Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 18, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted

Untitled[edit]

had a look at improving it but it's difficult because the meaning is usually not clear.

It appears to be duplicated at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Philippine+National+Railways but i don't know which came first... --Tomheaton 16:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We came first -- there's a little note in small type just above their logo at the bottom of the page! -- Arwel 16:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to do a thorough tidy-up of this page. There may be some chronological errors, however, as the original was not always clear about differences between past and present, and other sources are not easy to come by. In particular: I wonder if all those different classes of passenger accommodation are still operated? Any comments, further info., etc. will be welcome, with a note to my user page. Picapica 18:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Example Draft of infobox[edit]

Philippine National Railways
Overview
LocalePhilippines
Transit typerailway
Operation
Operator(s)Department of Transportation and Communications
Technical
System length1,060 kilometres

Philippine National Railways, also known by its acronym, PNR, is a state-owned railway system in the Philippines, organized under the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) as an attached agency. Established during the Spanish colonial period, the modern PNR was developed only in 1984. It currently operates around 1,060 kilometres of track on the island of Luzon, where most Philippine rail infrastructure is located. Because of this, PNR has become synonymous with the Philippine rail system.

A portion of the PNR network, specifically the Metro Manila portion of the network, is part of the Strong Republic Transit System (SRTS),[1] and overall public transport system in the metropolis. It forms the backbone of all of Metro Manila's regional rail services, which extend to its suburbs and to provinces such as Laguna. However, other than reducing growing traffic congestion due to the rising number of motor vehicles in Metro Manila,[2] PNR also aims to link key cities within in the Philippines efficiently, a goal since marred by the overall degradation of rail infrastructure, as well as a lack of funds to fund the network's rehabilitation. The rehabilitation of PNR, which has been touted by various administrations, seeks to not only tackle those problems, but also to spur Philippine economic growth through an efficient railway system.

References

  1. ^ GMA Launches transit system, Philippine Star, July 15, 2003
  2. ^ NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGISTERED: Comparative, JAN.- DEC. 2003, 2004, 2005, Land Transportation Office, January 23, 2006

GA status[edit]

I have reviewed the article and think it is almost there. The prose, images, references in general all good. I do however have a few concerns, mainly in regards to the need for a few more references and with regards WP:NPOV on a few sentances. As such the article does not yet meet Wikipedia:What is a good article? numbers 2 and 4. A few improvements should bring the article up to GA status. These are in the history section:

Other things that I would recommend would be to improve the image captions, in particular the one relating to Vito Cruz station - Wikipedia:Captions. I would also recommend trying to improve the lead section. In particular add citations or remove the following claim if cannot be sourced - "PNR also aims to link key cities within in the Philippines efficiently, a goal since marred by the overall degradation of rail infrastructure, as well as a lack of funds to fund the network's rehabilitation." Give a reference for a.) the claim to link cities and b.) how the goal has been marred. If these things are addressed I would pass it for GA. LordHarris 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will need to find all the resources that I used to make the article (which for some reason have been lost, but I will look for them). Some questionable phrases will be changed, and I guess I can change the captions. I will need some time to implement these changes. --Sky Harbor 12:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, well if the on hold status ends after 7 days and you decide to renominate at a later stage when youve made the changes, then let me know and I will be happy to review again. Just of note for those pieces of information that your having difficulty finding a reference I suggest rewording the information so it becomes less of an assertation that requires verifiability e.g. rewording of financial difficulties and removing the phrase 'reached the pinnacle of passenger operations' would improve it. LordHarris 11:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the changes per above (second level of bullets). I improved the caption on Vito Cruz station, and I will add further sources on the lead (PNR's goal of linking the Philippines is true; it's in one of Arroyo's State of the Nation addresses). As per how the goal of rehabilitation has been marred, I intend to rewrite the section to discuss problems with rehabilitation instead. --Sky Harbor 20:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok well great effort on all those improvements! With the exception of the two points that you are in progress rewording, the article is GA status. So when you finished rewording those two points drop me a message and ill update the article to GA level. Regards, LordHarris 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only one left...how the PNR's goals were marred. I have to find some way to reword that statement. --Sky Harbor 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of 14:00/2:00pm EDT (19:00 UTC), all issues surrounding the article that were brought up have been fixed (more citations in the lead, and a minor rewrite). I think this article is now ready for GA status. Just waiting now for the signal. --Sky Harbor 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GA status confirmed. Good job! LordHarris 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced statement[edit]

