Talk:Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad

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

Untitled[edit]

The City of Beacon did not exist until 1913 when Matteawan and Fishkill Landing were merged. The Hudson River terminal of the ND&C RR was at Dutchess Junction about 2 miles south of Fishkill Landing. Their ferry dock, roundhouse, engine and car shops and other railroad buildings were at Dutchess Junction. When the CNE took over in 1905 they began to dismantle the ND&C facilities. The repair shops were sold for salvage in 1907 but local train service continued under the CNE until 1916. The CNE was absorbed into the New Haven RR in 1927.

The D&C RR became part of the New York Boston and Northern in late 1872 but the name became New York Boston and Montreal in early 1873. The Clove Branch and the D&C were to become part of a main line from New York City to Montreal Canada to compete with the New York Central Hudson Line. Later in 1873 the NYB&M went bankrupt and the line was never completed. The lines reverted the Clove Branch and the D&C which declared bankruptcy in 1874. The ND&C was formed out of the old D&C in 1877. The ND&C was purchased by New Haven RR money in 1905 and the CNE was given the job of running it.

The correct spelling for the City of Newburgh is with a letter h on the end.

Bernard Rudberg Author of "Twenty Five Years on the ND&C"

Thanks for the input. [1] (northwest) and [2] (southwest) are my sources for this area. I see that in 1892 Beacon was Matteawan, but the 1902 map shows Beacon. Additionally, by 1892, the line to the major docks at Matteawan/Beacon existed, and Dutchess Junction looks like just a junction - I can't see how there could have been docks there.
As for the spelling of Newburg(h), are you sure that's not the same issue as with Pittsburg(h), which had no H from 1891 to 1911?
With the line to Montreal, that's covered in more detail at New York, Boston and Northern Railway. Though maybe this article could use another sentence or two on it. --SPUI (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've seen mention of a graded but never-used alignment of the NYB&N, but a detailed look at topo maps of the area reveals nothing - do you know anything about this? --SPUI (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(from Talk:Central New England Railway) "The western terminal of the ND&C RR was at Dutchess Junction on the Hudson River south of Fishkill Landing. The tracks from Hopewell Junction to the Hudson River are still active and owned by Metro North RR"

Neither [3] nor the aerial photo shows evidence of the line to Dutchess Junction existing. What is shown is the line to Beacon, with an apparent track connection about halfway to the old docks. --SPUI (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at a current Rand McNally map of New York State. You will find a letter h on the end of Newburgh. I have an 1891 map which also has the h on the end.

A friend of mine and I are in the process of writing a book about the NYB&M that was never completed. By the way, the name New York Boston & Northern lasted only about 3 months from November 1872 till January 1873 when it became New York Boston & Montreal. We have hiked most of the old roadbed and there is ample evidence in bridge abutments etc. The line failed in 1873 so the woods have taken over in most places. This story is outlined in my book "Twenty Five Years on the ND&C" which includes a chapter on the Clove Branch and NYB&M. It is still in print if you want to read it. I ran across quite a bit of erroneous information floating around when I researched that book. My book about the ND&C is based on the original hand written record books which are now at the Beacon Historical Society. When the old headquarters building was renovated, the workers found the books in the loft. There are 48 volumes of the 11 X 17 ledger books with 700 pages in each volume for a total of over 30,000 pages of original ND&C records. The oldest is dated 1879 and the newest is 1904. I have read every page.


As for the terminal of the ND&C, it was definitely at Dutchess Junction 2 miles south of Fishkill Landing. It was active until 1916 on the CNE schedules. The City of Beacon did not exist at the same time as the ND&C RR. The ND&C became part of the CNE Rwy 8 years before the City of Beacon was created. There is a Mountain nearby called Mt Beacon and some people began using the term Beacon very early back as far as the revolutionary war but it was not an official city until 1913, well after the ND&C was gone. Actually, the first mayor was an ex ND&C conductor named Frost.

