Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleNew York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2022Good article nomineeListed
October 30, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speed record[edit]

Why does the article state that the 112.5 mph was officially recorded, when Flying Scotsman was the first locomotive to go over 100 mph? Not to mention that City of Truro was more likely to have reached 100 mph first, based on the relatively accurate timings made on her 1904 run. GreatLakesShips 🤘 (talk - contribs) 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very careful to limit the facts. It states that the speed was recorded by officials of the Railroad Company. Contrast this to City of Truro whose speed was recorded by Charles Rous-Marten an independent journalist with an impressive portfolio of railroad reports. I suppose that a speed estimated by officials is officially recorded. Also note that the article states that when this locomotive was connected to a recording device it only achieved 86 mph. On subsequent runs with independent journalists on board, its top speed was recorded as 81 mph. Flying Scotsman was the first steam locomotive to exceed 100 mph whilst its speed was being recorded. (By a mechanical recording device that had been independently calibrated.) The statement that 112½ mph was not exceeded until 1921 also needs to be treated with caution. No steam powered locomotive on steel rails exceeded that speed but a German electric experimental loco exceeded 130 mph in 1903.
Nevertheless the authenticated speed of 86 mph (or 81 mph) was very respectable. Not only was it a very high speed for the time but it was unusual for a locomotive of that configuration to be sufficiently table at that speed to stay on the rails. OrewaTel (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the statement in the lead, and the entire section, claiming the world speed record, because it's all sourced to very old (mostly contemporaneous) sources, and these newer, scholarly sources all explicitly state this claimed record is dubious:

  • Meehan, Tommy (2007). "FACT OR FABLE: The 1893 run that reputedly broke world speed records got surprisingly modest coverage in contemporary news accounts". Railroad History (196): 47–49. ISSN 0090-7847. Let's just say that 999 was a very fast engine, but its record-smashing sprint of May 10, 1893 should be asterisked as "possible" or "claimed" and not taken as gospel. - This entire article is about the 999's claimed record.
  • Withuhn, William L. (2019-03-01). American Steam Locomotives: Design and Development, 1880–1960. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-03934-7. [p. 29] So what is the authenticity of the claim on behalf of No. 999 that it reached 112.5 mph on May 10, 1893, on the straight track west of Batavia, N.Y.? Contemporary accounts paint an exciting, dramatic picture ... [lengthy discussion of using stopwatches to time trains over short distances] A two-second error, easy enough to contemplate, is an error of six and a half miles per hour. Webb triumphantly declared the speed to be 112.5 mph. He generously rounded up the "31 1/2 seconds." He was hardly a disinterested observer. There is a less obvious but more profound basis for doubt ... [mechanical discussion] ... Even 100 mph is near the limit of its capacity. The claim of 112.5 is probably out of the question. - Almost all of Chapter 1 of this book is about this.
  • Howard, R. (1920). "Old 999 Still in Service". Scientific American, 123(26), 635-635. "It was with her doing the hauling that the train made its much disputed record of 112.5 miles per hour." - "Much disputed" early as 1920.
  • I think the whole section needs to be rewritten, with the old sources replaced by the new. Levivich 15:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich:  Done O.K. Copy edited accordingly. If you agree could you remove the disputed tag. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that the recent edits to this section, removing some old sources and bringing in new ones, are a significant improvement; thank you. Unfortunately I think there are still remaining issues:
    • The Empire State Express carried in April 1893 a speed recorder that peaked at 86 miles an hour. cited to The Electrical Engineer 1893 Vol 15 p470. What is a "speed recorder"? Withuhn p. 30 (cited at the end of that paragraph) says "There was no such thing as a speedometer on a locomotive, calibrated or otherwise." I think our saying "speed recorder" implies speedometer, and that seems incorrect? Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...it was declared to have reached 101.5 miles per hour... - declared by whom? The source cited at the end of the paragraph (Withuhn p. 30) says "...Hogan and Elliott are reported to have exceeded 100 mph on May 9. They must have had few doubts, because on May 10, the run was made on a regular train." There's a difference in my mind between "reported" and "declared", but I think we should say explicitly that the railroad said that its car exceeded 100 mph on May 9. Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Word spread quickly of this high speed event and when Hogan operated the train the next day going back to Buffalo large crowds gathered all along the route. Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claimed speed of 112.5 miles per hour (181.1 km/h) was run on May 10 as a new world speed record for a steam locomotive. I'm not sure I understand "was run on May 10 as a new world speed record". I think, maybe, "was claimed to be a new world speed record"? Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reputed 112.5 mile per hour world speed record had not been exceeded yet until 1904. Who exceeded it in 1904? The sources cited, newspapers from 1923, 1936, and 1959, probably aren't reliable sources for these speed record claims. Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The possible record made No. 999 the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph. - I don't see this in the cited source, Meehan 2007? Also, Withuhn, p. 29, lists various other railroads that had claimed to exceed 100 mph prior to the 999. Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The locomotive engine and the train of railroad cars it pulled was known as the "world's most glamorous train" and the "world's most beautiful locomotive ever built." - I don't think the sources cited establish it was "known as" either of these things. In fact, that the "Historian's Note" says in its own voice that it "was to become the world's most beautiful locomotive ever built" makes me think the "Historian's Note" is not a reliable source; historians don't say things like that in their own voice. (That whole source is written in a promotional style, very similar to the other cited source, a 1943 article in The Ithaca Journal.) Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a letter from historian John H. White published in 2014 by Railroad History which expressed real skepticism about the 112.5 record. - this makes it sound like he's the only one... Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...it was published nationwide by hundreds of other newspapers, but the title of Meehan's work is "The 1893 run that reputedly broke world speed records got surprisingly modest coverage in contemporary news accounts", so that's a contradiction we must deal with somehow. Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also important is what's not mentioned: that the 999 and the speed record was explicitly a publicity stunt; that it's been disputed, if not dismissed, I think by the consensus of historians; that many railroads claimed at the time that their locomotives were breaking speed records; that the Flying Scotsman is officially credited as the first, and it happened much later. Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the section needs to be fundamentally re-written to present this as a publicity stunt, common to railroads of that time and era, and not as the actual (or even suspected) breaking of a world record. I suspect more modern scholarship sources need to be examined to see how the 999's speed record is portrayed by historians. Levivich😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To those I would add a letter from John H. White Jr. that Railroad History published in 2014, which expressed real skepticism about the 112.5 record: White, John H., Jr. (2014). "Reflections On NYC 999". Railroad History (211): 124. ISSN 0090-7847.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)--Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • If you knew where File:NYC 999 in Syracuse.jpg I would suggest adding it to the Commons page. As it stands we can't prove it's available for use, since it might have been sitting in a private photo collection for years and only published recently. However, given the amount of publicity about the locomotive, and the fact that it looks like a postcard, I'm going to let it go for GA since I think it's very likely it was indeed published long enough ago.
  •  Done - The German User:FritzG uploaded the photo to Commons 20:42, 24 May 2006. I'm taking it in good faith that it is a public domain picture.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Suggest cutting DailKOS; it's not a good source for anything and this is not its area of expertise in any case.


