Template talk:North America Class I

message: I added CN and CP because they have such a large presence in the US.  CN now owns Illinois Central, and CP owns Soo Line.  As the constituent railroads' equipment is repainted, CN and CP have a more visible presence in the US. slambo 17:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  CN and CP in the US 

message: http://www.stb.dot.gov/newsrels.nsf/13c1d2f25165911f8525687a00678fa7/bec5e8b7fe2bbdf385256ee800602e00?OpenDocument
Amtrak isn't included; that may be because of its different nature. Other than that, the list matches (minus of course VIA and the two Mexican ones).
:As for my sources, I've listed VIA as per Statistics Canada (for example, see Rails of Canada: http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/library/stats2/stat05/0009752-216-XIB.pdf).  The Mexican railways were mentioned as per http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Statistics.pdf.  Both seem fairly authoritative sources.  As for Amtrak, I know it took in $2 billion in 2001, so that should definitely put it in the class I ballpark.  JYolkowski 18:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Solid data for current US class 1 railroads

message: Here I will attempt to define how we currently decide which template a railroad goes on.
#If it currently exists, put it on the correct template under current. Don't put under former (except in highly unusual cases like Conrail).
#Otherwise, put it under former in the highest class it has reached.
I propose a change. If a railroad currently exists, but used to be a higher class, list it under its current class, but also under former in its highest-reached class. This has the advantage of not requiring a judgment call to decide if anything else is like Conrail. If necessary, change the wording to not imply that the railroads are fallen flags, just that they were at that level but no longer are.
I also question the wisdom of Template:US class 3. Looking at List of United States railroads, this template will be huge. Totally huge, fo' serious. I suggest that if a railroad never got into class 1 or 2, to just not put it on any template. --SPUI 22:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with putting railways that were both Class I and Class II during different parts of their history in both templates (I had already changed the wording on this template with that in mind).  I also have some doubts as to the usefulness of the Class III template, but not because of its potential size (there would probably also be hundreds of entries in the Class II template if we filled it out in its entirety).  Rather, I think it may not be useful because no-one's ever written an article on a Class III railway, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.  JYolkowski 15:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've written some (Florida Midland Railroad (current), Florida Central Railroad (current), Florida West Coast Railroad, as well as others). At least I think they're class 3. By the way, the AAR site seems to use I/II/III; maybe we should change the articles and templates to this. --SPUI 15:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're correct as to their classification (you're more familiar with them than I am).  At any rate, Class III's are less significant than, say, Class I's so I think there's less justification for a navigation template anyway.  I agree we probably should change the articles to use I/II/III.  JYolkowski 20:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know - even with only current ones it would be huge, assuming we do actually get the information about which are Class II/Class III. --SPUI (talk) 19:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One suggestion I have would be to only include railways on the template that we actually have articles on.  That's sort of what we've been doing with Template:Canada class 2 of late.  JYolkowski // talk 21:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for listing

message: I'm rereading the comments on this and have one further point to add...  On Template:US class 3, I think it would be best to restrict the list to only currently operating railroads (which is what is begun on there now).  As mentioned earlier, if we list every former Class III railroad, the link box would become unwieldy rather quickly.  The other thing I've been doing is not adding to that template unless I have a source that shows a railroad as a Class III and still in operation.  slambo 17:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't know - even with only current ones it would be huge, assuming we do actually get the information about which are Class II/Class III. --SPUI (talk) 19:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One suggestion I have would be to only include railways on the template that we actually have articles on.  That's sort of what we've been doing with Template:Canada class 2 of late.  JYolkowski // talk 21:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Class 3 inclusion

message: Copied here in case that goes down:
On January 1st, 1978 12 railroads were dropped from the list of the class 1s,
1-Bangor and Aroostook
2-Canadian Pacific (International of Maine)
3-Chicago and Illinois Midland
4-Detroit and Toledo Shore Line
5-Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific
6-Georgia
7-Illinois Terminal
8-Maine Central
9-Northwestern Pacific
10-Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac
11-Texas Mexican
12-Toledo, Peoria and Western.
This left 41 class 1s,
1-Alabama Great Southern (owned by Southern)
2-Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
3-Baltimore and Ohio
4-Bessemer and Lake Erie
5-Boston and Maine
6-Burlington Northern
7-Central of Georgia
8-Chesapeake and Ohio
9-Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
10-Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific (Rock Island)
11-Chicago and North Western
12-Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific (owned by Southern)
13-Clinchfield
14-Colorado and Southern (Burlington Northern)
15-Conrail
16-Delaware and Hudson
17-Denver and Rio Grande Western
18-Detroit, Toledo and Ironton
19-Duluth, Missabi, and Iron Range
20-Elgin, Joliet and Eastern
21-Florida East Coast
22-Fort Worth and Denver (Burlington Northern)
23-Grand Trunk Western
24-Illinois Central Gulf
25-Kansas City Southern
26-Long Island Railroad
27-Louisiana and Arkansas (KCS)
28-Louisville and Nashville
29-Missouri-Kansas-Texas
30-Missouri Pacific
31-Norfolk and Western
32-Pittsburgh and Lake Erie
33-St. Louis-San Francisco
34-St. Louis Southwestern
35-Seaboard Coast Line
36-Soo Line
37-Southern
38-Southern Pacific
39-Union Pacific
40-Western Maryland
41-Western Pacific
I've added these to the template. --SPUI (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1978 Class I data

message: - not added yet --SPUI (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1996 Class I and Class II

message: added. That should be the vast majority of class Is. --SPUI (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1950s Class I

message: Of 137 Class I railroads in the United States, sixty-four use railway and sixty-eight use railroad in their corporate names. Five use neither. --68.204.254.4 06:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 1942 info

message: If GTW, IC and WC are now considered fallen flags then so should Soo since its been integrated into CP for years just like the other 3 have been into CN.68.30.173.95 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Soo Line

message: I was playing around with possibilities for this template this morning and came up with the following as a possible style update:
[ edit ]Class I railroads of North America	[ edit ]Class I railroads of North America
Current (operating) Class I railroads
United States:
AMTK,
BNSF,
CSXT,
GTW,
KCS,
NS,
SOO,
UP
-
Canada:
CN,
CP,
VIA
-
Mexico:
FXE,
TFM,
KCSM	Current (operating) Class I railroads
United States:
AMTK,
BNSF,
CSXT,
GTW,
KCS,
NS,
SOO,
UP
-
Canada:
CN,
CP,
VIA
-
Mexico:
FXE,
TFM,
KCSM
                                          	
Former or fallen flag                     	
Demoted from Class I                      	United States: CAGY, FEC,  TN
It is slightly smaller and still contains all of the information of the current template, and also uses the standard Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains heading color.  However, the more I thought about it and played around with different ideas, the more I thought we might want to reduce this to just the currently operating Class I railroads with "See also" links for the other two sections like this:
Thoughts?  Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the smaller size is a significant improvement over the current format.  JYolkowski // talk 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean that you prefer the second option listed here that shows only the currently operating Class I railroads (which is my guess of your meaning)?  Whatever we decide here, I'd like to follow through with on  and  as well. Slambo (Speak) 15:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New look proposal 

message: Lowercase the A in "And" to resolve a broken link:
* RI/CRIP 71.14.149.203 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thank-you for pointing that! regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 16:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018 

message: :Category:North America templates
:Category:Rail transport navigational boxes
 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9840:2b60:c40c:7682:6241:a316 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fork99 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018 

message: :Category:North America templates
:Category:Rail transport navigational boxes
— Preceding unsigned comment added by BNSF2000 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fork99 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2019 

message: :Category:North America templates
:Category:Rail transport navigational boxes
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9840:2b60:7cf5:5fa2:45de:1188 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fork99 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020 

message: :Category:North America templates
:Category:Rail transport navigational boxes
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9840:2b60:7cf5:5fa2:45de:1188 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fork99 (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020 

message: Is there a good reason why we're listing railroads which only exist as legal entities, i.e. GT and SOO? And for KCSM and CP, those companies are 100% integrating, that would be like listing "UP (SP, CNW)". Ironmatic1 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper railroads 

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterMickey2000 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fork99 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023