The current rail line to the Beacon waterfront that used to be the CNE connection to Fishkill Landing was built by the NY&NE RR in 1881. The line to Dutchess Junction and the D&C/ND&C dock dates to 1869 and it was torn out sometime after 1916. The Dutchess Junction ferry was in full operation years before the Fishkill Landing yard was built with fill over part of the Hudson River mud flats. The steam boat "Fanny Garner" served Dutchess Junction and Newburgh for many years. Most of the freight traffic across the river was Pennsylvania coal in train cars on the decks of barges with rails on them. This train car traffic at Dutchess Junction and later at Fishkill Landing became obsolete when the big bridge in Poughkeepsie opened in December 1888. By 1904 the Fishkill Landing freight ferry was abandoned by the New Haven RR. There was still a passenger shelter at Dutchess Junction on the NYC as late as 1950. I can send you a photo of it if you like.

The dates for the Clove Branch are not correct. The Clove Branch hauled iron ore out of Sylvan Lake starting in 1869. It was supposed to be a part of the NYB&M which failed in 1873. It continued to haul iron ore and was extended out to Clove Valley along the old NYB&M roadbed in 1877. The Clove Branch was abandoned and torn out in 1898.

Any time you are interested, just give me a yell and I will show you what is left of Dutchess Junction and the NYB&M.

Bernie Rudberg

I stand corrected - I see the pilings from what was probably the old dock on [4]. However, I still can't find the NYB&M grading - can you give me a pointer for where that might be, like a nearby town or where it crosses a road?
I've done some rewriting on this article. I'm a bit confused about the post-reorganization history though. Apparently the NY&NE leased it at first, as they built the line to the docks at Beacon. The NYNH&H leased the NY&NE in 1898, but you say the NYNH&H bought the ND&C in 1905, assigning it to the CNE (which it had acquired in 1904). Did the NY&NE lose the ND&C during its 1884-1895 bankruptcy? If so, was it operated independently until 1905? --SPUI (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the Clove Branch - I don't understand how it would have tied into the NYB&M though. The NYB&M would have merged with the D&C near Hopewell, which puts it too far west for the Clove Branch east of Sylvan Lake to be useful. I had assumed the part west of there would have been used for the NYB&M, but you say the part to the east was graded for the NYB&M. Where would the NYB&M and D&C have merged? --SPUI (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a couple paragraphs and now they are gone. What gives ?

Bernie Rudberg

Did you get an edit conflict message? The only contributions from you and your IP are on this talk page (and the CNE talk page); thus either you got an edit conflict or didn't hit save. Try going back and resubmitting (assuming your browser saved the text). --SPUI (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few maps ([5], [6]) show a branch running north-northwest from the ND&C south of Millbrook. Any idea what this was? And a map that shows the NYB&M! --SPUI (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting frustrating. It did it bagain after I retyped the text. Can we talk over normal E-Mail instead ? [email protected]

I will try again

Both the D&C and the Clove Branch were supposed to be part of the NYB&M. The original Clove Branch went only as far as Sylvan Lake iron ore mines. The NYB&M wanted to extend it eastward and also use the north end of the D&C to get to another link to Chatham in Columbia County. These little towns were destined to be stops on the main line to Montreal but it all ended in the financial panic of 1873.

The Clove Branch hauled iron ore out of Sylvan Lake through a connection with the D&C/ND&C at Clove Branch Junction. The eastern end of the Clove Branch was supposed to connect with a line coming north from Carmel. If you look at Terraserver maps and aerial photographs of Clove Valley you can see the old NYB&M route just east of route 55. It makes a sweeping curve south toward Whaley Lake. Beyond that it crosses I 84 near exit 17 and goes through Lake Carmel. Farther south it connects with the other railroads just north of route 6 in Carmel.

By the way, the pilings in the map you posted are the remains of a trestle built by the BH&E. They were trying to build a deep water port on Dennings Point when they went bankrupt in 1870. The trestle was never completed and the pilings are a hazard to boats to this day.