Can someone confirm the veracity of this statement (I know this might be true, but I need sources badly):

The pinnacle of Philippine passenger railway operations was reached during the late 1960s and early 1970s, when there were four daily runs to the capital from Legazpi: one "ordinary" morning departure, followed in the afternoon by the all-economy Bicol Express (scheduled to leave at 15:00), the popular Mayon Limited one hour later at 16:00, and finally by the PNR's answer to the Orient Express, albeit modest by comparison: the Prestige.

If anyone can verify this with reliable sources, that would be greatly appreciated. --Sky Harbor 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current / Proposed / Past / Passenger services[edit]

On the basis of the information provided by previous contributors and what is now shown on the official PNR website I've rearranged the passenger service part of the article to accurately show current services, and also to include information previously provided about future and defunct services. If anyone has additional accurate information, please add with citations. Gubernatoria (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't expect to find citations. PNR's website is grossly outdated. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article delisted from GA category[edit]

This article has just has its GA status reassessed as part of the WP:SWEEPS; the article was found to have substantial problems, especially in the matter of referencing and neutrality. Given the substantial nature of these deficiencies, the article has been failed immediately as it is felt that the necessary improvements required to meet the GA criteria will not be made within a 7-day grace period. However, as there has been some (minor) activity on this article recently, and because it is listed under 2 WikiProjects, if the issues outlined in the reassessment are addressed and resolved within 7 days, then I will undertake an immediate GA review to re-list the article. The reassessment review can be found here. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding this matter. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 08:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem: a mirror of this article is used as a source (Fact-index)[edit]

This article is using it's own version from years ago as a reference (ref [6]), which is of course problematic here. (See: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks why). The source for some of the defunct services of PNR is therefore actually a unreferenced part of the article which has been scrapped after some time, when the article was growing. The article needs a good source on this, f.e. RAILWAYS of the PHILIPPINES (Public, Sugar and Industrial Locomotive Lists) - Reg Carter - Revised Aug 1999. The particular reference and information should otherwise be removed I would say, I think we shouldn't build on an old and removed part of the article. Leodb (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed all references to the mirror and replaced them with ((Citation needed)) where the relevant statements weren't otherwise supported. (e • nn • en!) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is not appropriate about this paragraph[edit]

User:Sky Harbor deleted the following paragraph with the edit comment of "remove paragraph that is not appropriate for the history section". What is inappropriate about this paragraph? To me, it seems perfect for a history section on an article about the Ferrocarril de Manila-Dagupan?Manila Railroad Company/Philippine National Railways. I would argue that we should add it back in, ideally with a citation. Please comment so that we can reach WP:Consensus. Of course WP:Silence implies consent and therefore if no one objects, I will add the paragraph back in.

Apart from the Main Line North reaching San Fernando in the Ilocos province of La Union and Legaspi City in the Bicol province of Albay, MRR had branch lines headed to other areas, like San Quintin and Rosales in the province of Pangasinan, Cabanatuan City as well as San Jose in the province of Nueva Ecija, Carmen and Floridablanca as well as Arayat in Pampanga province, Montalban, Taytay, and Antipolo in Rizal province, Naic and Cavite City in Cavite province, Canlubang and Pagsanjan/Sta. Cruz in Laguna province, and Batangas City and Bauan in Batangas province. All of these abovementioned branch lines were eventually closed and abandoned.

--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is something that I believe is more appropriate for a network section, not a history section. Unless there are dates as to when these branch lines were built, and as to the circumstances thereof (with appropriate citations), it shouldn't be in the history section. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, why not move it into a network section? Or if no time just leave it where it is? After all being "more appropriate" is not the same as being "inappropriate", and these branches are in the past; they are history. Someone took the time to add the paragraph and we should respect their work. We need more Wiki editors. And as far as I can tell, the information is helpful, regardless of where it is. We should not expect perfection in Wikipedia articles. Rather they are all works in progress. It is better to leave good information in the article in an inappropriate place until someone has the time to move it. Not only is the information there but it shows respect to other editors' work.
Are there any objections to restoring the paragraph? --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philippine National Railways. 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))).

