Jump to content

Talk:BNSF Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Northern Route Section

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In general, I don't get the purpose of the routes subsection. Is it to highlight important routes to the railroad? If so, what criteria are we using for "important" enough to be listed as a route?Agassiz830 (talk) 17:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington & White

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source needed

[edit]

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.

BNSF Police

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Burlington Northern SantaFe Herald.png

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Done -- added rationale. Slambo (Speak) 11:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Burlington Northern

[edit]

As shown in the Kansas entity database [2], 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • This would be a silly merger, and keeping the articles separate is perfectly consistent with practice in other areas, where a renaming that changes an entity's character may result in a separate article (Bechuanaland Protectorate → Botswana for instance). Taking your proposal to its logical conclusion, we would have big problems with the Union Pacific Railroad. The current UP is actually the former Southern Pacific Transportation Company, renamed at the same time as the UP was merged into the SP. So we'd have one article for the pre-1998 UP, and another combined article for the SP and post-1998 UP. It would be rather appropriate given the Houston-area confusion caused by the UP-SP merger --NE2 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor LGBT image and ranking

[edit]

I below text was removed from the article for being "irrelevant." I disagree with that designation and that it is relevant to the article subject. I am inclined to add it back into the article. However, ideally I'd also like see additional references to supporting the below assessment, or instead find a some sort of counter-point (if one exists) to keep the article balanced. Thoughts? Barkeep Chat | $ 20:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company has been repeatedly ranked as one of the worst for LGBT employees by the Human Rights Campaign.[1] In fact as reported by the Huffington Post it is the 4th worst for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers in the United States.[1]

I'm not sure that information is encyclopedic. Magazine's, non-profits, etc put these sort things out all the time with large shifts being common because of poor metrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agassiz830 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b [1]

Colorado division

[edit]

The article says that the Colorado division no longer exists but BNSF's own web pages say that it does: [3] , for example. Indeed, Googling suggests that the Colorado division was only created recently, and created from parts of hte Powder Basin division, not merged into it! I'd fix this myself but I don't know where to find the lists of subdivisions to fill in the table properly. Dricherby (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BNSF Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BNSF Railway. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • 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) 01:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BNSF Railway. 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).

  • 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) 06:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BNSF vs UP size?

[edit]

Hey all- I'm no rail expert (at all), but i note that the BNSF page refers to (itself) as the second largest rail in the country, after the UP.

But the UP page refers to (ITself) as the second larges rail in the country after the BNSF.

Can't both be right, can they? Maybe by different metrics, but unclear in the articles?

Hope someone can clear this up.

Gordonpalexander (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)GordonPAlexander[reply]

"Freightbonnet"?

[edit]

on the "common locomotive paint schemes", they call the ex-atsf yellow and blue scheme the Freightbonnet? As a railroad historian i know they are called "Yellow bonnets." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.208.63 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by adding the four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment.

I think this is a good segue into the question of Are sections describing paint schemes in great, obsessive detail appropriate for the encyclopedia? I'd honestly like to nuke the paint schemes section in its entirely like the section on the CSX article was. Especially with its photo album and questionable nicknames and oh my god so many quotation marks. It's completely sourced to hard copy Trains magazines from the 1990s, which I mean, I could probably find them in the massive piles of ancient magazines at the local RR museum, but really that's just a horrible source for here. @Trainsandotherthings: Ironmatic1 (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trains Magazine is generally a reliable source, I use it fairly often myself. The issue is, are giant sections talking about paint schemes relevant? My answer is no, though Amtrak Paint Schemes does exist, and is a GA to boot. But we need to consider due and undue weight, and giant sections just talking about paint schemes are undue weight on a minor aspect of the subject (though one that obviously holds a great deal of appeal to many railfans). The warbonnet is certainly an iconic paint scheme, and having maybe 1 or 2 paragraphs about BNSF's paint schemes is fine, so long as it's reliably sourced. What isn't encyclopedic is giving more attention to the paint schemes than important aspects like the company's history and operations. One of the articles I'd call my very best work, Providence and Worcester Railroad, doesn't devote a single sentence to the topic of paint schemes. On the other hand, New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad discusses them a fair bit, but there's also been a lot said about the famous McGinnis paint scheme which is still used today on some CTDOT equipment. Again, it's all about due and undue weight and what reliable sources say.
This has become a bit rambling, so to answer your original question, there's absolutely too much detail here. Some things are good to keep, like mentioning the company's rename to BNSF Railway and adoption of a new logo in 2005. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2022

[edit]
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: not moved. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BNSF Railway → BNSF – Per WP:COMMONNAME, company is universally referred to as BNSF, not BNSF Railway. BNSF currently redirects back to this article. Brulucas (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just look at BNSF's website, for starters. It literally is titled in the tab "BNSF Railway" and the logo on their homepage also says "BNSF Railway". This is not a valid application of COMMONNAME. Plenty of sources also use the name "BNSF Railway" [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I'm not convinced you actually did any checking to confirm your belief that the company is "universally referred to as BNSF" considering a very quick check found plenty of use of the name BNSF Railway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search shows that the standard practice seems to be to call it BNSF in the headline, use "BNSF Railway" or "BNSF Railway Co" for the first mention in the text, then use BNSF for the rest of the article. But there are also cases where only BNSF is used, like this article, or this manual for a train simulator game officially licensed by BNSF. Personally I would say that points towards BNSF on its own being more common, but I'm not certain on the naming policies in this area.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of BNSF Railway is better than simply BNSF as it is a natural disambiguation, which prevents any confusion with the BNSF Line or any other subject. Simply seeing a title of 4 letters does not make it immediately clear to the reader what the subject of the article is, while BNSF Railway makes it obvious. Similarly, CSX Transportation is not simply "CSX" as the "Transportation" suffix is a natural disambiguator from CSX Corporation. Headlines also tend to use shorter versions of a name to save space, so they alone should not be used to determine what the common name is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The name "BNSF" is clearly more common, and not really affiliated to anything else aside from that one Chicago Metro line. However, ultimately, I do have to agree with the opposition, as natural disambiguation is a stronger argument. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree BNSF Railway is better than simply BNSF as it is a natural disambiguation. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Plenty of sources also use BNSF, e.g. International Railway Journal, Railway Age, Railway Gazette, Trains and BNSF itself, so both are used with a degree of interchangeability. The 32,000 mile BNSF is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the 38 mile BNSF Line, so disambiguation is not required, with the hatnote at the top of the article covering off that there are similar named, less notable articles. Brulucas (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe merge

[edit]
ARTICLES HAVE BEEN MERGED
Unanimous consensus to merge Joyous! Noise! 01:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC is the holding company for BNSF Railway, with the latter seemingly its only asset of note. Propose merging. Brulucas (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I approve of this. This sounds like a good merger to do, because the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC article is very short. G13178m (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do it. I believe this to be reasonable. Davidng913 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge idea. Joyous! | Talk 00:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous comments. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems like a reasonable idea. Tbf69 16:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BNSF_Railway&oldid=1205476365"