Now back to the NY&NE. When the NY&NE completed the old BH&E line from Connecticut into Hopewell Junction in 1881 they leased trackage rights from the ND&C. The rights ran from Hopewell Junction to Wicopee Junction just west of Matteawan. At that point the NY&NE built the rails down to Fishkill Landing which are still in place today. The other line down to Dutchess Junction continued until after 1916. it was still listed on the CNE schedules in 1916. After that it was torn out.

Those trackage rights were still active after the NY&NE became the NE RR and later part of the New Haven RR. During those years both railroads ran both freight and passenger trains in both directions on one set of single tracks. It was a traffic nightmare considering the only communications was telegraph and later telephone to control things. That situation lasted more than 20 years.

When the New Haven RR money bought up all the small lines, all they really wanted was the big Poughkeepsie bridge and the Maybrook Line. As soon as they had control they began to dismantle all the east-west lines except the Maybrook and the branch to Beacon from Hopewell Junction. By 1938 they had torn out the ND&C and sold the rails for scrap to Japan. You know what Japan did with all that steel just three years later at Pearl Harbor. That was Dutchess County's contribution to the war effort.

Bernie Rudberg

I have found out that it works if I type the page into Word Perfect and then do a cut and paste into Wikipedia. It is clumsy but at least it works.

Bernie Rudberg

By the way, the map references 5 and 6 above took me off into Maryland and some medical map.  ?  ?

Bernie Rudberg

I tried looking some more for the grade without success, but I'll keep trying. All I see is the old BH&E, still in use.
So did the ND&C remain independent until 1905?
The Maryland and medical maps are correct - zoom in where the D&C would be. I cropped the one showing the NYB&M, highlighted it and uploaded it at Image:NYB&M.jpg. --SPUI (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The connections at the northern part of the D&C were supposed to be links in the NYB&M but they were never completed. The Rutland in Vermont was also part of the NYB&M route to Montreal.

Yes, the ND&C survived on it's own terms until 1905 when it was bought out by New Haven money and given to the CNE Rwy to run. What saved them many times was the rental money for the NY&NE trackage rights. When the CNE took over they promptly disposed of the engine repair facilities and shops at Dutchess Junction. Everything, including the carpenter shops, brass foundry, paint shops etc etc all went to salvage by 1907. The only thing left active was the Dutchess Junction station. Even that was abandoned in 1916 when the last passenger train left Dutchess Junction for Matteawan. There was still a small passenger shelter there as late as 1950 along the New York Central tracks.

If I send you some GPS numbers maybe you can locate the map spots I am talking about. Do you speak GPS ?

Bernie Rudberg

Do you have the lat/long (assuming that's not the same as the GPS numbers)? --SPUI (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the following location.

UTM 18 609454E 4609746N (WGS84/NAD83) USGS Verbank Quad

41°37′54″N 73°41′11″W / 41.6318°N 73.6864°W / 41.6318; -73.6864 (NAD27) USGS Verbank Quad

41° 37' 54"N, 73° 41' 11"W (NAD27) USGS Verbank Quad

This is on a topozone map. That point is just about in the center of the curve going south to cross route 55 and pass by Whaley Lake very near the existing line. If you look at the elevation lines on the USGS map you can see small notches where the roadbed was cut near swamp road and going south alongside Beach Road. There is much more but that will be a start.

Aerial photos of this area show the curve in the background of fields and trees.

Bernie

Farther south, the roadbed crosses the Gardner Hollow Brook just south of the Prison Reservoir. At that point there are large stone abutments for a bridge that was never built.

Lat lon is 41° 36' 36"N, 73° 39' 50"W (NAD27) USGS Poughquag Quad or 41°36′36″N 73°39′50″W / 41.6100°N 73.6640°W / 41.6100; -73.6640 (NAD27) USGS Poughquag Quad

Bernie Rudberg

Still farther south the NYB&M diverged from the exiting line toward the west. It ran along the shore of Lake Dutchess at the following point.

41°31′08″N 73°40′08″W / 41.5188°N 73.6690°W / 41.5188; -73.6690 (NAD27) USGS Poughquag Quad

41° 31' 08"N, 73° 40' 08"W (NAD27) USGS Poughquag Quad

After that it crossed I 84 east of exit 17 and went into Lake Carmel.

