Talk:First transcontinental railroad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Good Article Review

This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the route correct?

Please have an expert check the route carefully one more time. I just corrected a faulty part, that somehow survived all your reviews. --h-stt !? 11:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There's an interactive map on the PBS website showing the route. Their further reading section links to a site called Railroad Maps, which includes a high resolution download from here. I don't have the interest to check it pesonally. -xlynx 04:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Four question

Was James P. Bailey really one of the original Big 4? I thought that Colis P. Huntington was the fourth. If not, his name still needs to be connected with the Big 4 at some point, as he became important very shortly afterwards (as is indicated already). Tony Waters213.182.148.50 (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was Crocker, Huntington, Stanford and Hopkins. See The Big Four for more detail. Slambo (Speak) 12:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Original track?

In areas where the original line has been bypassed and abandoned, primarily in Utah, the road grade is still obvious, as are numerous cuts and fills, especially the Big Fill a few miles east of Promontory. The sweeping curve which connected to the east end of the Big Fill now passes a Thiokol rocket research and development facility. Where exactly is that stretch of abandoned road? Anybody know the coordinates? Thanks --Ragemanchoo (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First Transcontinental Railroad → First United States transcontinental railroad — The present title is misleading and untrue. This is not the first transcontinental railroad. It is the first US or North American transcontinental railroad, and the title should reflect that —fishhead64 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• oppose See my reasoning below (Centpacrr (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

• oppose for the same reasons as described by User:Centpacrr below. Slambo (Speak) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• oppose for reasons below. The name offers no value added and doesn't address an inaccuracy of any such name claim Americasroof (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: see my reasoning below regarding Russell's photograph

Discussion

Oppose: While the CPRR/UPRR was originally referred to as the "Pacific Railroad" when being built and after it opened in 1869, it also became known as the First Transcontinental Railroad when the Northern Pacific, Southern Pacific, Atlantic & Pacific, DRGW, and other routes were opened in subsequent years. The term "First Transcontinental Railroad" is, in fact, more of an accepted and well recognized "proper" name then it is a description. For that reason alone the article should retain that name. In addition the Canadian Pacific (1881), Trans Siberian (1919), Trans-Australian (1917), and the other "transcontinental" roads were also all completed well after 1869. Some claim that the Panama Railroad (1855) is the "Frist Transcontinental Railroad" because it connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but this is also incorrect. The Panama Railroad only crossed an isthmus (a narrow strip of land, bordered on both sides by water, connecting two larger bodies of land), not a continent (one of the seven main landmasses of the globe -- Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica). That is not the same thing at all. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

• Comment Of course the Panama Railroad was and is a transcontinental railroad. Its completion was widly haied as an an astonishing and historic achievement at the time. I see nothing in the definition of continent that says it is a continent only at its wide points, never at its more narrow points. And if one wishes to argue semantics, the Panama Railroad actually went all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific as a single railline, which arguably could make it much more of an actual trancontinental railroad than this one. That said, I have no objection to the article being at "First Transcontinental Railroad" if that is what it was commonly called (so long as the those who bother to read the details of the article can understand the name may not be a technically accurate description). -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment about what was really first railroad across U.S. - I dislike the current name of "First Transcontinental Railroad" but dislike the proposed "First United States transcontinental railroad" even more. I put the disambig on the top of the page a while back to sort this out. First Transcontinental Railroad is widely used to describe the Omaha to Sacramento project (neither of which is on a coast) and so the proposed name change doesn't seem to offer any value added. And in the for what it's worth department the Omaha to Sacramento railroad was never connected by land to the nation's eastern railroads at Omaha until 1872 when a bridge was finally built across the Missouri River to Council Bluffs, Iowa (which was supposed to be the official eastern starting point of the railroad project). The first true continental railroad was in 1870 via Kansas Pacific and Denver Pacific connecting to the Union Pacific after the Missouri River was bridged at Kansas City. Until we can come up with a better name to describe the situation, I don't see any reason to change it. Americasroof (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note about precedents - A while back the Pony Express article ran into a similar discussions since there were other instances where horses were used for fast delivery of the mail. This was addressed by saying the article was specifically about a business operation between St. Joseph and Sacramento. The First Continental Railroad clearly says it is about a business operation between Omaha and Sacramento. Americasroof (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Panama Railroad as Transcontinental Railroad: The Panama Railroad as used in "transcontinental" travel between New York and San Francisco before 1869 was actually only a very small portion (between Aspinwall and Panama City) of the entire ticketed passage which was offered by the North American Steamship Company prior to the completion of the Pacific Railroad with the vast majority of the trip being made over water by steamer. I see that the contention that the Panama Railroad is a "transcontinental" railroad is derived from an entry to that effect originally made by Infrogmation on February 2, 2004, in the article Transcontinental Railroad and on December 27, 2004, by RJII (since permanently banned from editing for abuse), but neither of these contentions (or the current portion of the article still claiming that the Panama Railroad is a "transcontinental railroad") cite any references to support it. When opened on January 28, 1855, the railroad was actually referred to as the "Inter-Oceanic" railroad. Using this logic, a railroad running from Miami, FL, on the Atlantic Ocean to Tampa, FL, on the Gulf of Mexico could also be described as a "transcontinental railroad" as well which would, I think, be misleading. (Centpacrr (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Reply No, the analogy between Florida and Panama doesn't work. Panama is at the bottom of the continent. There is nowhere else to go - if you take Panama out, the continent is shorter. If you take Florida out, it isn't. In any event, the real issue, imo, is that the title is confusing. If this is about the FIRST transcontinental railroad, why not merge it with transcontinental railroad? Because it isn't, really, it is about the first transcontinental rail crossing of the United States. By renaming the article in line with this reality, we completely avoid the diverting argument about whether Panama is part of a continent or not - which, whether you like it or not, is not clear-cut. Given these points, what, exactly, is your objection? fishhead64 (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• "First Transcontinental Railroad" is the common name for this work of engineering, as is used, for example in one of the references in the article [Bain, David Howard (1999). Empire Express; Building the first Transcontinental Railroad. Viking Penguin. ISBN 0-670-80889-X.]. I'm sure we can find other references dating back quite some time that also call it that. It also seems much less likely to me that the Panama Railroad's common name would be First Transcontinental Railroad. The key here is that this article's title is a proper noun and not a descriptive noun. Slambo (Speak) 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Slambo as this is exactly my point: the term "First Transcontinental Railroad" is the commonly accepted name for this work of engineering and has been for more than a century. In addition to David's book you can also see my own 2005 book, Riding the Transcontinental Rails: Overland Travel on the Pacific Railroad 1865-1881, and the late Steve Ambrose's tome Nothing Like It in the World. (Centpacrr (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

I plead guilty to starting the article on the Panama Railway, as I saw it as an important subject no one else had gotten around to previously. However I cannot claim credit for being the first to notice that it was "transcontinental". My mid-20th century Encyclopedia Americana uses the term in reference to it, and I strongly doubt they were the first. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus against move. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Arizona Territory Gold Spike

The image of a gold spike from Arizona Territory has nothing to do with the First Transcontinental Railroad. The gold spike that was at Promontory is at the the Cantor Center for the Arts at Leland Stanford Jr. University in Palo Alto. A nearly identical spike manufactured at the same time is owned by the State of California and is on display at the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento.

