Talk:Gandy dancer/Archives/2012

This is an archive of past discussions about Gandy dancer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Term still used today

The term is still used today by railroad workers. My little brother does such a job today, with more modern equipment, but he has used gandy dancer as an e-mail ID and refers to himself as such. 72.205.228.80 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins

My understanding is that the "Gandy Shovel Company", or any other company named Gandy, didn't really exist, and that this historical tidbit actually arises from a fictional account of the etymology. Can someone find a verifiable record of this company?

Another possible origin: (by Pat T) I came across a reference to the term in a book (probably some 30 years ago) stating it originated with the Irish track crews working on the Transcontinental RR (Central Pacific)- rails that needed to be curved would be set up on their side between a tie at each end; men would stand on the rail to bow it, and as two fellows with sledge hammers (one on each side of the rail) would rhythmically work their way down the rail to pound it into an appropriate arc, each succeeding man on the rail would have to "dance" (jump) out of the way at just the right time, like it was choreographed (to the ringing of hammer on rail). It seems the term stuck to track crews thereafter, regardless of nationality or work at hand, as the rhythm of the mutual efforts remained a necessity. Until I can find the source, again (if possible - it may have been a library book or one I've since parted with), I leave it here as 'conjecture'. Further conjecture as to "gandy": it could be a result of the Irish crew boss's admonition to "get handy" / g' 'andy, dialectically speaking (don't just stand there, be useful!), or might (far less likely) bear some relation to / corruption from being a "dandy" - a womanizing man, as these hard living men could be. 206.231.10.147 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, George Gandy owned the trolley lines in Philadelphia. He also was responsible for construction of the Gandy bridge in Tampa. [contributed by 74.33.220.14]

Other Uses

No disrespect to the Gandy Dancer Restaurant in Ann Arbor, but the term is used in the names of countless businesses across the country. It seems a little strange to feature just one.

You're right - a quick Goggleing finds lots of Gandy Dancer businesses. I have removed it. - DavidWBrooks 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Geese

I can give no entomological citations in support of this origin, but there's little doubt in my mind that it's correct. I grew up in East Syracuse, a block and a half from the DeWitt Yards which, in the 1950's, was still one of the largest, busiest and most technologically advanced railyards in the world. As kids, the term gandydancer was no more uncommon or odd to us than busboy was to city kids.

Before pushing the tracks back in at curves, before gandies – which were named for their wielders and not vice versa, before weed removal and other maintenance tasks, a gandydancer was someone who carried the rail sections in and hand positioned them before they were nailed to the ties. Rails are enormously heavy and there's only one way to lift or carry them. A crew of men straddles the rail at rough intervals, reaches down between their feet, grasps the rail, lifts it and carries it thus, bent, with their knees out to the side and their arms between their legs. A crew of men carrying a rail like this looks for all the world like a line of waddling geese. In the early 19th century, these crews were called ganders and laying rail was gander dancing. This was corrupted to gandydancers.

Everyone here knows where the name came from and no one I can find has ever heard of a Gandy Shovel Co. I'll keep looking for any confirming sources. But, I think one look at a crew carrying a rail makes the derivation unmistakable. [contributed by 74.71.76.188]

CBS and Charles Kuralt

I distinctly remember a report done by Kuralt about gandy dancers. This would have aired in the late 80's - early 90's. I don't recall however, if it mentioned anything about the name origin. Least that is how I became familiar with the term. --Brad 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The story was filmed in the 1960's and was replayed in the '90's. [contributed by 74.33.220.14]

