Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle

Change to redirect

@Legacypac and KJP1: I see that a stub of a project I began to work on already existed. As my work has more content I have made the sandbox work go live, and have changed this article to a redirect. For us to meet WP:DYKRULES, we have 5 more days to increase the content five fold from 623 characters (including spaces) & 94 words of prose. As of this notice, my work has created 2478 characters (including spacing & 396 words of prose. Therefore, I can use your help.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I just found this page abandoned. The railway page has some coverage of the structure too. Legacypac (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Railway damage date

I believe the fire damage in the border tunnel leading to the most recent closure of the line occurred in 2009. I must say, I added to the SDAE article that it occurred on January 2010, and someone corrected it to Christmas 2009. Some internet pages say the fired occurred on 2009; I presume that back on 2011, the Ramona Home Journal used my erroneous January 2010 fact to their news article "On Memory's Back Trail: The Impossible Railroad", which is cited in this article. The PSRM said the fire happened mid 2009. Can we change the fire date to 2009? TheGGoose (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheGGoose:, that is perhaps better off on the article you've already edited (according to the diff you provided). While it is related it may fall outside of the scope of the article, unless it directly impacts the section about the disuse of the bridge, which is cited to the 2011 Arcadia Publishing book.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I figured out the border tunnel fire didn't impact the operations over Goat Canyon Trestle, but remembered that the 2008 embargo did so I replaced the fire info with the embargo info. TheGGoose (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheGGoose:, the book used as a reference did not verify the content, at least not on the page the url links to. I have added a new reference which does.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 10:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll take this review, expect comments soon. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Detailed

• The lead is too short. As per WP:MOSLEAD, it should be at least two paragraphs.
• Could you provide a source on who called that SD&AE the 'impossible railway?
• 'during the 2003 cedar fire...operations near the track' This sentence is vague. Could you improve it?
• It is mentioned that the usage of the line ended again in 1983. When did it resume operations?
• surrounding environment-> which one is endangered, the sheep or the trestle (maybe both?)

@1.02 editor: I have expanded the lead, provided a more specific reason for why the San Diego and Arizona Railway was called impossible, and attempted to improve the history section. Please see this diff. Are there additional changes requested?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up in the impossible railway- now there is a duplicate mention in the history section. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: I have removed that duplicate mention, see the diff here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• one more issue- it is stated in 'background' that initially another bridge was the most significant. Did this trestle replace it?

@1.02 editor: no it did not. The Campo Creek Viaduct is close to Campo, California, as seen here, and mentioned by the Washington Post, and in this book, is on the Campo Indian Reservation. As stated in the article the subject of the article replaced a collapsed tunnel in Carrizo Gorge.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I was asking if it replaced the bridge as most significant. If it didn't please remove the mention. If it did, please mention that the trestle replaced it. Thanks. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It did; the article states "Initially, the most significant bridge on the route was the Campo Creek Viaduct,". Do you want something more specific than that?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

it'll be good if you could mention the trestle took over it as the most significant. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 22:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor:Should this change be sufficient?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should, Passing.1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 01:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Civil Engineering Landmark

A reference, Times of San Diego, states that the subject of the article was designated a Civil Engineering Landmark, like the Sweetwater Dam. It is further stated in In Flight USA on page 18. I looked at the website of the ASCE website and did not find anything on the subject of this article. Thoughts on the matter?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominate it to the San Diego chapter of the ASCE History & Heritage Committee and this [1]. I agree with your assessment ... Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Risk Engineer: Thanks for the suggestion. I have emailed them.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Risk Engineer: OK, found some information, though I don't recall receiving communication back from ASCE. It was designated back in 1986, as indicated in this plaque on the following source:

• Amezcua, Carlos (15 November 2018). "SD&A Centennial celebration airs on San Diego's KUSI". KUSI News. San Diego. Retrieved 7 September 2019.

--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Class-A review

This review is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Assessment/Goat Canyon Trestle. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Goat Canyon Trestle

I am nominating this article for Class-A Review in accordance with the instructions. The article was created on 16 February, and was merged with the article Goat Canyon Trestle Bridge by Epicgenius (talk · contribs) & Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) on 22 February. On 15 March it was on the Main Page due to DYK, and was elevated to GA after a review by 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) on 21 March. Article was Copy Edited by Twofingered Typist (talk · contribs) on 8 April. It is my hope that this article can be improved upon via the Class-A Review process, and if passed, later nominated for a Featured Article Review.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(epicgenius (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)) I have a few suggestions:

• Generally, there are a lot of very awkward sentences and I would suggest looking them over. This article was okay for DYK quality, but if I were the GA reviewer, I definitely would have pointed out many other issues with the grammar. The prose still needs a little work for A-class or FA quality.
  • I would appreciate knowing the "many" grammatical issues you found. I could find none. Thanks. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Twofingered Typist: I said "there are a lot of very awkward sentences", not that the grammar was wrong. On the contrary, the grammar is technically correct, but the article just doesn't read smoothly. For example: (epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC))
      • One of these was the collapse of Tunnel Number 15 in March 1932 caused by an earthquake. - I personally read that as "One such difficulty was the collapse of Tunnel 15 in March 1932, which had been caused by an earthquake." But the article's wording is not straightforward.
        • This sentence is perfectly clear and follows on from the previous one, IMO.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • After repairs to the line were completed in 2004, rail usage by the Carrizo Gorge Railway resumed - Or, "The Carrizo Gorge Railway resumed service on the line after repairs were completed in 2004."
        • One and the same, IMO.Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
          • That's what I was saying. They both say the exact same thing. However, one is more straightforward and the other is convoluted. It's like saying "I ate cereal and milk for breakfast at 8 AM this morning" versus "This morning I ate cereal and milk for breakfast at 8 AM". However, most readers would prefer the first sentence, even though the two convey identical messages. epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• In the lead, I suggest moving the mention of the trestle's construction from the fourth sentence to the second sentence, because the current transition is jerky. Like this, "The trestle was built by the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway in 1932 after one of the many tunnels through the Carrizo Gorge collapsed."
  • It makes more sense chronologically to have the RR 1919 construction first I think. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, but the lead is still missing information like location and length, which would support the "world's largest" claim. I was thinking more along the lines of "Goat Canyon Trestle is a wooden trestle in San Diego County, California. At a length of 597 to 750 feet, it is the world's largest curved wooden trestle. It was built in 1933, as part of the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway, after one of the many tunnels through the Carrizo Gorge collapsed. The railway had been called the "impossible railroad" upon its 1919 completion. It ran through Baja California and eastern San Diego County before ending in Imperial Valley." epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• when it was completed in 1933 - who's "it", the railway or the trestle?
  • "Trestle" is clearly the subject - have combined sentences. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • All right, but it never hurts to be precise. epicgenius (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• By 2008, it stopped being utilized for rail traffic. could be reworded as "By 2008, rail traffic stopped utilizing the trestle."
• 200 feet (61 m) in height - better to write this as "200 feet (61 m) tall".
  • The trestle is "above the ground" so used that instead of "tall" which would be used describing a building. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, so 200 feet high? epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• One of these was the collapse of Tunnel Number 15 in March 1932 caused by an earthquake is missing a period.
  • Sorry.Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• In response to the collapse of Tunnel 15, the trestle was built - I suggest "The trestle was built in response to the collapse of Tunnel 15".
  • This wording follows from the previous paragraph, but six of one... Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• In 1951, scheduled passenger service over the trestle ended, with intermittent freight traffic continuing when the railroad was not closed due to damage - This is unclear. Was the railroad sometimes closed due to damage, and intermittent freight traffic used the trestle when it was not closed? Or was it the case that passenger service ended due to damage, but the trestle was still used by intermittent freight traffic?
  • Per citation passenger traffic was discontinued - no reason given. Put a period after "ended". Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @RightCowLeftCoast: Could you clarify this? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Restoration of the railroad did not resume until 2003.[22] In 1999, Huell Howser visited the trestle and filmed an episode about it for the public television series California's Gold. - If you are going to describe this chronologically, you should reverse the order of the two sentences.
  • Combined sentences to maintain logical flow.Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• A HO scale replica of the trestle can be seen in use in the San Diego Model Railroad Museum. [...] At the same museum is a N scale replica of the trestle, based on a 1855 surveyed route. - (1) I'd suggest "The San Diego Model Railroad Museum hosts a HO-scale replica of the trestle." and "The museum also contains an N scale replica of the trestle, based on a 1855 surveyed route." respectively. (2) What is the HO and N scale ratio? I know these are railroad ratios, but what is the actual mathematical ratio? Such a description would be very helpful.
  • There are WP links...but fine for clarity for HO, I guess. The problem with N scale is there are several which would be impossible to add for clarity. Putting HO in and not N would look odd, IMO. Have added "smaller" to N scale to distinguish the two. Readers can use the links if they want more info.Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia links might suffice for C-class or maybe B-class, but not for A-class or higher. A short description would help. It could be very short, like two words, or you can just note that N and HO are rail gauge scales. However, not every reader is going to click on the link; they may close the page, still confused about which scale you're referring to. epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• And also, Engineers called the route "impossible" as it crossed the Colorado Desert and through the Jacumba Mountains.. This doesn't answer why exactly was this route impossible.
• This article would need a few more details to be FA-class, such as a more detailed description of the trestle's design. "Surrounding environment" is pretty short, as is "Replicas". Could more details be added on either topic?

