v. Gorton and the Union Pacific Railroad Co.[26]"

I certainly would not call the lawsuit "high profile" and there certainly is non evidence of corporate mismanagement. No citations, no analysis only some the claim of an isolated incident that suddenly condemns management to "mismanagement." The problem the author of this sections faces and cannot defend is that UP is profitable. This entire section needs to be removed. This is a neutrality challenge that must be addressed. It depicts the company in a light that is not defensible when the facts are laid out. It is a simple matter of addressing it with a shareholders report. There is no evidence of mismanagement as the company makes a profit, it not being investigated by a federal grand jury and there are no accusations of security irregularities, fraud or any other mismanagent issues. The company is far from being in bankruptcy. Minor lawsuits against a company by employees and other parties does not constitute mismanagement since these are normal issues in business, especially for the railroads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.141.197 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find this in the article now - I assume it has been removed or corrected. As it was written the unverfied claims were not keepable without citations.Imgaril (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Such an unsourced assertion, does it need to be explained?

"The company has been accused by some[who?] of having very lax safety standards and of maintaining "cosy" relationships with federal safety investigators." This assertion is a violation of neutrality until many credible sources can be cited for this assertion, and counter arguments have been sourced (such as Federal regulators saying they are not cosy with U.P.). This article is not very encyclopedic and is really an incoherent hodge podge.

This appears to have been removed. As in the section above - if it was in the article it would need citations.Imgaril (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've looked at the talk page comments and check the article for the issues raised, and it seems that the issues relating to neutral point of view are not there any more, as they have been removed. So I've removed the NPOV tag for now. I'm not claiming the article is correct now - just that there are no outstanding issues. Please raise them if there are any more. Cheers.Imgaril (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious claim in lede

On what basis can UP be said to be "the largest and oldest operating railroad network in the United States"? Largest, yes; oldest, hardly. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This claim is no longer there.Imgaril (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Heritage locomotives

Something about this issue has puzzled me:

From the second half of 2005 to the summer of 2006, UP unveiled a new set of six EMD SD70ACe locomotives in "Heritage Colors," painted in schemes reminiscent of railroads acquired by UP since the 1980s. The engine numbers match the year that the predecessor railroad was absorbed into Union Pacific. The locomotives commemorate the Missouri Pacific with UP 1982, the Western Pacific with UP 1983, the Missouri-Kansas-Texas with UP 1988, the Chicago and North Western with UP 1995, the Southern Pacific with UP 1996, and the Denver and Rio Grande Western with UP 1989. Although the Denver & Rio Grande Western was not a direct predecessor because it had purchased the SP in 1988 but kept the larger system's name, the Union Pacific still included it in the heritage series.

Does anybody know the reason why they never considered one for the Texas and Pacific Railway? Other than having bought out by Missouri Pacific, I really can't see any reason for them not to have heritage locomotives for them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Grand Excursion to the 100th Meridian 1866

Would there be a section on this subject added to the article or elsewhere? Have thought of creating article on John Carbutt in relation to photography and would not want to include a full stand along content outside of the mother company sponsor.A1Houseboy (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles Tables

I noticed that the tables in the "History" section mentions the reporting marks of UP subsidiary railroads which are not explained prior to the tables (where it said "UP-OSL-OWRN-LA&SL-StJ&GI"). Maybe the history section can be expanded to include Union Pacific's involvement on these railroads. TheGGoose (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

new: History of the Union Pacific Railroad

I created a new article on the History of the Union Pacific Railroad. It includes some text from here, some from me First Transcontinental Railroad article, and increasingly will have fresh new material. Comments and suggestions will be greatly welcome. Rjensen (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Union Pacific Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/attachments/special_trains/historical_equipment/pacific_limited.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/attachments/special_trains/historical_equipment/portland_rose.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

possible source for black/african-american employees

I wouldn't consider this a reliable source, but there are references to a couple of books in here. tedder (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Union Pacific Railroad. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426115300/http://factualitytour.americaspower.org/history-rails-union-pacific-railroad-museum-takes-us-abraham-lincoln-today to http://factualitytour.americaspower.org/history-rails-union-pacific-railroad-museum-takes-us-abraham-lincoln-today
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308133352/http://www.pro8news.com/news/local/86466522.html to http://www.pro8news.com/news/local/86466522.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Train_derails_near_New_Braunfels_without_injuries.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526051327/http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/wr/uprreugene/index.htm to http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/cu/wr/UPRREugene/index.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

