Talk:Norfolk Southern Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CNTP should still be a separate article[edit]

While I can understand that we should include information about CNTP here, there is no reason not to have a separate CNTP article as well. I think of it like other railroad articles that have fully operating subsidiaries (such as the two articles for Kansas City Southern Railway and Grupo Transportación Ferroviaria Mexicana, or Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line). slambo 01:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've invited the user who has been making the controversial edits to join the discussion here by placing a note on his talk page. slambo 10:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

After reading this, it seems less likely that we'll get an intelligent discussion on this topic from the user. slambo 17:45, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Map[edit]

I should have a map up on Monday. Kmusser 15:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Done Kmusser 16:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Yards[edit]

Just thinking that some of these yards aren't really "major". For example, Calumet Yard, IL does mostly local work in the Chicago area - NS does the majority of its classification at Elkhart, IN for the Chicago area. Also, there's Bluefield and Williamson - while these are major, they deal mainly with unit coal trains, not "classification" of normal trains. Maybe rework this list? Danny252 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Record[edit]

Don't see why this is controversial. The accident happened. The results happened. NS is being taken to court. No presumption either way. Anon-liberal (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd, but no one else bothered to read the articles and compare against the text added in the topic. The links are dead now anyway - perhaps someone will repair both links and content. Tedickey (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, Federal "common carrier" law requires railroads to transport toxic materials. In a letter from Norfolk Southern (NS) Corporation Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer C.W. Moorman to Mr. Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth, Moorman states (regarding Toxic Inhalation Hazard chemicals) "Norfolk Southern neither manufactures them nor transports them for its own use. Moreover, Norfolk Southern does not make enough money transporting these commodities to justify the risks the federal government requires us to take." See "Hazardous Materials Shipping" section of this NS web page. Furthermore, the NTSB investigation of this accident concluded that "the crewmembers were rushing to complete their work and secure their train before reaching their (federally mandated) hours-of-service limits". It is interesting that the Federal government (ICC) forced NS to transport the material, the unintended consequences of safety inspired "hours-of-service limits" were identified by the Federal government (NTSB) as a contributing factor to the accident, and then a then a third branch of the Federal government (EPA) chose to sue NS for the accident it caused both directly (by forcing railroads to haul toxic materials at a net loss) and indirectly (by causing rail workers to hurry to avoid breaking the work limit laws). While it's unclear what the outcome of the EPA suit was at the time of this writing, the EPA seemed to conclude that workers hurrying to beat the clock set by Federal law need even more rules. The most controversial aspect of this article is that "Anon-liberal" and other supporters of government sprawl refuse to recognize that over-regulation can be every-bit as fatal as under-regulation - as illustrated in this case. Marknoble (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RBMN[edit]

Someone keeps adding "RBMN" to the list of NS reporting marks. RBMN is the reporting mark for the Reading & Northern Railroad, and per their web site, they are not and have never been part of NS.

BMRR (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RBMN sorry[edit]

i am apologizing. I have been the one adding rbmn. i miss read what the reporting marks are. rbmn does interchange with ns, but is not part of ns. i think there should be a section where you could put stuff like that. Railroads that connect with the railroad, but are not apart of it in anyway. it does connect with ns and it says so right here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Blue_Mountain_and_Northern_Railroad

and here

http://www.rbmnrr.com/map.shtml in the legend on the map.

I do apologize about this mistake.

bkopicz3 member wiki

Well, the Reading_Blue_Mountain_and_Northern_Railroad topic does indicate that it connects to N/S - but keeping in mind that N/S is a much larger railroad, there's going to be a comparably large list of small railroads that it connects with - probably not worth cluttering up the N/S topic with. Tedickey (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What about creating a link to another page that contains the list of connecting railroads. This list is for the railfans, so they can expect what other train companies they can see on the main-line along with NS.

bkopicz3 member wiki

Is there a list? (All I noticed in a quick check were the templates for class-I and class-III railroads which cover many more railroads). Tedickey (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a list, but that is the Class I and Class II list. I think that it should be like: NS Connecting railroads and list them Then CSX connecting railroads and list them

ETC. What does everyone think. This would be to inform people of what they may see on the line along with Norfolk Southern(and other railroads)

bkopicz3 member wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkopicz3 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yards[edit]

First off I would like to say that i changed one thing on the page. The Yard Count was 26, but 27 yards are listed. So i changed the number.

