Talk:Central Pacific Railroad

Untitled

Bravo. This is just what I hoped for in a Central Pacific Railroad article. Unfortunately, the Union Pacific Railroad doesn't meet this standard. Just a couple of minor things. If I could source it, I'd add something about the Union Pacific using Irish immigrant labor (not Chinese, like most people think), and that railways today don't get the subsidies & general revenue spending highways do (which maybe isn't for here...), based on (I think) It's a Sprawl World. Trekphiler 07:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea how this works, so pardon my lack. The article states,"They were issued at the rate of $16,000 per mile of tracked grade completed west of the designated base of the Sierra Nevada range near Roseville, CA . . ." Is this correct? I would assume this would be to the *east* of Roseville as I believe a railway line between San Francisco and Roseville preexisted the rest of the line. Also, unless I'm mistaken the Sierra Nevadas are largely to the east of Roseville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPhilipW (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was $16,000 before Roseville, and $48,000 east of Roseville through the Sierras. GusterPosey (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Southern Pacific

From the Article: "In 1885 the Central Pacific Railroad was leased by the Southern Pacific Railroad, though it technically remained a corporate entity until 1959 when it was formally merged into Southern Pacific. The original right of way is now part of the Union Pacific which purchased Southern Pacific in 1996."

From Southern Pacific: "September 25, 1868: The Big Four purchases the Southern Pacific. 1870: Southern Pacific and Central Pacific operations are merged. "

So which is true? Ithesu 06:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For a detailed accounting of the history of the early relationship between the CPRR and SPRR see "The Separation of the Central Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads" by Fred G. Athearn, Esq., Western Counsel, The Union Pacific Railroad Company (1922) (Centpacrr (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

The Big Four was a group of four men who owned and managed the railroad. The combined operations means that Southern Pacific directed train dispatching and Southern Pacific crews operated the trains with Southern Pacific equipment, but the accounting remained separated for legal purposes. Slambo (Speak) 10:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To read the full text of the 1885 lease of the CPRR to the SPRR see "Lease of Central Pacific Railroad Company to Southern Pacific Company" dated February 17, 1885 (as modified on January 1, 1888, December 7, 1893, and March 22, 1894.) Senate Document No. 61. 54th Congress, Second Session. Committee on Pacific Railroads, January 13, 1897. (Centpacrr (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

The Financing section would be improved by rewriting legislative language in more direct English.--Parkwells (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this the reason for the "Cleanup" tag? Biscuittin (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up tag questions, 2010-03-29

Unknown. I reviewed the 2007 history and cannot determined who placed the tag. However, there are several edits that mention clean-up and bot entry dating the tag. I would surmise that due to sections like the timeline and financing is where the objection or tag came from. For example, the timeline section is non-standard formatting and somewhat difficult to follow or read. If someone could do a section by section copyedit to bring them up WP:MOS standards, that would definitely clear the tag. --Morenooso (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the "Timeline" section, (e.g. June 21, 1861: "Central Pacific Rail Road of California" incorporated) I'd prefer to put the year first because it is a list, e.g. 1861, June 21 or 1861-06-21. What date format would you suggest? Biscuittin (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the date formatting which seems quite clear (actually clearer) as it is. Centpacrr (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To better educated readers, it is okay. However, it could be formatted in either a column style. A better style is a linear timeline like this one - Timeline example. Presently, it is unformatted and nonstandard to other similar articles.--Morenooso (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My main interest in this is to clear up the clean-up tag. My firm belief is that since the tag was not discussed as to why and what needed clean-up, it should now be removed and this discussion should serve as the record for its removal. Should another editor wander along, they would need to discuss here what needs clean-up before re-adding the tag. --Morenooso (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the date in the timeline, I would use what is standard for citations: YYYY-MM-DD. It would save space and give the individual sentences a better look versus the following made-up example:

• June 21, 1861 - Something done on this date.
• July 1, 1862 - Something else very important done on this date.
• January 8, 1864 - Another milestone.

versus:

• 1861-06-21 - Something done on this date.
• 1862-07-01 - Something else very important done on this date.
• 1864-01-08 - Another milestone.