One or Two

The first paragraph of the lead says that the UP is the second largest and the last paragraph says that it is the largest. Does anybody know which one? -- Dolotta (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Stray contents that are excessively about each locomotive with citations going to primary sources that do not fulfill reliable source requirements

I've removed some unreferenced contents as well as those referencing personal websites. This should address the article length concern to some level. Graywalls (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Article length allocation disagreement on topics

An editor concerned with article length is sharing their position that each notable accident should only be very brief. Meanwhile, the article contains things in the most arduous details down to the exact VIN or serial number of some of the cars that in my opinion would be of real interest to special audience like rail fans. I believe coverage should be proportional to the level of public coverage. Please bring input and share possible policies, prior practices and such. Graywalls (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reached out to the folks at WikiProject Trains as well, placing this on the Style advice Talk page:

"How much detail should be included about each accident in a bulleted list of accidents on a railroad article page? This has come up over at the Union Pacific Railroad page, and is now under discussion. One editor is of the opinion that a recent non-fatal accident deserves hundreds of words of description; another would rather keep bulleted items to about two sentences, with more significant accidents being written up in their own article. We'd love to hear about general practices and other editors' thoughts on the matter." PRRfan (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Too much detail in accident description

Hi, @Graywalls: I'm not surprised you reverted my edit of the text about the accident of September 7, 2019; that was a big change to something you'd just expanded, and I should have discussed my proposed changes here first. So let's talk about them now.

Here's the current version:

• September 7, 2019: a Union Pacific train of two locomotives and three tank cars carrying liquefied petroleum gas derailed and cracked a support column of an overpass in Portland, Oregon. The six-lane Going Street overpass is the only public path to the major industrial area Swan Island for passenger vehicles and delivery vehicles. The crash left just two lanes safe to use until repairs can be made, which is speculated to take weeks to months. Since the initial crash, a third lane has been opened up. The derailment and crash occurred at the Union Pacific Albina Yard. The derailed train hit support columns for the eastbound North Going Street overpass. The preliminary cause of crash as provided by Union Pacific is "broken rails". There was nobody on board the train which was remotely operated at the time of crash. The railroad did not respond to The Oregonian's question on how far away the operator was or if having a conductor on-board would have made a difference in the outcome. Vigor, a ship builder and manufacturer with 900 employees on the Swan Island had to adjust employee shift to stagger commute time as a result of traffic delays.

This is more than 200 words. That's a lot of text in an article that's already pushing 10,000 words. It's more than twice as long as any of the other bullet-pointed accident descriptions. And it's nearly half as long as the article's treatment of the UP's entire 20th-century history. There's just no way WP's main article about a 157-year-old, 32,000-mile railroad should be talking about the reopening of one traffic lane after a month.

To be sure, the section about the 20th-century history is a condensed version of a longer, more detailed article, and maybe this suggests a resolution here. Why not move the accidents to a new article, perhaps Accidents of the Union Pacific Railroad. Or, if the 2019 Alvina Yard accident is so significant, perhaps it deserves its own article?

If so, then we can slim down the excess detail in this main UP article. I propose:

• September 7, 2019: a remotely controlled Union Pacific train of two locomotives and three tank cars carrying liquefied petroleum gas derailed at the Albina Yard because of "broken rails", railroad officials said. It cracked a support column of the eastbound North Going Street overpass in Portland, Oregon, closing half of the bridge's lanes for repairs and hampering traffic to the Swan Island industrial area.

