All parties have agreed to adjourn to the article talk page for further discussions. (2 of 5 identified issues resolved. Good progress on the other 3). -Thibbs (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Tim Zukas has challenged the veracity of the article and claims that it is full of mistakes. He has repeatedly reverted to his preferred version, which also makes numerous stylistic changes. It's difficult to read through these diffs. He adds no sources of his own, has added unsourced content, and sometimes removes sources. I and another editor have asked him to make more incremental edits, flagging inaccurate information, but he has not done so. Zukas also sometimes edits from an IP and not his regular account; I do not think this is deliberate but it has aggravated the situation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This has been discussed extensively on the talk page but we seem to be talking past each other.
How do you think we can help?
I'd like someone not involved to look over the dispute and give their opinion on it. I'm getting worn out arguing. This article isn't highly-trafficked and some fresh perspective would be helpful.
Summary of dispute by Centpacrr
Both Mackensen (who created the article last summer) and I have been repeatedly restoring massive deletions of existing detailed, well sourced material and citations that had been originally developed and contributed by us after the material has been repeatedly deleted without explanation by user Tim Zukas under both his registered user account and multiple sockpuppet IP addresses. (All of the IPs geolocate to Oakland, CA, the Berkeley Public Library, and the University of California (Berkeley) of which Zukas is listed as a small financial contributor to the Bancroft Library.) This follows a pattern which Zukas has used to make similar disruptive edits to many other transportation related articles such as Boeing 314 and Braniff International Airways using multiple IPs, and other articles using his registered account. In all cases (including the "Overland Limited" article), the deletions made by this user have violated WP:PRESERVE, WP:UNRESPONSIVE and WP:CAUTIOUS. This user has a long demonstrated history over a period of several years of engaging in this type of disruptive editing which is revealed by multiple warnings and complaints posted by many other editors in his talk page. Multiple requests made of him in talk pages of this and other articles that he cooperate with his fellow editors in resolving such issues are virtually always ignored. Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
As user "Zukas" has chosen to ignore this process and once again massively altered the article without explanation, I have decided to delete all the images, new text, references, sources and citations that I have added over the past several weeks and revert it to the status quo ante rather than waste anymore of my time dealing with a blindly disruptive editor who has no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community. Centpacrr (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The primary issue raised by both Mackensen (who opened this discussion) and myself is that despite repeated requests, user "Zukas" (both under his registered account and anon IP's) both refuses to specify what he claims are "errors", and refuses to provide or cite any sources -- reliable, verifiable, published, or otherwise -- to support any of the changes he makes. This is a well established pattern with this user (i.e. unexplained mass deletions of material, references, and citations and replacing it with new material without any references or citations) dating back to at least 2010 which is revealed both in postings on his talk page by other editors of similar complaints and warnings, and his activities in articles such as Boeing 314 and Braniff International Airways to which he has made similar massive edits using only multiple IP sockpuppets without providing any support therefore and leading to those pages having to be protected multiple times to prevent his continued disruptive editing of them. Centpacrr (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Tim Zukas
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"detailed, well sourced material"
But nonetheless wrong. Hard to tell whether to blame the source or his misreading of it; his discussion of the 1905 move to the Milwaukee Road is plainly a misreading of Beebe, who seems to have reported the matter carefully.
"no interest in dealing collegially with the rest of the WP community"
I remove errors and he replaces them, saying I haven't explained. Naturally I figure the guy adding the errors is the one who's supposed to explain; anyone who looks the discussion over can see how much "explaining" he has done.
The article's first paragraph is an example. In his version the Overland ran SF Bay Area to Omaha until 1962. Looking at the timetables, we see that in reality the Overland quit running east of Ogden/Green River in 1956; none of its cars continued east to Omaha after that. UP train 27/28 that confused him wasn't the Overland (it had the same number, but nothing else) and ran Laramie-Omaha until 1967-68. Too much detail to go in the article's first paragraph, so it appears later. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: Though I'm a regular volunteer here, I'm neither "taking" this case nor opening it for discussion at this time. All parties have now been properly notified, and there appears to be sufficient discussion, so we're waiting for a volunteer to take the case. Please note that if a volunteer does take the case that only content, not conduct, will be discussed; if you wish to deal with conduct matters you need to file at ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Unless there are any objections I'd be happy to serve as that volunteer. -Thibbs (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In fact, I'll proceed under the expectation that there will be no objections. -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Open for Discussion - I am a DRN volunteer moderator and I'll start things out by thanking the three of you for agreeing to engage in a moderated discussion. Clear communication is essential at Wikipedia and I ask you all to check in on the discussion regularly in order to ensure its success. With a little luck we should be able to resolve this relatively quickly. Please note that I am not an administrator and that this is not a formal or binding discussion. The hope is that we can arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. I've reviewed the case materials and your opening statements and I would first echo TransporterMan's note regarding the function of DRN. We will only be addressing content issues in this discussion. To that end I'd ask that all participants avoid personally-directed comments as much as possible.
Let us begin with the specific content claims at the heart of the dispute. Tim Zukas has made it clear that he believes there are numerous errors in the article. Mackensen and Centpacrr seem to be saying that the claims in the article are generally supported by appropriate sources. I suggest that we work on the facts before moving on to aesthetic issues like the length of the lede. We will need concrete claims to work with and I can already see a number of them have been brought up here or on the article talk page, but it seems that some of the disagreements over the claims have been settled so there's no need for us to re-examine these. My first question I direct to Tim Zukas: What are the specific claims that you believe still contain errors? If you could briefly list them then we'll be able to go through them one by one to assess whether they are supported by any of the sources. -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Pinging @Mackensen, @Centpacrr, and @Tim Zukas: I probably should have pinged you all yesterday to notify you that this dispute resolution has been opened. I apologize for that. Tim Zukas, when you get a free moment please try to address the question I posed in my last post. We need to establish the scope of the problem before we can tackle the individual claims.
It's essential that we work together to settle this issue collaboratively. Nothing good will come from editing back and forth in articlespace while this discussion is still ongoing. I ask all parties to keep the bigger picture in mind. Of course it's annoying to have the article sitting in a state that doesn't reflect the best version, but remember that no version of an article is ever considered the final version. The article's history page contains snapshots of every version of the article that has existed previously so we will always be able to restore any former version after we have come to agree on the content. As I see it the substantive issues are relatively non-complex and if we work through the DRN process together we should be able to resolve the content concerns relatively quickly and painlessly. With this in mind I ask that all participants please resist the temptation to edit the article while this discussion is ongoing even if you believe the edit is an improvement. -Thibbs (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Starting with the first paragraph-- their version says "The Overland Limited, known as the Overland Flyer from 1887–96, and often shortened to Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroad passenger train on the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran from 1887 until 1963." Dunno what their books say, but UP timetables show that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955-56. No train called "Overland" ran east of Ogden/Green River after 1956.
Moving down to History, their version says "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs. Lucius Beebe contends ..." Lucius Beebe didn't contend anything-- he wrote that the train used the Milwaukee for an unknown length of time starting in 1905, and he speculated that perhaps UP was pressuring CNW, but he made clear the latter was only a guess based on no info.
Continuing in History, their version is "The train was then [1955] called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..." Think it was still "San Francisco Overland" on UP-- I'll check. I guess they mean year-round operation ended in July 1962; far as anyone knows the train was daily in summer 1962, around Christmas 1962, and in summer 1963.
In the Name section, their version is "The Union Pacific officially dropped "Limited" from the name in 1947. Other names used included the San Francisco Overland and San Francisco Overland Limited." My version is "The name alternated between Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited until July 1947 when "Limited" was dropped" {by UP and SP and CNW, that is]. Assuming my version is correct (dunno if they think it isn't), any reason to like theirs better?
Equipment section-- they say "In 1941–42 the train was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars..." What they meant to say was "In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers along with its heavyweight cars." Tim Zukas (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (NOTE: I've numbered the problematic lines so that we can have a point of reference in discussing them -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC))
I'd consider it a gesture of good faith if Tim Zukas stopped removing the {{Reflist}} template in his mass reverts. This edit addresses far more than these two points. Now, to address these individual issues, the lede is written as a summary. In general, this article is about a train which for most of its life operated between Chicago and the Bay. The details described by Zukas are described in the "History" section. As I said on the talk page, and as he knows because he participated in that thread, no one thinks the train operated to Chicago after 1955. I don't understand the complaint regarding Beebe's contention. He reported a fact, and then speculated on its meaning. Contend means "assert something as a position in an argument." Mackensen(talk) 20:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Mackensen, all parties are requested to cease editing the article temporarily as a gesture of good faith. While there hasn't been a violation of 3RR, you and Tim Zukas are both close to edit warring and since this is clearly not a case of reverting obvious vandalism you are both putting yourselves in needless risk of trouble. -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Beebe states in his book Overland Limited at page 31: "In any event, by 1907The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...".
The scion daily service (TR27/28) ended scheduled year-round operation in July, 1962 when the ICC approved its cancellation. Continued seasonal operation that summer and over the Christmas/New Year holidays through January 2, 1963 did not constitute a continuation of "year-round" daily operation, nor did any appearance of 27/28 in employee's (but not public) timetables for any portion of 1963. (Those 1963 "runs" were also annulled by daily train orders.)
Again user Zukas still does not provide ANY citation to any sources (author, title, date, publisher, page number(s), etc) to support his version. Centpacrr (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Point #1
Resolved: Agreement on wording of the lead
Regarding point #1: It seems that we are in agreement about the facts (i.e. that the Overland quit running to Chicago in 1955). If so then it becomes a question of presentation. Tim Zukas seems to be saying that the lede is misleading because it doesn't make it clear that the description of the train as running "between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area" only pertains to the period 1887 through 1955. Mackensen points out that this information is contained in the history section and that the lead is supposed to function as a summary. Indeed according to the MOS, the lead paragraph should be concise and summary in nature. So expanding the lead with further detailed explanation is not necessarily a good thing. Keeping in mind both clarity and concise summary, I wonder if it would be possible to say "The Overland Limited, known as the Overland Flyer from 1887–96, and often shortened to Overland, was a Union Pacific Railroadpassenger train on the Overland Route. It ran from 1887 until 1963." This would load the geographical description into the term "Overland Route" which is blue-linked and which can serve as a means for readers to discover the full history of the changes on the route over time. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It's customary to mention geographic locale with train routes. Our readers won't know what the Overland Route is. Saying that the Overland Limited was a train which ran between Chicago and the Bay Area is an accurate summary and I would prefer to mention the endpoints. How about this:
This tightens up some of the language about the name and routes east of Omaha. Mackensen(talk) 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to swap the "For most of its history..." sentence with the "It began in 1887 and ended in 1963" sentence. But it seems to me that this does clear up the issue. Thank you for the suggestion, Mackensen. What do you think, Tim Zukas? Would that work for you? -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Better: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the Overland Route between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area from 1887 until 1955. For most of its life it ran on the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific west of Ogden; the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think, Mackensen? Does anything problematic jump out? -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think it's a little confusing to say it was a train until 1955, but that a leg lasted until 1963. A truncated version of a train is still a train. Mackensen(talk) 00:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
What about something like this: "The Overland Limited (originally the Overland Flyer) was a passenger train on the Overland Route from 1887 until 1963. For most of its history it ran between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area. It ran on the Chicago and North Western Railway from Chicago to Omaha, the Union Pacific Railroad from Omaha to Ogden, and the Southern Pacific Railroad west of Ogden. Although operations between Chicago and the Bay Area were suspended in 1955, the Southern Pacific leg lasted until 1963." -Thibbs (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think, Mackensen? -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I can live with that. Mackensen(talk) 23:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Resolved OK I think this first point is resolved then. I'll collapse it if there is no further discussion on it in 24 hours. -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Point #2
Resolved: Consensus to exclude Beebe's claim which conflicts with the January 1910 Official Guide.
Regarding point #2: I think what we need to see at this point is a copy of the claimed source (i.e. Beebe pg. 31). If you have the Beebe source, Centpacrr, would you mind making a copy available for us? -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC))
The relevant text from Beebe's Overland Limited reads at page 30: "For a period lasting, as far as can be ascertained, from 1905 to 1907 it made its entry to Chicago as Trains Nos. 1 and 2, The Overland Limited, of the Chicago, Milwaukee, & St. Paul Railway." and at page 31: "In any event, by 1907 The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard...". Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Centpacrr. Tim Zukas, can you clarify your concern with this claim? I'm unsure whether you are contesting Beebe's alleged contention (i.e. "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure...") or whether you are contesting the phrase "used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs". -Thibbs (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The Milwaukee Road still shows a train called the Overland Limited between Chicago and Omaha in its section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides. Beebe didn't claim to know when the train ran on the Milwaukee and didn't claim to know why it did; the article shouldn't say he claimed to know.Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
OK so you are contesting the portion describing Beebe's contention as "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure". In fact I don't see that claim directly supported in the sections you quoted, Centpacrr. Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim? In the meanwhile Tim Zukas, could you give us a link to your source (i.e. the Milwaukee Road's section of the 1907, 1909 and January 1910 Official Guides)? -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"Is there anything more on these pages that better supports this claim?" No.