Visually that looks better and is more standard. --Morenooso (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I must disagree completely on changing the date formatting. "June 1, 1961" is much clearer than "1861-06-21" as this is the way people actually talk and think about dates in normal usage and conversation. Centpacrr (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then the clean-up tag is justified. --Morenooso (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer 1861-06-21 because this section is a chronological list and the year is the most significant information. The month and day are of relatively little importance. June 21, 1861 may be the normal usage in the US, but not in the UK. In the UK, it would be 21 June 1861. Biscuittin (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a US railroad so I suppose US date format is appropriate but I'd still prefer to have the year first because it clarifies the chronology. Biscuittin (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To resolve the clarity issue I've added bolded year "breaks" to the timeline. Centpacrr (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Including the book "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" in the "Further Reading" list

Anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 has now twice deleted the book "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" from the further reading list claiming that it "does not relate to the CPRR" and that its listing is "spam." In fact 68 pages (11-22 and 39-85) of this book are directly about the CPRR, and the volume also includes a complete full color annotated reproduction of the detailed route map of the CPRR published in 1910 by the USGS which he/she would have known if he/she had simply looked at a copy of the book. Also in addition to hundreds of color reproductions of illustrations, period photographs, and artifacts on the CPRR and several other lines in the book, it also contains about 100,000 words of original text on these lines including the CPRR, and thus is clearly not, as 75.2.209.226 claimed earlier, just a "picture book". While I am the author of the sections on the CPRR/UPRR "Overland Route" (aka the "First Transcontinental Railroad" and originally the "Pacific Railroad") as well as having served as the Consultant Editor for the overall 320-page volume with the responsibility for editing and fact checking the copy submitted by the seven other writers and professional railroad historians who contributed material on other lines, I have no continuing financial interest in how many copies it eventually sells as I did this project under contract under which I was paid in full up front by the publisher and receive no residuals based on sales.

Also if anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 believed that listing the Western American Railroad Routes book constituted a "conflict of interest" because mine is the only name that appears on the title page of the book, then I am wondering why he/she did not also delete my other book on the subject, "Riding the Transcontinental Rails: Overland Travel on the Pacific Railroad 1865-1881" from the list which he/she previously claimed to be an unedited "vanity" book? (This 445-page volume published in 2005 is not such a book, by the way, as I also did this project under contract and was fully paid by the publisher for my work.) He/she also does not indicate if he/she has read or seen this book either, or for that matter any of the other books or articles that appear on the list. Both of my books are directly on the topic of the Central Pacific Railroad, contain unique material on the subject not available in this form in other publications, and have been commercially published by established publishing houses all of which makes them appropriate to inclusion on the "Further Reading" list. Centpacrr (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your re-introduction of a book edited by you, of course, constitutes a conflict of interest. 75.2.209.226 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my talk page here for my response. Centpacrr (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Central Pacific Railroad also first victim of the West's First Great Train Robbery

Nevada State Historical Marker #128 on the northwest corner of Bridge Street and South Verdi Street near railroad crossing.

The wests first train robbery occurred near this site on the night of November 4, 1870. Five men, led by a stage robber-Sunday school super indendent, John Chapman, boarded the Central Pacific Overland Express at Verdi, Nevada. Two took over the engine, one the express car, and two the rear platform. One half mile east, the engine and express car were halted and cut free, then procceeded about five miles where they were stopped by a barricade. Here the robbers forced the messenger to open up. Seizing about $41,600 in gold coin, they rode off. The uncoupled cars coasted down grade and met the engine. The train proceeded to Reno. After a two state chase all were caught, tried, and convicted. About 90% of the gold coin was recovered"--Ronald Van Heest (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Map requested

There should be a map showing the route as originally constructed. 18.26.0.5 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

More on the Chinese Immigrants/workers and how they were treated

I think that the Chinese immigrants/workers were very much mistreated and were not given enough credit for the construction of the tunnel through the Sierra Nevadas to help complete the transcontinental railroad. SquawMan1 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Immigration in the United States

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Charliewerth (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Charliewerth (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)