Additional info on work songs

Unloading steel rails work song (Lomax collection) - http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/lomaxbib:@field(SUBJ+@od1(Railroad+work+songs)) See also "field holler" and "work songs" and "chain gang" in Wikipedia. Also Leadbelly singing "Take This Hammer" (note the "huh"). http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/leadbelly-take-this-hammer/4761A58CC028AB8BB2634761A58CC028AB8BB263 Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope to continue to work on this article for the next few days. I would like some feedback on the Popular Culture section. Does anyone else feel that most of it is not appropriate? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Pop culture sections are tough- there's a fine line between trivia and valuable reflection of a concept's role in society. Personally, I think everything on the current list is OK, because they reflect that the concept of "gandy dancer" connected to railroads is sufficiently well known that it is used for restaurants, trails, etc. But they're not formatted well, and none of them has a reference, which isn't good. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have long wanted to remove the call that has been in this article for some time, and today I did. There is so little information available that I hate to remove anything, however that call just did not match anything that I've been able to find about the calls. I have no doubt that it is a work song, but from everything that I've read I would guess that it is either a slavery-days song or a prison song. Railroad men were looked up to and respected and from what I've seen they did not sing about just a-working till the grave sort of stuff.

I also plan to try to add a little about the origin of the term using info from this page and from what is elsewhere on the web. Also, David (or anyone), if you still watch this article, I again feel that the Pop culture section is a little out of hand. Where do you draw the line? A ski lift named Gandy Dancer just does not seem appropriate to me. It seems to "cheapin" the article... Gandydancer (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, no discussion or objections... I'm going to delete a few from the pop culture section. I'm still working on getting a few photographs, which incidentally are harder to come by than hen's teeth. Gandydancer (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the removals, the restaurant seems notable enough as an example of the term being used in general society (which is the point of such culture sections) that I think it deserves to stay. I'll return it, and if you still want to remove it, we can arm wrestle or something! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a gurl so yur arms is probly stronger than mine. : ) Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

David I do not understand your thinking at all. You removed a photo of a vintage steam engine and yet you have no problem with an upscale restaurant in an old depot in Michigan which they (of course) named the Gandy Dancer? (grrrr!) Gandydancer (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the vintage steam engine - while a great photo - has no direct connection to the term Gandy Dancer. Remember, this isn't a history-of-railroading article; it's only about the term gandy dancer. The other photos in the article showing actual railroad *workers*, not just a railroad.

Why is that engine shown and not another? Why a train from that era and not another? I see no reason. It's decoration, not information - and this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine.

The restaurant is of interest in this article, I think, because it reflects the fact that the term is still known in modern society, even outside the railroad community. It's a reflect of the modern status of the term; in other words, it tells the reader something. It's information, not decoration. Whether the restaurant is upscale, grubby or anything else is irrelevant.

The photograph of the restaurant is peripheral and could be removed if you think that's appropriate; acknowledgement of its existence is what counts. And if there are other restaurants/hotels/establishments with railroad connections named Gandy Dancer, they are of interest, too - and if there are enough of them, we could avoid individual mention and just have a few sentences talking about the phenomenon as a whole. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree. I would say that in one sense, this is an article about the history of railroading, and that the train photo is very important for the article. I looked at a lot of vintage photos and chose that one because it shows the built-up bed, ballast, and track. It is important to have a visual image of what these men were involved with for eight or ten hours a day. Note that in the documentary, it was the sound of the whistle that jarred the memory of the old man, and the old calls started to come to him. And I would have thought that it goes without saying that we would use an old steam engine from the era that RR work was done by hand rather than by machines.

For a comparison, you might want to look at the "milk" article and note that there is a picture of a cow and a goat.

If you want to add a section with information about the term in use today for restaurants, a trail on an old RR bed, a ski run, etc., I feel it would be a good addition for the article.Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but could we explain in the cutline why that particular picture is shown? That's the confusing thing, I think: - the existence of the photo implies that there is some connection between that line or that engine, or at least between steam engines in general, and "gandy dancer", but the article doesn't back up the implication, just leaves the reader hanging. For example, why isn't there a a picture of a railroad handcar, or a railroad trestle, or any number of other decorative railroad-related items that have peripheral relationship to line workers? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

improving/expanding the article

I did a little exploring of articles that ought to be linked to Gandy dancer. I ran into a problem; many of these links would more appropiately be linked to a category/article called Section gang, and that linked to this article.