Maybe the Guides are online somewhere, but I was just referring to the ones on paper. He has now found it in the 1910 Guide reprint, so that takes care of that?
Truth to tell, there's no evidence that the "official" Overland Limited ever ran on the Milwaukee with some sort of secondary version on the CNW. Far as we know the Overland always ran on the CNW until 1955, and for some unknown number of years the Milwaukee ran a train called the Overland Limited that carried at least one car that continued west of Omaha on UP's Overland. No indication that the Overland west of Omaha was ever more Milwaukee Road cars than CNW cars. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The speculation as to why the Milwaukee Road provided service from 1905 to 1907 was not made by me. The citation I made to Beebe was in support of the period of time (two years starting in 1905) that the service was provided to the Overland Limited east of Council Bluffs by that road. Centpacrr (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It looks like that claim (supported by Beebe p31) was originally added by Mackensen back in August 2014. It would still be courteous of Tim Zukas to provide contrary evidence, but per WP:BURDEN we will need to locate direct support for the claim now that it has been challenged. What are your thoughts on this, Mackensen? Would you object to altering the text covering Beebe's contention "that the Union Pacific always intended this as a temporary measure"? -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There are two different issues here: when the Overland ran on the Milwaukee and why a second section also ran on the CNW. Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above. However, I've consulted the January 1910 Official Guide and Tim Zukas is correct. Whenever the Milwaukee Road stopped carrying the Overland it wasn't 1907. He is uncertain, and says so, about the reasons for running on the CNW: "Whether this was a result of an effort on the part of the Union Pacific to split its business between two connecting carriers or, as seems equally likely, a temporary feint to secure more advantageous relations with the North Western is not available to solution at this remove." Mackensen(talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"Beebe is emphatic that the Milwaukee Road was used 1905-1907, as quoted above."
Anyone who thinks Beebe was emphatic about the dates only has to read the quote to learn better. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but Beebe saying "by 1907 The Overland had disappeared from the Milwaukee's timecard" has a note of finality to it, does it not? In any event he appears to be wrong in this case. Mackensen(talk) 00:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well if Beebe's claims conflict with the January 1910 Official Guide and you both agree that the January 1910 Official Guide source is correct then I see two options. We could either A) leave the claim about Beebe's contention (which is supported by the Beebe source even if the substance of the contention is in fact incorrect) or we could B) come to a consensus to exclude Beebe's contention. If we leave the contention intact then we will need appropriate attribution so that it's not written in Wikipedia's voice, and we would need to present the contrary evidence. In fact it seems to be appropriately attributed currently as it says "Lucius Beebe contends...". If the contrary evidence (from the January 1910 Official Guide) was presented, would that solve the problem, Tim Zukas? Alternately, since Beebe appears to be wrong in this case what would you think of omitting this claim, Mackensen? Is it generally helpful to the article? -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion here. Beebe's "contention" (as I paraphrased) is about the reason for using the CNW. Beebe states as fact, not contention, that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907. He's wrong about that. The reason for the sections on both roads is unknown, hence Beebe published a guess and stated as much. I don't understand the continued conflation of two separate issues. Mackensen(talk) 03:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. In that case the line "Between 1905–1907 the Overland used the Milwaukee Road between Chicago and Council Bluffs." which is written in Wikipedia's voice needs proper attribution to Beebe (e.g. "Beebe suggests that between 1905–1907... however entries in the 1909 and 1910 Official Guide show continued Overland Limited runs between Chicago and Omaha for a few years after.") or it should be removed by consensus. Any preference? -Thibbs (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The Milw section of the January 1905 Guide shows a sleeper Chicago to SF-- nothing else goes thru on the Overland Ltd. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. Given that there seems to be agreement over the fact that Beebe is wrong that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907, should we retain Beebe's statement with attribution (e.g. "Beebe states that the Milwaukee Road section ended in 1907, however other sources show...") or should we just remove/alter the statement? Do either of you have a preference? -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Best plan is to quit saying the Overland Ltd switched from CNW to MILW in 1905. The article should mention the train that the Milwaukee Road called "Overland Limited" for a few years (that carried at least one car to/from California) but it shouldn't say the CNW's "Overland Ltd" wasn't the real "Overland Ltd" during that time. The Guides don't say that.
By the way: the 1/04 Guide also shows the Milwaukee's so-called Overland Ltd. Tim Zukas (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave this up to Mackensen as the article's OP to decide, but that is not what Beebe says which is the only specific source that anyone has cited so far. On another topic I have today just acquired a copy of Robert Wayner's massive 1972 tome Car Names, Numbers and Consists which details all the streamlined and light-weight intercity passenger cars and consists built and operated in the US from the 1930's to 1972 and also have on order (which I should receive by this weekend) Mike Schafer's 1997 Classic American Streamliners both of which may well be useful in resolving other issues. Centpacrr (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mackensen: When you get a moment, please help us resolve this question (see also my latest question under point #4). -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be best to omit any mention of a pre-1955 handling of the train by the Milwaukee Road. Mackensen(talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Resolved OK, sounds good. I think this second point is now resolved. I'll again collapse it if there is no further discussion on it in 24 hours. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Point #3
Regarding point #3: If I understand properly it sounds like Tim Zukas and Centpacrr are essentially in agreement over the claim that July 1962 marked the end of year-round operations and that temporary runs may have been available at some times during the remainder of 1962 and possibly in 1963. Is that correct? If so then I think we've again reached the point of discussing the presentation of the claims. Perhaps it would work to just insert the phrase "Year-round" like so: "Year-round daily operation ended on July 16, 1962." Would that be an acceptable compromise? -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Given Centpacrr's comment below, I reviewed an older version of the article and noticed that this suggested compromise has previously been part of the article. (i.e. in the line: "The death knell ... of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962"). Did you have an objection to that phrasing, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Beebe states at page 51 of The Overland Limited: "The end of the proud Overland Limited as a daily train if not a through train to Chicago came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission finally authorized its suspension save at seasonal traffic peaks in June and December. The St. Louis cars became incorporated in The City of San Francisco and The Overland disappeared from The Official Railroad Guide save between June 22 and Labor Day and December 22 and January 2." Centpacrr (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume that this is what Centpacrr had paraphrased (in this older version of the article) as "While the train continued to run 'seasonal' service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year,..." This seems to be supported by Beebe. Does the text sound reasonable, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
That version is "While the train continued to run "seasonal" service until Labor Day and some additional holiday runs from Christmas to the New Year, the last remnant of what had begun as The Overland Flyer in 1887 was over and did not appear in the public timetables of the UP or SP again after its last holiday run on January 2, 1963." Apparently none of us has a 1963 SP public timetable, so no one knows where he got that idea; the San Francisco Overland is still shown as a daily train under that name in the April 1963 and September 1963 SP employee timetables.
Which doesn't mean it ran in April 1963-- far as we know Beebe was right that the Overland was to resume on 14 June 1963; the 10/62 Guide says that too. That's what Phelps was talking about when he said the Overland was annulled by train order day by day-- he meant before 14 June and after 2 Sept 1963. Far as anyone knows the train was daily during the summer. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This line is in the main body of the article rather than the lead so summary prose is not needed. Perhaps we can alleviate the problem simply by adding more explanation (e.g. by adding Phelps' comments regarding day-by-day annulment. Would that work? -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure at this point what to make of the remainder of the paragraph that gets into details about when these smaller "runs" took place, but it seems that Tim Zukas has some source material in mind to bolster this. I notice that in this edit, for example, Tim Zukas cites "Cooper" and "Signor". Does "Cooper" refer to Bruce Clement Cooper's "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes"? What does "Signor" refer to? If these details are contested then we will have to compare sources, but if there is agreement on the facts then we can talk about the presentational aspects. -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The source "Cooper" is my own massive 2010 book "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" which is Volume 1 of a three-volume set I did published between March, 2010 and May, 2011 on the classic 19th and early 20th railroad routes in the United States and Canada (I am Bruce Clement Cooper), and "Signor" is John R. Signor's 1985 book "DONNER PASS: Southern Pacific's Sierra Crossing". I cited these (and several other) sources to support detail that I had added earlier. I later removed them when I deleted all of my contributions (including four illustrations: the cover of an 1869 issue of The Overland Monthly, the cover of "A Souvenir of The Overland Limited" published by the UP in 1897, a 1908 route map, and a SP 1945 public timetable) to the article in frustration because user Zukas kept altering or removing my contributions without any explanation (i.e., no or only misleading edit summaries) or providing any citations of his own to other sources to support any of his changes despite continued requests that he do so. Centpacrr (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
OK well that's encouraging to me because it suggests that there is agreement on reliability of the sources and perhaps even the factual details within. Is that a fair assessment? Regarding the content that Centpacrr removed did Tim Zukas challenge its inclusion or was its removal just a way to restore the article to a neutral state? Is there any plan to restore it at a later point? If that material contains challenged claims then we should address them here before restoring the material. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Frankly there is no way of knowing what user Zukas is "challenging" as his massive revisions were all made either without any explanation (no edit summary) or an unspecified claim of "correcting errors" without either saying what those alleged "errors" are, or providing citations to any sources supporting his claims. As noted above, this has also been his practice in a large number of other transportation articles (mostly aviation related) that I and others have contributed to in the past. That being the case it became clear to me that no matter what I (or Mackensen, who is also this article's OP) contributed, user Zukas would continue to wipe them out without explanation or providing supporting sources. I therefore decided that under these circumstances it was no longer worth my time to try to improve this article and so removed all my contributions (text, illustrations, sources, and citations) and returned it to its status quo ante. Centpacrr (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
To repeat their version-- "The train was then [1955] called the San Francisco Overland in SP territory, the Overland on the UP, and unnamed on the C&NW. Daily operation ended on July 16, 1962..."
Turns out it was still the San Francisco Overland on all three RRs in summer 1955. Hopefully everyone's agreed daily operation didn't end in July 1962? The train ran daily around Christmas 1962 and in summer 1963?
I've never seen Cooper's book. As for when the train finally ended there are three possible sources: the employee timetable, the public timetable, and Al Phelps' info in the appendix of Signor's book Donner Pass. He says it ran thru summer 1963. As for where the train ran at any given time before 1963, my source is the public timetables. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The train did not run as a year-round daily train as it had since its inception after the ICC agreed to cancel that requirement on July 16, 1962. The Phelps listing in Signor at page 276 states: "July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the City of San Francisco. After this date, the Overland became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays. Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted. October 27, 1963: Employee timetable no longer shows train Nos. 27 and 28. Last run occurred during the summer of 1963." Seasonal service which ended in the summer of 1963 is not year-round service which ended on July 16, 1962. Centpacrr (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Does this account that Centpacrr has copied from the Phelps listing in Signor (p276) sound accurate to you in light of the information from your sources, Tim Zukas? -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted" apparently means annulled each day before 14 June 1963 and each day after 2 Sept 1963.
"July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, the City of San Francisco"-- What Phelps meant to say was the separate schedule for trains 27/28 continued to exist-- it's in the empl timetables thru Sept 1963-- and the separate train continued to run Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and summer 1963. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
However on July 16, 1962 it formally discontinued being a "daily, year-round" train (which it had been continuously since its inception) and all future operations until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs. Therefore the service officially ended as a daily year-round train on July 16, 1962, not in the summer of 1963 which is when 27/28's seasonal service was discontinued. That is also exactly what Beebe says. Centpacrr (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
"future operations [after 16 July 1962] until the summer of 1963 were only non-contiguous "seasonal" runs"
We're agreed the non-contiguity started in Sept 1962? Far as we know in 1962 the train ran on 17 July and 18 July and 19 July etc.
"the service officially ended as a daily year-round train on July 16, 1962"
It quit being a year-round train-- it didn't quit being a daily train. Seasonal trains like the Orange Blossom Special were shown as "Daily" in the Official Guide during the months they ran. "Daily" means seven days a week-- if you say it's no longer daily, the reader wonders: so what was it-- three days a week or what?