What do we think? PRRfan (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm alright with splitting the entire accident section into a whole different article. I don't remember off top of my mind what the guideline is for length. The accident bottle necks the UPS/FedEx hub that serves the entire metropolitan area as well as major industrial sites. So cutting the details such as an employer having to change work shift for 900 employees cuts what makes it notable. If it was only affecting a few small companies, it wouldn't be notable. Graywalls (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I also happen to think that there's far excessive details about equipment in comparison to the level of details about specific equipment. In fact they take the overwhelming majority of the article and I see that two users have added nearly half the contents. Graywalls (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're probably right about the details of rolling stock. Anyway, the article is currently 61.3 kB, and Wikipedia:SIZERULE says this: "> 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". So splitting off the accidents section is certainly justified under that. As for the tightened text, how about:

* September 7, 2019: a remotely controlled Union Pacific train of two locomotives and three tank cars carrying liquefied petroleum gas derailed in Portland, Oregon's Albina Yard. The accident damaged the North Going Street overpass, whose partial closure forced employers in the Swan Island industrial area to alter work schedules for some 900 workers.

Look good? PRRfan (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

who decides how much details stay in what sections and what's on the chopping block? if you were to ask me, the article looks like it's tailored to rail fans. Personally I couldn't care less about the whereabouts of specific serial number of specific locomotives. Even though this is a companies article, there's more in the list and arduous details about specific serial numbers than there is about the company. Graywalls (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Good question. What appears in an article is decided, arbitrarily enough, by the editors who happen to be interested in deciding it, influenced by general practice on similar articles (U.S. railroads, in this case) and by the Wikipedia guidelines, which were also written (and subsequently edited) by editors who happened to be interested in writing a given guideline. It sounds like it shouldn't work, but it generally does. But there's always room for improvement. Among WP's guidelines is "be bold": if you see something you think should be better/different, change it! Or argue for its change on the Talk page. PRRfan (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As you're concerned with the length, I would say the trimming should be made on the locomotive section. Not only are arduous list of individual locomotives rather unimportant on an article about the company, most of the contents are more arduous details that are unreferenced. Graywalls (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

PRRfan, the prose needs to reflect contents said in sources. While I understanding you're trying to make it sound/flow better in your good faith edits, I am finding material skew introduced after the "tightening". For example, you've changed the prose regarding an action taken by an affected company Vigor, to read "employers in the Swan Island industrial area to alter work schedules for some 900 workers." whereas the source reads: "Vigor, a ship building and manufacturing company with more than 900 employees and subcontractors on the island, said it had to adjust shifts on Monday to try and stagger commute times. “As needed, we’ll adjust going forward in a way that minimizes the impact on our operations as well as congestion issues,” said Jill Mackie, senior vice president for public affairs.". The statement portrays that multiple employers in area adjusted work schedule for a total of 900 workers between affected companies while the source reports it is specific to Vigor. I believe the citation link might significant affect the byte size, so I believe that actual visible length is trimmed more than what a difference of 1,258 would suggest, so I believe it contributed to reducing the lengthiness you're concerned about. The information I added is all verifiable through reliable sources, and what I have removed are mostly contents without proper references for which references were requested a long time ago or they were referenced to personal websites that don't meet our reliable sources guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Graywalls; looks like you're right that it's just one employer, so the fix is deleting an "s," right? Were there other inaccuracies? Anyway, the point here is that picayune detail about one accident in the main article on a 157-year-old railroad is picayune, no matter how well-sourced it is. Let's start Union Pacific Railroad accidents or, if you really think all this detail is worth it, 2019 Alvina Yard accident. In the meantime, how about: "* September 7, 2019: a remotely controlled Union Pacific train of two locomotives and three tank cars carrying liquefied petroleum gas derailed in Portland, Oregon's Albina Yard. The accident damaged the North Going Street overpass, whose partial closure forced an employer in the Swan Island industrial area to alter work schedules for some 900 workers." PRRfan (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

picayune according to? What's your objection to a relatively detailed story about a UP screw up in a major city that has a major impact to the entire city? Given press coverage and general interest, I would say that it's far more important than tracking the whereabouts of each locomotive down to individual car's VIN number. Now that's picayune details. Article size concerns have been partially addressed. The emphasis needs to go towards removing unreferenced rambling written by or based on contents on fan sites. It's preferable to have sources for each small bits. It's against the general practices to bomb a sentence or two with a whole bunch of sources on the end.Graywalls (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Before we move on: fixing the "material skew" you're talking about is a matter of removing one "s," correct? PRRfan (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That I am aware. You have done this before recently, such as inappropriately changing preliminary cause to 'caused by' such that it no longer accurately reflected what's said in RELIABLE SOURCES. The final conclusion hasn't been drawn yet. I'm not agreeing with how you just bunched up all the sources into a cluster either. Do you even carefully check the sources before you go changing words around in such a way that it materially changes what it says? Graywalls (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry; just to be clear: that's a "yes, deleting one 's' fixes the 'material skew'"? PRRfan (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like that's a "yes". Onward! I'm all for moving the citations next to the facts they cite; we can also delete some of the ones that are redundant. As for "relatively detailed", that's just the point: the description of the Portland accident, which is inconveniencing hundreds of people at one company, ought not be twice as long as, say, the June 24, 2012, accident that killed three people or far longer than the November 15, 2012, accident that killed four. Finally, the main Union Pacific Railroad article is not the place for evolving news ("The preliminary cause of crash as provided by Union Pacific is 'broken rails'"; "The railroad did not respond to The Oregonian's question on how far away the operator was or if having a conductor on-board would have made a difference in the outcome"). Those kinds of details are better placed in 2019 Albina yard accident. So, how about:

"* September 7, 2019: a remotely controlled Union Pacific train of two locomotives and three tank cars carrying liquefied petroleum gas derailed in Portland, Oregon's Albina Yard. The accident damaged the North Going Street overpass, whose partial closure forced an employer in the Swan Island industrial area to alter work schedules for some 900 workers." PRRfan (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This receives significant coverage, and there's a new coverage about it just today, which I am going to add. Ongoing press coverage is an indication of general notability on Wikipedia and that certainly is justification to expand on something that is of interest. Your concern is article length. You're refusing to have discussion on workable alternatives, such as the elimination of original research and reflection writing by wiki editors and contents from rail fan type sites. Uncited, unreferenced and exceeding specific contents such as the whereabouts of each rail car by their VIN without any indication as to their notability with reliable sources is a much more appropriate area for trimming. I have proposed this so we can resolve your article length concern, but you have no cooperated with this. Relating to your argument about the length in proportion to the San Antonio fatal accident, I support expanding the latter. Graywalls (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kindly hold off on adding to the section until we decide how to proceed. Sure, details that get local news coverage meet WP's notability standard — I've said as much in suggesting we create 2019 Alvina Yard accident — but that doesn't mean they deserve to appear in any particular article. I think it's reasonable to assume that these details are almost certainly of less interest to readers of the Union Pacific article than to readers of the Albina Yard article, or Swan Island, or maybe even Portland — another reason to build a standalone piece that all could link to. More broadly, I fear you've misunderstood my concern; it's not that the details are making the article too long; it's that this incident doesn't deserve such prominence in an article about (again) a 157-year-old, 32,000-mile railroad. I haven't been "refusing" to "cooperate" with your effort to remove improperly cited material (good on you for it); rather, it's simply not relevant to (or even, numerically, slightly exacerbating of) my concern. Let me ask: given your evident interest in the accident and its aftermath, wouldn't you want a standalone article that could more fully explore and document them? PRRfan (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an incident UPRR caused and I am fine with it being in this article, because it is part an notable incident of UPRR. Graywalls (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Don Strack