I note that there is a red link here for Section gang, along with a link to this article (Gandy dancer). Having two articles makes sense to me; gandy dancer is a slang term for someone who works on a section gang. Presumably there were folks who worked on a section gang, who never identified with the gandy dancer term. So we shouldn't assume that all section gang members were called, or necessarily accepted the term, gandy dancer. I'm thinking it would be good to create a section gang article, and work on the two articles together.

But also look at how many of the List of railway industry occupations#Maintenance of way occupation links are red. Granted, there is some overlap among occupations; yet the railroad fans that i know are so dedicated to their passion, i'm a little surprised that more work hasn't already been done here. Few of the other railroad occupation lists have so many red links. Maybe this is because so many railroad fans identify with the train itself, and not so much with (maintenance of) the track.

In any event, i think the photo of the section gang could be moved to a (new) section gang article. And i'll keep looking for more public domain photos of gandy dancing to enhance this article. Richard Myers (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard you have changed the term to discribe a gandy from rod to shovel or rod. I feel that the documentary has settled that problem because it showed real former gandy dancers using a gandy and it was not a shovel. Also, you may want to add that one of the men did say that the rods were tagged from the Chicago company (if I remember correctly) BTW, I am disappointed that the woman that made the documentary did not post here on the talk page. She may not realize it, but she is presently the world's foremost authority on gandy dancers.Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing i've learned about Wikipedia and other online sites, once something is stated as true, it gets echoed all over the place, and pretty soon it seems to become a self-fulfilling item of knowledge, whether it was originally true or not. Therefore it is sometimes much better to carefully qualify our statements. The choices i've made in the article don't rely just upon the documentary, but rather, on my current uncertainty whether what we're calling the gandy was in fact even called a gandy back in the day. I'm not yet certain about the tool because i've encountered conflicting information. We see the tool in the documentary, but my question goes beyond just what the tool is, to the point of (current) uncertainty about what we should call it. Do we know that it doesn't have some (perhaps subtle) shovel-like properties, that make it more than a rod or a bar? Do we know that it was in fact referred to historically as a gandy?

~~In some research i've noted discussion of a tool that looks like a bar, but has a flattened end that can be used like a narrow shovel~~. [later edit] ...I have determined that the several "modern" sources i've discovered describing railway use of bars as shovels, and shovels as bars, are likely in error. There is no shovel that could stand up to the abuse that lining bars were put through. Significant engineering effort over many decades was expended upon refining the bar to insure that it could perform as required, as well as stand up to the strain of use on the rails... [end later edit] There is a railroad museum near where i live, and i've discussed this with someone there. I want to take a look before i make up my own mind about the "narrow shovel/bar" question. In the meantime, it is fine for anyone to continue to edit the article. My uncertainty shouldn't stop anyone else from confirming something, if they really believe they have a resource to back it up.

As far as the worker repeating the story about the Chicago company, yes, i checked the documentary's transcript and i saw that earlier today. It seems so plausible that people have been confirming it in books, even though we can't really say that's accurate. The worker in the documentary may likewise have been repeating the same information we've heard, yet that information may be wrong. This is an example where we could be more comfortable if the worker told us something we had never heard before, than about someone confirming a possible "urban legend" that may really be a myth.

On the other hand, i've had a fellow historian suggest that such a company may have existed way back before the Civil War, and in that case, maybe it wouldn't be listed in the records. So i think we're still a little up in the air about that.