No need to say it was daily, but don't say it wasn't. Just say it was no longer a year-round train. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the non-congruity started on July 17, 1962 when it became "seasonal", non-year-round service for the first time since the inception of the Overland Flyer. The requirement for maintaining year-round service ceased when the ICC authorized its discontinuation as of July 16, 1962. That is the date on which mandated, contiguous year-round Overland service ended and optional non-contiguous seasonal service began. Centpacrr (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Could we clear up the "daily" issue by saying something like this: "...the death knell for the last scion service of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round train came on July 16, 1962. Daily operations would only continue on a seasonal basis after this date."? -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I would accept "The death knell for the last scion of the original 1887 Overland as a year-round daily train came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized the discontinuance of that level of service. After that only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." Centpacrr (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The article says ICC allowed seasonal operation starting Sept 1962; it says SP "declined to revive" the train in summer 1964. The reader wonders: the ICC had no power over SP in 1964? What changed betw 1962 and 1964?
The Overland's schedule changed on 16 July 1962-- the eastward train started running 15 minutes behind the CoSF rather than ahead of it. Makes me wonder: did the ICC coincidentally issue its ruling the same day? None of us knows, except for what Beebe wrote. None of us knows whether the ICC was even the responsible agency.
If we stick to what we know, we just say "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." Tim Zukas (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
(Outdent) The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was created by Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379), approved February 4, 1887, specifically to regulate railroads and its authority was expanded to regulate other modes of commerce beginning in 1906. The agency was not abolished until 1995 when its functions were transferred to the Surface Transportation Board.
The 1887 Act states in its preamble: "That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of transshipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid." Centpacrr (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
So it seems we're now caught between Centpacrr's "After that [July 16, 1962] only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis until even those ceased altogether in the summer of 1963." and Tim Zukas' "After summer 1962 the Oakland-Ogden Overland was a seasonal train; it ran during the 1962 Christmas season but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." It seems to me that the difference between them is purely superficial. The facts are essentially identical and only the wording is different. Are there substantive differences between them that I'm missing? If not, would both of you accept a decision from a neutral third party who we could invite via WP:3O? -Thibbs (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
His version makes it sound like the train operated differently in August 1962 than it had in June 1962, which far as we know it didn't.
We can hope the neutral third party won't prefer "only intermittent daily operations would continue on a seasonal basis" to "it ran summer and Christmas". Tim Zukas (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Would you be OK with a third opinion on the matter, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The cited issue Beebe addresses is when the last vestige of the original 1887 Overland make its last run as a "year-round daily" train, and that was on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved the termination of that service. All operations made by TR27/28 after that date were strictly seasonal and even those ended altogether in July, 1963. Centpacrr (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it Tim Zukas is in agreement with that but he wants to use different language to express the same thing in a manner that he believes is clearer to readers. You are entitled to disagree but we're stuck at this point unless you can both agree to abide by the opinion of a neutral third party (WP:3O). I understand Tim Zukas' comment of 22:10, 9 March 2015 as an agreement to this solution. Would you also agree to this solution, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Centpacrr: - We need to move forward with this issue. Two weeks ago (at 10:36 on 8 March 2015), seeing no difference between your preferred version and Tim Zukas' preferred version of the contested line, I asked if there were substantive differences between them. If there are no substantive differences I asked if the two of you would be willing to abide by a neutral third party opinion. Tim Zukas seems to have indicated his willingness to abide by a third party opinion. Is there an actual substantive difference? Would you be willing to abide by a third party opinion? -Thibbs (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Both Beebe (p. 41) and Signor (p. 276) confirm that the San Francisco Overland ceased as a year-round daily train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuance and consolidation of service with the City of San Francisco. It only operated then on a seasonal basis for one more year as is also shown by the October 1962 Official Guide of Railways]. Centpacrr (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Does that contradict Tim Zukas' preferred version? -Thibbs (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it does because his version pablumizes the material by ignoring what the reliable published sources (Beebe, Signor, Official Guide) provide as to the exact date of the change (July 16, 1962), the reason therefore (ICC approval of the discontinuance of year-round daily service), and the the consolidation with the City of San Francisco's service. Centpacrr (talk 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your position, Centpacrr. Tim Zukas, would you object to adding some or all of (1) the exact date of the change (July 16, 1962), (2) the reason for the change, and (3) the fact of the consolidation with The City of San Francisco's service if Centpacrr can provide the exact language from Beebe, Signor, and the Official Guide that backs up that part of the claim? -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Beebe (p. 51}: "The end of the proud Overland Limited as a daily train if not a through run to Chicago came on July 16, 1962 when the Interstate Commerce Commission finally authorized its suspension save at seasonal traffic peaks in June and December."
Signor (p. 276): "May 31, 1931: Numbers changed to 27 and 28 and becomes San Francisco Overland Limited.
June 19, 1932: Adds coaches to previously all-Pullman consist.
July 10, 1947: Name shortened to S.F. Overland.
July 16, 1962: Nos. 27 and 28 discontinued and train consolidated with Nos. 101-102, theCity of San Francisco.After this date, the Overland became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays. Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted.
October 27, 1963: Employee timetable no longer shows train Nos. 27 and 28. Last run occurred during the summer of 1963. "
Official Guide: See image hereCentpacrr (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is agreed that as far as we know trains 27-28 ran between Oakland and Ogden on 17 July 1962, and 18 July, and 19 July, and every day after that until 2 September or some such? If so, the article shouldn't suggest otherwise. (By the way: one book says the ICC ruling was 6 July 1962. Too bad none of us knows what became of California PUC's authority over railroads.) Tim Zukas (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again you supply NO SOURCES to support what you say here. Beebe and Signor both say that year-round daily service was discontinued on July 16, 1962. After that (including July 17) it was only operated as a seasonal train, service which terminated altogether no later than the summer of 1963. Beebe, Signor, and the October, 1962 Official Guide are all highly reliable sources. "One book says..." (which is not specified) is no "source" at all. Whatever authority the California PUC had would have covered trains that operated only in California which is irrelevant in this case at this SP train service operated in three states -- California, Nevada and Utah. The ICC was a federal agency created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 to regulate railroads in all the states and territories. Centpacrr (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
If both Beebe and Signor say that services ended on the 16th, then it sounds like Tim Zukas' new source may represent a minority viewpoint. One way to handle this is to present both claims with appropriate attribution. So we could say something like: "Services ended on the 16th,<ref name=Beebe/><ref name=Signor/> however XYZ suggests that services ended as early as the 6th.<ref name=XYZ/>" This is useful no matter what the truth of the situation because regardless of the correct date it is important to address conflicting reliable-source claims to forestall later changes by good faith editors using the other source and to provide a starting point for any reader wishing to investigate the matter independently. I think it makes sense to use the 2x sourced date of the 16th as the date in the article until the new source is identified, but when Tim Zukas locates the source of the July 6th date (and provided that it is of equivalent reliability with Beebe and Signor), then would you be OK with this solution of mentioning both dates, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
My (and other many other editors) basic issue with this user is that he makes many claims but never supports them with specific citations to sources ("another book", "time tables", or "guides" is about as close as he ever gets) either in articles or in discussion like this so it is impossible for others to judge or verify his positions. Unless and until he does so, this becomes a fruitless exercise. WP is based on reliable sources and specific citations (author, title, publisher, date, page number, etc), not unsupported claims and speculation. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but let's not pre-judge the situation before Tim Zukas has had a chance to respond. This is not the forum to address behavioral issues anyway. What I'm asking here is whether the two of you would be open to the solution I suggested above if Tim Zukas can furnish an appropriate contrary source. -Thibbs (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
My comment above is based on several years of frustrating experience with the practices of this user in this and a significant number of other railroad and aviation related articles such as Newark Liberty Airport, Boeing 314, Braniff International Airways, City of San Francisco, etc. If he supplies a citation to an appropriate contrary (or any kind of) reliable source here, it will be a first in my experience with him. There is always hope though, I guess, so let's see what happens. ;) Centpacrr (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thibbs suggests "Services ended on the 16th,<ref name=Beebe/><ref name=Signor/> however XYZ suggests that services ended as early as the 6th.<ref name=XYZ/>". Problem is, service didn't end on the 6th or the 16th of July-- that's the date of the alleged ICC ruling. Far as we know the train continued to run Oakland-Ogden daily until early September 1962-- every day in July and every day in August. As it happens none of us has an August 1962 public timetable or Guide to confirm that, but no book says the train didn't run in August 1962.
(Haven't found the book where I recently read the ruling was on 6 July-- but that date is of no particular significance anyway. Beebe says the ICC ruled in July 1962 that the Overland could suspend after that summer, until December, and the article doesn't need to say more than that.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC) (Fixed ref tag errors. -Thibbs (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC))
Again no citations or sources to support his speculation, and nothing that counters anything in Beebe, Signor, or the October, 1962 Official Guide. And again what all three of those sources (which I have quoted verbatim above) demonstrate is that year-round service terminated on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuance and anything after that date was strictly seasonal operations that ended as well in the summer of 1963. That's exactly what my language says (see immediately below), and nothing new has been cited that indicates anything else.
The designation San Francisco Overland was retained by the SP from San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden until that last vestige of the original 1899 SP service ended as a year-round train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco although it continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Welsh 2008, p. 31 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWelsh2008 (help) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654]
That's the language that the cited reliable sources support. Centpacrr (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"year-round service terminated on July 16, 1962"
As long as the article makes clear the train continued to run Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962-- daily as far as we know. Tim Zukas (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If that's true then it seems to be a useful clarification to make. Tim Zukas, do you know of any sources that support the claim that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962? -Thibbs (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The Overland's schedule changed on 16 July 1962, so SP must have come out with a new public timetable, which none of us has, and none of us has the 8/62 or 9/62 Guide. The 10/62 Guide just gives the begin-end dates for the Overland's Christmas 1962 and summer 1963 ops-- the summer 1963 train was to begin in June and end early Sept. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OK then what would you say to just using "year-round service terminated on July 16, 1962" (citing the relevant sections of Beebe and Signor that support this claim) until the contrary sources can be located? -Thibbs (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Just say "In July 1962 the ICC allowed SP to make the Overland a seasonal train. It ran Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and around Christmas, but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." Then the reader isn't confused about what terminated. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. Didn't you just indicate that none of us has a source that supports that claim? Is there a source that supports the claim that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962? -Thibbs (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The "Zukas" version pablumizes and does not accurately reflect what the three sources support which is: The designation San Francisco Overland was retained by the SP from San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden until that last vestige of the original 1899 SP service ended as a year-round daily train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco although it continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Welsh 2008, p. 31 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWelsh2008 (help) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Centpacrr, please stop describing Tim Zukas' proposals as pablum. It is unnecessary and probably unhelpful in reaching common ground. The two versions are not very dissimilar in my view. Your version has more details in some areas and Tim Zukas' has more detail in other areas. From what I can see the details in Centpacrr's version (date of the ICC approval, consolidation with the City of San Francisco, etc.) appear to be bolstered by good sources and I am asking Tim Zukas if there is a specific source that supports the detail in his version that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the rest of July and all of August 1962. Let's give Tim Zukas a chance to identify a source like that. -Thibbs (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Only thing that will prove (pretty much) it did or did not run is the public timetable or Guide. It's still shown as daily in the employee timetable dated 16 July 1962. In any case, no book says it didn't run in August 1962; the 10/62 Guide gives the dates it was to run Christmas season 1962 and starting in June 1963.
I suspect you (Thibbs) are a bit confused by Centpacrr's confused writing. If it were possible to get him to answer yes-or-no to the question "Did the Overland run in August 1962, as far as we know?", he probably would say yes, it did. Probably isn't possible to do that, but if you want to give it a try, good luck. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK there's no reason for you to refer to Centpacrr's proposed text as "confused" either. Let's refocus here: the claims that are used in our article need to be backed up by reliable sources. After that their actual wording should be done in a manner that best explains the topic to the reader. What I am confused about is the fact that you (Tim Zukas) seem to hold that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the entire month of July and throughout all of August 1962. If it is true that (1) the public timetable or Guide are the only sources that can prove this and it's also true that (2) none of us has the timetable or the 8/62 or 9/62 Guide, then I can't understand why you believe that The Overland ran Oakland-Ogden for the entire month of July and throughout all of August 1962. What leads to to believe that this is true? I ask specifically because Centparr's sources (Beebe page 51 and Signor page 276) really seem to bolster the claim that the train's regular service ended on July 16, 1962. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
What I have said is that after July 16, 1962 the SP "...continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963" which is what all the sources quoted above as a group support. Centpacrr (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
"(Beebe page 51 and Signor page 276) really seem to bolster the claim that the train's regular service ended on July 16, 1962."
If "regular" means "year-round". Far as we know the train continued to run after 16 July 1962, presumably until September. Everyone's agreed that in 1963 the Overland was supposed to run 14 June to 2 September-- that was its summer season in 1963, and no reason to think the 1962 season ended in July. Why would the ICC allow that?