Bernie

Farther south in Carmel, just north of route US 6 you can see the embankment where it would have connected to the line marked CONRAIL.

41° 25' 11"N, 73° 40' 13"W (NAD27) USGS Lake Carmel Quad

41°25′11″N 73°40′13″W / 41.4198°N 73.6702°W / 41.4198; -73.6702 USGS Lake Carmel Quad

It is getting late. It is 1:00 AM here. I think I will hit the sack. I will check with you again tomorrow.

Bernie Rudberg

OK, I've started on a map at Image:P&D.jpg. Was the whole thing graded, or only portions? I was expecting this to be easier - I guess I'm used to higher-engineered lines like the Southern New England Railway, where it's really obvious on a topo map. --SPUI (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, the trees and brush have been growing over this line for 130 years and there has been a lot of farming and houses built in that time. If you give me an E-Mail address I can send you a marked up map from my files.

Bernie Rudberg

Can you send it to drspui at gmail dot com? Thanks. --SPUI (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent 4 notes with attachments.

I have similar maps of other old rail lines in Dutchess County. ND&C, P&E, P&C, R&C etc.

(Bernie, can I get a copy of these maps? Email is [email protected] . RussNelson 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Bernie Rudberg

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I think I'm going to give up on making the map, as I really can't find the grade in many areas. A question - do you know when the NYNH&H gained control of the Poughkeepsie and Eastern? --SPUI (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the four pages I sent ? The route was marked in red on those maps.

The P&E became part of the CNE/NH organization in 1907. The NH money financed the deal and the CNE was given the job of running the P&E.

Bernie Rudberg

Yeah, I got the maps - I just can't find large parts of the grading on topos or aerials. If I visit the area I may check it out though. If you ever visit eastern Massachusetts I recommend the Southern New England Railway, especially the three-level crossing. --SPUI (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As for the P&E, did the NYNH&H gain control prior to the 1907 merger? --SPUI (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The P&E was in financial trouble from day one. It never really made any money. It went bankrupt and changed names several time. In 1884 it sold off parts the trackage to keep going. As far as I know it managed to stay independent until it was merged into the CNE in 1907.

Bernie

Map needed[edit]

This needs a linear map, similar to that of the Maybrook Line. Actually, a lot of the former New York and New England Railroad and Central New England Railway articles in Upstate New York need those. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See *Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad on Google Maps Mannanan51 (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TwoScars (talk · contribs) 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will start reviewing this article Sunday. Do not hesitate to "push back" at my comments if you think appropriate—I certainly do when I'm being reviewed. I have not done many GA reviews, but I have over 30 years of experience working in the railroad industry. I have also visited the Association of American Railroads, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the ICC's successor the Surface Transportation Board. TwoScars (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it on! I've responded to a few items below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoScars: I believe I've replied to all your comments below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

First glance[edit]

  • Grammar check with Word: OK Done
  • Duplicate Links: numerous in the Route section, and one in the ND&C section
    • I don't see the duplicate link in the ND&C section - which one? For the route section, I think it's okay to repeat some links from the history section given the length of the latter.
      • In the Beginnings section, New Haven Railroad is linked to New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, and in paragraph three of the Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut section there is another link to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. In the route section: Hudson River, Hopewell Junction, Millbrook, Stissing Juntion, and Millerton are all Wikilinked for an extra time. Railroads Wikilinked for an extra time in the Route section are New York and New England Railroad, Dutchess County Railroad, Nw York and Harlem Railroad, and Connecticut Western Railroad. The MOS says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section." I think you can use the "first occurrence in a section" to get away with your railroad links in the Route section, but not places such as the Hudson River, various junctions, Millbrook, and Millerton. TwoScars (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've removed a few common duplicate links, but I think the others are valuable to have again in this section, given that most of them appear over a thousand words before this section. Do remember that the good article criteria only require compliance with a small number of MOS sections. You're welcome to suggest improvements to comply with other sections, and I'm happy to implement most of them, but I will choose readability over the MOS when they conflict. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map needs Alt text
    •  Done
  • Analyze a page IABot: OK Done
  • Earwig: OK Done
  • Images thumb or upright: OK Done
  • Miles & KM: OK Done
  • am & pm: not used, OK Done