I have also had several additional sources recommended to me that i'll have to check out at the library, and i hope to do that soon. Richard Myers (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, from my understanding the end of the bar flattened out, but I would say not to the extent that it could be called a shovel. Somewhat flattened would be a good thing to hold the bar's position better, but if it was somewhat larger, it would be difficult to poke the gandy through the rocky ballast. As for the workers "repeating the same information we've heard", I have no concern what so ever about that. They knew their gandys as well as they knew their own arms...you just do not forget that sort of thing! And remember how all the calls came back to them after so many years. I will speak frankly...I do not like it at all that the lede says "shovel or rod". I would like to see your references that say it was shovel-like. Gandydancer (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, the woman that made the documentary called them "lining bars", not shovels. She saw them with her own eyes and I really don't see how you can dispute that. Gandydancer (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I initially missed your specific point, but now i've changed the article. Please feel free to jump in and edit for such improvements as needed. Richard Myers (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard, as you're doing your research would you keep an eye out for another couple of things that I question. At present our article seems to suggest that it was just curves that threw the tracks off. I have come to suspect that even striaght-runs went out as well, perhaps they tended to spread. Another question, it seems that there is "spike driving" and "steel driving". In the tune "John Henry", for instance, he was a steel driving man. I believe that that term applies to "drilling" (as was later done by machine but would have first been done with a hammer) dynamite holes for blasting, so any info on that... BTW, one of your sources seems to suggest that one would have to "waddle" while running the tracks. I've walked a lot of tracks and the ballast comes up even with the ties - that's the whole idea of ballast, to secure the ties in place - and no waddling is needed since it's essentially flat ground. Gandydancer (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

All track was required to be inspected every day, either by a track walker or by the section crew that the track walker worked with. Curves got special attention, but so did bridges, switches, grades, and crossings. Curves were also physically beefed up because of their tendency to go out of alignment. The preferred reinforcement method was using tie plates for lines with heavy usage, and for lighter usage curves were double- or triple-spiked on the outside of rails.

Curves also typically had the outer rail raised a little higher than the inner rail, according to a formula as determined by the section foreman. Also, on curves the gauge (distance between rails) was increased by up to half an inch (depending upon train speed, and the tightness of the curve) to accommodate the turning of the train carriage.

I have found accounts that indicate driving steel is a common term for driving spikes. But i have also heard somewhere what you mention, drilling holes for blasting referred to as driving steel.

The waddling while running reference is interesting (to me, at least) because it comes from a book by Safire, one of the foremost linquists. I wouldn't have included it if it was just a random source. I'm not endorsing his view by including it, in fact, i think it is an example of how even respected linguists sometimes jump to conclusions. And i plan to explore his comment a bit further when i can next get to the library, and then will decide whether i think it adds or detracts. Richard Myers (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you sure are doing some great research work! As you work on the article I have come to realize that chants, long used by black slaves and prisoners, were particular to the south and I have been trying to group the information differently. I may have done some damage to your photo placement. Let me know if you have any problems with my edits. Gandydancer (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is fine. Photo positioning is easiest to deal with when the article finally stabilizes, and i think we have a ways to go yet with this article. Richard Myers (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hobo lingo for track workers

This is an entry from: http://www.angelfire.com/folk/famoustramp/terminology.html

Jerries - Men who work on the section gang. They do maintenance work while gandy dancers work on contract jobs.

Interesting. Hobos, of course, had their own lingo, which sometimes overlaps with common usage, or with that used by the workers themselves. Would be great to discover more about these usages.

First known use of the term

Michael Quinion identified first known (printed) use of the term gandy dancer in 1918:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-gan1.htm

In "How the Irish Invented Slang: The Secret Language of the Crossroads", Daniel Cassidy located a reference in the Kansas City Star, November 18, 1917. He also refers to O Dónaill and Dineen, which may be older, but i don't have dates for those.

It would be good to know if anyone discovers an earlier reference than 1917. Richard Myers (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that he also said this:

But the original sense referred to a worker who tamped down the ballast between the ties using a special tool. This involved vigorous stamping on the tool while turning in a circle, an action which might be taken to resemble dancing.