  • What makes softsource.com (FN 1) a reliable source?


  • I've done a fair bit of copyediting and moving of sentences to what I think is a better sequence; let me know if I screwed anything up. I think we should cut the sentence about the "competent fireman"; it doesn't tell us anything.


  • "Engineer Hogan and the No. 999 locomotive were the star attractions and brought honor to the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad." Seems like puffery; if we have anything independent of the railroad that clearly says Hogan and the locomotive were the star attractions we can keep that, but I doubt that's a unanimous opinion. The second half is just ad copy.
  •  Done - Ref 4 where I got this from is the Genessee County, New York, county historian. It is on the county's history department webpage Empire State Express NO. 999 and titled "Historian's Note". They are independent of the New York Central railroad. The history department has several other History Stories about the county. Their sentence about this on the webpage is Charlie Hogan and the No. 999 were the star attractions at the Chicago World's Fair and brought prestige and honor to the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad. I think in this case my sentence I wrote about the "star attractions" is legitimate and correctly referenced by a reliable source.--Doug Coldwell (talk)


Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. I'll get started on the issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK on most changes; I think if you want to keep the sentence about Hogan it would need rephrasing; that's much too close to the source. My recommendation would be to make it 'Engineer Hogan and the No. 999 locomotive were the "star attractions"' keeping those two words in quotes to avoid a close paraphrasing problem. I still don't think you need the second half but if you do keep it it has to be paraphrased. Also, if we're keeping FN 1 can you format it correctly? It's a bare external link at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Statement[edit]

