Jump to content

Talk:Reporting mark

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

Caution about adding reporting marks

[edit]

There are many, many more than are listed here with the initial checkin. Please add only those reporting marks that are or were recognized by the AAR as official markings for rolling stock (e.g. NW), and not abreviations for railroads (e.g. N&W).

Do we have anywhere to put those abbreviations? —Morven 19:01, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Not that I've seen beyond putting the abbreviation on the appropriate railroad page. Either add them to Rail terminology or start a new page like List of rail transport abbreviations. I like the former solution better than the latter, tho. slambo 00:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

When first used?

[edit]

When were reporting marks first used, and was it a quick phase-in, or was it not until a while later that every company used them? --SPUI (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that the first "official" reporting marks were issued and used beginning in 1934, when the AAR was created. But, there are a number of photos out there that show rolling stock older than that with what look like reporting marks, so they were probably standardized with an earlier organization (maybe the American Railway Association or the USRA?). slambo 18:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense edits

[edit]

Could somebody check out all of the 25 February edits by 66.227.205.251 to the lists of reporting marks? They look like they might be nonsense edits, as LIRR is almost certainly Long Island Railroad and that IP has a history of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.112.66.25 (talk • contribs)

Checking... Slambo (Speak) 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I've looked at so far are not what I would call vandalism, but misunderstandings. The added listing for CHS, for example, is correct as far as I can tell, just the name in the link is longer than what we normally use for a railroad name. The LIRR listing appears like a misinterpretation; as you can see on [1], the railroad uses LIRR on its equipment, but it's actually LIRX according to the photo index page. While the Long Island Rail Road could be using a different reporting mark now, it seems unlikely. Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... STB docket number 33936 (summary PDF: [2]) uses "LIRR" as the abbreviation for the railroad name, but doesn't explicitly list it as the official reporting mark. Slambo (Speak) 14:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as an interesting side note, I found one page that mentions all of the short line railroads that IP address added/modified in one legal document: Employer Status Determination from the Railroad Retirement Board. Slambo (Speak) 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to [3], that IP address is located in Michigan. Taken together with the information in the RRB document, it seems likely to me that this editor is employed by or is in some way associated with the Adrian & Blissfield Railroad. This would seem to fit with the pattern of edits that I see. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful list

[edit]

[4] pp. 2-4 looks useful for purposes of which railroads have marks and which old marks are now owned by others. --NE2 16:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail Inc.

[edit]

After studying over some references, I'm rather curious if it's appropriate on an encyclopedic standpoint for this corporation to be mentioned inside an article about AAR railroad reporting marks, especially when Rail Inc.'s FindUs.Rail database is only a look-up for unrelated Universal Machine Language Equipment Register (UMLER) information and is strictly for interchanging common carriers. Can anyone here, by chance, offer some recommendations?

Perhaps we can even make a new article for Rail Inc. so it won't intervene and cause confusion among readers with the two databases. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any references for them being different? According to [5], a reporting mark is "assigned by Railinc’s Business Services Division to identify interchange equipment". UMLER very clearly has private carriers in addition to common carriers. --NE2 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any non-AAR references, that say that Rail Inc. is the one and only source for reporting mark information? WuhWuzDat 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link I provided just above: http://www.acacso.org/ReferenceGuide/IndustryTerms.pdf . (By the way, it's one word, Railinc.) --NE2 23:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evening NE2, you seem to have really missed my point here, my topic was simply about splitting two different subjects into their own articles. But if you'd like my honest good faith opinion on that matter, look back at the reference in which you just supplied, it clearly states there are two different definitions of the term; hence my reasoning for starting this purely harmless discussion. One term indicates markings are assigned by Rail Inc. to identify interchange equipment (including those used by private carriers), where as the other term states actual railroad marked equipment is assigned by the AAR. I'll even list them here so others can review this:

Reporting Mark
A two to four alpha character assigned by Railinc’s Business Services Division

to identify interchange equipment. The equipment identified can be railcars, trailers, chassis or containers. The reporting mark also identifies the entity which car hire receivables are reported to. Railcar associated marks are listed in the Official Railway Equipment Register, and Intermodal associated marks are listed in the Official Intermodal Equipment Register.

Railroad Marked Equipment
Railroad marked equipment is all equipment that bears a reporting mark that has been assigned by the AAR to a railroad. All railcars are railroad marked

equipment

In this case, we should theoretically rename the article to "Railroad Marked Equipment" and create a new article for Rail Inc.'s reporting mark system, which was the reason I brought it up. But alas, we also have to consider this may become a practicality issue as we'll have different information bases which all revolve around the same concept.
My simple solution should be that the "Reporting mark" field used in all railroad articles continue to be utilized for what it was intended for, which are markings derived from any and all known official databases to identify an operation, regardless if it comes from Rail Inc.'s UMLER or the FRA's "railroad codes" listing. Such official information alone would be more than enough to warrant use inside an encyclopedic article, and thus I just can't see why the matter would be an issue; if we must repurpose the "Reporting mark" paremter to reflect this, then this is what should be done. All I'm asking is for assistance to make these articles better for Wikipedia. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FRA's "railroad codes" are not, and have never been, reporting marks. You're not going to convince me that CSX's reporting mark is CSX, so don't try. --NE2 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect NE2, an improper lack of good faith in these matters may not solve anything. My message was not read above, it isn't my intention to start any type of conflict and I haven't seen anyone whom has claimed CSX was an UMLER reporting mark above; you should realize it has always been CSXT. After presenting the two definitions above from the supplied source, I offered my solution for railroad articles that do not have Rail Inc. UMLER identification markings. So I'll say again, my simple suggestion is to either create an entirely new parameter for federally sourced identification marks to recognize railroads that do not take part in interchanging freight service, merge both official sources into a generic template named "Railroad mark", or create a separate article between the two terms.
Either way, something must be done to resolve the subject at hand without dismissing the issue. Please take this into regard for the better of Wikipedia. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's a question of whether the FRA abbreviations actually matter. All I've seen them used as is convenient abbreviations. --NE2 11:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general courtesy note, further discussion relating to this disputed topic has taken place at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z Markings

[edit]

This article states that the AAR issues Z markings to trailer owners, but the truth is these trailer markings fall under the terms and use of Standard Carrier Alpha Codes in which they derive from. Railroad-related wise, Z markings appear to be assigned to either non-revenue railroads or private companies in which do not have their own railroad equipment, though unfortunately there appears to be no official source detailing its formal use. Here are some examples of these markings on locomotives: [6] [7] [8]

The Federal Railroad Administration also recognizes Z markings for multiple museum operations, such as the Monticello Railway Museum (MRMZ) as an example, transit companies which do not interchange with other carriers such as Regional Transportation District (RTDZ), and various non-carrier industrial systems such as coal mines with their own trackage. I recommend this section be re-written inside the article, or at least append the [citation needed] tag to this information for the time being. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually [9] does a good job of including "Z" marks; try ATLZ or HOWZ. According to [10] (warning: not a totally reliable source), the AAR did in fact assign the "Z" marks. --NE2 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well my inquiry was in regard to the use of these markings in general railroad applications, Rail Inc.'s UMLER database only seems to cover those used by Standard Carrier Alpha Codes which are trailers. We also should not take the latter into faith if everything else besides UMLER information are considered unusable in an encyclopedic article. TimberWolf Railz (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is a reporting mark is usable, whether the source is Railinc, the Official Railway Equipment Register, or another reliable source. --NE2 11:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for an early image?

[edit]

From the 1912 ORER: PTX 1013, MDTX 30284 --NE2 18:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reporting mark. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 22:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reporting_mark&oldid=1205042005"