Sounds like a serious case of MAS to me - he doesn't have a clue about what he's sounding so knowledgeable about.Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"MAS"? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Male Answer Syndrome : ) Gandydancer (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Going to also seek the earliest use of the term "gandy" as used for the railroad hand cart. I've found an example in the August 1931 Boys Life, [1], although there may be numerous earlier examples. If the earliest use predates the term "gandy dancer", that could be telling. Richard Myers (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Could it ever! Exciting find! As you know, I never have been too keen about the idea that it somehow refers to a goose. Words (and phrases) that "stick" stick for a darn good reason. If someone can tell me that ganders used to be called gandys, well OK. But, if they never were, which I suspect, the term "gander dancers" would have been the logical term, since they rhyme well together. But, now... I can believe that the early hand cars were called gandies.... Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

photos

I am going to upload a few photos for this article as i discover them. At the point we have too many photos, we can invite comment and remove some, hopefully retaining the best of the lot to illustrate the article. Richard Myers (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a great photo of gandy dancers from the New York Central Railroad adjusting track, from a recently published book:

[2]

Richard Myers (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be an authentic gandy dancer video: [3]

Richard Myers (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazing! What a great find. Now I finally understand about the "tapping" sound that's been mentioned in some references. One ref also mentioned that gandy dancers sometimes added flourishes to their efforts, and that is visible in the film, plus I can see the opportunity to add even more styling movements as they work. But as usual in our quest, every piece of information seems to bring up more questions: I see that the ballast has been cleared away and the track/ties are thrown up quite violently. I wonder if this was the norm, or was the track also aligned with the ballast still in place. Also, I see (I think it was) 20 men. I do remember that one reference suggested as many as 20 or even more. Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to learn why there was no ballast securing this track. And certainly, the absence of ballast is the reason the rail movements are abrupt. I'm guessing that the track in question was not merely being adjusted, but was actually being physically moved all along its length, perhaps to make room for another parallel track. Otherwise in my view, it wouldn't be worthwhile to remove the ballast.

I believe that in nearly all cases of simple track adjustment, track was moved through ballast. In that situation, the track would presumably move much more slowly (as a number of sources have indicated).

The person directing the work (usually a section foreman) would likely be down the track, as many as a couple of hundred feet. (I think this was mentioned in the gandy dancer documentary, but i don't recall if they explained it clearly.) At such a distance, he could see the line of the track for a good length, and would thereby know which segments needed to be adjusted. Instructions were given to the caller, sometimes via hand signals. Richard Myers (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I took another look. Notice that in the first half of the video, the track is about mid-calf on the workers, almost at knee level to some of them. This suggests that they may have previously lifted the track up out of the ballast. And, notice at the end of the first clip, one fellow with a shovel starts to dig, presumably right where the track is going to end up. So the track is apparently destined for an entirely new, parallel location, and he's digging the new ballast bed.

Then at the beginning of the last half, it appears that the track is at shoe level, but that's only because one worker has his knee bent, and is resting his foot on the tie up until the moment they start to move it. Then, once again the track is at mid-calf level. Since ballast was typically up to a foot deep underneath the track, i think my earlier analysis (that they are moving, rather than adjusting, track) may be accurate. Richard Myers (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Collection of videos related to "gandy dancer": [4]

Richard Myers (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lining bar called a gandy? Haven't found any evidence

I have been examining old railroad journals, page after page. One in particular is interesting, it is an encyclopedia of railway terms published in 1921 (within five years of first printed use of "gandy" as an expression for track workers.) So far i have found no historical evidence that the tools have ever been referred to as a gandy. Indeed, i will tentatively suggest that the first indication i've seen of the term gandy being associated with the railway workers' tools doesn't come until the 1940s, and at that point it is simply mention of the possibly mythical Gandy Manufacturing Company. So i'm thinking (at this moment) that calling the lining bar a gandy may also be a result of that (possible) myth. I have a number of key sources still to check, as well as additional journals, so this conclusion on my part is merely tentative. But i'm mentioning it here, in case anyone else is aware of any historical indication that the lining bar was referred to as a gandy. Richard Myers (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Not going to put it in the article, but here is a sketch of tools (including the lining bar) that i uploaded: railway worker's tools Richard Myers (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That steam-engine photo is really unnecessary now

All the fine photos, relevant to the article, that have been added just makes that photo of the steam engine (discussed above) even more irrelevant ... in my humble opinion, of course. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree. I would like it moved to the Documentary section at the bottom where John Cole hears the whistle blow and then starts to remember the old chants. The train photo is central to this article. The work of all those hard-working/poorly paid workers was what made it possible for that train to run. Remember too, the trains did not stop for them. Their work needed to be done always with the fact that a train would soon be running the track. I find it unthinkable that we would not have one picture of a train. Gandydancer (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK-doke! I did remove the restaurant photo, which I think we all agree was secondary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i think the restaurant photo did not really fit in with the evolving theme of this article. (Such photos are certainly worthwhile when there aren't any other article-related photos...) Richard Myers (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

summary, Gandy Manufacturing Company

Here is a summary of existing knowledge about Gandy Manufacturing Company.

Many attribute the first published source referring to Gandy Manufacturing Company as the Freeman H. Hubbard 1945 book, Railroad avenue. This book appears to copy information from Railroad Magazine, 1940, some of it word for word. Railroad Magazine 1940 points to Gandy Manufacturing Company advertisements in Roadmaster and Foreman, a railroad publisher and journal established in Chicago in 1886. Roadmaster and Foreman had a circulation of just 6000 in 1899. Roadmaster and Foreman was bought by Engineering and Contracting in January, 1906. Copies of Roadmaster and Foreman appear to be quite rare. But it appears that perusing a copy might finally answer the questions about the source for the term gandy dancer. Richard Myers (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The lede

The lede presently reads:

The specific application of the term varies from one source to another. In some texts, the term is described as specific to those workers who built the track.[1] Other texts state that "layers of railroad track are hardly ever called gandy dancers,"[2] asserting, rather, that the job of the gandy dancer refers to "track examiners", ascribing their responsibilities as "checking ties, bolts, track, and roadbed for necessary repairs."

Considering the research we have done, I would now say that we could comfortably say that gandy dancers were not only the workers that built the track. I also do not believe that "track examiners" would be the correct term. Looking it up here on wikipedia, it just does not seem to be a good description of their work. Certainly the tracks were inspected, but gandy dancers were laborers, not inspectors.

Perhaps this information could go elsewhere, but I would not include it in the lede. Instead I would suggest we speak of the earliest use of the term. I found this weekly published in New York in 1918 that tells of "workers wanted - gandy dancers" that I think would go well in the lede. I think the Boy's Life article would go well here too.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QksAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA326&dq=gandy+dancer&hl=en&ei=zP34TNbrBsT7lweJ3LiWBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=gandy%20dancer&f=false

Good suggestions, i think. I'm not going to edit right now, but will try to implement these ideas soon. I like presenting the fact that there are different impressions of what a gandy dancer is. But moving that out of the heading makes sense. (The heading should include a synopsis of the rest of the article.) best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the information is important, but not in the lede which should be a synopsis of the article. I see it as a good example of mis-information, and that is important to the article as we discuss how difficult it is to provide the history of the term. I know from working on my own "Granite" article that when information is hard to come by, one adds it when found but later may decide to update it as new information comes along.

Again, thanks to all the research you have done, my understanding of the term has changed/broadened. I know when I tried to work on the article and looked at all the wikipedia articles connected to railroads, I found nothing on the early laborers, so important to making the railroads run. You'd think that they did not even exist. Even as we now look for photos, there are plenty of white workers that worked in the higher-up positions, but almost nothing of the laborers, and especially so for the black workers.

Many references refer to the low status and low pay and yet extremely hard physical work of the gandy dancer. Then too, there was the view that the workers were dumb, dirty, violent, and so on... The Boy's Life article was very meaningful for me, and not only as it is conected to this article. Anyway, in time I would like to see the article discuss these issues. Gandydancer (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, i am happy to see that the article is looking pretty good. I have taken a sabbatical from Wikipedia editing, waiting until i could find time to visit the Denver Public Library to check out the many references that have been recommended to me relating to this article. Unfortunately, the experience was not at all productive. I checked about 30 sources on language history and American slang, and didn't learn much that was new. I also checked indexes for the New York Times and for general periodicals for the period 1912 to 1922, and found nothing. (In comparison, the search of Google Books a few months ago was quite productive...)