The article contains the sentence, "It took less than 32 seconds for the train to travel between Batavia and Buffalo" This is a speed of 4,600 mph. OrewaTel (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "32 seconds" figure may have come from this article, which actually says the train travelled one mile in 32 seconds, or 112.5 MPH. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bunker[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a reliable source. The webpage is self-published, by Kevin V. Bunker. What I've been able to find on Bunker is that he collaborated with Mary Amanda Helmich on a book on the Southern Pacific shops in Sacramento [1], and had a brief note in the May 2009 issue of Trains. It's not an article, just a photo and paragraph about the start of Green Line service in Portland. He seems to be pretty active in locomotive preservation. Per WP:SPS, we need something attesting his status as an expert. Either publications, or people writing about him. The source itself is probably replacable. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned at the output of the duplication detector:
  • "slippery and hard to handle when pulling more than five cars" (Wikipedia)
  • "slippery and hard to handle when passenger trains exceeded five cars" (source)
...and...
  • "both railroads trying to provide the swiftest service to the fair" (Wikipedia)
  • "special trains to provide the swiftest service imaginable from the world"
These aren't quotations, and the first of them isn't even cited to Bunker. Mackensen (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a very old copyvio. The oldest capture of Bunker is from 2007: [2]. This article was created in 2011. See [3] for an early example of close paraphrasing; which was later altered to be an outright unattributed quotation. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Originally I took out Bunker as a reference, however I've Googled his name as a historian and come up with various things. One is that he is associated with Fort Bragg as a historian. Especially since I came up with so many things about him as a historian and connected with railroad history I consider him an authority. I believe the Bunker reference and webpage to be accurate.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that Kevin Bunker wrote [4]? Just because it has his name on it doesn't mean it's authentic. And where on [5] does it say he is a historian? Being the director of the Fort Bragg-Mendicino Coast Historical Society doesn't necessarily mean he is a historian in the WP:EXPERTSPS sense (particularly about 19th/20th c. locomotives). What else did you find about him? I cannot find his CV and can't figure out if he is a professional historian or an amateur historian, nor what his specialty is. Does he have a PhD? Teach at a university? Had works published in peer-reviewed publications or by university presses? Had his works cited by other historians? And even if he is a historian, how do we know this particular source was written by him? (I cannot find it published anywhere else on the internet.) Levivich 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me because the webpage says "by Kevin V. Bunker" indicates he wrote the page. There is no other name associated with the webpage. To me if a person is a director of a Historical Society it is very likely he got that position because he is a historian considered an authority. Apparently you have doubts that he is a historian. In that case remove his reference like I did originally and that would be fine by me. The paragraph will stand up by the other references connected with Daniels. That then will settle the dispute. Fair enough?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me if a person is a director of a Historical Society it is very likely he got that position because he is a historian considered an authority – That's complete nonsense. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and just make stuff up in your head. Local historical societies almost always consist of dedicated, enthusiastic amateurs -- amateurs -- and the president is typically the most enthusiastic of them and/or the person willing to make the coffee for the monthly meetings. (I know because my own research regularly brings me into contact with such groups -- and don't get me wrong, they're great people who serve an indispensable purpose.) It's becoming more and more clear that you lack the judgment to evaluate sources. EEng 22:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Levivich is getting at is that the source has no provenance. Is Bunker the owner of softsource.com? The site is mostly about CAD software, which is difficult to reconcile with what we know about Bunker's career. If Bunker is not the owner of the website, then where did the article come from? If Bunker is superfluous as a source, why was the source left in? It seems likely the other parts of the article, as written, cribbed from Bunker at various times. Was the prose checked during the GA process? Mackensen (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was a Good Article on September 1. There was no dispute then. The Bunker doubt came after that. Here is an idea that might resolve this -> Put a period after "rolling stock." Then use these words with the associated references to start the next paragraph George Henry Daniels, the railroad's chief public representative officer[2] proposed a new locomotive be designed capable of exceeding the 100-mph speed barrier.[3] Sound good?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was a Good Article on September 1. There was no dispute then. The Bunker doubt came after that: yes, and what I'm saying is that the GA review missed (a) that the source was of uncertain provenance and (b) that the article as written committed multiple copyright violations from said source. The GA review appears to have been cursory at best, and we're swiftly heading into GAR territory. What source replaces Bunker for the first paragraph? Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start some research now. I believe I can find a Bunker replacement.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page 95 of Holbrook (1947) covers the paragraph. Just remove the Bunker reference.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Holbrook p. 95 (or preceding pages) as sourcing the first part of the paragraph:

In the early 1890s, the competition between the New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad was growing fiercely. Their rivalry was particularly noticeable along their Chicago to New York corridors in the years leading to the Chicago World's Fair, with both railroads trying to provide the quickest to the fair. The Pennsylvania had upgraded its Pennsylvania Limited with the most modern and efficient rolling stock of the time. The New York Central similarly upgraded its Empire State Express train's rolling stock; however, knowing that this would not be enough, the railroad began exploring other options so as to outperform its rival.

Holbrook seems to present a much more complicated picture than NY Central and PA railroads racing to the Chicago World's Fair. Holbrook says on p. 95 that Daniels came up with the name "Empire State Express" and proposed designing a fast locomotive to publicize the train; and on p. 96 Holbrook says that the Empire State Express itself was a result of railmaster Plimmon Dudley designing a new type of stronger rail allowing heavier rolling stock to be built. I don't see where Holbrook mentions the Chicago World's Fair as part of the impetus for designing the 999, except in the line "Daniels arranged to have 999 and a complete Empire State Express on view at the Columbian Exposition [aka Chicago World's Fair]", but that was after "he reputedly drove her for one mile at the rate of 112.5 miles an hour" (note "reputedly").