User Graywalls does not accept Don Strack as a published railroad and diesel locomotive historical subject expert. Or the contents of the Andre Kristopans' EMD content published on Utah Rails. Note the recent editing fracas on the EMD GP9 page. Many of the EMD locomotive pages were edited with information from the Kristopans data. What has to be done to establish both Strack and Kristopans as subject experts? --SSW9389 (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Those sources look to be railfan home pages. I've sought input at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_276#http://utahrails.net_and_http://rrpicturearchives.net and it appears the source is a no. Looking through your talk, I am seeing it's not the first time proper citation issues have come up to you, such as User_talk:The_Wicked_Twisted_Road#Alco_Engines_et_al this one. Your current disagreement is concerning the source http://utahrails.net/ajkristopans/ajkristopans-index.php which says "From about 1998 to October 2013, Andre Kristopans maintained a personal web site where he had compiled the serial numbers and other builder data for railroad locomotives". I see he appears in a magazine, but not as an author, but only as a reader commentator/letter to editor type deal, for example this "Electric Railroaders’ Assoc., Inc. is a non-profit educational organization consisting of people from all walks of life interested in the history and progress of electric railways." In, https://erausa.org/pdf/bulletin/2006/2006-08-bulletin.pdf "Member Andre Kristopans told me that this group will be numbered 5001-5406." so that's pretty much limited as being cited as a member to a train interest organization that's pretty much open to anyone. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard would be the best place to entertain this discussion if you believe that these people's websites satisfy reliable sources criteria.Graywalls (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I looked through Utah Rails again and note that there are dozens of diesel locomotive historical articles and books published by Don Strack. He pretty much defines large areas of diesel locomotive history for both Union Pacific and EMD. The discussion of Utah Rails on the reliable sources noticeboard is over 10 years old and doesn't mention anything about Don Strack's extensive publication history. --SSW9389 (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

By Don Strack's count there were 39 of his articles and 17 of his books published as of September 19, 2019. See http://utahrails.net/donpub.php And he has another five books pending. What exactly is the reliable source board worth to us? http://utahrails.net/donpub.php --SSW9389 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

who is "us"? The RSN is the place specifically meant for discussing disagreements over appropriateness of sources. In the most recent discussion, the two commentators who volunteered agreed that these aren't reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

excessive contents on train car types and their serial numbers in company page

As an example, Waste Management (corporation) does not have a list of their vehicles in the most arduous details such as the models, quantity and VIN. United Airlines does not have those arduous details of their aircraft fleet. What's the rationale to have these excessive details for rail road stuff? Graywalls (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The article was getting bloated. I migrated the long list of historic trains kept by UPRR to History_of_the_Union_Pacific_Railroad#Historic_locomotivesGraywalls (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Too early for inclusion, and slightly nonsensical

From the opening section:

Additionally, the Union Pacific of late is the last United States based Class l railroad left in the country that has not originated as a merger between separate road names or holding companies and, as such, is currently the oldest operating Class l railroad in the United States. It previously shared this accolade only with the Kansas City Southern Railway though that is now liable to change due to the Kansas City Southern's acquisition by Canadian Pacific Railway on September 15, 2021,[2] however, this is still subject to regulatory approval.

It's too early to make this claim considering KCS and CP still haven't formally merged. The language in this paragraph makes no sense anyway with "previously" in the sentence right before "though that is now liable to change"... so what is it even trying to say? Ironmatic1 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the writing style is quite informal, and as you said the merger hasn't even happened yet. People see a merger announced in the news and immediately go to edit the articles, without understanding that railroad mergers in the U.S. take a long time (just look at CSX and Pan Am, it's still ongoing). I'd remove this section from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Community Responsibility section

Is it just me, or does this section fall afoul of WP:UNDUE? It only covers one event in one city. Unlike the following environmental record section, which covers enough separate events to justify its existence, I don't see justification of an entire section that basically consists of "San Jose threatened to sue UP but didn't actually sue them". I think it should be deleted unless more examples of quote unquote "community responsibility" can be found elsewhere. A potential alternative would be to merge some or all of this information into a new, broader section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll bet there's more things that could be discussed, but it would take some digging. For example, UP was in the news in Utah last year, the state passed a bill to make it easier for local governments to upgrade rail crossings after Union Pacific was unwilling to cooperate on various projects. https://www.ksl.com/article/50354070/is-union-pacific-a-poor-corporate-citizen-utah-house-fast-tracks-a-bill-to-force-cleaner-tech?comments=true Unfortunately, it seems like the kind of information that would be hard to compile, but maybe someone has the time. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 17:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)