Talk:Alameda Belt Line

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Conflict of Interest edit request: ABL re-incorporated

Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Alameda Belt Line. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest.
The requested edits backlog is low. There are currently 98 requests waiting for review.

Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

What I think should be changed:
Add heading for current content ==Historical Operations==
Remove citation in first paragraph to Trains article, as it is referencing current operations and does not validate the ownership split. I would recommend using it in the new text below
Update Logo:
−
+
ABL_Company_Logo.png
Update Headquarters:
−
~~Alameda,~~ California
+
Long Beach, California
Update Locale:
−
~~Alameda,~~ California
+
Long Beach, California
Update Dates of Operation:
−
~~1926~~-~~1998~~
+
1925-
Update website:
−
+
https://ablrail.com
Add heading for new content ==Current Operations==
Add text: In 2023, the Alameda Belt Line was re-incorporated as a terminal switching company for the purpose of being a neutral third party for rail freight in the San Pedro Bay ports. A joint venture between the BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad^[1], ABL has integrated dispatching of the Alameda Corridor^[2] and is working to create in-house security, real-time monitoring and coordinated strategy to decrease congestion and related dwell.

Why it should be changed: The Union Pacific and BNSF Railroads entered into a 50/50 Joint Venture agreement in 2023 to bring this railroad back to operation. The new headquarters is in Long Beach, CA. The company filed for standing with the STB on 2024-06-01. The STB issued a ruling in July 2024 granting a notice of exemption to ABL, allowing the company to begin dispatch operations on the Alameda Corridor as a sub-contractor to the UP and BNSF. The company has retained the reporting mark ABL through filing with RailInc and has filed compliance programs with the FRA.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): references were included in text above

MBernsteABL (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, a couple of points...

Firstly, could I ask you to formally declare your conflict of interest, as required by WP:DISCLOSE.

Secondly, if the railroad was bought back into operation in 2024, shouldn't the dates of operation read "1925-1998, 2024-present"? If there is a 26 year period when the railroad wasn't in operation then it surely needs to be reflected in the "Dates of Operation" in the infobox.

Hopefully these notes are of assistance, Axad12 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given that the revived company is on a completely different rail corridor hundreds of miles away - and shares nothing except the legal charter - I don't think this article is the correct place to discuss it. A one-sentence pointer to Alameda Corridor, and a paragraph there about the revived company, would be more appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Stephens, Bill (2024-06-14). "Third party to take over dispatching of Alameda Corridor". Trains. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
^ "Surface Transportation Board Decision, Docket No. FD 36787" (PDF). STB. 2024-07-22. Retrieved 2024-10-01.

Add topic

[1] Stephens, Bill (2024-06-14). "Third party to take over dispatching of Alameda Corridor". Trains. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

[2] "Surface Transportation Board Decision, Docket No. FD 36787" (PDF). STB. 2024-07-22. Retrieved 2024-10-01.

[1]

[2]