Secondly, I really do think that Reading Pa should be up there for a yard. Reading does indeed have a norfolk southern yard, and it should be counted.

Do not believe me that reading has a yard? Follow these directions for the proof.

1)go to maps.live.com

2) type in the "LIVE SEARCH MAPS" bar 930 Pike St, Reading, PA

3)following those directions exactly should bring the reading yard into the screen.

Thank You and have a nice night:)

one additional note: you must be in "birds eye view" or "Aerial" mode to see it

--Kopicz (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures can be out of date - I'd look for something mentions the current status of the yard. This for instance doesn't tell me that it's currently in use. Tedickey (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the former reading railroad station. It had a fire in the 1980s and they cleared it and are building an outlet type area, and this is several (8+) miles east of the location i said about. I am with-in miles from this. I know for a fact that the yard is still used. But i am not sure if it classifies as a major yard. It has many rails and it splits off into 5 or 6 different directions. It also has a turn table. It does not however have a engine storage shed. That picture is current, as that it is less then 6 months old. It is on the Norfolk Southern Reading-Harrisburg Main Line. The former picture on the site I provided was only black-white and could not make anything out.

I will look for proof that it is the norfolk southern reading yard and post it on here as soon as possible. If a new picture will help i will post that then, but i must warn you that my photography really sucks.

--Kopicz (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK the following is cut right from http://www.frograil.com/railroad/pa.htm#READINGINTRODUCTION

This is the location where the belt line joins the line from the city of Reading (often called the High Line) and heads west to Harrisburg. Over 40 trains a day make their way through Wyomissing. Almost all of the action here is NS (ex-CR), with an occasional Lancaster and Northern making its way from Sinking Spring to Reading Yard and return. CP Rail may gain trackage rights from Harrisburg to Reading because of the purchase of Conrail by NS, but we'll have to wait and see how that shakes out. By the way, CP = "Controlled Point." This is an electronic "tower."

This was written 1999. But it is still in use. I see it just about everyday as that it is right across from where i work.

The True name to this is Spring Street Yard, But this is in Reading Pa. The one that i say about in the link i first posted.

here is another link which proves that there is a reading yard aka spring street yard http://www.railfanreading.com/Oley.htm

Which mean i will be adding this to the list. And this is why. Thank You --Kopicz (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture Mis-Placed[edit]

Picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NS_8921_GE_C40-9W.jpg says it is from Wyomissing Pa. This is not so. I know for a fact that it is not from Wyomissing Pa.

I am from Wyomissing Pa(AREA). --Kopicz (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... I got the description from your last edit. Go ahead and make it better. Tedickey (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This is what I was looking at. Tedickey (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK...Is it really Wyomissing? I am sorry, but it does not quite look like it...But I may be wrong... I am sorry.... LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT --Kopicz (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC) made a mistake.... --Kopicz (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Shocked![edit]

I am shocked that the NS 999 is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I am not adding it myself cause when ever i add something, i get a comment back that it was not wiki-fied or to the editors standards. References are http://www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/Media/News%20Releases/2009/batteries.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.207.34 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you've been discouraged but please keep trying. I've added it at Norfolk_Southern_Railway#Air_quality_and_fuel_efficiency. Biscuittin (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

added[edit]

I added a to my knowledge full list of inter model terminals as per nscorps website NS INTERMODEL TERMINALS If you see any problems with this please discus it. Thank You --Kopicz 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Heritage locomotives[edit]

I found a couple of RailPictures.net photos of that NS Locomotive painted up to look like a New York Central Railroad locomotive. I know they can't be used here, but it'd be great to find more Norfolk Southern heritage locomotives, and make some galleries of them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

no Canada in map[edit]

The link purporting to demonstrate that N/S has routes in Canada shows only the lower-48 with an indication of intermodal (e.g., trucking) connections to Canada. The other source only demonstrates that it has a license to do business in Canada. TEDickey (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

PRR???????[edit]

WHat about PRR???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camaro fan 1 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"wildly popular" Heritage Units[edit]

I have removed this sentence until it can be supported by citation: "These locomotives immediately became wildly popular among railfans as well as the general public." No matter how much railfans might like NS' Heritage Units, it is extremely dubious that more than a tiny fraction of the general public is even aware of them. PRRfan (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with you, it would have been better to have some citations and references to railfan blogs ot web sites which cover some of the popularity, and perhaps if the original editor who proposed that commentary would rework the text and provide a new edit it would look more informative. Damotclese (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed Canadian Pacific purchase of Norfolk Southern[edit]