I am thinking of a couple of ways to proceed. I'm going to try to follow up on the Cinnte Dancer phrase. To date, it seems to me to be the most plausible source i've come across. I'm also thinking that paid newspaper repositories (such as the one provided by ancestor.com) might be worth checking out. Richard Myers (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richard, always nice to see you still are watching this article! My daughter Judy is our family historian and she has a paid subscription to Ancestry.com - is that what you're speaking of above? I have her password and I could see if I could find anything, though I'm not sure what I'd be looking for... Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did do a search of Chicago papers and once again - very little information. Searching Gandy Manufacturing etc. turned up nothing. Searching gandy dancer turned up with a couple of hits from the 1950s. One was a three line "filler" that said that a gandy dancer is a worker that checks tracks for loose rails and bolts. The other was a Q & A with an answer "It is thought...perhaps from the gander-like motion of tamping ties". So clearly, already in the 50s the information was lost. Then in the 70s there were several obits that listed occupation as "a retired gandy dancer". Gandydancer (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Whistle

I won't delete this yet - perhaps someone can figure out how to make it work? Gandydancer (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Economic circumstance of maintenance of the way employees

This information, from Harpers, gives some flavor of what many (but not all) gandy dancers faced in 1918.

The original had more paragraph breaks than appear here, and i have italicized the "job ad", but otherwise it is pretty much verbatim from the source.

I originally put this info lower in the article, but moved it upward during edit, because it seemed a natural topic following the lead-in sentence, "The work was extremely difficult and the pay was low, but it was one of the only jobs available for southern black men and newly arriving immigrants at that time."

I had considered moving that sentence into this new section. But i didn't really want to break up the previous section. As always, feel free to rework this or any other section of the article.

By the way, "axle" is spelled two different ways in the article. I didn't change it, because it is in a quotation. Not sure if it was misspelled in the original source. But also, is this a fiction story? Probably ought to be mentioned, if it is. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice addition. I read the entire article and I feel it flows quite well. Just a thought, but it has been on my mind for some time and it is not included elsewhere in wikipedia - a section that mentions how important railroads were at the period in our history when all of the work was being done manually by the gandydancers. It seems that Chicago and New York City were the hubs with hundreds of rails moving in and out of those two cities like a giant spiderweb. Reading of that time in our history I was able to believe that it may be possible that a Gandy Co. may have existed and be lost to history as there were hundreds of manufacturing companies producing track and the tools for maintenance in those days.

A comparison may be seen in my experience when I had an old piano tuned and I asked the piano tuner about the brand name. He told me that my piano was unusually well-made and actually there were hundreds of different manufacturers of pianos at that time, especially in Chicago, and the names of the manufacturers are lost to history, and even more true of the well-made pianos. He could not find the name of my piano listed.

Actually I'm surprised that there is no history of US railways in wikipedia as there certainly are quite a few other articles. It would be an excellent read - see the Colorado Royal Gorge RR, for instance!Gandydancer (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is what a Gandy Dancer really is!