Personally, I don't think this article needs to get into the whole (complex) background of the rise of the New York Central Railroad, nor the Empire State Express. I think it's sufficient to just say that Daniels proposed designing a fast locomotive to promote the new Empire State Express, cited to Holbrook 1947 (for now but better source needed), and leave it at that. Levivich 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see on page 95 where it talks about shortly after 1891 where Number 999, which Daniels wanted to be a feature at the coming World's Fair in Chicago, set for 1893. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about reducing that paragraph down to: In 1892, New York Central Railroad's General Passenger Agent, George Henry Daniels, proposed a new, fast locomotive be designed to publicize the Empire State Express at the upcoming World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, sourced to Moses 2005 p. 920, LSJ 1957, and Holbrook 1947 p. 95? Levivich 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, I feel I should comment here, as I was the GA reviewer. My spotcheck of Doug's work was not cursory, it was more or less non-existent; it did not occur to me that an experienced editor needed to be spotchecked. Typically when reviewing GAs I only spotcheck occasionally, or when I have some reason to suspect a problem. I will be doing spotchecks regularly going forward, as well as using Earwig. When I saw the ANI thread I posted a note on Doug's talk page telling him I would be going back through the GAs of his I have promoted recently and would be nominating them at GAR if they had problems; he agreed to review his own work before I did that. I wanted to give Doug time to clean up his own messes before going through the articles, but events seem to have overtaken that. I'll start my pass shortly, starting with articles others have not yet looked at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World's fair and later service[edit]

Ref #4 (marked as a Wikipedia reference) of Genesse County Historian's Note about the Baltimore Fair seems to be a legitimate source. Its from the Genessee County (New York) history department, which looks like a large department of the county. Batavia is the county seat of Genessee County, New York. This is where the 999 ran the world record of 112.5 miles per hour. Its NOT a Wikipedia source, but a source from the history department of Genessee County, New York. I will be removing the disputed tag and Wikipedia source tag. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding dedicated section about issues with record claim[edit]

I feel that the issues with the speed record are sufficient enough to have a section called something like Veracity of 100MPH claim which talks about the recording issues, modern analysis, etc. Gusfriend (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Withuhn's book on American steam locomotives (mentioned above) forms a good basis for doing so. I own a physical copy but my time over the next couple of weeks is limited. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recall doing some source searches about this when I promoted the article. As I recall I found discussion of the Flying Scotsman, but also found sources that distinguished between slightly different versions of the record "first train", "first wheeled vehicle", and so on. I'll see if I can find those searches in my browser history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the exact pages I looked at before, but repeating the search I think I used finds this reference, which is similar to what convinced me to leave the claim in: American Passenger Trains and Locomotives Illustrated by Mark Wegman, page 13: "New York Central & Hudson River No. 999 became the world's first steam locomotive to exceed 100 miles per hour on May 10, 1893, when it achieved a speed of 112.5 miles per hour on a 1-mile stretch near Batavia, New York". I'm not familiar with the field; is Wegman not a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wegman is reliable, but on this question Withuhn (and White) are better sources. Withuhn was a licensed engineer, and transportation curator at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History for close to thirty years (see obituary in the Washington Post). He wrote a work of history published by a scholarly press that squarely confronts the question of whether 999 could have attained 112.5 MPH. Voyageur Press puts out a number of these picture-heavy books. I own them, I use them in articles, but if there's a more in-depth source then we should use that instead. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I can imagine that claims about records are subject to more obfuscation and falsification than more mundane facts; I'll bear that in mind when spotchecking in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Empire State Express; the claim about 999 is probably one of the more notably contested claims relating to transportation. Wegman does mention this, but didn't really dig into it. Mackensen (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see editors have been arguing about this for 15 years, lol. Levivich😃 15:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Levivich😃 15:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late to the discussion here, but we should absolutely not be presenting this claim as objective in Wikivoice. It should be acknowledged that the claim is disputed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999[edit]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. The claim that this locomotive set a speed record is widely contested in reliable sources, but this article treats it like an undisputed fact. In addition, this article was created by Doug Coldwell who habitually included major instances of close paraphrasing in his articles. An article which utterly fails to consider all viewpoints in reliable sources cannot be said to meet the GA criteria. This should be delisted unless someone is willing to put in significant work to improve the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some tidying up on the related pages but I had left this one alone. Needs major copy editing to tidy up the record or to be delisted. Gusfriend (talk) 10:29, 4 October 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.

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[edit]

Sources removed from article per WP:DCGAR and discussion at the Good article reassessment: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this sentence[edit]

The 999 was mounted on other engines of the class, and had its brakes mounted to the front truck, which was a new approach.

This is the first sentence of New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999#Development. What does "999 was mounted" mean? OrewaTel (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Central_and_Hudson_River_Railroad_No._999&oldid=1202118382"