This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 Waters 213.182.148.50 ( talk) 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
*'''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 regarding Russell's photograph
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))
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))
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))
Consensus against move. DMacks ( talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
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%29When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The article states that ...
Former Union General John "Jack" Casement was hired as the new Chief Engineer of the Union Pacific.
I plan to rework the paragraph... Cheers Risk Engineer ( talk) 21:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
References
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)
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 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)
The first paragraph of the Authorization and Funding section reads:
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:
The previous version said:
Then the modified version changes to speak to the initial failure to pass:
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 Waters 213.182.148.50 ( talk) 10:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
*'''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 regarding Russell's photograph
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))
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))
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))
Consensus against move. DMacks ( talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
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%29When 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The article states that ...
Former Union General John "Jack" Casement was hired as the new Chief Engineer of the Union Pacific.
I plan to rework the paragraph... Cheers Risk Engineer ( talk) 21:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
References
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)
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 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)
The first paragraph of the Authorization and Funding section reads:
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:
The previous version said:
Then the modified version changes to speak to the initial failure to pass:
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)