This photo should be removed from the article. Rrrarch (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple gold spikes were placed at Promentory (and then removed). The one in the photo (which I took) was taken at the Union Pacific museum in Council Bluffs (and was on loan from a New York museum). I would prefer a photo of the California spike. But one has not been forthcoming. The photo caption clearly identifies it as the "Arizona" Territory spike. Americasroof (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Original Western Pacific/Central Pacific Connection to SF Bay?

Although initially slippery on the western terminus of the line, the Pacific Railway Act included land grants and bonds for the railroad between Sacramento and San Francisco. The CPRR informally conveyed their rights to build this line to a number of San Francisco businessmen who were already building a railroad from San Francisco to San Jose. The 1865 Pacific Railway Act formalized the the original Western Pacific's role in building the line west of Sacramento. They successfully completed 20 miles of construction from San Jose into Niles Canyon before succumbing to liquidity problems in 1866. The Associates bought this company in 1869, and completed the line from Sacramento to Oakland and San Jose in the fall.

Due to its authorization by the Pacific Railway Act, its connection to California's most populous city (via rail and ferry), and its completion to the salt water of the bay, I believe this portion of the First Transcontinental Railroad should be included. I do not want to step on any toes, and I see there have been a lot of problems with this article. I am therefore asking to see if there is support for adding the original Western Pacific and the line from Sacramento to the Bay Area. Thanks. Rrrarch (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to add what you can. I've always thought this article was weaker than what you might expect. I did the last major revision here which was more than a year ago. I added quite a bit on the Union Pacific side and kept meaning to come back for further clarifications and clean ups but never quite got around to doing it. The histories of its connectons on either end is of interest. The term "Transcontinental Railroad" was a misnomer when the spike was driven. It was not directly connected to the eastern railroads (trains had to be ferried across the Missouri River at Omaha) and as you mentioned there was some drama on the west. The map associated with the article is sort of misleading in that the western portion is captioned "Built later." If you start cleaning up the article that spur me to come back and start back on my todo list for the article. Americasroof (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Misleading title

The First Transcontinental Railroad, was the Panama Canal Railway, with 47 mile, joined the Atlantic with the Pacifics oceans, on january 1855 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smilegioconda (talk • contribs) 14:40, August 11, 2008

Please review the discussion elsewhere on this page. The consensus is to keep this article at its current name because "First Transcontinental Railroad" is the popular name for this work of engineering; it is a proper noun and not a descriptive phrase. Slambo (Speak) 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

When opened in 1855, the Panama Railroad was correctly described and referred to by the press and public as: "That great enterprise, the inter-oceanic [not transcontinental] or Panama Railroad across the Isthmus [not continent], is completed, and the rough Atlantic is now wedded, with an iron band, to the fair Pacific." (See "A Great Enterprise" The Portland (Maine) Transcript, February 17, 1855) (Centpacrr (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

The world's first transcontinental railroad was actually the Panama Railroad which connected the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean for the first time in 1855.

As I commented in the Transcontinental Railroads article, I suggest that the U.S. Railroad is moved to an article entitled Second Transcontinental Railroad or an article entitled First Transcontinental Railroad in the United States, and the First transcontinental railroad article redirects to the history of the Panama Railroad.

--WikiDrive (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed over a year ago and closed with no consensus for a move. The comments are in the archive. Slambo (Speak) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion of any substance - I'm putting this in for a requested move. It is only the first transcontinental railroad in the United States, and the title should reflect that. fishhead64 (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Panama Railroad is NOT a transcontinental railroad as it only crossed an isthmus, not a continent. The CPRR/UPRR was originally referred to as the "Pacific Railroad" when being built and after it opened in 1869, and then the First Transcontinental Railroad when the Northern Pacific, Southern Pacific, Atlantic & Pacific, DRGW, and routes were opened in subsequent years. The term "First Transcontinental Railroad" is, in fact, more of an accepted and well recognized "proper" name then it is a description. For that reason alone the article should retain that name. (The Canadian Pacific [1881], Trans Siberian [1916], Trans-Australian [1917], and other "transcontinental" roads were all completed after 1869 as well.) (Centpacrr (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

"The Panama Railroad is NOT a transcontinental railroad as it only crossed an isthmus, not a continent." That's debatable. And if it is a proper name, how recognisable is that to your average encyclopedia reader from outside the United States? fishhead64 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Isthmus" n. A narrow strip of land, bordered on both sides by water, connecting two larger bodies of land. "continent" n. One of the main landmasses of the globe, usually reckoned as seven in number (Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Australia, and Antarctica). Not the same thing at all. In addition to being a recognized name for the line, it was also the first railroad completed across a continent. (Centpacrr (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia Guidelines

Would someone (i.e., a Wikipedian authorized to edit the page) mind changing all those yucky double hyphen minuses into em dashes? They're preferred by the guidelines. Just replace -- with — 69.249.155.229 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Russell's 1869 photograph

It is VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PICTURE: Russell's 1869 photograph that commemorates the building of the transcontinental railroad deliberately FAILS to include the hundreds of Chinese workers who were just outside the frame of the photograph. In Mirror-Travels, Jennifer L. Roberts describes the positioning of this photograph as follows: "Russell's 1869 photograph had been carefully posed to exclude the hundreds of Chinese workers standing just outside the frame" (116). The deliberate negation of Chinese labor to this photograph represents what Russell has described as reflective of "19th century Anglo-American nationalism." This version of nationalism is rooted in ideas of manifest destiny, white nativism and a version of the US that negates the larger American ethnic population.

Although 10,000 recruited Chinese laborers built most of the transcontinental railroad, they were consistently paid less then their white counterparts and worked under deplorable conditions. In Mappers of Society, Ronald Fernandez describes the inhuman conditions that the Chinese worked: "They worked for a dollar a day—half the wages of “white” men—sometimes under harsh conditions. During the winter of 1866, for example, railroad executives decided that even with snow on the way, workers would drill a tunnel through solid granite. Thousands of Chinese immigrants labored underground in snow tunnels throughout the day and the night. Officials did note that many workers died when avalanches buried them in snow. Their bodies were recovered when the spring thaw allowed workers to dig out their frozen comrades" (174).

When the transcontinental railroad was finished, Russell’s 1869 photograph of the transcontinental builders posed the picture in such a way that it excluded the hundreds of Chinese workers who were just outside the frame of the picture.

Unfortunately, even in recent time, this same erasure repeated itself in 1969 with The Golden Spike Centennial commemorated of the original 1869 spike-driving ceremony with a costumed reenactment, replicas of the two original locomotives, and the original Golden Spike that was re-drove at the precise time that it happened in 1869. However, this time protesters asserted the ways in which the historical narrative and—as Roberts asserts—“the entire ideology of nineteenth-century Anglo-American nationalism” was reproduced in this 1969 reenactment (116). In dissent, these protesters were there to draw more attention to the unacknowledged Chinese contribution, and to assert that the celebration of the railroad served as a genocidal vehicle for 19th century Native American populations.

DO NOT NOMINATE THIS PHOTO FOR AN AWARD! IT IS EXCLUSIONARY, RACIST, AND DELIBERATELY NEGATES THE INCLUSION OF AMERICAN ETHNIC LABOR TO US HISTORY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiphophorus (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese workers were being honored at a dinner in the CPRR construction chief J.H. Strowbridge's private car when the Russell post-ceremony photograph was taken

The reason that the Chinese workers who participated in the ceremony do not appear in the A.J Russell photograph is that it was taken after the ceremony at which time the Chinese were being feted by CPRR construction chief J.H Strobridge at a dinner in his private car. At the completion of the ceremony joining of the CP & UP rails the polished California Laurel tie was taken up to be returned to California and the Chinese replaced it with a standard pine wood tie with common spikes substituted. A reporter for the San Francisco Newsletter & California Advertiser, described the final moments of the celebration in the May 15, 1869, edition of the paper thusly:

• "That [replaced tie] was immediately attacked by hundreds of jack knives and soon reduced to a mere stick. The ever watchful Chinese then took the remains, sawed into small pieces and distributed to the spectators. The Chinese really laid the last tie and drove the last spike. When we last saw the spot, soldiers were hammering away at the flanges of the rails and carried off all the pieces they could break, so that a new rail would soon be necessary. Six ties and two rails were demolished before the juncture was left in peace to the slower inroads of time.
• "J.H. Strobridge, when the work was all over, invited the Chinese who had been brought over from Victory for that purpose, to dine at his boarding car. When they entered, all the guests and officers present cheered them as the chosen representatives of the race which have greatly helped to build the road...a tribute they well deserved and which evidently gave them much pleasure."

(Centpacrr (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC))

Bankruptcy and Failure to Pay

The article discusses the bankruptcy and scandal associated with the funding maneuvers of the railroad magnets, but fails to discuss the wide implications of the financial collapse. Many suppliers and laborers, including Brigham Young and his Mormon crew [1], remained unpaid/received partial payment/or bartered for excess railway material in place of their wages. The ceremony of the Last Spike was delayed when some unpaid laborers took at least one official "hostage" until their wages were paid. Some small businesses and communities were entirely ruined. Need for expansion here. WBardwin (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Emigrants" vs "Immigrants"

With regard to the usage of the term "emigrants" vs "immigrants" see any of the following examples and/or references: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] Centpacrr (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my edit summary, you didn't need to go to all this trouble. I don't dispute that "emigrant" was common usage in the 19th century, I'm only saying that "immigrant" is the modern usage for people coming to a place. Like I said, I think "Chinese immigrant" is better to use in the article, but it isn't important enough to argue about. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to leave it as is if you prefer it that way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You were clear in your edit summary, but what I was pointing out was that "emigrants" was the term used virtually exclusively at the time to describe persons who moved permanently from one distant place to another both as individuals and as as a class (or group) irrespective whether talking about where they were coming from or going to as you can see from the various sources I posted above. (I have also written and/or edited two books on the subject of 19th century railroads and their association with emigration: "Riding the Transcontinental Rails: Overland Travel on the Pacific Railroad 1865-1881" (Polyglot Press, 2005) and "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" (Chartwell Books; scheduled or publication in April, 2010) as well as my many writings and other contributions to my family's ten-year old, 10,000+ webpage railroad history site, "The Central Pacific Photographic History Museum".) Centpacrr (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the term 'emigration' was used in the past to describe what 'immigration' means now, surely the correct current usage should be used? We're not trying to revert to old English, instead we're writing an encyclopaedia. To my knowledge, if you are discussing the movement of a person or group to another place then you would either say they "immigrated to *destination*" or "emigrated from *original place*". Whilst I appreciate the past usage of the term, it doesn't feel right to use the word 'emigrate' in modern day language (such as the one we're writing the encyclopaedia in). In short, I have to agree with Floquenbeam. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic discrimination of photo of completion?

I heard once that when the Golden Spike was driven and a photo was made of everyone present they excluded all the Chinese laborers (allowing only the Irish to remain); if this happened there should be a brief mention of it. Historian932 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's more myth than fact. The Irish worked for the UP, the Chinese worked for the CP, so except for when the rails met, there never would have been an opportunity for them to appear in the same picture. Although it's not sourced (a serious problem with most rail articles), the article Golden Spike does claim that pictures were taken of the Chinese laborers, and they were included in the ceremony.Dave (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From my note of last July above: "A reporter for the San Francisco Newsletter & California Advertiser, described the final moments of the celebration in the May 15, 1869, edition of the paper thusly:

• "... The Chinese really laid the last tie and drove the last spike. ... (CPRR Construction Chief) J.H. Strobridge, when the work was all over, invited the Chinese who had been brought over from Victory for that purpose, to dine at his boarding car. When they entered, all the guests and officers present cheered them as the chosen representatives of the race which have greatly helped to build the road....a tribute they well deserved and which evidently gave them much pleasure."

The Chinese workers were well represented at the Last Spike ceremony and were appropriately feted there for their many great construction efforts. Centpacrr (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, were the article sourced better, this perhaps could have been avoided.Dave (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately to one degree or another this has been a controversy that has lasted 141 years now, and I don't imagine it is one that will ever be put completely to rest. Centpacrr (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious: Council Bluffs starting point?

Dubious starting point: Never seen any source indicate the start of UP Lines. Also the UP Missouri Bridge was not built until 1872 so there was no connection to Iowa until then, so how could UP have started in 1869? Should probably just be Omaha as start point. --Mistakefinder (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC) If Council Bluff is statutory starting point, then Omaha is not then. How could there be two starting points?--Mistakefinder (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See Executive Order of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, Fixing the Point of Commencement of the Pacific Railroad at Council Bluffs, Iowa. dated March 7, 1864. (38th Congress, 1st Session SENATE Ex. Doc. No. 27) .Centpacrr (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While Omaha is the effective "starting point" listed in contemporary timetables (and also the location of the UP's headquarters and main depot), Council Buffs was the legally designated eastern terminus of the UP as established by Executive Order signed on March 7, 1864, by President Lincoln. Both cities (which are located directly opposite each other on the shores of the Missouri River) are therefore properly listed jointly for accuracy and clarity. Prior to the opening of the UP's railroad bridge in 1873, passenger and freight trains were carried across the river between Council Bluffs and Omaha by transfer ferry boat. All of this is discussed at length in two of my books: "Riding the Transcontinental Rails: Overland Travel on the Pacific Railroad 1865-1881" (2005), Polyglot Press, Philadelphia, 445 pages, illustrated ISBN 1-4115-9993-4, and "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes" (2010) New York: Chartwell Books (US) / Bassingbourn: Worth Press (UK); 320 pages, illustrated. Centpacrr (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

in section Laborers

"Many more were imported from China."

Were imported? This unbelievably thoughtless and contemptuous wording evidently suggests that these callously exploited people were some kind of commodity. At the very least, some reference to the ruthless and severe domination of China by European powers and the USA in the 19th century and the actively pursued USA policy of abducting the poorest Chinese as disposable semi slave laborers is in order here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.200.50 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being overly sensitive here. I would probably say "recruited" rather than "imported", but the sentence is still correct. No matter the verb, a significant number of workers on the western half of the rail road came from one region of China. However, the reason I chimed in here is regarding this recent edit [19]. While I do not doubt for a minute the book says this, I wonder how precise the figure "90%" is. I would prefer that we just say "mostly Chinese" without citing an exact figure, as I doubt such a figure exists. There were also contingents of locally hired workers to grade paths in the area near their residence (particularly as the railroad was nearing the meeting place in Utah), making the racial makeup of the crew ever changing. Dave (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of unsupported, inaccurate Helen Zia POV claims regarding the treatment of Chinese workers by the CPRR on May 10, 1869, et seq

Irrespective that the source of this deleted quotation is a published book, Helen Zia's Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People (or any awards for which it may have been nominated), that does not make it de facto encyclopedic if (as they are) the claims made therein by author Zia regarding the treatment of Chinese workers by the CPRR on May 10, 1869, et seq, are demonstrably false and do not comport with the historic records and primary sources. The deleted quotation, which appears on page 27 of the book, is neither footnoted nor otherwise sourced (in fact the book appears to have no footnotes or chapter notes at all), and instead only appears to represent a very strong personal POV of the author. (Reviews of the book describe the work both as "polemical" (The New York Times Review of Books, March 5, 2000, P. 20) as well as being a "novelization of history".)

I have written two books on this subject of the Pacific Railroad myself and have been researching this topic for more than a dozen years. There was certainly much anti-Chinese sentiment in the American West in the 19th through the mid 20th centuries, but claims that the CPRR's "Chinese workers were barred from celebrations", that "speeches congratulated European immigrant workers for their labor but never mentioned the Chinese" and that the Chinese workers were "summarily fired and forced to walk the long distance back to San Francisco" and "forbidden to ride on the railroad they built" are clearly disproved by the contemporary documents and accounts of the events. For instance the May 15, 1869, edition of San Francisco Newsletter & California Advertiser described the final moments of the "Last Spike" celebration at Promontory Summit, UT, on May 10, 1869, thusly: "... The Chinese really laid the last tie and drove the last spike. ... (CPRR Construction Chief) J.H. Strobridge, when the work was all over, invited the Chinese who had been brought over from Victory for that purpose, to dine at his boarding car. When they entered, all the guests and officers present cheered them as the chosen representatives of the race which have greatly helped to build the road....a tribute they well deserved and which evidently gave them much pleasure." In his testimony before the Joint Special Committee of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives appointed to investigate the "character, extent, and effect of Chinese immigration in 1876, the CPRR's Charles Crocker stated: "Wherever we put them (Chinese workers) we found them good, and they worked themselves into our favor to such an extent that if we found we were in a hurry for a job of work, it was better to put Chinese on at once. Previous to that we had always put on white men; and to-day if I had a big job of work that I wanted to get through quick with, and had a limited time to do it in, I should take Chinese labor to do it with, because of its greater reliability and steadiness, and their aptitude and capacity for hard work." Centpacrr (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange Paragraph of unsourced claims

"This changed, however, as the work entered Indian-held lands. The Native Americans saw the addition of the railroad as a violation of their treaties with the United States. War parties began to raid the moving labor camps that followed the progress of the line. Union Pacific responded by increasing security and hiring marksmen to kill American Bison, which were both a physical threat to trains and the primary food source for many of the Plains Indians. The Native Americans then began killing laborers when they realized that the so-called "Iron Horse" threatened their existence. Security measures were further strengthened, and progress on the railroad continued."

I see at least 12 "facts" presented in this paragraph without any sourcing whatsoever. This is particularly troubling considering it is discussing armed conflict between two parties from only the victors points of view.67.2.135.159 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The body of the article doesn't name the terminal cities connected on May 10, 1869

For me, the article fails to define its very topic.

For most of the body of the article, we are told merely that on May 10, 1869, with the driving of the golden spike, the railroad was "completed", that it "opened for through traffic", and other such vague wording. We aren't told, up front, what it was that opened. Namely, we aren't told what the western and eastern termini of the CPRR and UPRR's line were on that day.

In parallel, we are told that it was completed initially to Sacramento, later to Oakland. But no dates are named for those events, so the statement is a non sequitur. So on May 10, 1869, did the railroad run from Sacramento to Omama/Council Bluffs, or from Oakland to Omaha/Council Bluffs?

In fact, the question is answered, but not until the end of the article, under Aftermath:

When the golden spike was driven, the rail network was not yet connected to the Atlantic or Pacific, but merely connected Omaha and Sacramento. In November 1869 the Central Pacific finally connected Sacramento to San Francisco Bay at Oakland, California.

That is excellently worded. It's just that placement of this passage at the end of the article requires the reader to infer what entity was completed on May 10, 1869, camouflages it by calling it an 'Aftermath', and may be missed by most readers.

Hence, at the top of the article, name the terminal cities as of May 10, 1869. And it wouldn't be a bad idea to name--again, at the beginning--the shortcomings of the route and when they were eliminated, namely, the dates it reached the Pacific Ocean, and crossed the Missouri River.

--Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The bridge at Council Bluffs and Omaha opened when?

1. In 1873, the Union Pacific Missouri River Bridge opened ... Huh?

2. While you're at it, you want to correct a few typos? Search for the likes of "SJ&H", "furthered strengthened", "each others railroads", "The construction and operation of the line was", etc.

--Jim Luedke Jimlue (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct & established usage of the term "Emigrants" in the First Transcontinental Railroad article

With regard to the usage of the term "emigrants" vs "immigrants" in the First Transcontinental Railroad article the historically correct term is "emigrants" as you can see in any of the following examples, writings, and/or references: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. This is the term that has always been used in this article. Please do not change it again. Centpacrr (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No. This is a misreading of original sources. Read the reliable secondary sources--they use "immigrant." Reason: when a person emigrates from Europe he becomes an immigrant in the US. So while in Europe (or land of origin) we use "emigrant" and when they get to the new place they are "immigrants." the railroads made guide books for prospective emigrants still living in the old country. Rjensen (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Rjensen, when moving this debate from your personal talk page to an article talk page, the appropriate thing to do is to move all of it instead of leaving out an existing portion such as my reply below which you deleted in the transfer:

Thank you for your comment but I'm afraid I must disagree as it applies to the Pacific Railroad. This really has little if anything to do with literature the railroads may have published for persons still overseas, but more with internal emigration of persons already in North America living East of the Mississippi in order to populate the West and the Pacific coast region. (With the CPRR this also applied to the Celestials, the emigrant construction workers brought from China many of whom returned there after the railroad was completed.) In addition to the links above please also see the many primary and secondary sources contained in my 10,000+ page, fourteen year old website, "The Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum, and two of my books on the subject, "Riding the Transcontinental Rails: Overland Travel on the Pacific Railroad 1865-1881" and "The Classic Western American Railroad Routes". Centpacrr (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of Express and Palace Car service, trains running on the Pacific Railroad were called "Emigrant Trains", the books for people taking the trains told them "Where to Emigrate, and Why", railroad tickets for these trains were for "Emigrant Passage" sold under "Emigrant Fare Schedules" with access to them by foreign born emigrants regulated by the "Commissioners of Emigration" for travel by Emigrant Sleeping Cars. Centpacrr (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Section 2.4 Construction

I would edit this but there are too many problems for me to fix at the moment. It's Wikipedia policy, no?, that articles be written in the third person. This section is written in the second person and contains incorrect word usage, etc. Poorly written, quite frankly. Someone please fix this. 216.137.192.89 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Transcontinental?

I have often wondered how a railroad which has never been East of Chicago has always been called "transcontinental". Long a traditional title, but never accurate. Oh well, bailing against the tide, I guess. Sammy D III (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It was not about the railroad companies but about a single person's ability to travel by rail from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast of North America. This person would have had to change trains and especially railroads in Chicago. Note that the first actual transcontinental railroad was completed in Panama 14 years earlier, on January 27, 1855, with a train going from the Atlantic to the Pacific on the following day. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Panama Railroad was never considered or claimed to be at the time a "Transcontinental Railroad" by its builders, the press, or the public, but was instead styled as what it really was (and still is) -- an "Inter Oceanic" railroad. (See for instance "A Great Enterprise" from The Portland (Maine) Transcript [Newspaper], February 17, 1855; "Panama Railroad Completed" from The Western Journal and Civilian, Vol. XIII, No. 6. M. Carver & T. Cobb, Editors and proprietors, St. Louis, Missouri, May, 1855; or Fessenden Nott Otis' seminal book on the line, "lllustrated History of the Panama Railroad", New York:Harper & Brothers 1861, which begins "In ancient or in modern times there has, perhaps, been no one work which in a few brief years has accomplished so much, and which promises for the future so great benefit to the commercial interests of the world, as the present rail-way thoroughfare between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans at the Isthmus of Panama. A glance at its geographical position can not fail to discover to the most casual observer that, situated as it is midway between the northern and southern, and alike between the eastern and western hemispheres, it forms a natural culminating point for the great commercial travel of the globe. Wise men in every enlightened nation had seen this for centuries, and had urged the importance of free inter-oceanic communication at this point.").

The Panama Railroad only crossed a 55-mile wide isthmus that connects two continential land masses (North America and South America), but not in any sense does it cross a stand alone "continent" itself. The remaining 99% of the 5,000-mile trip from the east coast to the west coast of the United States via this route was accomplished by steamship over water whereas the entire coast-to-coast trip via the First Transcontinental Railroad was by exactly that -- a railroad. Centpacrr (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with this edit conflict, here it comes again: I just wandered by, dropped sort of a rhetorical question. I didn't realize anybody was working next door until my watchlist grew a foot (huh? talk connects article?).

I don't buy Panama, it's an isthmus, and is referred to in the article.

The name "transcontinental" is not accurate, never has been. I'm from Chicagoland, I get the RR deal. (Hey PRRfan, too). The article refers to other names, but I couldn't find where "transcontinental" came from. My guess would be some UP PR guy, any idea? Should it be mentioned, maybe (or not) in the lead?Sammy D III (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The "First Transcontinental Railroad" does not refer to any single railroad or railroad company as until the advent of AMTRAK there was no single railroad in the United States that operated trains coast-to-coast. Instead the term refers to the first time that there was a contiguous system of multiple interconnecting rail lines in operation that made it possible to travel across a continent exclusively by rail for the first time. That first happened with the completion of the Pacific Railroad built between 1863 and 1869 by the Western Pacific, Central Pacific, and Union Pacific Railroad Companies that joined the rail networks already in existence East of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers thus completing the "First Transcontinental Railroad" that made it possible to make a continuous rail journey between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the North American continent for the first time. While you may personally not agree that this what it should be called as this has been the commonly accepted term used to describe the Pacific Railroad as well as the complete system virtually since it opened that is the correct term to use for this article. Centpacrr (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My first post: “has always been called "transcontinental". Long a traditional title” My second post: “The article refers to other names, but I couldn't find where "transcontinental" came from. My guess would be some UP PR guy, any idea? Should it be mentioned” Nowhere have I suggested changing the name of either the route or the article.Sammy D III (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know when the term was first used, but doing a very quick search I have found it in print as early as 1869 in Albert D. Richardson's very popular book ''Beyond the Mississippi" (second edition), in a page one story in the New York Times on October 11, 1869 reporting on the proceedings of the "Transcontinental Railroad Convention" held in Oswego, NY on October 8-9, and in an article from the San Francisco Bulletin (Newspaper) in 1870 entitled "The Railways of California" reprinted in the December, 1870, issue of "Appletons' Railway and Steam Navigation Guide." Centpacrr (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to waste your time, it's not that important, a word game. Oswego is impressive, and I suppose there were so many parallel lines East that you can't really choose just one. Still, the term does imply the West only, so does the article. And building the Western part was sort of the wonder of the time. I still suspect there was a UP PR guy somewhere. Anyway, enjoy the evening.Sammy D III (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Structure

This needs a lot better structuring. The history section(s) keeps jumping forward and back in time; the route sections contain all the construction history etc. Also, there are plenty of redundancies to delete. --Cancun771 (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Lone Ranger (2013)

Also mentioned in the movie: The Lone Ranger (2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.164.5 (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Locked?

It would be nice to change this text (I think it's awkwardly written), but the article is locked. "Shortly after he arrived, however, Judah there died on November 2, 1863, of Yellow Fever..." 67.168.238.184 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could leave the article open for editing, but as it's a high-profile subject in American schools, this page tends to attract a high rate of vandalism from anonymous editors. I've updated the text a little based on your suggestion. Slambo (Speak) 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree referring to credit mobilier as shenanigans is not necessarily accurate or at least ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.46.51 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

new article "History of the Union Pacific Railroad"

I created a new article on the History of the Union Pacific Railroad. It includes some text from here, some from me Union Pacific article, and increasingly will have fresh new material. Rjensen (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Black labor

This articl mentions black labor on the Central Pacific Railroad in the west, but not the Union Pacific Railroad in the east. Were there black employees there, too?--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Overly long - split suggested

I sincerely appreciate the enthusiasm of the writers who have contributed to this article and the amount of information presented. Sizerule states that articles 100kb in size "Almost certainly should be divided". This article is 101 kB, so it's certainly meets the standard. There is a natural split possible if the section on the History of the Transcontinental Railroad were its own article. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate splits making daughter articles on specific detailed subjects are certainly something that can be discussed, but just making wholesale deletions that basically permanently throw away large portions of contributed material seems to me to defeat the aims of the project. Centpacrr (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead is misleading

The lede says the RR was transcontinental. This is false, IF the definition is a CONTINUOUS connection from the Atlantic Coast to the Pacific Coast, which I think most people would agree with. This obfuscation seems deliberate. The readers should not have to piece together that the route was not continuous. It's a pretty sloppy/shoddy piece of journalism. Also, I didn't see any mention that unlike today, no single train (without modifications) could travel the entire route - the tracks weren't the same size!40.133.186.153 (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who posted this as it is from an anonymous IP that geolocates to Northfield, OH, who has only one other WP posting that was made a few minutes earlier on the talk page for the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev article, but he/she is wrong on all counts on this one. First the lede says that the First Transcontinental Railroad was a "contiguous" route, not a "continuous" one from coast-to-coast as prior to the establishment of "Union" stations, connecting railroads were serviced at nearby but separate stations in the cities in which the transfer from one road ws made and their grades therefore di not physically connect. (Also until the half-mile long bridge over the Missouri River between MP 0.0 of the Union Pacific at Council Bluffs where passengers boarded Pacific Railroad trains after arriving in Council Bluffs on other lines. (Also until the UP's half mile long Missouri River railroad bridge was completed in 1873 the river was crossed by a train ferry.) With the completion and opening of the Pacific Railroad in 1869 between Council Bluffs and the San Francisco Bay at Alameda/Oakland built, owned and operated by the UP and CPRR, it became possible to travel from coast-to-coast exclusively by train which is the well understood definition of a "Transcontinental Railroad". Because travel was not physically in the same train consist over the whole route is thus irrelevant. For instance passengers also changed trains at Ogden, UT, where service was transferred over the Pacific Railroad portion between the UP and the Central Pacific. In fact I am not aware of any time in the history of US railroad service that has ever been such service (not even on AMTRAK) over any of the many hundreds of railroad companies to provide travel in a single train or consist for the entire passage from coast-to-coast although Pullman owned sleepers were often cut off and exchanged between trains operated by different carriers. So bottom line the lede is accurate as it is. Centpacrr (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand the point of this post; and I don't agree with the details used to support whatever the point is. Virtually every historical work published in the last 75 years refers to this line as the "First Transcontinental Railroad". That literally seems to be the universally agreed title, even if it's not 100% accurate. It was not contiguous for a couple of years after "completion" as it was missing a bridge, as stated in the article. That was short lived and resolved in a few years. Also, there has never been a break of gauge, and no part of this article claims there was. I don't know where IP read that. The entire route was built to standard gauge, as has every US main line built since the end of the civil war, with a couple of short lived exceptions.

I agree that the article suffers from people inserting trivial mentions of other railroad connections across the Mississippi that made it technically possible to cross the continent via different lines. Perhaps a distorted reading of those details lead to the post. I personally would remove these trivial details as they seem to cause more confusion than they resolve. But I've been around on Wikipedia long enough to see that it is futile to do so. If you want to remove them, be my guest. Dave (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Oakland to Sacramento

@Centpacrr:, thanks for your edit summary in which you write about the Western Pacific "building" the link from Oakland to Sacramento. I see that CPRR acquired WP and their route before WP completed construction. According to the Pacific Rail Way Commission, "The Central Pacific purchased the struggling Western Pacific Railroad." In this article, it states (though unsourced) that, "To get from Sacramento to the Pacific, the Central Pacific purchased the struggling Western Pacific Railroad (unrelated to the railroad of the same name that would later parallel its route) and resumed construction on it, which had halted in 1866 due to funding troubles. In November 1869, the Central Pacific finally connected Sacramento to the east side of San Francisco Bay by rail at Oakland, California, where freight and passengers completed their transcontinental link to the city by ferry." It appears to be incorrect to say that the WP built the track from Oakland to Sacramento then, that while the WP entered in to a contract [yes, they are a railroad, I get that] to build the road, it never fulfilled the contract, but was acquired by CPR, who completed the link.

As to your quibble about the use of the word "generous" land grants as POV instead of "huge" land grants, they are virtually synonyms, as in "lavish, plentiful, copious, ample, liberal, large, great, abundant, profuse,bumper, opulent, prolific." I certainly think the land grants given the railroads were beyond huge; they were financially generous.

Instead of just hanging back, undoing, and commenting on edits you disagree with, how about lending a hand to improve the article? I encourage you to apply your considerable expertise and help to, as @Moabdave: described it, move the article from a "historical association article" to a more generally accessible encyclopedia article. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As a clarification to what I meant by that comment, a historical association article is written by a known expert to the field. The audience is people who have at least a basic understanding and interest in the topic. The readers of such an article will usually accept the expert's words at face value; because he is known them, at least by reputation if not by name. Encyclopedia articles are targeted at people who are new to the subject. In other words, a Syrian refugee who is going to be settled in Ogden, Utah. He has never heard of Utah before, much less Ogden. The reader's primary expertise up till now is in surviving his own government's attempts to kill him with chlorine gas bombs, not railroads. But in reading about his new home, Ogden, this refugee keeps reading about this (previously unknown to him) First Transcontinental Railroad. In 1000 words or less, what does this refugee need to know about this rail line to understand why everybody in his future home town talks about it. As this is a completely new topic, this refugee is likely to question "why" to every detail presented (even for details that are trivial or only tangentially related) so best to keep to the important, directly relevant stuff. That's why the two types of articles, IMO, should have a different writing tone.Dave (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the Western Pacific Railroad Company of California was not a "contractor" or "construction company", but was like the CPRR and UPRR a state chartered railroad company. Section 2 of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1865 provided for the "assignment" (not "contracting") by the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California, to the WPRR of California the "right to construct all that portion of said railroad and telegraph from the city of San José to the city of Sacramento ... with all the privileges and benefits of the several acts of Congress relating thereto, and subject to all the conditions thereof" in the same way that the CPRR did by employing first Charles Crocker & Company and then the Contract & Finance Company as its construction contractor and the UPRR did with the Crédit Mobilier of America as its contractor. (While these construction companies had close ownership and financial ties to the CPRR and UPRR they were separate corporate entities.) While the assets of the WPRR were later acquired by the CPRR prior to the completion and opening of the grade from Sacramento to the Bay area, and the companies were formally consolidated under the laws of California on June 22, 1870, the Western Pacific was never "contracted to build" the grade by the CPRR, instead it had only been "assigned the right" under the 1865 Act to design, engineer and then contract for the grade's construction and afterwards to operate the line. I have also added as a "Note" with reference details of both the US Government subsidy bonds issued to and the amount of land granted to the three railroad companies. Centpacrr (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moabdave:, I think you make an excellent distinction. Being a bit of a nerd myself and as one who is interested in the background, how, and why of some historical events, this topic is definitely a great example an article I would love to read in a historical association newsletter. But it contains far too much technical detail for Joe Average reader.

@Centpacrr:, thanks for the excellent clarification of the difference between being assigned the route and contracted to build it. That's helpful. I guess what I'm trying to determine is, within the context of WPRR receiving the assignment, was it completed by them, or by the successor company, CPRR? I believe based on what I read about WPRR's financial inability to fund the construction that it was CPRR who completed the actual construction. It's a minor point really. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Writing quality

Can anyone see anything wrong with this sentence: Two months later, the western terminus of the railroad was changed to the Oakland Long Wharf on November 8, two days after the formal completion of the line under the provisions of the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 was eventually established by the Supreme Court in 1879 in Union Pacific Railroad vs. United States (99 U.S. 402) to have been legally achieved on November 6, 1869.?

In general, I think this article could really do with a top-to-bottom copyedit. --John (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• On reflection, I have restored the article improvement tags as the article is way too long at 143 k and excessively detailed, as well as being excruciatingly badly written. User:Btphelps, User:Rjensen, would you like to weigh in here? --John (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Please define what you mean by the blanket contention that the article is "excruciatingly badly written". In doing so please address the following questions.

1) On what basis you make this claim?

2) Have you actually read this entry?

3) What language do you object to as being "excruciating", a term that means "extremely painful; causing intense suffering; unbearably distressing; torturing"?

4) What specific words, phrases, information, context, sources, etc do you contend meet that extreme criteria?

Please be very specific in supporting each of your contentions so that the 1,335 different editors in the Wikipedia community at large who have made over 3,000 revisions to this mature and long standingly stable article's development over a period of almost fifteen years since it was opened on January 12, 2002 might know exactly what you are objecting to as being excessive, extraneous, unrelated to the topic, unencyclopedic, violates WP policy and/or guidelines, uninformative, and/or "excruciatingly badly written" in your personal subjective editorial judgement. Centpacrr (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Centpacrr, the article is quite informative and everyone appreciates your contribution to it, but it appears you are being defensive, overly sensitive, and showing a bit too much ownership of the article. Please lighten up and assume good faith. If you review the information about article size, it states, "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." The Page Size tool reports that prose size of this article is 146 kB and 16,959 words; one external tool I ran on the article reported the reading time of this article is about 90 minutes. John has valid concerns, which I will support with a few examples. There are too many to cite them all.

Generally, the article is extremely dense. It includes details that only a railroad aficionado like yourself can appreciate. There are two major sections on history that ought to be combined and IMO spun off into a separate article. This would produce one article about the construction of the route and another about the history of the entire project, a useful division. The current article contains considerable amounts of detail and even trivia about the history of the transcontinental railroad project. The article would benefit from additional subheads; many paragraphs are very long; and individual sentences are so long they impact understanding. Some sentences contain complex subordinate ideas, far exceeding the standard, recommended sentence length of about 20 to 25 words that supports readability and comprehension. (See Flesch readability formula, FOG index readability formula, et. al.) It is also severely lacking references.

Here are a few examples.

• Overly detailed and contain too many subordinate ideas or trivia:

• "These twelve volumes... constitute probably the most important single contemporary..." The details of what the volumes contain are ancillary to the intent and purpose of the overall article.
• "One by-product of these surveys was the purchase ... " Again, the info about the Gadsden Purchase and Santa Ana's need for money is of peripheral interest.
• By 1867, a new route was found and surveyed ..." TMI: location along the river; states on the route; slope of the route; alternate name of a pass; and the name of the individual who discovered the pass -- the last is relatively unimportant
• "This pass now is marked by the Ames Monument (41.131281,-105.398045 lat., long.) marking its significance and commemorating two of the main backers of the Union Pacific Railroad." Trivia.
• "Most of the early Central Pacific locomotives used wood cut from these government granted timber sites for fuel—look for their cone shaped spark arresting exhaust stacks. Union Pacific used extensive coal deposits located along their sections of railroad for fuel—look for their cylindrical shaped smoke stacks." Show's a bit of fandom insight; definitely trivia; and unsourced as well.

• Sentence length:

• "Opened for through traffic on May 10, 1869..." 75 words; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 34.1
• "By 1867, a new route was found and surveyed ..." 70 words; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 26.8
• "Although the railroad later went bankrupt ..." 49 words; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 23.97
• "The original emigrant route across Wyoming ..." 46 words; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 23.29
• "Most of the early work on the Central Pacific ..." 44 words; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 20.11

... And literally dozens more.

• Many paragraphs contain multiple sentences, all lacking citations:

• "On June 21, 1861, the "Central Pacific Rail ..."
• "In addition to government bonds..."
• "The massive amount of capital investment ..."
• "The Central Pacific RR broke ground ..."
• "The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) did not start ..."
• "The gauge, the distance between the rails ..."
• "Time was not standardized in the U.S. then ..."
• "The Union Pacific's 1,087 miles ..."

... And others.

While I wouldn't use the phrase "excruciatingly badly written," I think the above objective references support the fact that the article can stand some major improvement. For an objective measure of the sentences that could use attention, refer to Readability Calculator. By way of comparison, you might look at the Good Articles Swift Bus Rapid Transit or Taiwan High Speed Rail.

I hope this information is useful and specific enough. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 20:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

While I have been a significant contributor to this entry and have considerable personal interest in the subject (two of my seven books are about the Pacific Railroad), the entry's statistics page shows that over 92% of the material in the entry was contributed by editors other than myself so I do not see how this indicates an issue of "ownership" on my part. My concern here is that the editor who started this thread and claims that the entry is "excruciatingly badly written" has personally contributed nothing at all original to the entry, shown no interest in the topic, and appears to have not even ever read any of it. Centpacrr (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Centpacrr:, it's great to learn about your expertise in railroading and that you have written books on the subject. Your enthusiasm shows through! Wikipedia needs experts like you! But there is no requirement for an editor to have contributed to an article, have expertise on the topic, nor even have read the entire thing (a bit of a challenge as it is currently written) to offer input on the writing quality.

Irrespective of how much you have or have not contributed, or how much John has read or not read, I believe the above information indicates that the article merits considerable work. It will help move this discussion forward in a useful direction if you can put aside the "excruciatingly badly written" remark, stop responding personally to what other editors have done or not done, and respond to the facts. Then the other 92% of the editors who have contributed to this article can help improve it in a productive fashion. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate Btphelps input here. Centpacrr, it doesn't make it easy for me contribute here when you personalise everything, define my interests for me, and accuse me of not even having read the article. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by criticising the writing quality on an article you say you wrote 8% of. The real challenge will be honing it to be a really good article. It is a lot easier to trim down a fannish and over-written one like this than to write one from scratch. There is no point though if you are just going to revert anything anybody does. Are you going to continue to do that? --John (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get worked up about the past contributors who collectively were unable to keep the article from getting bogged down in detail. It's very hard to get streamlined prose from patchwork additions. Instead of pointing fingers, let's work to trim the trivial stuff and concentrate on the heart of the topic. And let's get the readability scores back into the realm of the teenager. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree this article is overdue for a copyedit, and applaud the efforts to try. I've had that opinion for a while, but have not shared it for a variety of reasons. What I would say is it is clear from the article that the primary authors are knowledgeable experts that care passionately about the subject, both the important details that the average person knows as well as the minor and technical details that the average person does not know. All of that is a good thing, and Wikipedia is lucky to have contributors like that. I confess that I've included some of those "less relevant details" myself. The problem is, it causes the article to read more like a historical association article, and less like an encyclopedia article. The two are different in both scope and tone. An example of this is the fact that conventional wisdom and tradition states the eastern terminus of the line is in Omaha, Nebraska. That is true for all practical purposes. However, virtually every Wikipedia article that even mentions the First Transcontinental Railroad is sure correct this and remind us all that, on paper at least, the eastern terminus is in fact Council Bluffs, Iowa. That is an appropriate fact to mention once in this article. However, we don't need to pound that fact in the lead of every article that's even remotely related to the First Transcontinental Railroad. It is in truth an interesting historical, but trivial, artifact. What is important is this rail line was the first transportation artery to link the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA for the first time and that had a radical and profound change on US history (and even world history). I hope this discussion can focus on how to make the article more like an encyclopedia article and not dogpiling on the problems, because it is in truth an amazing article, just need refining to be a good encyclopedia article. My wikipedia time is limited right now, but hopefully that will improve soon, so for now I will just wish the rest of you luck. Dave (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In terms of reducing the size of the article, that is definitely something that is needed. It would not be that difficult to do either, as a major reason why the article is so long is that some of the historical information in the article is mentioned more than once in different sections. Getting rid of that duplicate info would be a major step towards getting this article cleaned up. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Centpacrr:, your expertise is appreciated, but your continued additions to the article are not contributing to pairing down the size of the article as has been strongly advocated by a majority of editors, noted above, but adding to the bloat. You haven't replied to the repeated requests for cooperation to improve the article by removing the extraneous, excessive content. Please desist. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What I have "added" is a couple of footnotes relating primarily to the consolidation of the CPRR and WPRR and the land grants (both issues that you raised) and also provided sources to satisfy "citation needed" tags. I do not see how that is "adding bloat" or is expanding the article as what I contributed does not appear within the article's text but is instead providing needed reference/source citations that were missing. Centpacrr (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. Anyone can change the information, and even teachers and adults avoid it for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C403:C0B0:E4FD:2A6B:D02C:6BDC (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Transcontinental Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505042503/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/bul/612/index.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/geology/publications/bul/612/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Transcontinental Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930204844/http://users.tns.net/~path/GS119.html to http://users.tns.net/~path/GS119.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=pphhphoto&fileName=ca%2Fca2400%2Fca2413%2Fphotos%2Fbrowse.db&action=browse&recNum=0&title2=Central%20Pacific%20Transcontinental%20Railroad%2C%20Tunnel%20No.%2041%2C%20Milepost%20193.3%2C%20Donner%2C%20Placer%20County%2C%20CA&displayType=1&itemLink=r%3Fpp%2Fhh%3A%40field%28NUMBER+%40band%28ca2413%29%29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628203843/http://bushong.net/dawn/about/college/ids100/ to http://bushong.net/dawn/about/college/ids100/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

John Casement reference is wrong ... Comment

The article states that ...

With the end of the Civil War and increased government supervision in the offing, Durant hired his former M&M engineer Grenville M. Dodge to build the railroad, and the Union Pacific began a mad dash west.

Dodge was hired by Durant as Chief Engineer, not as a contractor.

Former Union General John "Jack" Casement was hired as the new Chief Engineer of the Union Pacific.

This is incorrect. Casement was one of a number of railroad contractors working on the line under the direction of the Superintendent of Construction S. B. Reed. Reed hired the Casements as trackwork specialists. As White noted in his Casement article, "other contractors prepared the grade and built the culverts, bridges, water tanks, stations, and other appurtenances needed to complete the line. The Casements were track-laying specialists."

I plan to rework the paragraph... Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Is Texas larger than the Earth?

The total area of the land grants to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific was larger than the area of the state of Texas: federal government land grants totaled about 203,128,500 square miles, and state government land grants totaled about 76,565,000 square miles.

Should this be acres, not square miles? When switched to acres you get a little under twice the area of Texas, and you get about 11% of the US, which roughly matches the "one-tenth of the US" estimate I've seen elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.211.209 (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Made the above comment a couple weeks ago, apparently no one is watching this page. Went ahead and fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.211.209 (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the figure is cited to an offline Chinese book, so not easy to verify here in the USA. However, the same figure (but in acres) for the article Pacific Railroad Acts is cited to this article [35], as such it appears your correction was the right thing to do.Dave (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Great Transcontinental Railroad?

Someone has recently added this as an alternate title. I have never heard of this as an alternate name, and doing a Google search doesn't seem to support it either. Most hits on Google are links to prose something like this "The First Transcontinental Railroad was a great race...." Any objections to me removing this title? Dave (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to the article: a map showing the route of the First Transcontinental Railroad--something readers would expect to see at the top of an article such as this. 173.88.241.33 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Which parallel?

The first paragraph of the Authorization and Funding section reads:

In February 1860, Iowa Representative Samuel Curtis introduced a bill to fund the railroad. It passed the House but died when it could not be reconciled with the Senate version due to opposition from southern states who wanted a southern route near the 42nd parallel.

This doesn't make sense, because the final route through Omaha, Nebraska and Promontory, Utah goes close to the 42nd parallel. Is the 32nd parallel intended? It comes close to Jackson, Mississippi; Shreveport, Louisiana; Dallas-Fort Worth; El Paso, Texas; and Tucson, Arizona.

Msramming (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that the southern states did not want the railroad near the 42nd parallel. It looks like some editing back in 2016 confused the language that southern Democrats opposed the 42nd parallel with them supporting a 42nd parallel route. This edit appears to be where the erroneous change occurs:

"20:10, 12 October 2016‎ Btphelps talk contribs‎ 132,147 bytes -281‎ →‎Authorization and funding: edit intro graf undo"

The previous version said:

"The Acts were approved in part because the American Civil War removed southern Democratic opposition to a central route near the 42nd parallel."

Then the modified version changes to speak to the initial failure to pass:

"It passed the House but died when it could not be reconciled with the Senate version due to opposition from southern states who wanted a southern route near the 42nd parallel.[25]"

Reference 26 in the original became Reference 25 and was used to cite the opposition from southern states to the location of the route but did not originally mention a parallel.

This needs to be corrected but I'll defer to someone more capable to correct the statement without messing up the structure of the section.

--Kchambers (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 February 2021

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: page moved. Strong and valid consensus. Andrewa (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

---

First Transcontinental Railroad → First transcontinental railroad – It's the "first transcontinental railroad", not the "First Transcontinental Railroad", which would imply it was an official or at least a widely used name. The article should be retitled in lower case and corresponding changes made within it.

(The Panama Railroad was decades earlier, and what this one really was is only the first railroad connecting the west coast of the US to the existing eastern rail network, but the description "first transcontinental railroad" is widely used, so never mind these points.) -- 142.112.149.107 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The Google Ngrams indicate that the uncapitalized version is the most common.[36] Rreagan007 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images

Wow, of all the many images in this excellent article currently only one is unfree, and it's one of the last few... the movie poster. But it just shows you do need to check them all. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Chinese railroad workers sierra nevada.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)