I work on the railroad. From what all the old timers tell me... a Gandy Dancer is the term they used when they had to use a ballast fork to tamp stone (ballast) under the ties. You would have both hands on the shovel handle, one foot on top of the ballast fork tines (just like you would when you're digging with a shovel), and one foot on the ground. As you tamp stone rapidly in that very position, it looks as though you're dancing. Thus the name... Gandy Dancer. Most of the information on here could be used to find out where the term "gandy" came from... but the dancer part... from what I've heard all over the place, is exactly what I just described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.103.247 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable for "dancer". I believe "gandy" is still very much up in the air. Thanks, Richard Myers (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A small mechanical tamper in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzOj-o-WuHE Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And: http://books.google.com/books?id=YddLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=railroad+tamping+tool+ballast&source=bl&ots=2nX4WY0B9K&sig=06J3T_OUBSm08bwLQjWoc2KK5T4&hl=en&ei=zMoqTvy5B6-30AG2-pneCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CH0Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=railroad%20tamping%20tool%20ballast&f=false Gandydancer (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This one is really good: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:1G4oYNnjrjIJ:www.nssga.org/aftre/Technical_Reports/Crushed_Stone_for_Railroad_Ballast_1936.pdf+railroad+tamping+tool+ballast&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjdlDtrJXO0ON_ngT3bfEuYVjP06ETbKNLdZqdY9A-CU3ELfVVmcfPexrCSXvcKoX61LParMzQnpvVhy-SFD0eb2rq7NPIX6u-rA3QKgEV8Zezb_lcl1QTcB0izE64l1T5hbFX6&sig=AHIEtbTrtHANwL3KXumNmvmlIWJaTcMnfA Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, the more I read about ballast, the more I realize how little I knew. When one begins to realize that all the ballast work was done by hand, one begins to realize the immense amount of labor involved. I am thinking that we could include a paragraph on ballast tamping - what do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds worthwhile to me. I'm currently engaged in other work, so please proceed. :-) Richard Myers (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Some new sites

Here are a couple of new sites I found that I'd like to work into the article. http://www.arts.state.al.us/actc/spirit_program/holtzberg.htm http://www.arts.state.al.us/actc/compilation/gandy.html Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo placement

Articles with lots of photos, like this one, can have layout issues because differences in browsers makes it hard to place them in the "correct" spot. What looks good to me may not look good to you, and vice versa. That's why the preferred layout is to place all photos on the right, as noted in the style guide [5].

Even though this can be ugly from traditional layout points of view, it prevents the problem in which lefthand photos (particularly with long cutlines, like many in this article) overlap the subhead title of the next section, screwing up the layout and making the article hard to read. That's why I moved the locotomive photo, but I notice other left-hand pix are causing a problem, at least with my browser and settings.

I think we should consider creating a gallery, moving most of the photos there, and leaving just a few within the text. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that the guide suggests: Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. I feel that the article does a pretty good job of that and I feel very strongly that the steam engine be placed back to where it has been for some time now rather than in the upper right position. I do see your point about the pictures in the History section and agree that perhaps the drawings could be moved to a gallery section. But I will be quite blunt and admit that I will not accept moving most of the pictures to a gallery. Hopefully Richard will check in with an opinion as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Opps! Sorry David, now I see your point (re the steam engine) after I read your edit summary. I wonder if that can be fixed in any other way? Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a real drawback of the wikipedia system, as compared to layout software like Pagemaker. That's why most articles have a long stream of photos down the right side, even though they may not be close to the section they reference. I don't know of a good way to fix it; lefthand photos are often a problem.

Just double-checking that you know what I mean - like at the bottom of moustache which, I see, now has a problem with a left-hand picture (the styles) messing up the text flow. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimmie Rodgers?

I don't see the connection of Jimmie Rodgers to gandy dancers - that paragraph, in my humble opinion, is the start of a discussion of the development of blues music, a vast topic that is WAY outside this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks David, I think you may be right. I thought I'd try it... I was trying to think of a way to bring in the sentence I deleted about influence on later blues... Any ideas? Should I just forget the whole thing?

BTW, recently in a question over my name another editor had just been assuming that I was using the name of the restaurant The Gandy Dancer! In his opinion, the place is that good! Remember when we had the picture and you graciously agreed to delete it - do you have any desire to bring it back? I've had a change of heart and feel that it would be good for the article after all... Gandydancer (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this article has almost too many photos as it is - I don't think a photo of the restaurant is needed, as long as it's mentioned as an example of modern cultural references.

And as for the music references, I do think you might be teetering on the brink of original research and wandering a bit far afield. I think caution might be in order. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)