If someone does think 1962 was different, then no reason for them to object to "In July 1962 the ICC allowed SP to make the Overland a seasonal train. It ran Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962 and around Christmas, but after summer 1963 it was gone for good." Tim Zukas (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again (and I hope for a final time) I will repeat that there is a very significant Federal regulatory difference between being required by the ICC to provide "year-round daily train service" over a specific route, and being permitted by the ICC to provide discretionary seasonal service over that route. That is what both Bebe abd Signor (i.e. the "sources") say changed on July 16, 1962, and exactly what my lauguage (see above) reflects. Centpacrr (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As I see it there are really no fundamental factual differences between the two versions (Centpacrr's and Tim Zukas'). Centpacrr seems to be more inclined to describe July 16, 1962 as the precise date after which daily year-round services ended and intermittent seasonal services began. Tim Zukas seems more inclined to describe summer 1962 as a broad period during which the train ran and summer 1963 as the broad period after which it ceased. I assume that Centpacrr agrees with Tim Zukas' claims, but Centpacrr believes the text could be made more specific. The question is whether sources can be located to back this up. For clarity here are four statements. The first two are from the reliable sources that have been offered. The second two are from Cenpacrr and Tim Zukas.
Beebe: "The end of the proud Overland Limited as a daily train if not a through run to Chicago came on July 16, 1962"
Signor: "July 16, 1962: ... After this date, the Overland became a part-time train operating during peak summer months and Christmas holidays"
Tim Zukas: "In July 1962 the ICC allowed SP to make the Overland a seasonal train. It ran Oakland-Ogden in summer 1962"
Centpacrr: "the original 1899 SP service ended as a year-round train on July 16, 1962 ... although it continued to operate intermittent seasonal summer and holiday service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963."
The question is which of the two proposed texts (Cenpacrr's and Tim Zukas') more accurately reflects the reliable sources (Beebe and Signor). If the two of you are unable to agree on this point then I again suggest that we should take the matter to WP:3O where a random uninvolved editor can judge the case and cast the deciding !vote. Would the two of you agree to abide by such a decision? -Thibbs (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"being permitted by the ICC to provide discretionary seasonal service"
"Discretionary" means SP didn't have to provide the service if it didn't want to. Far as we know it ran in summer 1963, so the seasonal service wasn't discretionary. The ICC (or someone) allowed the train to go summer-and-Christmas-only, and no doubt the ICC spelled out what "summer" meant, and summer 1962 didn't end on 16 July, just like summer 1963 didn't.
"Would the two of you agree to abide by such a decision?"
What's the alternative? Tim Zukas (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
With the assistance and guidance of my friend Cara Randall, Librarian at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento, I have been able to find the specific terms of the ICC's July, 1962 decision and order relating to the SP's petition (Finance Docket #21946, filed February 5, 1962) to discontinue the San Francisco Overland as a "year-round daily train" and consolidate it with the City of San Francisco, a case which the ICC decided on July 6, 1962 and served its order on the SP on July 16, 1962. This was also the effective date of th SP's new Overland Route Time Tables. On that date the new Time Tables show that the service changed with the consolidation of the San Francisco Overland's SF-Ogden chair cars being included in the City of San Francisco's consist instead of it being a separate train with a different schedule as shown two months earlier in the SP's May, 1962 Time Tables for these two trains. The ICC's order provided that the summer and holiday seasonal service was only required to be provided for one year after the order was served.
Thus after the service previously provided by the San Francisco Overland (TR 27/28) as separate trains running on different schedules were physically consolidated with the City of San Francisco (TR 101/102) on July 16, 1962, its listed seasonal service in 1962 through the 1963-64 holidays appears from the time tables to have been purely titular with no physical separate Overland train ever running after July 16, 1962 other than "second sections" when needed. This would comport with Phelps' note in Signor (p. 276) that "Trains were shown in employees timetables, but were annulled on a day to day basis by train orders except when operated as noted."
The source for this new information is SP's May, July and October, 1962 time tables, and the below verbatim text from the opinion of Decision #70568 of the California PUC in Case #7955 (Filed July 21, 1964). The relevant portions of that Opinion read:
"Southern Pacific Company has been trying to discontinue the Overland trains for several years. On August 25, I960, it petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission for authority to consolidate the same two trains (Finance Docket No. 21255). This was denied (312 ICC 437). Thereupon Southern Pacific commenced another proceeding, Finance Docket No. 21946, seeking in the latter docket the discontinuance of the Overland. Number 21946 was commenced on February 5, 1962. As a practical matter this was a re-litigation of the issue in 21255. However, this was technically not true as the ICC pointed out in its decision.
"In Finance Docket 21946 the ICC handed down its decision on July 6, 1962. It was served on July 16th. It permitted the Southern Pacific to discontinue the Overland except during two seasons. These were the summer season, June 14 through Labor Day and the Christmas and New Year's Day holidays, December 22 through January 2. This operation was ordered to be continued for a period of one year from the date of the decision.
"Southern Pacific actually continued the seasonal operation through the summer of 1963 and the Christmas holidays of 1963-64. When the time came for the summer renewal in 1964 Southern Pacific simply did not renew it as a separate train. It was its position that there was no "change in timetable", no "reduction in the number of passenger trains" and certainly no "reduction in the amount of passenger train service". The timetable and the service in effect on June 13 remained in effect on June 14.
****
"The Commission finds that:
"1. Prior to January 2, 1964, Southern Pacific Company operated its Overland Trains Nos. 27 and 28 from Oakland, California to Ogden, Utah and reverse, on a seasonal basis from June 14 to Labor Day and from December 22 to the ensuing January 2.
"2. After January 2, 1964, Trains Nos. 27 and 28 were discontinued and, on June 14, 1964, they were not revived as separate trains.
"3. Southern Pacific Company failed to give notice of its intention not to revive Trains Nos. 27 and 28 as separate trains on June 14, 1964, either to the Interstate Commerce Commission or to this Commission and others to whom notice is required to be given by the Commission's General Order No. 27-B.
"4. No useful purpose would be served by ordering the operation of separate seasonal Overland trains when the consolidated trains of the City of San Francisco-Overland with second sections as needed will accommodate all of the patronage and provide the same service to the public. Southern Pacific Company is admonished to adhere in the future to the provisions of General Order No. 27-B in filing timetable notice of changes in service.
"The Commission concludes that Case Wo. 7955 should be discontinued."
With this new information it would seem to me that we have adequate reliable sources to support the following:
The designation San Francisco Overland for trains 27 and 28 was retained by the SP between San Francisco and Ogden until that last vestige of the road's original 1899 Overland named train ended as year-round daily service on July 16, 1962 with the ICC's order approving of its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco was served and became effective. The Overland continued with titular seasonal summer and holiday service consolidated with the City of San Francisco until January 2, 1964 after which the Overland name and train numbers disappeared forever from the route.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Solomon 2001 p. 71 ; ICC Financial Docket No. 21946 (Filed February 5, 1962) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, May, 1962, 94th year, No. 12, p. 658 ; Southern Pacific Overland Route Time Tables (Form 4), July 16, 1962 ; Southern Pacific Passenger Train Schedules, October 28, 1962, p. 6, Table 17 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The pablumier version would be "In May 1962 the Overland ran between Oakland and Ogden within about an hour of the City of SF's schedule, making the same stops. That July the ICC allowed the two schedules to be combined, and the public timetable for 16 July showed just one schedule for the two trains. (The employee timetable continued to show separate schedules until October 1963, presumably for the dispatcher's convenience.) The name didn't disappear from the public timetable until 1965, but after July 1962 the actual Overland was just a summer-and-Christmas second section of the City. The last runs were 2 January 1964." [Then whatever sources you like.]
Trains 27/28 lasted until 1967 on UP. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Why leave out relevant, fully sourced detail? See third paragraph hereCentpacrr (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Point #4
Regarding point #4: The question goes to you, Mackensen and Centpacrr. Do you agree that Tim Zukas' version is factually correct? If so, is there any objection to using his phrasing? Tim Zukas, it might also help if you explained your rationale for rephrasing. -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC))
Not without re-reading Solomon and Welsh. I chose to be vague because the sources were not specific. If the name San Francisco Overland was used prior to 1947 then Zukas' version would be misleading. By all means if there's a source which states this all straightforwardly I'd gladly accept it. Mackensen(talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Al Phelps (in Signor's book) mentions the dates when the name changed; he just about agrees with the dates given in the back of Beebe's CP&SP. The timetables agree with them, except the train was never actually called S.F. Overland -- probably Phelps didn't mean to say that. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy of the Solomon or Welsh to consult? Tim Zukas, can you provide the text of the relevant sections of Phelps in Signor's book and Beebe's CP&SP? -Thibbs (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
CP&SP came out circa 1963-- its appendix (written by an SP guy) is a handy summary of the history of lots of SP trains. It gives dates when the Overland Limited became the San Francisco Overland Limited and when it switched back; after 1900 it never had any other name until it lost the "Limited" in 1947. Phelps (in Donner Pass) just about agrees with the dates in CP&SP-- probably he got them from there? Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name San Francisco Overland was not used prior to 1947, then? If so would Tim Zukas' version work for you, Mackensen? Or would you like to reserve comment until the Solomon and Welsh sources can be consulted? -Thibbs (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
"Do the Signor and Beebe sources agree that the name San Francisco Overland was not used prior to 1947, then?" Yes.
Soloman/Welsh are probably looking at the same sources we are. If they did say something contrary, a look at the timetables would probably overrule them. Tim Zukas (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
From the discussion of point #5 it sounds like you have gained access to Solomon now, Mackensen. Does it agree? And would you be OK with Tim Zukas' version then? -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mackensen: When you get a moment, please help us resolve this question (see also my latest question under point #2). -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Resolved The fourth point seems to be resolved as well then. I'll collapse this part of the discussion unless there are further comments in the next 24 hours. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Two changes in the names of well known passenger trains of the Southern Pacific Company have been made within the last few weeks. The world famous "Overland Limited" has been changed to the "San Francisco Overland Limited" while the "Statesman" operating between San Francisco and Sacramento, has been re-named the "Sacramento Special".
The present "San Francisco Overland Limited" is one of the best known and most modern trains in the world. It is equipped with all-steel cars of the latest design, providing luxuries and conveniences such as a barber-shop, shower bath, valet service, messaging, maid for women passengers, hairdressing, manicuring, stenographer, stock reports and news items by wire, buffet•clubroom, cafe-dining car and library.
Almost 34 years ago the first limited extra-fare train was put into operation over the present route of the "San Francisco Overland Limited," between San Francisco and Chicago. It was known as the "Golden Gate Special" and made its first trip on December 5. 1888. Electric lights provided a big feature for this first de luxe overland train.
The "Overland Limited" made its initial trip on October 15. 1898 as the successor to the "Golden Gate Special." Many improvements in the appointments of the train have been made since then. The "Sacramento Spectal is one of the best known trains in the State of California and has been very popular because of its convenience to travelers between San Francisco and the state capital. It makes the trip in three hours and fifteen minutes and carrier the most modern equipment.
Per the October, 1962 (95th year, No. 5) issue of THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS at page 654 see here, TR27/28 (by then seasonal and about to be discontinued) still operated as The San Francisco Overland to the end. Centpacrr (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Tim Zukas writes: "The name alternated between Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited until July 1947 when 'Limited' was dropped." Does the The Southern Pacific Bulletin conflict with Tim Zukas' proposed text? Or is the above offered in order to introduce a further clarification? Could we agree to something like this: "The name was changed from Overland Limited to San Francisco Overland Limited in 1922 and remained that way until July 1947 when 'Limited' was dropped."? -Thibbs (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
We actually know a good deal more than that from Beebe (2), Solomon, Welsh, the Nov, 1922 SP Bulletin, and the January, 1889 (2) and October, 1962 Official Guides. My text is the following for the Names section (I have shown where the eight specific and distinct refs go in small type)::
"The Overland Limited 's formal name varied during its long career but it was generally referred to colloquially as the Overland regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. [ref: Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced its Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it the Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [ref: Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINE of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] The Southern Pacific began similar "limited" type daily service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden on December 5, 1888 as the Golden Gate Special. [ref: THE OFFICIAL GUIDE January, 1889. p. 355] On October 15, 1898 the SP changed the name of that train to Overland Limited to match the UP. In the late fall of 1922 the roads again changed the name for the service over the whole route to San Francisco Overland Limited. [refs: The Southern Pacific Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 11, November, 1922. p. 4 ; Beebe 1963 pp. 28-30] The designation "Limited" was dropped from the name on September 1, 1947 when the streamliner City of San Francisco increased its service from thrice weekly to daily thus supplanting the older Overland as both the premier and fastest seven-day-a-week train running over the C&NW/UP/SP route between Chicago and San Francisco, the name it retained on the SP until the end. [refs: Welsh 2008 p. 31 ; “City of San Francisco”/”San Francisco Overland” SP mailer, September 1, 1947 and THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
OK that's a much more thorough accounting of the train's official name and it seems to be well sourced. Does it seem to hit the mark for you, Tim Zukas, or are there problems with it? -Thibbs (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The Golden Gate Special wasn't daily, was it? And it ran Oakland to Council Bluffs. In any case it only lasted a couple seasons and isn't an Overland ancestor. The Overland Ltd became the San Francisco Overland Ltd three times. It lost the "Limited" in 1946-47, before the CoSF went daily, and we have no idea why it and the Pacific Ltd and the Golden State Ltd lost their "Limiteds" circa 1947, or why other top SP trains were never called "Limited". (Turns out the UP dropped "Limited" in 1946, and no "Limited" in the 18 May 1947 SP public timetable.)