epicgenius (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: RightCowLeftCoast I assume since this review was sent to me I am expected to respond. (I have not been involved in a class review before this.) Please see my notes above. In response to the review several changes were made to the article. Do let me know if there is anything else I can do. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• (Note: I formatted your comments above so I could reply to them easily. epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)) Generally, A-class reviews are more comprehensive than GA class, since any uninvolved editor can leave feedback on an A-class review, and A-class and FA-class reviews are more rigorous than a GA-class review. A-class reviews are basically one step below FA-class reviews, in that in a FA review, it is expected that no important details are left out of the article (as I pointed out above, this is missing some info about the trestle's design). epicgenius (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Your exact words in your initial assessment were "I definitely would have pointed out many other issues with the grammar." I'm glad to read this is actually not the case. I understand the points you are raising concerning the content and it would seem it's now up to RightCowLeftCoast to provide the details needed to improve the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess most of the grammar issues I brought up are regional stylistic differences. But there are still significant gaps regarding the content, which I guess is my main issue. epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Epicgenius and Twofingered Typist: I have made many of the changes that were requested above. As for the "impossible railroad", there is plenty of references about that but that is largely about the San Diego and Arizona Railway. The San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway is a successor railway using the same rails (and the trestle). I can include information about its difficult construction, but there is already a cited sentence in the background as to why it was called "impossible".

As for content regarding the surrounding environment, I created an article Goat Canyon (Carrizo Gorge) which covered that subject. I can include information from it in this article if that is what is needed. As for the replicas, I only provided information about the model railroad replicas that were available from reliable sources. I am sure I can find more, but from what I could find, there isn't much else that is available online. I can speak to the museum and get offline information, but I doubt that primary sources would be good for a GA or better article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits have been helpful. However, I'd like to see more details on the design of the trestle itself. That was my main complaint about the content. epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Such details appear to not be readily available to the public, such as who the designer or architectural firm was, etc. but I will see what I can dig up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I have added all I can find of what was online. I am beginning to contact Pacific Southwest Railway Museum, who has a cache of documents from the San Diego and Arizona Railway in Campo, California. This will require some time to sift through (if I get access) to get the information being requested about specific design documents of the trestle, if they still exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Coverage of the tunnel collapse and the need for the trestle is scant. The trestle also has an unusual fire suppression pre-emptive water sprinkler system, which ought to be covered too. Particularly because, AIUI, this involved having a resident caretaker living alongside it. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: I couldn't find significant information about the 1932 tunnel collapse, and included what I could find online. Having been to the trestle, you're right about the fire suppression system, I will see what I can find.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added information about the SP Tank Car, but from what was available online, only one I would consider a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

World's largest claim

The lead makes the claim that this is the "world's largest curved wooden trestle" but the cited source says it's the "world's largest wooden trestle". However, that source is the North County Times, a small local newspaper, so I'm not sure how reliable that is. Not only that, but I'd like to understand what exactly does "largest" mean: longest? most building materials used? most space taken up? Further Googling reveals the following claims from reliable sources (emphasis mine in all quotes):

• San Diego Union Tribune: tallest curved wooden trestle in the world
• San Diego Reader: the longest, tallest curved wooden trestle ever built in the United States
• KCET: highest existing curved wooden trestle in the U.S. (and "highest" is confusing, because it could mean the bridge at the highest elevation above sea level)

Even so, those are all media companies. I'd prefer a citation to something more authoritative, like ACSE, if possible. —howcheng {chat} 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Howcheng: North County Times, was bought by SDUT a few years back, which itself was bought by the LAT. Therefore, since NCT archive has been taken down, this falls within WP:OFFLINE in a way, although the NCT has been preserved/republished on another webpage (which this article utilizes). I don't believe that ACSE has content about this, as most of the documentation about the Goat Canyon Trestle (that isn't online) is OFFLINE at Pacific Southwest Railway Museum in their library.

Additionally this SDUT article is quoted as

What is the largest curved all-wooden trestle on Earth?
If you guessed the Goat Canyon Trestle in southeast San Diego County near the Mexican border, you get a double gold star.