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).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Philippine National Railways. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split proposed[edit]

I am proposing to split two sections into separate articles. I think that these two sections should be kept as separate articles because it makes the article too long. I think that the PNR article must focus on the operator itself. —Hiwilms (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rolling stock

This is mostly a list, so I think this should be split into an article named List of Philippine National Railways rolling stock.

a) Arturo G. Corpuz's The Colonial Iron Horse: Railroads and Regional Development in the Philippines, 1875-1935. (published by the UP Press in 1999) This book apparently has relevant information about the Philippines' first tank engines and tendered steam locomotives up until 1935. A 1900s NBL tank locomotive from the Manila–Dagupan era appears on its cover.
b) Locomotive Engineers Journal, vol. 90 published in 1956 for the remainder of the steam locomotives built during and after World War 2 prior to their gradual phaseout by the MRR starting 1956.
c) Reports of the MRR General Manager (1918-32, 1949), images of these reports are found in Flickr.
These sources are all necessary to make the backbone of the steam era section of the new article. Let us see if we can find sources for post-war MRR and decommissioned PNR diesel-powered rolling stock. There are also pictures for these on Flickr but more necessary are more formal sources which I haven't found as of date. For now, I shall work on a new sandbox page to organize the general specifications for rolling stock based from articles from UK railway operators and Israel Railways. Raku Hachijo (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 2021 Update: I have managed to find almost all information about PNR's historic rolling stock. While a lot of information are still missing (such as the 110 class locomotives from Alco Rogers), I believe this is enough to begin with a new article. Raku Hachijo (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liveries

This is about paint schemes. This could be expanded on an article named Philippine National Railways liveries by adding more references.

I agree with this proposal; 1) the Rolling Stock page can lead to its separate articles. 2) PNR as an operator must be prioritized in the page of the same name. 3) A reader who will go to this page must not end up seeing portions that might be too cumbersome; hence while liveries are notable they must have their separate page for better organization. Pinging other users for thoughts: @Korean Rail Fan, Truflip99, RioHondo, TagaSanPedroAko, Howard the Duck, BicolExpressHunter, and AAlejandrAwr: ((u|Koressha)) {interact|ambags} 07:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did some quick search here on Wiki and I think this would become somewhat similar to the case of Amtrak. It has separate articles for its rolling stock and paint schemes. —Hiwilms (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Itsquietuptown: Of course. We need some more references once we split these. But yeah; the main goal here is to focus the PNR article on the operator itself. Pinging @Koressha: Maybe you have some references to add? HiwilmsTalk 07:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hiwilms and Itsquietuptown: Regarding sources for liveries, I haven't found safe ones—those are, verified from archives/museums and not of individual persons. Though, these may be useful: 1) photographic sources by scanned archival news clippings and/or photographs taken decades ago are strong evidences in verifying that the former liveries exist; an example is this blog by PRHS with files on it, or a bunch of photos on Flickr (provided there is permission in good faith). 2) If there are available copies on the Web and/or libraries, then I can help on the lookout for documents/files that can further support the livery changes as part of MRR/PNR's dieselization and further development wayback. ((u|Koressha)) {interact|ambags} 08:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though if we can agree that photographic evidences alone can be just as verifiable as I mentioned above, then there's a lot of them, good for footnotes. ((ping|Koressha)) {interact|ambags} 05:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, contrary to what I mentioned above, Template:Cite AV media can be handy in this "Liveries" page. Found myself spending the whole afternoon reading about citations, hahaha. And then again, to fill the page with actual photographs, we must obtain permission in good faith from the original owners; consequently these must be used under applicable licenses in Commons. ((ping|Koressha)) {interact|ambags} 09:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transportation management[edit]

The first commercial line (ferrocarril line) was opened in Bagbag, pangasinan 158.62.55.69 (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories