Talk:Maine Central Railroad

Untitled
So apparently at some time, the Boston and Maine Railroad owned a majority of Maine Central stock. Does anyone know the details? Did the B&M's 1919 bankeuptcy end that? --SPUI (talk) 10:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It some thing to that fact, i will look it up. also where are the refances for this page? Lazarus-long 05:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Does this article really belong under the category "Defunct railway companies of Canada"? CanadaGirl
 * I would suppose so, since the MEC did serve the province of Quebec. Since it regularly did business in Canada and since it's out of business (more or less) I would argue that it does in fact belong in the defunct Canadian railways category.--Foxhound 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Portland gauge
I have restored information deleted by reversion on 30 September for the following reasons. Although User:Oanabay04 asserted "gauges were clearly spelled out and linked to proper Wiki pages," existing descriptions were ambiguous and confusingly referential to Indian gauge. Although the Wikipedia article on 5-foot-6-inch gauge is entitled "Indian gauge" in recognition of the magnificent Indian railway system of today, the same article can be reached by the more appropriate redirect Portland gauge. Subsequent references to broad gauge reach the unnecessarily ambiguous article referring to anything wider than standard gauge, while the actual lines involved were all Portland gauge.

The Portland gauge was decided upon in 1848, a year prior to the Indian gauge decision in 1849. Portland gauge was a significant aspect of early Maine Central Railroad development as a manifestation of the competition between the port cities of Portland and Boston, and is an important element in Maine Central Railroad history. It is misleading to assert "confusion" about the action of the Eastern Railroad with respect to gauge differences in support of Boston business interests in their rivalry with Portland.Thewellman (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur with the above. Centpacrr (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your point in the second paragraph is excessive detail that the casual reader — who is the target audience for broad articles about an railroad — will get lost in. It is not necessary for this discussion. The Portland gauge ultimately became Indian gauge, which is why the article on Portland redirects to Indian. Plus, the text that was readd is poorly written and needs to be tighter. Purposely reverting an edit to list a term that is going to redirect is considered WP:TE.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose to restore my edit following User:Oanabay04's second deletion. I disagree with the assertion Portland gauge became Indian gauge. Portland gauge was replaced with standard gauge. Indian gauge is irrelevant to the Maine Central article beyond naming the Wikipedia article about 1676 mm gauge as "Indian gauge" on the basis of modern prevalence. The Portland gauge redirect exists to avoid confusion when describing the 1676 mm gauge railway network historically serving Portland. I would be surprised to find widespread support for interpretation of this use of a redirect as tendentious editing.

I also disagree with the inference reasons for the gauge difference would be beyond the interest and comprehension of readers of this article. I propose to tighten up the wording as suggested and restore my modification of the misleading statement about Eastern Railroad action.Thewellman (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead Section
I have restored information deleted by User:Oanabay04's reversion on 30 September because without such restoration the article's lead section lacked a reference citation, failed to explain notability, and did not adequately summarize key points of its contents.Thewellman (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. Centpacrr (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead article is too lengthy and suffers from WP:LEADCLUTTER. Lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions should be avoided, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article (WP:MOSINTRO). The notability is covered by saying it was a former Class I railroad. The citation will be restored, but otherwise, it will be left with the revised version.Oanabay04 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose to restore my edit following User:Oanabay04's second deletion. Two mileage conversions important to understanding notability are the only parenthetical details covered by the cited Wikipedia style definition of clutter. Removing the conversions would sacrifice clarity to shorten the paragraph. The 160-word paragraph is not unduly long, and provides a summary of main line and branch line rail service to Maine cities for elaboration within the article. The most important points covered in the article are summarized in such a way that the lead section can stand on its own as a concise version of the article as suggested by the Wikipedia style manual. I suggest the second paragraph of the lead section should actually be expanded to include a sentence summarizing Maine Central's post-1970 history and present status within the Guilford/Pan Am system. I propose to request a reference citation for the statement about former class I status, since the Peters source was published before that status was revoked.Thewellman (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds more than reasonable to me and I support the language's restoration. Centpacrr (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Mileage
Thewellman - please explain the source of the mileage you have added. My source say that at the MEC's peak in 1929, it clocked in at 1,121. This is what the MEC owned, not what they leased or operated as a subsidiary (that mileage would be listed in the corresponding RR Wiki entry).Oanabay04 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The source of the mileage figure was cited at both locations as Peters: "By the time the federal government took over the operation of all U.S. railroads in 1917, Maine Central operated 1,358 miles of railroad, the greatest in its history." I don't know why your source indicates mileage peaked in 1929, because operations on the Quebec Division and Belfast Branch had been terminated in 1925. While I suggest your concern about leasing or operating as a subsidiary may be excessive detail for an alleged target audience of casual readers, I might point out leasing and subsidiary operations persisted on the Beecher Falls branch until 1931, on the Bucksport branch until 1935, on the Foxcroft branch until 1939, on the Mountain Division until 1943, on the Rumford branch until 1946, and on the main line east of Bangor until 1955.Thewellman (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The source stated is promotional and subjective at best. The author, Bradley L. Peters, was the Vice President of MEC. The book was more of a booklet that MEC executives gave to its stockholders. It was not copyrighted but had a date stamp of 1976. (see link here - trainnet.org). I would not consider this a reliable source WP:NOTRS.


 * The overarching argument is that you are splitting hairs on all arguments and not being objective, a serious problem with many Wiki Railfans. WP:DETAIL accurately describes the level of detail needed for an article such as this. I think you will find that other editors who are not entrenched in the subject as you and Centpacrr are will take a more broad approach and not whittle down to excessive details. If you like to discuss further, I suggest you post a request at WP:DRN.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you would consider information about the MEC's mileage taken from a publication of that company would be "unreliable". What possible reason would you have to say that? This number is not a "promotional statement" but a simple statement of fact made by the company that is the primary source of the information. On what basis do you claim that your source (presumably "The Historical Guide to North American Railroads") should be considered more reliable than a publication of the MEC? I also find puzzling your implication that editors such as myself who you say are "entrenched in the subject" would not be "objective" which you posit as being a "serious problem among "Wiki Railfans" (whatever that is). I have been a professional writer for more than 45 years, am the author or author/editor of four published books on North American railroad history (which together total over 1,200 pages), the owner and creator of BMLRR.com (an extensive online illustrated history of the Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railroad), and since February, 1999 I have been a principal contributor to the now over 10,000 webpage railroad history internet site, the The Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum. (See here) While I am not an author/contributor of the MEC article on WP, I am certainly entitled to my opinion in support of the position of Thewellman in this matter. Centpacrr (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)