Talk:Boston and Maine Railroad

message: Where is the information from that this road was opened in 1880? I nowhere found that date. (I didn't find any opening date at all.) Please give sources for that or remove the date. --Thogo (Talk) 22:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orchard Beach Railroad 

message: A long time ago I heard that around 1960 a manager of the B&M, a Mr. McInnes perhaps, took up the double 110-pound double Krupp rail from the Portland Division and replaced it with 85-pound single. He had the B&M sell the Krupp rail to a relative of his who ran a scrapyard. The scrap's selling price was a tiny fraction of the actual value of the steel. Or should I say steal?
The single rail on the line, in today's increased MBTA commuter use, provides congestion that retention of the double rail would have prevented.
As this information is not substantiated, it is inappropriate for an article, but perhaps some railway historian has further information, and could write a book that could become a source for an article.
Snezzy (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portland Division history? 

message: As the depot in Troy, NH is being restored, the source of water and the easements through various plots is often asked. Where was the source and how it reach the engines? Does Nester's Brook ring a bell?
Thanks,
Emile Rocheleau
E.mail:ERJ26@yahoo.com
A native of Troy, NH  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.57.253 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an answer to your question, but you might have better luck if you ask at RAILROAD.NET's Boston & Maine forum. Here is the link: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=77  Good luck, –BMRR (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troy, nh/steam engine source of water???? 

message: Would anybody be willing or able to add a complete list of Boston and Main Railroad passenger trains? Come to think of it, this question should probably apply to a lot of big railroads. ----DanTD (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B&M Passenger Trains 

message: It would be interesting to have ridership numbers by year or by route. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger stats 

message: There is the assertion by a reverting editor on January 3, 2015, without documentation that the Green Mountain Flyer and the Mount Royalwent over B&M trackage. These trains ran over New York Central trackage in the southeastern section of New York State, on New York Central trackage to Chatham, New York. There after they ran on Rutland Railway trackage, up through western Vermont, through Rutland, Middlebury, Burlington, and into Ontario, Canada. Thus, they did not run on B&M trackage as the reverting editor. Dogru144 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: False information about Vermont trains

message: The B&M article carries a map with B&M lines in red, and alien rails in black. The above NYC/Rutland Railway trains ran from Chatham, to Peterburg Junction, to Rutland, --these latter stations being in Vermont, and on, northward. None of this route is in red. It would be most unfortunate if the misinformation claim (of B&M trains going over NYC/Rutland territory) succeeded in Wikipedia.
See map below https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/1916_B%26M.jpg Dogru144 (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Utility of B&M for settling dispute

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: . Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Several editors have questioned placement of Template:Merrimack River at the end of this article. Discussion here may be more useful than initial attempts to resolve this disagreement on individual talk pages. Although there is an obvious significance to the net of rivers defining the basin, the habitation centers and other infrastructure listed in the template are similarly separated by the high ground between drainage basins. I suggest the drainage basin concept should be accepted as an equally valid alternative to political subdivisions. B&M built its transportation empire around a virtual monopoly of rail service in the Merrimack Valley. A major fraction of B&M mileage was within the watershed, and main lines connected the watershed to Boston, Maine, Canada, and the rail network west of New England. Other railways carried major fractions of rail traffic to and from Boston and within Maine; but the Merrimack River watershed was uniquely linked to the B&M as no political subdivision of equivalent area has been. Thewellman (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly understand your point here, however, the B&M is much larger than just the Merrimack. Additionally, the watershed has very limited connection to the article. Just because the B&M crossed over the river a few times does not mean we need to redirect attention of the article to what's important. We need to remember the topic of the article and its connection to the watershed. Is it important enough to mention within the article? Maybe. Do we need to add the entire menu of information in the watershed template? I do not think so. We also need to keep in mind that the railroad passed over MANY rivers. What would the article look like if we added all of these templates? I can only imagine it would deviate from the importance of the article itself and branch off into something it is not. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I am still not certain I understand the significance of the connection. Especially since two thirds of the railroad was still not within the watershed. I see no need to include this template. It is not related enough in my mind. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Footer templates are for linking articles that users will frequently wish to visit in series - for example, tributaries of the same river. The B&M and the Merrimack River are not articles that users need to conveniently navigate between. Grouping articles that don't need direct navigation - and let me be clear, these do not - is why we have categories. If you wish to have a link between the two, then you could consider creating :Category:Merrimack River watershed. I'm not convinced there is any need for such a link - geographic proximity alone is not compelling. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merrimack River watershed template 

message: The article makes mention of a specific date for the leasing of Eastern railroad by B&M.  However, in my attempts to verify the date, I found conflicting information.  I was able to find a different date in a number of sources, but only one mentioned the original date, and indirectly at that.  I was unable to follow the reference trail for the original date any further as the cited material does not seem to be available online.  Because I found multiple, consistent sources claiming a different date for the leasing, I'm inclined to change the current article to reflect this new date. Golden122306 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! I don't think December 2, 1884 is actually the effective date of the lease - though you've proved beyond doubt that's when it was signed. Boston's Commuter Rail: The First 150 Years (never digitized, but I own a copy) gives the effective lease date as January 1, 1885. That would seem to be logical as the beginning of the first month after the signing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acquisition of Eastern Railroad 

message: User:EPBeatles raised a good question today. What should the end date for the Boston and Maine be? It was purchased by Guilford in 1983, which was the previous end date. EPBeatles changed it to 1987 today, in light of how B&M was contracted to run commuter service for MBTA until that date. Technically, B&M still exists today, though it doesn't run any trains. Which of those three end dates would make the most sense (1983, 1987, or no end date at all)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainsandotherthings (talk • contribs) 16:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  B&M end date 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Boston and Maine Corporation →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The company was known from 1836 to 1964 as the Boston and Maine Railroad, and while it was officially renamed Boston and Maine Corporation after that time, the Boston and Maine Railroad name is far more common in general use and also much more intuitive than "Boston and Maine Corporation". Boston and Maine Railroad (presently a redirect to Boston and Maine Corporation) gets about 550 hits per month , a huge number compared to the 1,900 for Boston and Maine Corporation over the past 30 days. This shows the proposed name has significant use. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 19 November 2021