How can we address Canadian Pacific's proposal to purchase Norfolk Southern on this page? Should we integrate the information into an existing section, or should we create a new one?TH1980 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I am working on integrating this recent development into the introduction and the "history" section. I welcome constructive assistance.TH1980 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Should we devote a separate section entirely to the proposed CP-NS merger?TH1980 (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
If you edit the page, you have to edit the holding company page too- Norfolk Southern Corporation. This includes the "new" Pocahontas Division and the company restructuring info as well.
Also, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (the parent company) made the attempt to purchase Norfolk Southern, not Canadian Pacific Railway. Canadian Pacific Railway Limited and Canadian Pacific Railway are two different companies; Canadian Pacific Railway Limited owns and operates Canadian Pacific Railway.
And finally, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited made the attempt to purchase Norfolk Southern Corporation (the parent company), not Norfolk Southern Railway. Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway are two different companies; Norfolk Southern Corporation owns and operates Norfolk Southern Railway.
Granthew (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It was getting too much for me alone to keep track of what was up with the would-be CP/NS merger.TH1980 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome, however I think all of the merger info should be on the Norfolk Southern Corporation article only and only small info about the merger be on the Norfolk Southern Railway article because the Norfolk Southern Corporation is involved more in the proposed merger than the Norfolk Southern Railway is. The merger info is exactly duplicate on the Norfolk Southern Corporation article and on the Norfolk Southern Railway. Granthew (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur. However, the separate page for NS Corp. seems to be missing.TH1980 (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I redirected NS Corp to the railroad because NS Corp is no longer needed on Wikipedia since the railroad and NS Corp would have the same exact duplicate history word for word and since on here, railfan users on Wikipedia don't acknowledge that the Southern Railway and the current Norfolk Southern Railway is the same exact railroad. So why the duplicate history word for word for two articles? Doesn't make sense. Now to be honest, I would rather have the the railroad page be redirected to NS Corp instead, but that's not standard practice on Wikipedia on the subjected of railroads. Plus, nobody edits the NS Corp article and only edits are the railroad article. I'm the only one on here that put time and effort in editing the NS Corp article when it was its own page again.

Again- I provided NS Corp annual reports that flat out says that the Southern and the current NS Railway is the same railroad. However, the evidence I provided was rejected. That's why I ended the discussion, including the Pa Lines discussion. So since railfan users on Wikipedia think the railroad was established in 1982 or 1990 which is not correct, well then I mind as well change the article back to where it all started before I edited the page; I did just that. I even trimmed down a little bit of the page after that too and in the process I eliminated the only sentence that clearly states that the Southern was renamed to the current NS Railway.

Now if I didn't start the issue with merging pages and have the railroad have two articles (one for its previous name and one for its current name) and in the process explained the railroad was renamed from Southern Railway to the current Norfolk Southern Railway, that still wouldn't work because the article to the railroad's current name would get changed to that the railroad was created by the merging of the Southern and the N&W which is not true but you railfan users on here believe that was the case.

CSX Transportation is not recognized as the continuation of Seaboard System Railroad either. On the Seaboard System Railroad page, it said the railroad was renamed to CSX Transportation. On the CSX predecessors page, it also says the Seaboard System Railroad was renamed to CSX Transportation. On the CSX Transportation page, it says that the railroad was formed by the merger of the Seaboard System Railroad and the Chessie System. So having two rail pages explaining the Seaboard System Railroad was renamed to CSX Transportation and having one page which happens to be the CSX Transportation page says it was formed by the merger of the Seaboard System Railroad and the Chessie System makes Wikipedia look bad.

It seems that you Wikipedia railfans define the founding of a railroad by what year did the railroad's name and logo came into being. That's not me. I define a railroad's founding by when it was exactly established. If Union Pacific Railroad was renamed to like "National Pacific Railroad" and that's a made up name, you users would probably not say that, you would say National Pacific Railroad replaced Union Pacific Railroad. If you want to create a separate Wikipedia article for the new railroad name than that's fine, but not acknowledging that both railroad names and logos belongs to the same railroad is not truthful, and therefore, Wikipedia's purpose to serve human knowledge will then be dead. It's more than just railroad's changing names, it's about Wikipedia's purpose to serve human knowledge which in one mans opinion is dead.

I flat out know that the Union Pacific Railroad is actually the continuation of the Southern Pacific Railroad, I'm well aware of that. So if you wanted to bend history and keep it neutral, would you say UPR was the dominant railroad but abandoned its corporate structure in favor of SPR's corporate structure under the Union Pacific Corporation, I don't know?

Granthew (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

? Canadian Pacific attempts to takeover Norfolk Southern ?[edit]

Can we change the word "takeover" to either "take over" or to "acquire?" The word "takeover" without the space has a different meaning than the words "take over," however both have a connotation of hostile intent. "Acquire" would be more appropriate since it's corporate multinational merging where presumably there are no actual combatants. What do you think? Damotclese (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed takeover to acquire, however I prefer either takeover or take over. I can't find the difference in meaning between takeover and take over. If you can provide information about the difference between the two pronunciations that will help. Granthew (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
"Take over" is a verb phrase, "takeover" is a noun. So one attempts to take over a company, which can be described as a takeover of that company. oknazevad (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Merging Southern Railway into Norfolk Southern Railway because they're the same exact railroad[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.

The Southern Railway and the Norfolk Southern Railway are the same exact railroad. Both articles were kept separate for heritage purposes due to the railroad operating passenger services under the Southern Railway name and not operating passenger services under the Norfolk Southern name and also because no one made the connection that Southern Railway and Norfolk Southern Railway are the same exact railroad. I understand Norfolk Southern Corporation doesn't recognize that the Southern Railway and the Norfolk Southern Railway is the same railroad; they see it as two separate railroads which is completely untrue. NS Corp also doesn't promote the Norfolk Southern Railway separately either.

All information from the Southern Railway article was transferred to the Norfolk Southern Railway article, now both articles have duplicate information. The Southern Railway article is now eligible to be merged into the Norfolk Southern Railway article.

Granthew (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose because they're not the same railroad, anymore than Central of Georgia Railway is the same railroad as the Southern Railway, or Reading Railroad is the same railroad as the Central Railroad of New Jersey, despite the fact that both were acquired by Conrail. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Your comment is alittle confusing with the CGR, RDGR and CNJ stuff. However, the Southern Railway and the current Norfolk Southern Railway is the same railroad. The Norfolk Southern system was indeed formed in 1982, but it wasn't one railroad at the time, it was two railroads, the Southern Railway and the Norfolk and Western Railway.
The Southern Railway was renamed to the current Norfolk Southern Railway on December 31, 1990 and on the same day took control of the Norfolk and Western. Then finally in 1997 during the Conrail debacle, the Southern Railway, now the current Norfolk Southern Railway, absorbed the Norfolk and Western Railway, ending the existence of the Norfolk and Western and having the renamed Norfolk Southern Railway become the only railroad in the entire Norfolk Southern system.
Before my involvement with the Norfolk Southern Railway article, under reporting marks, it said that the Southern Railway was renamed to Norfolk Southern Railway so I didn't make it up.


This is the article from July 22, 2015 which is before my involvement with the Norfolk Southern Railway article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norfolk_Southern_Railway&oldid=672572397


And here is the reporting marks section of that same article, it clearly says that the Southern Railway was renamed Norfolk Southern Railway, I did not typed that into the article since I wasn't involved with the article at that time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norfolk_Southern_Railway&oldid=672572397#Reporting_marks


Here's a reference that has that the Southern Railway was renamed Norfolk Southern Railway, it's under the Key Dates and Growth in the 1990s, Particularly Through Conrail Carve-Up sections:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Norfolk_Southern_Corp.aspx


Granthew (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Southern was a Class I railroad on its own before the creation of the current Norfolk Southern. If we follow the nominator's reasoning we fall into a slippery slope where all predecessor railroad articles get merged into the successors. This would be counterproductive. Slambo (Speak) 14:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Ditto the above comment with Chocolate sauce! The Nom may not realize that a corporate entity in the railroad world may continue on when no longer an active operation company--primarily as a cash cow landlord to other railroads.

Perfect example is Lehigh and Susquehanna which STILL leases out the trackage NS, RBM&N, CP use in the Lehigh Valley of Eastern Pennsylvania. It's leased to CNJ, PRR, Conrail, and will probably be leasing for the next 200 years, because the rail corridors it developed and now holds rights on are strategically necessary--there is no other better way to connect those areas, so it collects rent from anyone who will maintain them and pay fees.

Then again, A historical company just plain deserves a historical article. SOME PEOPLE want to browse and get as much detail as possible on a company, and merging topics always trashes the historic predecessors--and presents them in the wrong timeline and context.

Merging such as these is always a bad idea. FrankB 18:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, you guys still think the Southern and the Norfolk and Western merged together to form the current Norfolk Southern Railway in 1982 which is false. So I mind as well change the article and say that the Southern and Norfolk and Western merged together to form the current Norfolk Southern Railway which would be a lie.
The Norfolk Southern Corporation was created in 1980 and took control of the Southern and the Norfolk and Western in 1982 but kept the railroads seperate until 1997 when the Norfolk and Western merged into the Southern, with the Southern now known as the current Norfolk Southern Railway.
Why would all predecessor railroads who have big articles be merged into one article? I don't do that. As with the Southern it is different because the Southern and the current Norfolk Southern Railway is the same railroad. However, you disagree and still think the Southern and the Norfolk and Western merged together to form the current Norfolk Southern Railway in 1982 which is false. I even put a link that gives proof that the Southern was renamed to the current Norfolk Southern Railway in 1990 which you rejected that reference. I don't think you even bothered to look at reference either.
You say the norm is a corporate entity in the railroad world may continue on when no longer an active operation company--primarily as a cash cow landlord to other railroads. The Southern is not a corporate entity that is not active and that is a landlord (to other railroads). The Southern is still an operating railroad company, now known as the current Norfolk Southern Railway. The Southern now known as the current Norfolk Southern Railway is not a landlord, it's an operating railroad company.
And by the way, I'm not planning on merging the Lehigh and Susquehanna into another article. And I searched the internet to see if the Lehigh and Susquehanna is still around and got no answers. So if it still exists, than that means the actual Lehigh Line goes from Manville to Bethlehem and not Manville to M&H Junction near Old Penn Haven. So if the Lehigh and Susquehanna is still in existence, can you provide me with evidence of that please? If it still exists, than it would be on the Pennsylvania rail map that was provide by the Pennsylvania government.
Pennsylvania Rail Map, provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation: http://www.penndot.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Maps/Documents/Pennsylvania%20Railroad%20Map.pdf
I already know you would disagree with this, I just wanted to see what you would say.
If you say that the Southern is a different railroad than why did you still left that the current Norfolk Southern Railway was established in 1894 as the Southern Railway in the article but take out the Southern Railway section, doesn't make sense. You believe that the Southern and the current Norfolk Southern Railway is not the same railroad well then you should've changed it to that the current Norfolk Southern Railway was established in 1982 by the Southern and the Norfolk and Western merging together to form a new railroad which would be a lie but you think it's the truth. This why Wikipedia will always be a unreliable source of history.
If I were CEO of the Norfolk Southern Corporation, I would consider changing the current Norfolk Southern Railway back to Southern Railway but due to how Wikipedia users think of their interpretation of history, I can't rename it back to Southern Railway because you would not think it is the original railroad, you would think it is the second incarnation of the Southern Railway and you would then have two articles titled Southern Railway (U.S.) and then Southern Railway (U.S) (1894-1982) or maybe Southern Railway (U.S) (1894-1990) and as CEO I would be irritated because I would also include a promotional campaign with the changing the railroad name back to Southern Railway that explains that the Southern and the current Norfolk Southern Railway is the same railroad. I blame Norfolk Southern Corporation on its part on not promoting the Norfolk Southern Railway separately and not promoting the railroad as the continuation of the Southern Railway.
I changed the article back to the way it was on July 22, 2015 to your liking, now everything is false again but you think the false information is the truth so oh well.
Granthew (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's another reference that explains that the Southern Railway was renamed to the current Norfolk Southern Railway on December 31, 1990, this is a documentary YouTube video. You probably going to reject this reference too and I am not going be surprised if you do!
Early Norfolk Southern - 1985-1986 documentary YouTube video, fast forward to 1:48: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRfudChsQ_Q
Granthew (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I have 8 new references that will back me up, all 8 references are from NS annual reports. Granthew (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It says on the annual reports for NS Corp from 2002 to 2010 that the railroad was renamed from Southern Railway to Norfolk Southern Railway.


