Talk:BNSF Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Click [show] for further details |
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Pending tasks for BNSF Railway: |
(purge cache – edit this list) | |
|---|---|---|
|
||
| See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo | ||
 Archives |
| *2005 archive |
Contents |
[edit] Northern Route Section
Is this really needed? Or can someone knowledgeable about it clean up the writing? The pictures seem kind of unnecessary too....they would probably serve better on the Empire Builder page. Schnauf 07:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
IS this correct? One of the routes operated by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe traverses the most northerly route of any railroad in the western United States. This route was originally part of the Northern Pacific Railway system, followed by the Burlington Northern Railroad system.
- IF my memory is correct (I grew up along the Quincy branch of CB&Q), the Great Northern had the most northern route in the US. Also little mention of the Spokane trackage in Washington state - which is part of the original: SP&S; GN; NP and CB&Q railroad mergers in 1970.G. Beat 19:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The Great Northern route was north of the Northern Pacific route. West of Spokane the BNSF primarily uses the Great Northern route through the Cascade tunnel under Stevens pass which is way north of the Stampede pass tunnel used by the Northern Pacific. The reason the Northern Pacific route is lightly used is that double stacked container cars are too tall to go through the Stampede pass tunnel. I guess the question is "East of Spokane does the BNSF use the Great Northern or Northern Pacific tracks or both"?
Still, does this section truly contribute to the theme of this article? It feels more like it should be a separate section than anything, especially if the other routes are expanded upon as well. Schnauf 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- This section was deleted and restored at ~3:30PM Central Standard Time, on the grounds that it didn't quite fit. Seems like a shame to just drop the content altogether. Should it be moved into a separate article? MrZaiustalk 21:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Burlington & White
05-259 (06/22/06) Burlington N. & S.F.R. CO. v. White I'm not well-enough versed in the topic to create a dedicated, full-length article on this case. If someone does want to create the seperate article, please remove the relevant section in this article and add a link to the seperate page and a cursory mention of the case in this article's introduction. Thanks! MrZaiustalk 20:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the SCOTUS tag to this article, as it is redirected to from that case article-name. When the SCOTUS case article is started, pleas move the SCOTUS tag from this article to that one. --64.113.81.179 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Source needed
While the statement, "It may also be noted that on any given day BNSF is the single largest consumer of petroleum-based fuels in the world. The only larger consumer is the US Navy during a full force wartime deployment", is certainly an intriguing one, I would like to see a source for such a bold assertion. This is especially true when said statement is made in connection with the nation's second largest railroad and one that has far fewer locomotives than Union Pacific (5,790 for BNSF as compared to 7,891 for UP, citing the numbers given on their respective Wikipedia pages). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.134 (talk • contribs) 02:29, August 26, 2006.
I remember recently reading the statement you refer to. My first thought was the Seattle Times. However a search of their archives did not turn up anything nor did Google. My only thoughts are that I would be surprised if there is that much difference in size between the BNSF and the Union Pacific. I believe that the two railroads are very close in size, for example, both total trackage 50,000 miles vs 54,000 miles and 2005 revenue 13 billion vs 13.6 billion respectively. Perhaps the number of engines should be checked. Another thought, here in the Pacific Northwest the BNSF pulls their trains over the mountains where as the Union Pacific takes a longer route around the mountains using the natural break provided by the Columbia River. It takes the BNSF far more fuel to pull the 2.2 percent grade on both sides of the Cascades. For example, a heavily loaded 100 plus car train requires five locomotives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.45.139 (talk • contribs) 18:42, August 28, 2006.
- I agree that some check should be made on the relative numbers of locomotives operated by UP and BNSF. Your point about BNSF's mountain running in the Northwest is well taken, but much of the advantage of going through the Cascades via the Columbia River Gorge is arguably negated by the need for UP to then climb the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. Also, UP does climb the Cascades when moving goods along north-south, though the traffic levels are lighter. Another problem is that the Northwest is only a small part of either network. UP does a lot of mountain running throughout it's system, as does BNSF, that's why I still think the statistic is dubious. It just strikes me as company picnic talk that escaped into the real world, but again, if it's true, great, but I think both of us would feel better with a source. Without one, should it be in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.31.37 (talk • contribs) 16:29, November 30, 2006.
Generally, I dislike throwing information away. However, in this case, I vote with you for removing it. What is the procedure to do this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.45.139 (talk • contribs) 20:55, November 30, 2006.
You should review this site. http://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp022206pm.htm I would trust this source more. I think the NAVY is down the list now with more nuke power in play than diesel. Maybe something should be added to the UP site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.131.26 (talk • contribs) 21:41, December 3, 2006.
[edit] BNSF Police
There is already an article for the UP Police. Anyone know enough about the BNSF Police to start one for them? Equinox137 09:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Burlington Northern SantaFe Herald.png
Image:Burlington Northern SantaFe Herald.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done -- added rationale. Slambo (Speak) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Burlington Northern
As shown in the Kansas entity database [1], the BNSF Railway Company is technically the same company founded in 1970 as the Burlington Northern Railroad Company. The only difference, of course, is the fact that the same entity has had name changes since its buyout of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway. Should the Burlington Northern article be absorbed into the BNSF Railway article then? In order to provide a logical continuation of railroads, I believe it should, as technically the Burlington Northern has never ceased to exist; only the usage of the Burlington Northern name and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe have ceased to exist. In technicality, the BNSF Railway was founded in 1970. The proposed absorption of the Burlington Northern Railroad article's result would remain named BNSF Railway.KansasCity (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- strong oppose - BN is not the same company as BNSF, BN is a predecessor company. BNSF was formed from the merger of BN and ATSF, both of which have their own long history. All three are treated separately in the rail industry press and should remain separate here. Slambo (Speak) 10:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- oppose - as per Slambo. This merge would not appear to improve anything, rather, the entire BN article would need to be incorporated as a subsection of the BNSF article, which seems a waste of time. These companies have their own identities and histories, and it is far better for WP that they be kept separate -- it can cope with having two articles. EdJogg (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep in mind though, that the source I have provided states that the entity named BNSF Railway Company was incorporated in April 1970 and has been previously named Burlington Northern, Inc., Burlington Northern Railroad Company, and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Company. There is a section in that file from the entity database that states the former names of the entity searched. Refer to articles such as CBS Corporation and AT&T. These are entities that have names taken from some other entity, yet that doesn't change the fact that the modern existing entity was founded under another name, nor does it change its history. The way it is now, having BN separate from BNSF creates a false impression that BN has gone defunct, which is simply not true, according to the official legal entity database in Kansas, which is kept up to date as long as an entity keeps submitting required reports. Only the ATSF has gone defunct. KansasCity (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think the fact that ATSF, BN and BNSF are treated separately by the rail industry press, and that they have been written about separately for the entire time since the 1970 merger is a more compelling argument in this case. BN and ATSF were operated and written about as two completely separate companies before the 1995 merger. Slambo (Speak) 11:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