"The train became the Overland Limited on the UP in 1895 and on the SP in 1898. The name then alternated between that and San Francisco Overland Limited until 1946-47 when "Limited" was dropped." If you want dates for the alternation get them from CP&SP or Phelps' notes in Signor's book; that other sourcing is a useless attempt to impress the reader (as if a raging controversy about when the name changed required scrupulous sourcing). Tim Zukas (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Generally rigorous sourcing shouldn't be regarded as indicative of a controversy, and it's better to think of sources as helpful to reader comprehension instead of simply impressive. But it is true that a higher standard is required when sourced claims are challenged. From WP:V we know that "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" (emphasis added). So for a challenged set of claims regarding specific dates when the train's name changed we would need reliable sources that directly support the dates and name changes. The timetables are adequate to source a claim regarding the train's name on a certain date (the date of the specific cited timetable), but such a source is not sufficient to support a challenged claim regarding the date of the name's change. For a claim like that to survive a challenge would require a source more like the The Southern Pacific Bulletin source linked above. If we can't find an agreement on this history then it might be a good idea to consider trimming it down and generalizing it to only those statements that can be directly supported. -Thibbs (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
SPs San Francisco Overland Limited schedule (1945)The Overland Limited 's formal name varied during its long career although it was generally referred to colloquially as the Overland regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. [Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced the Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it the Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] On October 15, 1899 the SP inaugurated its own Overland Limited (TR1&2) joining of its long standing Atlantic Express (eastbound) (TR4) and Pacific Express (westbound) (TR3) San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden trains to connect with the UP's Ogden to Omaha/Council Bluffs Overland Limited train. Known variously by that name, S.F. Overland Limited, and San Francisco Overland Limited for the next 32 years, on May 31, 1931 the service again became the San Francisco Overland Limited and its train numbers changed from "1 and 2" to "27 and 28". On July 10, 1947 the designation "Limited" was dropped from the name. The designation 'San Francisco Overland was retained by the SP from San Francisco/Oakland to Ogden until that last vestige of the original 1887 service ended as a year-round train on July 16, 1962 when the ICC approved its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco although continued to operate seasonal service on trains 27 and 28 until the summer of 1963.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51, Welsh 2008 p. 31 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This new version drops mention of the Golden Gate Special per Tim Zukas' objections. It again seems decently sourced. What do you think, Tim Zukas? Could you live with it? -Thibbs (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Will I die if that gets in the article? I'm hoping not. It's easy to improve, tho.
The Overland Flyer was always a Chicago-Oakland train-- correct? So don't say UP introduced it-- say it only had that name on UP if you like.
SP called it Atlantic/Pacific Express, which was not an Oakland-Ogden train "connect"ing to the Overland. The eastward train was then train 3, not train 4, not that that needs to be in the article.
Nothing was inaugurated in 1898-- SP changed its name but the train didn't change as far as we know.
In 1899-1947 the train was the Overland Limited or the San Francisco Overland Limited-- nothing else.
"Limited" was dropped on UP in 1946 and on SP in May 1947 or earlier.
No objection to a mention of the Golden Gate Special. Don't call it daily, and don't call it Oakland-Ogden, don't call it an Overland ancestor, etc. Tim Zukas (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The SP's Overland Limited was indeed a new, "strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited train composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars" that was inaugurated by the SP on October 15, 1899, and very different from the Atlantic Express and Pacific Express, trains that existed on the CPRR long before the UP's Overland Flyer (see the 1876 Official Guide listing here) and that both continued to operate under those names until May, 1904 when they became the Western Express. Per Beebe, from 1887 to when the SP's separate Overland Limited service was established in 1899, operation of service from Council Bluffs to San Francisco and beyond was accomplished by the interchange at Ogden between the UPs Overlands and the SP's existing Expresses of sleepers to and from San Francisco as well as Portland, and Los Angeles. Also note that train numbers (odd and even) were reversed at the same time so that westbound became odd numbered and eastbound became even numbered.
Per Beebe at page 28:
"The Overland from the beginning carried through cars for San Francisco over the Central Pacific connection at Ogden, as well as Portland and Los Angeles sleepers, but for twelve long years after its inaugural on the Union Pacific the trains name abruptly vanished at the edge of Great Salt Lake. The Central Pacific wanted nothing of it. Its cars were integrated at Ogden to the long established Atlantic and Pacific Expressesand passengers went through in a complete continuity of passage, but not the word Overland. Its loss of identity the moment it got its highball out of Ogden westbound and its reassumption of that identity as soon as a U. P. locomotive was coupled to its drawbar eastbound is one of the enigmas of railroad history.
"Not only did the Central Pacific, for twelve years, want nothing of The Overland Flyer and later The Overland Limited, it never acknowledged the existence of the Overland Route. Until 1899 when the long shadow of Edward Henry Harriman was already falling over the decaying empire of the Big Four, its mainline between California and Utah was designated on all Central Pacific and Southern Pacific company literature as The Ogden Gateway Route or in bursts of pure poetry as The Dining Car Route."
Per Signor at page 62:
"A general realignment of [SP] passenger schedules had been implemented system wide on October 15, 1899, making odd numbers westbound (toward San Francisco) and even numbers eastbound, where formerly the reverse had held sway. With the inauguration of Nos. 1 and 2, the Overland Limited, transcontinental schedules on the "Overland Route" increased to six a day. Sunset Magazine, the official house organ of the Southern Pacific's passenger department, described the new all-vestibuled train as one composed of the finest equipment — a veritable "Aladdin's Carpet" — possessing all the comforts that a comfortable mind could suggest. Fully twelve hours were shaved off the, then best, eastbound schedule and four hours off the westbound, the strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited, composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars.
"At this time, train Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 rounded out the long distance schedules on the Mountain. Westbound, Nos. 3 and 5 were both known as the Pacific Express; Nos. 4 and 6, the Atlantic Express. This confusing situation existed until May 14, 1904, when No. 5 was renamed the Western Express and No. 6 the Eastern Express, the first in a series of name changes for these trains."
The source for the weekly Golden Gate Special being the SP's first extra-fare "limited" train and the Overland Limited being its successor is "The Southern Pacific Bulletin", Vol XI, No. 11, November, 1922, p.4 (see here). Centpacrr (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"the strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited, composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars"
Looks like Signor or somebody got that wrong-- no mention of extra fare in the 3/00 or 1/01 Guides. In 3/00 the Overland carried chair cars east of Omaha. Tim Zukas (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Signor (who is quoting the November, 1899 issue of Sunset Magazine published by the SP's passenger department) is describing the SP's Overland Limited which operated between SF and Ogden, not the Overland service operated "east of Omaha" which was run by the C&NW. (Omaha was also then 1,034 UP track miles east of Ogden.) Do you claim that the 3/00 and 1/01 Guides specifically say "no extra fare" in the listings for the SP's Overland Limited, or is it silent on that? If it does not explicitly say so about this Pullman Palace Car luxury train (as described in its November, 1899 newspaper ad in the San Francisco Call), then Beebe, Signor, and Sunset Magazine (Nov., 1899) are the determinative sources as to this being an "extra fare" train. Centpacrr (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
"Signor (who is quoting..."
No indication that that part of Signor's text is a quote.
"Do you claim..."
No.
"...are the determinative sources..."
What's the difference between a determinative source and an undeterminative one? (Offhand guess: Beebe doesn't say it was extra fare in 1900. For all we know, Sunset doesn't either.)
When they cut the Overland's schedule in 1913 it started charging extra fare, and the Guide said it was extra fare. That ended circa 1918. When the schedule became 63 hours in 1926 they resumed the extra fare, and the Guide said it was extra fare. That ended circa 1931. When the City of SF and City of LA started in 1936 they were extra fare, as the Guide said. Far as we know, whenever the Chief or 20th Century Ltd or Cascade or Panama Ltd or any other train charged an extra fare, the Guide said so. It's relevant info for Guide users-- no reason to leave it out. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not Signor is making a verbatim quote from Sunset Magazine, he identifies it as the source for his text "described the new all-vestibuled train as one composed of the finest equipment — a veritable "Aladdin's Carpet" — possessing all the comforts that a comfortable mind could suggest. Fully twelve hours were shaved off the, then best, eastbound schedule and four hours off the westbound, the strictly deluxe, extra-fare limited, composed entirely of Pullman Palace cars." (See also the November, 1899 SP ad in the San Francisco Call describing it as a luxury train linked here.)
I understand now that you are not claiming that the 3/00 or 1/01 Guides contain the words "no extra fare" in their listings of the SP Overland Limited so they are not a source either way being silent on the issue.
"Determinative sources": See the two comments immediately above. Centpacrr (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional comment: Per Metropolitan Corridor: Railroads and the American Scene by Harvard University Professor John R. Stilgoe (Yale University Press, 1985) at pp. 61-62:
"If the 20th Century and its ever-present competitor The Broadway Limited, represented the epitome in express-train design, perhaps The Overland Limited best represented the typical first-class train. Operating between Chicago and San Francisco, it long remained the train favored by gold-mine millionaires and other well-to-do Californias. ... The Southern Pacific Company announced the refurbished train in an 1899 issue of the company periodical, Sunset Magazine. As a result of "the phenomenal tourist travel to California during the corning winter, which now seems assured," the company new trains would be added. A month later, Sunset Magazine proclaimed the success of The Overland Limited: "It's an Aladdin's Carpet—three days and nights between San Francisco and Chicago; all the comforts that a comfortable mind can suggest; and all the traveling luxuries a luxurious imagination knows".
"While the railroad emphasized the "ne plus ultra of service", it also advertised a running time reduced by about twelve hours. Although not a remarkably fast train—the Rocky Mountains prevented speeds common in the East and on the Plains—it gradually captured the attention of the region through which it passed. The Overland maintained its reputation as a luxury or "candy train." It carried a barber and a ladies' maid, a smoking compartment separated from the central passage corridor (so that no women might detect the odor of cigars), and, of course, an open-platform observation car."
Per this description, the SP's 1899 new Overland Limited was the very essence of an extra fare train. Centpacrr (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently SP/UP/CNW didn't think so.
