Talk:Rutland Railway

NPOV Problem?

There's an slight edge to the tone of some of the text here. Are phrases such as, "The strike was brought on by the employees' unwillingness..." and, "If the Rutland local unions had been more flexible they would saved their jobs and their employer's business" appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.43.201 (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above comment, the text "If the Rutland local unions had been more flexible they would saved their jobs and their employer's business" was removed six months ago. Now this has appeared: "Unfortunately, this strike was highly unjustified as the company was attempting to cut costs and increase revenues per train by moving the railroad's center of operations from Rutland to Burlington, which would have increased the size of trains and more efficiently utilized train crew shifts." It's almost impossible to imagine a staement such as "this strike was highly unjustified" passing the NPOV test. User Alco83 has made many valuable contributions re railroads, but this kind of editorialziing is inappropriate.

Also, please see [1] re minor edits -- most of your recent edits, including the above, should not be marked as minor!12.164.63.4 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal. This is certainly something to write about, but not in the way that Alco83 did. --NE2 04:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class I railroads?

I might not have the books right in-front of me but i somehow dough this was ever a Class I railroad, anyone else agree? If so the category should be removed. --Alex at kms (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]