Lede/Lead[edit]

  • Should "July 1969" be "July 1869"?
    •  Done
  • "The final segment to the state line" - are we talking about a railroad line or (probably) the border with Connecticut?
    • The latter. I think it's fine given that "Connecticut state line" is specified in the first paragraph.
  • Poor's Manual of Railroads calls the railroad "Dutchess and Columbia Counties Railroad" (page 370 of 1868–69 edition). Do they have the name wrong?
    • That name comes up in a handful of other books and newspapers. "Dutchess and Columbia Railroad" was definitely the real name; the longer version appears to be an error. I see a lot of similar errors when researching early railroads.
      • I agree. The State of New York Annual Report on Railroads calls it "Dutchess and Columbia Railroad Company" and says the articles of association were filed September 4, 1866. Perhaps a footnote would be useful that says that the railroad has been incorrectly called the "Dutchess and Columbia Counties Railroad", but the correct name is Dutchess and Columbia Railroad <with citations> TwoScars (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InfoBox[edit]

  • It appears to me that this railroad existed from 1877 until 1907 instead of the the years listed. It is listed in Poor's Manual of Railroads of the United States for 1894. It is not listed in the ICC Statistics of Railways in the United States for the year ended June 30, 1911. A couple of comparisons: the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway page says that railroad operated until 1996—which is mostly correct. Plenty of its line was still in use as part of BNSF Railway. Also, BNSF Railway is listed as beginning September 22, 1995 (also correct)—predecessor railroads are not counted for its beginning year. See also Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and CSX Transportation. I think it is useful to discuss predecessor railroads, and to discuss what happened to portions of the line, but you can't count that time as part of the Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad's existence.
    • This is a tricky one for which there's no perfect solution. For small railroads like this, the history of the company and the history of the physical line are combined (and correctly so) into a single article. (Versus, say, the ATSF, which had numerous lines that can all have separate articles). While that makes for the most useful article for readers, the infobox doesn't have a good way to distinguish between the end dates of the corporate identity and the operations. I prefer to use the end date for operations for several reasons. In most cases, I imagine the reader cares more about the rail line than the corporate identity. For lines like this where the line outlasts the corporation, it would be confusing to have an end date of 1907 when the lead indicates the operations going well past that date. Dates of abandonment tend to be very cut-and-dry, while corporate identity is not. (Does a simple name change matter? Does a name name in combination with a corporate restructuring, even if the lines operated are the same? What about when a company is bought and becomes an empty shell, but still has nominal corporate existence?) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Newburgh, Dutchess & Connecticut Railroad Company existed from January 1877 until 1907, when it was formally merged into the CNE. Poor's Manual says it is a successor to the D&C. It had a different president than the D&C, and different directors. The ND&C is not mentioned in the 1911 ICC Annual Report on the Statistics of Railways in the United States (I don't have every year). There is no equipment mentioned in the 1917 Official Railway Equipment Register. Using 1938 as the end year for operations is wrong. Using 1869 for the beginning year of operations is wrong. I am fine with information about its predecessor railroad, and its successor railroads, that is useful and interesting. However, you cannot say it operated before 1877 or after 1907 simply because some line that it would eventually own, or line that was formerly owned, had operations. I think of it this way: if you were making a list of all railroads that existed for a year after 1907, if you included the ND&C you would double-count some railroad line. The ICC made its list for June 1911, and the ND&C is not on the list. Your text needs to be adjusted to make it clear when you are discussing predecessor line and successor line. Your station listing is from 1915, when the railroad did not exist. Were all of those stations part of the line in 1907? TwoScars (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is it for today. I will be out all Saturday. TwoScars (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • How did you get 58.9 miles for the miles of roadway? I could not tell from the citations. Poor's Manual for 1894 says 58.84 miles. (It also mentions that the railroad had 10.76 miles of siding.)
    • From the timetable, 57.82 miles Dutchess Junction–Millerton plus 1.05 miles Millerton–State Line = 58.87 miles. I'm not too bothered about the 0.03 mile difference - when looking at sources over time, it's not uncommon to see distances vary slightly from different surveys. I've added "about" in the text and cited the 1894 manual. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