2010 Annual Report Sheet on Page 9: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2010.pdf


2009 Annual Report Sheet on Page 11: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2009.pdf


2008 Annual Report Sheet on Page 15: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2008.pdf


2007 Annual Report Sheet on Page 31: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2007.pdf


2006 Annual Report Sheet on Page 30: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2006.pdf


2005 Annual Report Sheet on Page 35: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2005.pdf


2004 Annual Report Sheet on Page 30: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2004.pdf


2003 Annual Report Sheet on Page 23: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2003.pdf


2002 Annual Report Sheet on Page 29: http://www.nscorp.com/content/dam/nscorp/get-to-know-ns/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2002.pdf


Link to Norfolk Southern Annual Report page on NSCorp.com: http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/investor-relations/financial-reports/annual-reports.html


Granthew (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose The obsession with reflecting corporate mergers in article mergers is a flaw which for whatever reason the US railroad articles have thankfully resisted. NS and SR aren't "exactly" the same; one is the corporate successor of the other but it's simply clearer to keep them separate. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It flat out says the Southern was renamed to Norfolk Southern Railway, I'm reading it word for word from the balance sheet. How can Norfolk Southern Railway be a successor to the Southern if they are both legally the same as according to the balance sheet? A company's successor is itself? If the Southern and the Norfolk and Western merged together to form the Norfolk Southern Railway then there would be no discussion on this issue. However that did not happen, but the way Norfolk Southern Corporation did this made people to believe that the new Norfolk Southern Railway is an entirely new railroad, starting from scratch. However, in an age of the Internet, we can now find references that has proof that establishes claims that were untrue now become true such as this issue. By dismissing that the Southern Railway and the current Norfolk Southern Railway is the same railroad which is true by me providing references from the Norfolk Southern Corporation, then Wikipedia loses all credibility of being the world's biggest encyclopedia since it's an online encyclopedia. The same goes for CSX Transportation as that railroad was not established in 1986 and was established as the Seaboard System Railroad. Granthew (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
"Legally" is not the only kind of identity there is in the world; indeed, to some large extent in this, it is (to mix a metaphor) a flag of convenience. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay I'm done with this discussion, it's very sad that I provided evidence from the actual holding company that proves I'm right, but in the end, my evidence gets rejected because in your point of view, you think the Southern Railway identity and Norfolk Southern Corp/Railway indentity determines that the Southern Railway and the current Norfolk Southern Railway is not the same railroad which is false but you think it's true. This is the reason why Wikipedia will always be an unreliable source of information, however the majority of the population in the world disagrees actually and think Wikipedia is reliable.
This issue is not about Norfolk Southern Railway anymore, it's about Wikipedia. Wikipedia was created to update and expand information, not to bias what type of information gets typed in an article. However, my editing on Wikipedia proves that Wikipedia will never live up to expectations as long as it lives and in order for Wikipedia to live up to its expectations, elite editors and yes elite editors need to accept information that gets typed in an article that comes with evidence provided by references and that includes information that comes with evidence provided by references that elite editors don't like. If elite editors don't like the information that is typed in an article but it comes with evidence provided by the references that proves that the information is true, well that's too bad because if you don't accept information that comes with evidence, you are not doing Wikipedia any good on living up to its expectations and making it harder for Wikipedia to achieve that goal. This discussion is "officially" closed, should have never started this in the first place.

Granthew (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


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.

Pennsylvania Lines be merged into Norfolk Southern Railway[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.