The article can say "Signor says the Overland was extra fare, but Guides and timetables don't mention an extra fare until the schedule was cut by several hours in 1913." Tim Zukas (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Again since (as you have already admitted) the two 1900 Official Guides you rely on are both silent on the issue (i.e. saying neither "extra fare" or "no extra fare"), they can't be relied on as being determinative as a reliable source on this issue either way and attempting to do so is merely speculative or "original research". What a Guide published thirteen years later may say is also irrelevant for the same reason. Centpacrr (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What about something like this as a compromise: "According to Signor the Overland was extra fare. The guides and timetables begin to mention an extra fare when the schedule was cut by several hours in 1913." or even just "According to Signor the Overland was extra fare."? Would either of those satisfy both of you? -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Might as well be more specific-- "Signor says the Overland was extra fare. The guides and timetables begin to mention an extra fare when the schedule was cut to 65 hours in 1913." Tim Zukas (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Would that work for you, Centpacrr? -Thibbs (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I would be satisfied with the following to cover both points 3 (see my detailed new posting on this point above) and 4:
SPs San Francisco Overland Limited schedule (1945)The Overland Limited 's formal name varied during its long career although it was generally referred to colloquially as the Overland regardless of whatever other nouns might be attached. [Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced the Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it the Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] The Southern Pacific introduced its first deluxe, extra fare service between San Francisco/Oakland and Ogden on December 5, 1888 with the weekly Golden Gate Special although dropped this train after just five months.[ THE OFFICIAL GUIDE January, 1889. p. 355 ; "The Golden Gate Special to be discontinued after the 12th of May", The Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 61, Number 56, April 29, 1889, p. 1] For the next decade the UP/SP connection at Ogden was with the SP's eastbound Atlantic Express and westbound Pacific Express until October 15, 1899 when the SP inaugurated its own Overland Limited (TR1&2) to connect with the UP's Ogden to Omaha/Council Bluffs Overland Limited train and providing 71-hour through service. The SP described its new train as "An Elegant Solid Vestibuled Train of Composite Car, with library, Smoking Parlor, Buffet, etc. Luxurious Double Drawing-room Sleeping Cars, Dining Car. The Fastest Overland service in the history of transcontinental railroading."[ SP Overland Limited Advertisement The San Francisco Call, November, 1899] On January 1, 1913 the Overland Limited became an extra-fare ($10) train when it further cut its running time from 68 to 64 hours and added amenities such as a barber, manicurist, stenographer, bath, etc. [The Straits Times, November 19, 1912, p. 9]
Known variously as both the Overland Limited and San Francisco Overland Limited for the next 32 years, on May 31, 1931 the service again became the San Francisco Overland Limited when its train numbers changed from "1 and 2" to "27 and 28". On July 10, 1947 the designation "Limited" was dropped from the name altogether. The name San Francisco Overland for trains 27 and 28 was retained by the SP between San Francisco and Ogden until that last vestige of the road's original 1899 Overland Limited named train ended as year-round daily service on July 16, 1962 with the ICC's July 6 order approving of its discontinuation and consolidation with the City of San Francisco became effective. The Overland continued with titular seasonal summer and holiday service consolidated with the City of San Francisco until January 2, 1964 after which the Overland name and train numbers disappeared forever from the route.[Signor 1985 p. 276 ; Beebe 1963 p. 51 ; Solomon 2001 p. 71 ; ICC Financial Docket No. 21946 (Filed February 5, 1962) ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, May, 1962, 94th year, No. 12, p. 658 ; Southern Pacific Overland Route Time Tables (Form 4), July 16, 1962 ; Southern Pacific Passenger Train Schedules, October 28, 1962, p. 6, Table 17 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of RAILWAYS of the UNITED STATES, October, 1962, 95th year, No. 5, p. 654] Centpacrr (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Usual corrections--
SPs San Francisco Overland Limited schedule (1945)"The Overland Limited 's name varied but it was generally known as the Overland whatever other words were added. [Solomon 2000 p. 74] The Union Pacific introduced the Overland Flyer on November 13,1887 and renamed it Overland Limited on November 17, 1895. [Beebe 1963 p. 13 ; THE OFFICIAL GUIDE of the RAILWAY and STEAM NAVIGATION LINES of the UNITED STATES and CANADA New York: National Railway Publication Co. 21st year, No. 8. January, 1889. p. 355] SP called the eastbound Overland the Atlantic Express and westbound the Pacific Express until October 15 1899 when it adopted the Overland Limited name for the train that then began running between Chicago and San Francisco in about 72 hours each way. The SP described the new train as "An Elegant Solid Vestibuled Train of Composite Car, with library, Smoking Parlor, Buffet, etc. Luxurious Double Drawing-room Sleeping Cars, Dining Car. The Fastest Overland service in the history of transcontinental railroading."[ SP Overland Limited Advertisement The San Francisco Call, November, 1899] The name was Overland Limited or San Francisco Overland Limited until 1946-47 when "Limited" was dropped.
The first deluxe, extra fare train between San Francisco/Oakland and Council Bluffs was the weekly Golden Gate Special that ran from December 1888 until May 1889.[ THE OFFICIAL GUIDE January, 1889. p. 355 ; "The Golden Gate Special to be discontinued after the 12th of May", The Sacramento Daily Union, Volume 61, Number 56, April 29, 1889, p. 1] In 1913 the Overland Limited became an extra-fare ($10) train when it cut its schedule to 65 hours and added a barber, manicurist, stenographer, bath, etc. [The Straits Times, November 19, 1912, p. 9] The extra fare ended in 1918 when the schedule reverted to 70+ hours. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding point #5: Are there disagreements over the factual aspects of Tim Zukas' rewording? The source that is cited for this claim is Joe Welsh's "Union Pacific's Streamliners". Can anybody provide a copy of the relevant text from page 85? -Thibbs (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) (Note: Shifted down to separate discussions on different numbered points. -Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC))
I added the original wording but I do not currently have access to Welsh. If heavyweight cars remained in the consist then the addition of the word "partially" is in order. I do not know if that detail is in Welsh. Mackensen(talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes and no. The question isn't whether it occasionally had heavyweights in the consist; the question is what the standard consist was. Mackensen(talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to hunt for a picture of an all-lightweight Overland on any day in the 1940s. (Or for any other evidence that it was all-lightweight in 1943.) Tim Zukas (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't prove anything if I did find such a picture. We need a reliable source stating what the consist was. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we need a source. Mackensen(talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictures are not the best sources to use because they require interpretation (sometimes expert interpretation). Per WP:V, sources should directly (i.e. explicitly) support challenged claims. The images do suggest that heavyweights remained in use as part of the train after 1943, but I'm not sure that this is contradicted by the phrase "the train was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars" (emphasis added)... If the word "re-equipped" seems to suggest "entirely replaced" then perhaps something like "equipped" or "outfitted" would produce a suitably ambiguous phrase. Would that work for either of you? -Thibbs (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think "gained" would be an appropriate choice here. Tim Zukas's concern, and he's not wrong, is that my wording implies that the train became completely lightweight, which was a common procedure at the time. If heavyweights remained part of the regular consist then that implication is inaccurate. We need a source. Mackensen(talk) 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The text on page 85 of Welsh that seems to address this issue directly reads:
"Prior to the war, UP's president and his staff had explored the concept of providing daily streamliner service. As a result, Union Pacific, SP, C&NW, and Pullman ordered 148 new, light-weight cars to upgrade the Los Angeles Limited, San Francisco Overlandand Portland Rose. The timely arrival in 1941-1942 of the order, including 78 sleepers, 30 baggage cars, 10 RPOs, and 30 coaches, helped the railroad to weather the demands of World War II and to operate extra sections of existing trains."
It seems clear from this that light-weight cars were in regular use on Overland service as early as 1941, but with the extremely heavy demand for intercity rail transport during WWII all available equipment (including older heavy-weight cars) was doubtless used on extra sections of all these services as well. Centpacrr (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that Welsh didn't mention lightweight diners/lounges/observations-- none of those were built for non-streamliners until after the war. Tim Zukas (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
(Outdent) I think we're all agreed on this point. Does anyone object to "gained" as a verb? Mackensen(talk) 00:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I now have both Solomon's UP book and his SP book. He says in the UP book (p. 75) that "in 1951 the was given new, streamlined rolling stock." In the SP book (p. 69) he says of a lightweight car order that "some cars...were used to bolster San Francisco Overland trains.". Mackensen(talk) 01:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Mackensen. So can we all agree to this: "In 1941-42 the Overland gained American- and Imperial-series lightweight sleepers." -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
"In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some lightweight sleepers." to make it clear that the lightweights didn't replace all the old sleepers. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think, Mackensen and Centpacrr? Would "started carrying some" be an acceptable replacement for "gained"? -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
According to Robert Wayner's Car Names, Numbers and Consists, no lounge and/or observation cars were carried on the Overland and other intercity trains during WWII in compliance with the Office of Defense Transportation directive banning strictly luxury cars without revenue capacity. Centpacrr (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the further research, Centpacrr. Just to be clear, is the Wayner source being offered in support the idea that all heavyweight cars were replaced by lightweights? And is it intended to support the original "re-equipped" phrasing? -Thibbs (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It is to point out that the comment above that "Note that Welsh didn't mention lightweight diners/lounges/observations-- none of those were built for non-streamliners until after the war." seems largely irrelevant as no heavy-weight lounges or observation cars were carried either as, by order to the ODT, all such "non revenue producing" luxury cars were removed from the consists of all intercity trains and stored from the start of the war to 1946. Centpacrr (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I understand. Would you be amenable to Tim Zukas' suggestion that we reword "In 1941-42 the Overland was re-equipped with lightweight streamlined cars" (emphasis added) to "In 1941-42 the Overland started carrying some lightweight sleepers" (emphasis added)? -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Wayner states in Car Names, Numbers an Consists (pp. 156-57) about the new lightweight head-end and sleeper cars delivered in 1942 that: Pullman-Standard built two groups of sleeping cars for Overland Route service in 1942. The (sixty) AMERICAN series cars, containing 6 roomettes, 6 open sections and 4 double bedrooms, were Plan 4099, Lot 6669, built in May and June. The (eighteen) IMPERIAL cars, with 4 compartments, 2 drawing rooms and 4 double bedrooms, were Plan 4069H, Lot 6668, delivered in March and April. The AMERICAN and IMPERIAL series cars were painted two-tone gray as delivered. The AMERICAN-series cars were placed in the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains. Three groups of new lightweight head-end (baggage and RPO) and chair cars for use on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains were also built and delivered to the UP in late 1941 and early 1942. None of the new cars were initially assigned to any of the CITY (SF, LA and Portland) streamliners.
I would thus be satisfied with: "In 1942 newly delivered Pullman-Standard built lightweight sleeper, chair, RPO and baggage cars were put in service on the San Francisco Overland Limited. At the same time existing heavyweight lounge and observation cars were removed from the consists and placed in storage to comply with the 1942 General Order of the Office of Defense Transportation (ODT)banning the use of all non-revenue producing luxury cars from intercity routes during WWII. Those cars were not permitted to be returned to service on any US trains until 1946." Centpacrr (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"In 1941-42 the Overland got its first lightweight sleepers, new Pullman-built 6-6-4s and 4-4-2s." No coaches on the Overland then. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The above suggestion strikes me as being wholly inadequate. First it makes no mention at all of the removal of the luxury cars from 1942 to 1946 at the order of the ODT, nor of the replacement of HW head-end (baggage, RPO) cars with new LW ones. Even though the train was listed as "all-Pullman" at the start of the war, Wayner clearly indicates that some of the new 1941-42 Pullman-built chair cars were included in Overland's consists during the War as well. (Wayner, p. 158 supra) (User Zukas provides no sources to refute that or support his assertion that "No coaches on the Overland then.") The SF Overland Limited became predominately a military train during WWII routinely running multiple 20-car sections pulled by a pair of UP 800 class steam locomotives. (Beebe, pp. 41, 138) By 1946 an articulated pair of LW 48-seat chair cars appear in the train's OAK-CHI consist. I am endeavoring to find out when in 1942 (or after) the new LW chair cars were added to the train, but because it was a primary means of transportation for service members heading to the Pacific coast, under order of the War Production Board, no new passenger cars of any kind (including sleepers) were built between mid 1942 and late 1945, civilian train travel was severely restricted by the ODT and yet passenger traffic during the War was more than three times its pre-war level, I suspect that the appearance of chair cars on the Overland was much earlier rather than later. Centpacrr (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
"Wayner clearly indicates that some of the new 1941-42 Pullman-built chair cars were included in Overland's consists during the War"
He doesn't. Wayner did a terrific job on his books-- far as ignorant folks like us can tell, he doesn't make errors, and he didn't make that one.
By the way: the pic on page 138 of Beebe's book is postwar-- early 1950s, likely. Ditto the pics on pages 131, 140 and 6-7. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Read the text in Wayner and Beebe again. Wayner says at page iii (Introduction) that: "This book is a record of streamlined and lightweight passenger-train cars built and operated in the United States." At page 157 (Wartime Changes and Acquisitions) he writes that: "Three groups of [lightweight] head-end and [48-seat] chair cars [5331-5345; 5351-5365] were built by Pullman-Standard in 1941 and 1942 for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains." To me Wayner's language (as well as the other factors I mentioned) thus clearly indicates that chair cars were indeed carried on the Overlandduring the war. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
Beebe writes at page 135: "In the early thirtiesThe Overland, shown above eastbound with the identifying campanile of Cheyenne depot in the background, acknowledged hard times by including a coach in its otherwise impeccably all-Pullman consist. Public cars, buffet diner and observation, were air conditioned. So was a single through sleeper for San Francisco. Open platform observation cars lasted, of course, until the 1941 war. No self-respecting train was without one." This is confirmed in the consist listing (see here) from a 1930's SP timetable for The San Francisco Overland Limited (TR27) included on that page in Beebe showing a Chi-SF chair car on the train. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
Beebe writes at page 138: "When The San Francisco Overland, shown here running double headed with seventeen cars , was predominately a military train during the years of the 1941 war, it often ran in two sections with maximum tonnage capacity of two of the Union Pacific's powerful 800 class engines. There were more than forty train movements a day across Sherman and train crews didn't bother to change the smokebox numbers on the helper engines as is evident on No. 802 in this picture. " To me this language clearly indicates that Beebe identifies this picture as being of the Overland taken during the war years. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise to dispute Beebe and supports your claim that this train "is postwar-- early 1950s"? (I am unclear as to why you mention "the pics on pages 131, 140 and 6-7" as I made no reference to any of those images.)
Beebe also writes at page 138: "During the war years some of the trimmings depicted in the promotional montage opposite, notably the barber shop, shower bath, and open platform observation car lounge, were temporarily abated." This, as I mentioned in my version, was because of a 1942 order of the Office of Defense Transportation banning the carriage of non-revenue producing luxury cars on intercity trains, a provision which remained in effect until rescinded in 1946. Wayner also states this fact at page 157. What source do you rely on that indicates otherwise?
So again, sir, what source(s) are you depending upon to dispute Wayner and Beebe and support your claim that "No coaches on the Overland then."? So far you have not provided any. Centpacrr (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, things are starting to get a little heated and that's not helpful to resolving the issues here. Given the nature of the subject matter we are forced to rely heavily on text sources and these can be more difficult for the editor with the burden of proof to skim through and for the challenging party to verify than with digital sources. It's understandable that this leads to frustration on both sides, but let's take a step back and refocus. We were discussing whether all heavyweight cars had been entirely replaced by lightweights or whether the train had possibly carried a mix of HWs and LWs. From earlier comments I was under the impression that there weren't any sources that addressed this directly. In light of this the suggestion was made to instead use language that addressed the addition of lightweights (a fact for which there seem to be plenty of sources) without saying that all heavyweights had been removed. Centpacrr would you be OK with leaving the language ambiguous by only addressing lightweights and failing to explicitly say that all heavyweights were removed? Coverage of the ODT ban would suggest that the heavyweight cars had been removed without explicitly saying so. Tim Zukas, would it be ok to mention the ODT ban? -Thibbs (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I have never said that no HW cars were carried during the war or thereafter. With passenger traffic more than tripling during the war years but no new passenger cars of any kind built between mid 1942 and late 1945, virtually every existing passenger car (except "luxury" cars), both HW and LW, was in heavy use throughout the war. What I am saying that user Zukas appears to dispute is that Wayner states that the 1941-42 LW chair cars were used on the SF Overland Limited during the war years, and that Beebe states that the SFOL (TR27/28) carried at least one chair car over its entire route as early as "the early 1930s". I have provided above the verbatim quotes from the text in both Wayner and Beebe that supports this while user Zukas has not offered any citations or sources to either refute that or to support his position that only sleepers -- but not chair cars -- where carried on the train prior to 1946. What I have therefore asked is that he provide some reliable source(s) to refute what Wayner and Beebe clearly say on this issue which is that the train included chair cars with the sleepers during the war and earlier. To date he has supplied nothing that does that. As for using "text sources" WP does so all the time and is not -- and never has been -- WP policy to limit citations to only "digital sources". Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Presumably his quote from Wayner is correct: "Three groups of [lightweight] head-end and [48-seat] chair cars [5331-5345; 5351-5365] were built by Pullman-Standard in 1941 and 1942 for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains." As other readers can see, Wayner doesn't say which trains got which cars. The public timetables say the Overland quit carrying coaches from around 1938 until 1946.
Mackensen said above "Tim Zukas's concern, and he's not wrong, is that my wording implies that the train became completely lightweight, which was a common procedure at the time. If heavyweights remained part of the regular consist then that implication is inaccurate." He's right-- that implication is what I'm trying to remove. The Overland got some lightweight sleepers circa 1941-42; none of us has a clue what percentage of its cars were heavyweight after that, except we know it's a good bet it wasn't zero.
"Would it be ok to mention the ODT ban?" Sure-- not that it matters.
In other news: "To me this language clearly indicates that Beebe identifies this picture as being of the Overland taken during the war years..." Question is, was it in fact taken during the war, and the answer to that is No. Tim Zukas (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
What exactly do you think that ...for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED" -- the only train that Wayner specifically names as getting the cars -- means other than that these cars were operated on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED?
Once again I have never claimed that the SFOL was "all LW" so that is not an issue with me. For the reasons I have noted above regarding the level of passenger traffic during the war being more than three times what it was prewar, and Beebe's statement at page 41 that during the War "The Overland ran in two sections as a regular thing with twenty cars to a train", it is clear that that the consists were made up of both LW and HW cars.
Once again, sir, you continue to make lots of claims (such as "Question is, was it in fact taken during the war, and the answer to that is No.") but still provide NO SOURCES whatsoever to support them other than your "personal word" or "opinion". That, however, is just not the way WP operates. Centpacrr (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
OK there seems to be broad agreement now on the original concern here (i.e. we agree that there was a mix of heavyweight and lightweight cars). The locus of the dispute now seems to have become whether the Overland carried coach cars during the war years. Is that accurate? It seems to me that Centpacrr is citing Beebe as evidence that the train did carry coaches, and Tim Zukas is citing the public timetables. Centparr has provided the text of the Beebe source. It would be helpful if we could get a link to, scan of, or transcription of the public timetables. Could you provide us with that evidence, Tim Zukas? If the two sources in fact disagree then we will have to consider their respective degrees of reliability and if this fails to break the deadlock then we will have to mention both claims with appropriate attribution. There are many ways to provide appropriate attribution if it comes to that. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I have already ordered hard copies of both Don DeNevi's America's Fighting Railroads: A World War II Pictorial History (1996) as well as Donald Heimburger's and John Kelly's massive 380-page Trains to Victory: America's Railroads in WWII (2009) which have both been shipped and I should have in hand by the end of the week. The information they contain should go a long way to answering this and any other questions relating to the makeup and operations of the SFOL and other intercity trains during WWII. Centpacrr (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
"It seems to me that Centpacrr is citing Beebe as evidence that the train did carry coaches"
That the train did carry coaches in the early 1930s, which is true. No disagreement in the sources about 1939-1945.
On second thought: if the article mentions the ODT ban, we're bound to get it wrong-- we don't know what kinds of cars were allowed. In 1943 the Overland carried a "buffet-club car" with barber, valet and shower bath, and a sleeper-observation, and a diner of course. The Challenger had a lounge car and a diner. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I am citing both Beebe (pp. 41, 135, 138 et al) and Wayner (pp. 156-157 et al) with regard to the deployment and use by the SP, UP and C&NW of both new (1941-42) LW head-end, sleeper and chair cars on the SFOL in WWII, and ODT's 1942 General Order re the carriage of non-revenue luxury cars on intercity trains, and will be reviewing both DeNevi and Heimburger/Kelly for further consist and operational information on the SFOL and other Overland Route trains during the war years when I receive their books on the subject of WWII railroads in the US later this week. Centpacrr (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How did you consult the public timetables, Tim Zukas? Are they available online or only offline? Are they in the form of a book or are they kept in an archives somewhere? At this point we need to be able to use them to verify the claim that the Overland discontinued the use of coaches from 1938 until 1946. -Thibbs (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You'd think they'd be online somewhere-- a few websites have scans of old airline timetables-- but I don't remember seeing a scan of 1940s SP or UP public timetables. I'm looking at paper timetables, and Official Guides would serve as well if a university library near you has them. If you want a paper copy of the relevant timetable page, speak up. But note the article doesn't mention the matter, and doesn't need to-- only reason it came up is he wrongly thought the Overland got lightweight coaches in 1941-42. Tim Zukas (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Both Beebe and Wayner indicate that some of the 1941-42 LW chair cars were utilized by the SFOL during the war years as does "Civilian War Transport : A Record of the Control of Domestic Traffic Operations by the Office of Defense Transportation 1941-1946" (ODT, 1948). The UP's November 1, 1943 Condensed Time Tables list only six CHI-SF cars (three sleepers, a combination sleeper-observation, a diner, and a buffet) on the train. This arrangement would give the train the capacity to carry at most about 70-75 passengers. While Beebe (who lived in Reno, NV, and wrote that he rode this train often both as a passenger and in his own private car attached to its end) says at p. 41 of The Overland Limited that "During the 1941 war when the theater of operations was shifting to the Pacific and the entire world of military personnel, politics, logistics and allied civilian activity was turning its face westward, The Overlandran in two sections as a regular thing with twenty cars to a train." That being the case, the "equipment listing" in the time table showing only six through cars is clearly not complete as to what the SFOL actually carried and thus cannot be used as a definitive source. The question is therefore still open and unresolved. I'll see what DeNevi and Heimburger/Kelly have to say on this when those volumes arrive later this week. Centpacrr (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If Tim Zukas is correct that this fact (i.e. the Overland's use of coach cars during the war years) doesn't appear in either the previous or current version of the article then this would seem to be more of an academic discussion than a content-oriented discussion and thus better suited for a venue like user talk than DRN. Centpacrr, do you anticipate that this fact will eventually work its way into the article? -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have two more sources to consult -- Don DeNevi's America's Fighting Railroads: A World War II Pictorial History (1996) and Donald Heimburger's and John Kelly's massive 380-page Trains to Victory: America's Railroads in WWII (2009) -- on order which I will have in hand by Friday. Both books are specifically about US railroads during WWII and I will see what they say about all the extra cars (up to 30 a day on two sections) that are not included in the CTT equipment listings for the SFOL during the war years. When I am able to document what they were I will be adding that to the article. Centpacrr (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As requested, I've been holding off on removing errors from the article while this discussion was going on. Is that request no longer in effect? Tim Zukas (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You have to state in here what you think may be an error and provide reliable sources to support your claim. As we have already seen with regard to the makeup of consists (especially during the war years), equipment listings in time tables and the monthly Railway Guides are not definitive as in many instances listed trains carried many more cars cars than listed there. The SFOL, for instance, only has six CHI-OAK/SF through cars specified in its consist in the UP's November 1, 1943 CTT while Beebe states at page 41 that during WWII this service regularly ran in multiple sections with twenty cars per train -- 14 more cars per train than the minimum consists listed in the UP CTT. Centpacrr (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Tim Zukas is correct that I had asked that all edits to the article cease while we discuss the 5 identified problems. As it is the question on which this point #5 was based has morphed into a substantively different question and further edits to the body of the article may introduce new points of contention. Let us try to find resolution on all of the identified problem issues before forging ahead. We can wait on the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources to reach consensus on this new point #5, Centpacrr, but while we wait could you turn your attention to questions such as the one I've asked at the end of point #3 above? And Tim Zukas, please turn your attention to point #4 which has recently been re-opened. -Thibbs (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"The SFOL, for instance, only has six CHI-OAK/SF through cars specified in its consist in the UP's November 1, 1943 CTT"
The timetable lists the kinds of cars on the train (or maybe the kinds of accommodation) and says nothing about how many of each kind it will carry.
But we can hope it will list all the kinds of cars, and that doesn't include coaches in 1943-- right?
"We can wait on the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources to reach consensus"
They won't help. No source so far says the Overland carried coaches in 1941, and probably they won't either. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually the November 1, 1943 UP CTT does state a specific number (not "kinds") of CHI-OAK/SF through passenger cars on a standard unaugmented SFOL consist and that number is "six" (see here). However as Beebe states (p. 41) that during the war years "The Overland ran in two sections as a regular thing with twenty cars to a train" and Wayner (p. 157) states that "Three groups of [lightweight] head-end and [48-seat] chair cars [5331-5345; 5351-5365] were built by Pullman-Standard in 1941 and 1942 for the Union Pacific; these were painted two-tone gray for operation on the SAN FRANCISCO OVERLAND LIMITED and other trains", despite the "All Pullman" label for the train, the specific types and numbers of the 28 (per Beebe) extra sleeper, head-end and (per Wayner) chair cars that were added to the consists of the two daily SFOL augmented sections remain undocumented and thus neither proven or disproven either way. Centpacrr (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you looked through the DeNevi, Heimburger, and Kelly sources now Centpacrr? Is there enough there to cover the issue of which specific kinds of cars The Overland used during the war years? If so, please draft a proposed text to be added to the article so that Tim Zukas gets a chance to look it over. -Thibbs (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Those two books seem to be silent on the issue so I am going to contact two long time friends and colleagues, Kyle Wyatt, the resident historian at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento, and Wendell Huffman, Curator of History and Collections Manager at the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Carson City, to see what help they can offer. This will probably take a few days. Centpacrr (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Continuing this discussion
Pinging @Mackensen, @Centpacrr, and @Tim Zukas: - The typical length of time for a case at DRN is 2 weeks. We are now very far past this point and I think we have reached the point where we should return to the article's talk page for the remainder of the discussion. The discussions so far have led to consensus on two points, and have led to considerable research into the facts of the remaining three points. It would be helpful for future editors to be able to refer to these details on the talk page rather than having to refer to this DRN case. Would the three of you be amenable to this idea? If so I would be happy to continue working with you as a neutral third party peer rather than a moderator. Or, if you would prefer, the issue can progress to the next phase in dispute resolution (either request for comment or formal mediation). Our time at DRN has come to an end, but I thank you all for working with me in a more-or-less agreeable manner. Although we have not solved all of the problems I believe we are well on our way. Please let me know at my talk page if you would like me to weigh in at the article talk page, or I would be happy to assist you in filing a request for comment or request for formal mediation. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Same here, thanks. Mackensen(talk) 02:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume discussion on the talk page is as useful as any other place. Tim Zukas (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I'm closing the discussion then. Thank you all for participating and moving forward I hope to see good progress at the article talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Magneto (generator)
A Request for comments is being used to decide the future status of this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Biscuittin on 09:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is about two articles, Magneto and Magneto (generator). Chrisrus and I believe that these are confusing because all magnetos are generators. Andy Dingley appears to be asserting WP:Ownership of the articles and refuses to consider any change.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
None
How do you think we can help?
By acting as a mediator
Summary of dispute by Andy Dingley
I have explained the distinction repeatedly at Talk:Magneto_(generator). I have asked Biscuittin, without response, to explain which part of that is beyond him.
There are a number of articles on magnetos. Magneto is a broad article on the physical principles. It is entirely appropriate to have detailed articles on the narrower applications, such as telephone magneto, ignition magneto, bottle dynamo and magneto (generator). Of these, by far the best structured and referenced is the one Biscuittin is out to remove.
My past experience with this editor has been substantial, yet unimpressive. Never one to let ignorance of a topic get in the way of a staunchly held opinion:
One is a subset of the other, not a distinct and separate group.
Before proceeding, and as you see fit to cross-examine my responses within this section, can we first make sure that you understand that much as a concept? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I have things to say but I am waiting for a volunteer to open a thread. Biscuittin (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Biscuittin, shall I do that or am I too much of an interested party? Chrisrus (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Chrisrus
I was working on the Magneto (disambiguation) page and noticed that we seemed to have two articles about the same referent: Magneto (generator) and Magneto. When I asked what the difference was on the talk page, I repeatedly got non-answers and hand-waving. I came to the conclusion that if it is not exactly a WP:CONTENTFORK, then something quite similar: a case in which Wikipedians couldn't agree, so they arrived at the solution of having two articles about the same referent. I could be wrong about this, though, because I'm not an expert on the topic, but it's very suspicious that no one can tell me in general terms what the difference between the two is. Chrisrus (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Magneto (generator) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Administrative note: Welcome User:Biscuittin to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. As the filing party it is your obligation to make certain that all parties are immediately notified of this filing. The notice must be placed on each party's user talk page and link to the DRN page. The easiest way to do this is to add: {{subst:drn-notice|Magneto (generator)}} to their user talk page. If the other parties have not been notified within three to five days this filing will likely be automatically closed. Let me know if you need help or have questions. Please leave a message here verifying that you have read this message and have notified all parties on their user talk page. After all parties have created a Summary of the Dispute, then a random DRN volunteer will accept and moderate the discussion. Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I have read this message and notified all parties. Biscuittin (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
DRN Volunteer Needed: All three parties have given summaries. Will a DRN volunteer please accept and moderate this case? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I am one of the volunteers at this noticeboard and am willing to act as the moderator. I don't claim any knowledge of the subject matter beyond having taken college physics decades ago. I will ask the parties to be concise and to be civil, and will note that civility is required in dispute resolution and everywhere in Wikipedia. Comment only on content, not on contributors. (Comments on contributors will be hatted.) I see that one issue is whether there should be two articles or whether they should be merged into one. Will each editor please state concisely their opinion on whether the articles should be merged or whether two articles are needed. If two articles are needed, please state clearly and concisely what the differences are. If you think that your first statement speaks for itself, you may say so. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please explain the subset relationship by saying what is a magneto that is not a generator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, are there any other issues besides the proposed merge? Also, would the editors be willing to submit the question of whether to merge the two articles to a Request for Comments by the community?
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
First statement by Biscuittin
I am happy to retain two articles if magneto (generator) is given a more meaningful title. The present title implies that other magnetos are not generators. I have suggested renaming magneto (generator) as High power magneto but this has been rejected by Andy Dingley. I should also point out that there was a previous dispute about the name in 2011 which, as far as I can tell, was never resolved. Biscuittin (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think a Request for comments would be a good idea. Biscuittin (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Moved by moderator.
I can't tell yet if an Rfc will be necessary. On one hand, why drag things out if the answer is clear? On the other hand, it would support my assertion that the honest naive reader cannot help but parse this as two articles about the same referent. Chrisrus (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Second statement by Biscuittin
Where do we go from here? Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Third statement by Biscuittin
To the Moderator: Could you please start directing the discussion. I have had quite enough insults from Andy Dingley already. Biscuittin (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
First statement by Andy Dingley
First statement by Chrisrus
Instead of making a statement, may I ask that the reader do some finding of fact?
Please let's focus first on how to improve the navigation page Magneto (disambiguation). and let the rest flow from that. We should first and foremost be focused on what to do about Magneto (disambiguation). Please let's look at together now.
It says
"A magneto is a permanent magnet electrical generator....
...Magneto may also refer to Magneto, a permanent magnet electrical generator generating a large current, e.g. for lighting.
So we could expect that the Magneto means "Magneto (generator)", i.e.: all magneto generators, and conclude before going any further that it should therefore be called "Magneto (generator)", but there already is an article Magneto (generator) which is based on this only about large current magnetos.
Now please click on the two articles and read at least the two leads and tables of contents. Does their reality fit with the expectations of the disambiguation page?
Are you with me so far? Please react as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Threaded discussion is not permitted in DRN. Discuss in your own section. (Threaded discussion is permitted on talk pages, but can go astray, and, at DRN, the moderator directs the discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would agree with that much (and have always agreed with that). However WP:NATURALDIS would seem to apply, in particular the parenthetical form.
Magneto (generator) is accurate and in common use ("Magneto" is in use, "generator" is in use, albeit both are used independently, hence the parenthetical form).
High power magneto is a sheer invention and WP:NEOLOGISM. There are no period sources referring to them as such. There are no current sources describing magnetos as high power. It is confusing to describe them as "high power" when de Meriten's lighthouse is now surpassed by my car's alternator.
I see no suggestions better than Magneto (generator) and no problems with that such that we need to change it. If anyone comes up with something that is better then I've no objection to changing it, but we're still waiting... Andy Dingley (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Now I think you're just trolling deliberately. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You are a contributor to Magneto (generator) so you know what it means. Somebody who knows nothing about magnetos might wonder "Is a magneto a generator or not?" I am trying to find a compromise but you keep insisting that "Magneto (generator)" is the only possible title. Biscuittin (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep Magneto (generator) as a separate article but with a more meaningful name. If Andy Dingley cannot agree to any name change then I think the only solution is to merge the two articles as proposed by Chrisrus. Magneto (generator) has been problematic for a long time because (looking at the article history) there were previous disputes about it in 2013 and 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
" If Andy Dingley cannot agree to any name change"
Please, enough of the deliberate trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that you can agree to a name change? If so, what new name do you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
You see those words further up the page? Try reading them. Maybe, "If anyone comes up with something that is better then I've no objection to changing it, but we're still waiting... " I've been waiting since 2011. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement 2 by volunteer moderator
Let's try again. Comment only on content. Do not comment on contributors. The instruction not to comment on contributors is not merely a recommendation; it is a requirement. It appears that there may be three articles in question, Magneto, Magneto (generator), and Magneto (disambiguation). It appears to me that the name Magneto (generator) is confusing and misleading, because any magneto is a generator (at least according to the usual physical definition). So either of two actions may be reasonable: first, to merge the first two articles; or, second, to rename Magneto (generator) to something more indicative. Would each editor please state which action is preferred, and, if a rename, what the rename should be, or explain why the current situation is preferred anyway? If changes are needed to the disambiguation, what should they be? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, are there any other issues? (As if this one isn't enough.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement 2 by Andy Dingley
I am, and have always been, happy to rename this article to another name of the form "Magneto (<foo>)" (per normal practice of WP:NATURALDIS) provided that this is some improvement onMagneto (generator). So far there has been sniping that the current scope is wrong and the current name is wrong, yet nothing has been put forward that improves upon it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
As to the overlap with magneto, then this is addressed at length on Talk:Magneto (generator). The defining physical character of a magneto is that it generates power (and does so using a permanent magnet field). However an empirical observation of the many examples is that are not, and were not, used as bulk power generators. Thus the small exceptions to this, as described at Magneto (generator), are significant and worthy of separate coverage. Besides which, I'm loath in general to merge a narrow but well sourced article into a broad article with poor structure and minimal sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement 2 by Biscuittin
I have no quarrel with the articles magneto and magneto (disambiguation). I would prefer to keep magneto (generator) as a separate article, but with a different name to avoid confusion, because all magnetos are generators. I made three suggestions for new names but all were rejected. I now make a fourth suggestion Magneto (bulk power generator). This distinguishes it from other magnetos which are generally low-powered (i.e. they only generate a few watts) although they may generate a high voltage). If a suitable name cannot be agreed, I have no objection to magneto and magneto (generator) being merged. Biscuittin (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement 2 by Chrisrus
This is a POV fork; two articles about the same referent created as a compromise to stop Wikipedians arguing. This is not how we do things on Wikipedia; this is not allowed; this was decided a long time ago for good reason. Otherwise, we might have an article Dog and another called Big dog so that each can have his own article and no one will feel disappointed. We don't artificially divide referents in order to keep peace among Wikipedians, even if the two parties arrive at some kind of agreement about what each one will emphasize or cover. In such cases, we merge the two articles. Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement (in round 2) by Anthony Appleyard
Magneto (disambiguation) lists several types or subtypes of small generator called magnetos, and assorted uses of the word to mean other things. Pages Magneto and Magneto (generator) overlap much in contents and should be text-merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
One question is :: is the generator meaning (the original meaning) still dominant over the other meanings? (Sometimes I get the impression that, whatever topic I think of, its name will prove to be also the name of a pop music song and/or the name of a racehorse.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement 3 by volunteer moderator
There seems to be agreement that renaming of Magneto (generator) is reasonable if a better name for it can be found. Does anyone have a suggested better name for it? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there agreement that, if it is renamed, it does not need to be merged with the overall article, Magneto, or do we need an RFC on the merge question? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
To address Anthony Appleyard's closing question, if there are any pop music songs, pop music groups, racehorses, or whatever with this name, they will be added to the disambiguation list. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some support for renaming Magneto (generator) to Magneto (bulk power generator), and so far there seems to be no opposition. If there continues to be some support and no opposition is expressed within the next 36 hours, the article will be renamed, and the disambiguation page updated. If there is also opposition to the rename, then an RFC will be used to determine whether the rename meets with consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement 4 by Biscuittin
No further issues from me. Biscuittin (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
"Bulk power generator" is not a neologism. It is a "descriptive phrase in plain English". Biscuittin (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement 4 by Andy Dingley
Chris has described this article as a "POV fork". Which POV is it pushing? Is it his claim that there are no magnetos at high(ish) power? Or that all of them are?
This is not a POV fork. This is a narrow-scope sub-article within a broader topic, thus entirely appropriate. Same as for ignition magneto and telephone magneto. Should they be merged as a POV fork by the "telephonists vs. the petrolheads" too??
Yet again, I am disappointed to see the one article of the four that has any sort of structure or sourcing being the one under attack. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement 4 by Anthony Appleyard
Statement 4 by Chrisrus
Strongly oppose this fork. Do not allow this fork. These articles should be merged, according to Wikipedia:Content_forking. Chrisrus (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement 5 by volunteer moderator
It appears now that there is an objection to the rename of Magneto (generator) to Magneto (bulk power generator). It also appears that there is an objection to continuing to keep Magneto (generator) as a separate article from Magneto, because one editor thinks that the two articles should be merged. It doesn't appear that further discussion here will be useful. It appears that it is time to request discussion and consensus by the larger Wikipedia community, via a Requests for Comment. The RFC will offer three options: first, merge Magneto (generator) into Magneto; second, leave Magneto (generator) unchanged; third, rename Magneto (generator) to Magneto (bulk power generator). This DRN thread will be closed within 24 hours as being resolved by Requests for Comments. Space is being left for closing comments by the parties, but I think that the parties have stated their opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement 5 by Biscuittin
Thank you, Robert McClenon, for your efforts. Let's go to RFC. Biscuittin (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Statement 5 by Andy Dingley
Statement 5 by Anthony Appleyard
Statement 5 by Chrisrus
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
_Schedule_December,_1945.jpg)