General[edit]

  • Cite Journal with the extra that mentions the page number is very useful (and clever). I will consider using something similar in my own writing. At first glance, I did not understand it. The MOS does not say anything about it, but the TeaRoom said it was OK to use for GA. TwoScars (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessary for GA, but why not bundle citations when you are not citing a journal. For example, the three citations (currently 12, 13, 14) in the second paragraph of Expansion could be bundled. TwoScars (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a fan of bundling citations unless there's a strong reason to, such as a specific need to explain which citation goes with which claim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beginnings[edit]

  • The beginning of the last paragraph is very confusing. It starts with "The D&C began service between...." However, the book in citation 4 says on page 23 that the lease deal with BH&E would "essentially leaving the D&C with no visible presence on the line." My guess is that the BH&E began service on the D&C line it was leasing between.... Same with "D&C ran its trains over the Hudson River Railroad between...." How could that be if the BH&E was leasing the line and was supplying all rolling stock, engines, cars, and essentially leaving the D&C with no visible presence on the line? TwoScars (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The D&C was leased by the BH&E, and all rolling stock was BH&E, but the D&C would still have been the operator. I've added a bit of text to clarify. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have proof that the D&C would still have been the operator? That seems unusual to me, and I am checking with railroad people I know. Go to the Surface Transportation Board web site and look and Annual Report Form R-1. I'm looking at the 2010 R-1 for Norfolk Southern (page 74). Schedule 700 is mileage operated at close of year. Class 3B miles of roadway is "line operated under lease for a specified sum, lessor being independent or not affiliated with the respondent. Norfolk Southern has a 100% lease on 360 miles of roadway, and it is part of their total miles operated. With their lease, they operate the line, not the railroad they lease the line from. This why I feel uncomfortable with "Service began on the D&C...." and "...the D&C ran its trains over the...." They have no visible presence and I believe they are not considered the operators of traffic on that line. I would feel much more comfortable with "Service began on the D&C's line...." and "...the BH&E ran its trains on D&C line over the...." I have one AAR person who thinks I am crazy for thinking the D&C could be operating line they leased to someone else, but am still checking. TwoScars (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both people that I checked with, including a former executive of one regional and two Class I railroads, think that it would be very unusual for a railroad to have a long-term lease of some railroad line and not be the operator. Unless you have proof otherwise, it is incorrect to say "Service began on the D&C" and "the D&C ran its trains". This needs to be addressed. TwoScars (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut[edit]

  • In the first paragraph, the text says "The C&W switched its through traffic to the Rhinebeck and Connecticut, hurting revenues of the D&C." What does this mean? Most readers think of railroad revenue as coming from shippers/passengers instead of from other railroads, so this needs some clarification. Did the C&W cancel a lease? Did the move to the Rhinebeck and Connecticut mean less revenue via traffic rights for the D&C? TwoScars (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Reworded to clarify.
  • In the January 15, 1877 reorganization, was the Clove Branch included as part of the ND&C? TwoScars (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. The 1894 Poor's lists it as an independent line, though the nearly identical company officers give away that it was controlled by the ND&C. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information available on the ND&C's revenue sources: freight vs passenger vs other? TwoScars (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a split given in Poor's, though about one-third is simply listed as "miscellaneous". Worth including? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not worth including, since we do not know for sure what the Miscellaneous (my guess is trackage rights) revenue really is. TwoScars (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1915, the line had ....." Were these trips per day or per week or what? TwoScars (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done

Route[edit]

  • "The Poughkeepsie and Eastern Railway merged with the ND&C at Stissing Junction and split again...." What does that mean? Parallel lines? Jointly-owned track? Trackage rights? TwoScars (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issues November 7[edit]

