Talk:Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newburgh,_Dutchess_and_Connecticut_Railroad/GA1&oldid=1184154934"