Are there any other claims refuting what has been verified?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

So then we should cite the "world's largest curved wooden trestle" claim to the SDUT article you just linked then. Otherwise, it's kind of confusing why the article says one thing but the source says something different. Both the SDR and KCET pages I linked to might just be hedging their bets because they only did enough research to confidently state that it's the largest in the US. —howcheng {chat} 23:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I will change the reference then. Here is the diff.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be a good addition if we can add links to some of the other world's largest trestles in the "See also" section. —howcheng {chat} 21:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I have been contacted by the archivist at the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum, who is concerned about the accuracy of the article. He cites some offline primary sources which are within their collection, originally created by the San Diego and Arizona Railway. The article has passed GAR, and most everything is referenced to a primary source.

Here is the conversation I have had so far, with names redacted per WP:OUTING:

Greetings, I am writing you as a member of the San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Wikimedians_User_Group ), and as an editor on Wikipedia. I am seeking information on the Goat Canyon Trestle, in relations to content improvement on the article about the subject ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Transport/Assessment/Goat_Canyon_Trestle#Goat_Canyon_Trestle ). I am wondering if your organization has information on the designing, and construction of the Trestle, and whether I can view it, with the goal of using it as citations on the Wikipedia article. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Hi <redacted>; we have tons of information on the Goat Canyon trestle but none of it is online. If you like, I can look at the existing article and suggest additions as I get time to do the research and provide citations from the archive. It would help if you can suggest the areas you think most need improvement.

<redacted>, archivist

home email <redacted>

Mr. <redacted>,
Any assistance would be appreciated. Here is a link to the artlce ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat_Canyon_Trestle ) and I did the best I could with everything I could find online. If need be I would be willing to travel up to Campo, but would need to plan ahead to figure time and gas, and coordinate around my work schedule.

Hi <redacted>; Between problems with the library email and opening the new addition to our library I am now falling behind in many areas, so i apologize for not getting back to you with more info sooner. Addressing some of the errors in the page:

The trestle is indeed curved 15 degrees, but it is to align the existing tracks from the east through tunnel 16 with the new approach to the canyon through a new tunnel 15 and has nothing to do with wind resistance. When a large section of Goat Canyon slid down the hill in 1932, the old tunnel fifteen entrance was left well below the grade, about 30' to the "north" and in unstable ground. A new right of way was created around the hillside from the old west end of tunnel 15 and a new shorter tunnel 15 was bored through the more stable portion, emerging at grade level but 15 degrees "south" of where the previous entrance had been, hence the curvature.
The bridge is a five-pile open deck wooden trestle built to common standard drawing CS-33 and SP maintenance of way drawing MWD-13260. It is constructed primarily of redwood with pilings adapted from Douglas fir originally intended for ships masts and shipped from Oregon by the SP. It was planned by SD&A Chief Engineer Carl Eichenlaub and is 633' 32" long and 186' high at mid point as originally built. A map best showing the bridge in relation to the old and new track alignments is SD&A# V-2/13 and the fire prevention system drawing is on SD&A H-285. Two tank cars were connected to the fire system, one permanently connected to an automatic detection system and sprinklers and the other on a siding above the trestle which could be tapped for hose use or moved to some advantageous position. The trestle was constructed under SD&A work order WO-1111 and is the largest and curviest example of its type ever shown in Southern Pacific records. It may or may not be the largest wooden trestle still standing in North America.
That should address most of the problem points. If you want to take a stab at re-writing the article with the new information I can do a proof read for you before any release.
<redacted>, PSRM archivist

<redacted>

I believe what you write, but is there a source which I can site. It need not be online, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources

Until someone writes that book or publishes a manuscript, you will have to accept the original source material cited- work order#, map# and such as found in the San Diego & Arizona collection at the Southwest Railway Library division of the Pacific Southwest Railway Museum. There are two published books, neither of which I used, and you might be able to back up some of the information in Robert Hanft's "San Diego & Arizona: the Impossible Railroad" which was published in 1984 and has been out of print for some time. It has a number of errors, but is probably the best so far. The other book is an Arcadia picture book by Reena Deutsch with a similar title. It is current and she checked sources as far as it goes, but it is primarily a picture book and short on text.I don't like to use books for the reason that some untruths have been promulgated for years by authors who are unable or just too lazy to check the actual primary source material.
<redacted>

<redacted>,
Primary sources can still be reliable sources; please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . As such, the entire article is sourced to various secondary and tertiary sources, and thus if there are errors they are unintended and are based on what can be verified to those cited sources. Perhaps a good forum to discuss use of the primary sources would be at the talk page of the article, and notifying the talk page of Wikiproject Trains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains

Therefore, the question I have is can the primary sources from the archive at PRSM be used to cite changes requested by the archivest and be integrated into the article? Or, does that fall outside of what can be verified to the non-primary sources, and those non-primary sources (which may not have the same information as the primary sources) take precedent as is presently the case? The archivest has provided designations of various drawings and plans; are these sufficient to reference for offline sources, even if they are primary?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)