  • Intro: Needs to be clarified when you are talking about the line and when you are talking about a railroad. Perhaps this or something similar: The Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad was a railroad that operated from 1877 to 1907 in Dutchess County, New York, United States. Its line ran 58.9 miles (94.8 km) northeast from the Hudson River in Fishkill to the Connecticut state line near Millerton. The Dutchess and Columbia Railroad (D&C), originally chartered in 1866, was the original owner of the proposed line with plans to link rural villages with the Hudson River Railroad and New York and Harlem Railroad.
  • In the Intro's last paragraph: Most of the former ND&C line was abandoned in sections between 1925 and 1938. TwoScars (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginnings: Unless you prove otherwise, you can't say the D&C operated trains on track leased to someone else. Perhaps this or something similar: The BH&E began providing service on the line leased from the D&C, between Dutchess Junction (Plumb Point) and Hopewell Junction, on July 21, 1869. All rolling stock belonged to the BH&E. For a short time before the Dutchess Junction station was completed, trains ran over the Hudson River Railroad between Fishkill Landing and Dutchess Junction. Later in 1869, the associated Clove Branch Railroad opened its 4.25-mile (6.84 km) line from Clove Branch Junction (north of Hopewell Junction) to the mines at Sylvan Lake. The D&C continued building more rail line, and reached Millbrook by October 1869 and Pine Plains in February 1870.

This is all I have—it just needs to be clarified when we are talking about a railroad, the railroad line, or the railroad operating on the line. TwoScars (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TwoScars: I've reworded these two sections. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I replaced the line in the intro "It was originally chartered in 1866 as the Dutchess and Columbia Railroad (D&C) to link rural villages with the Hudson River Railroad and New York and Harlem Railroad." with "The Dutchess and Columbia Railroad (D&C), originally chartered in 1866, was the original owner of the proposed line with plans to link rural villages with the Hudson River Railroad and New York and Harlem Railroad." To me, it is unclear by what is meant by "It", and your sentence implies that the railroad simply changed its name in 1877. We know that the directors of the D&C and ND&C were different based on Poor's Manual of Railroads. TwoScars (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Beginnings, I replaced "Service began on the D&C between" with "The BH&E began providing service on the line leased from the D&C between". Otherwise, it might appear to the reader that the D&C was operating the BH&E trains. That is highly doubtful. Three railroad people, all with over 30 years of experience in the industry, say the company leasing the rail line normally operates the trains. I also mentioned to you an example for a Class I railroad where they are the operator of railroad line they lease. Also, if the D&C was operating the BH&E trains, would they have needed to do their dramatic midnight train run by taking possession of stations along the line? The line was leased, not a trackage rights situation. TwoScars (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    TwoScars (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MaterialWorks talk 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: All in all, I really like the hook, and the Copyvio detector says we're all clear. The only thing I'd like to see, and this is super minor, would be a citation directly following the quote "dramatic midnight train run" in the Expansion sub-section, because as of now, there is a group of citations a little later in the paragraph, and it is unclear which one this quote comes from. Other than that, I think it's good. Cheers! Johnson524 16:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson524: Done! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now, cheers! Johnson524 20:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Pi.1415926535, could you provide some additional explanation for this edit: [7] It is 100% okay and fantastic to continue improving an article after it passes GA or FA reviews, but this seems like a reversion to the pre-GA wording? Oh, and congrats on the GA/DYK, Rjjiii (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rjjiii: The previous changes to that wording were made by the reviewer immediately before passing the GA, with no chance for me to respond. Both changes were unnecessarily wordy, and the second change was not supported by the cited sources - the reviewer made it based on personal communication with someone else off-wiki. Given that, I felt the best option was to make changes that addressed the reviewer's stated concerns while being more concise and verifiable. You can see here that my changes were not a full revert to the previous wording. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining and yes it does, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newburgh,_Dutchess_and_Connecticut_Railroad&oldid=1207192395"