I proposed Pennsylvania Lines LLC be merged into Norfolk Southern Railway. All information from Pennsylvania Lines was transferred to Norfolk Southern Railway. Granthew (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Although the content of the Pennsylvania article is quite short right now, it is legally a separate company with its own heritage built from portions of Pennsylvania Railroad. Current practice at WikiProject Trains is to have a separate article for separate business entities, regardless of their corporate parentage, where there is enough source material for the article to pass the WP:GNG. Slambo (Speak) 14:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Slambo -- I appreciate editors working to consolidate articles to reduce the number of pages researchers must bring up when looking for information, yet I have to agree with Slambo that the entities are separate, and, looking at the Pennsylvania Lines LLC page, even though it's classed as Start quality, we should see if editors knowledgeable about the line would volunteer some effort to bring it up to at least Stub. :) So many lines, so few editors. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Merging such as these is always a bad idea. (Does this guy have something against comprehensive coverage? Or does he think we're paying for extra toner and paper? <Sorry, couldn't resist--try expanding articles or adding them, not ruining them!) FrankB 18:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral, only because this holding company, which actually doesn't exist anymore (formally dissolved a few years ago) existing only on paper as a means to facilitate NS's takeover of foremen Conrail lines. It was never an operating railroad in any meaningful sense of the term, and was purely a paper entity. (Same with New York Central Lines LLC, btw.) On the other hand, it does serve as a convenient place to list the assets transferred to NS in the split. oknazevad (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, the company wasn't created just to own Conrail lines and that's it. The company was created for Norfolk Southern Railway to own the Conrail lines that Norfolk Southern Railway wanted so that Norfolk Southern Railway can make the transition of the Conrail lines that they wanted from Conrail to themselves much easier. How can a temporary company be expanded if the history on its Wikipedia page is already complete. Before I put the merging suggestion on the PA Lines LLC article, the last edit before my edit was December 27, 2009 by the wiki bot SmackBot and before SmackBot's edit was November 17, 2008 by NE2 which is a year a part. I actually look at the edit history of these pages.
You honestly believe that the PA Lines LLC article can be expanded, I don't think so. To be honest, the PA Lines LLC article is complete. And you think some other editor will come along and expand the page, I don't think so either. When I read the article, I saw no reason to expand the article because its history was complete.
Again, how can you expand the article of a company that only existed temporary for a short period of time if its history is already complete? Idk? If you think PA Lines LLC can be expanded well how about you expand the article. I ain't going to do that because its history is already complete. These are valid points but in the end these points will be always viewed as invalid and that's a fact of truth.
I already know you would disagree with this too, I just wanted to see what you would say.
Granthew (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
How can you find the list of lines that Norfolk Southern got from Conrail and you have to include the line's previous names. The Trenton Subdivision was called the Trenton Line under Conrail ownership. Norfolk Southern got the Harrisburg Line, Pittsburgh Line, Reading Line, Lehigh Line without the Manville to Newark trackage and many others.
Granthew (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)



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.

Should there be a separate page devoted to Canadian Pacific's attempt to merge with Norfolk Southern[edit]

Well the Canadian Pacific/Norfolk Southern merger saga ended last week. Should a new page be created that is devoted to CP's attempt to merge with NS? It was as noteworthy an effort as the failed Santa Fe/Southern Pacific merger.TH1980 (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there should be, yes. It was a significant enough effort, but also I expect that the effort will be taken up again in the future, give it another year, two years and I expect they will attempt the merger again. Damotclese (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The CP stuff was removed because I changed the NSR article back to where it was before I edited the page. If you want to add the CP stuff back again, well then just find a previous version of the NSR article and just copy and paste it to the current version of the article and that's it. Granthew (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.TH1980 (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norfolk Southern 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}}).

No An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 12:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Norfolk Southern reporting marks[edit]

In the first line of the article it states "The Norfolk Southern Railway (reporting mark NSC)".

<This is incorrect>

The AAR reporting mark for the Norfolk Southern is "NS".

NSC is the AAR reporting mark for National Steel Car.

NSC is used for reporting "Norfolk Southern" stock sales on the NY Stock Exchange, it is NOT used as a reporting mark on NS RR rolling stock.

139.55.177.81 (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

NS Spencer Yard[edit]

In the"General Freight Classification Yards" part of the article, I tried to enter a hyper link to a new article for NSRR " Spencer Yard" in Linwood NC.

I submitted an article titled " Spencer Yard". An editor named Twister Sister rejected the article stating that: Spencer Yard is not notable and that any mention should be a part of the article for the town of Spencer, North Carolina.

Spencer Yard is NOT in Spencer North Carolina! it is ten + miles away it is not even in the same County.

In the main NSRR article under "General Freight Classification Yards" lists click-ons for Enola, Conway, and Luther Yards. Spencer Yard is the biggest NSRR yard in NC. Why is Spencer Yard not notable when these other yards have articles?

There also is an article titled "Linwood Yard" in Wikipedia for this same facility. LINWOOD is the name of the area of Davidson County NC where this yard is located, "Linwood Yard" is NOT the name of this yard. "Spencer Yard" is the official NSRR name for this facility.

Could the "Linwood Yard" article be renamed "Spencer Yard", updated, and have a click-on installed in the "General Freight Classification Yards" section of the main NSRR article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.55.177.81 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Norfolk Southern 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 01:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)