Talk:South Pennsylvania Railroad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry," warns the tag at the top of this entry. Read the entry again. Does it not read like a good story? The tales of the robber barons in the mid-to-late 1800s are stories indeed, filled with great characters, conflicts, and machinations. A dry, formal tone will do nothing to tell the story appropriately. I suggest that those concerned about a more "formal tone" turn their attentions to the 93% of Wikipedia that's pure garbage. --Captadam 02:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

    • I have to admit that's a damn funny edit. Point taken! --Captadam 12:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Penn Tunnels

To split hairs, the Pa. Turnpike only used 5-1/2 of the uncompleted railroad tunnels. The turnpike's Allegheny Tunnel is completely new, just South of the uncompleted railroad tunnel. The East end of the turnpike's Laurel Hill Tunnel is new, South Penn didn't do much digging here, possibly because of a waterfall where they wanted to put the portal. The turnpike tunnel is shorter than the intended length of the railroad tunnel. Negro Mtn., near Mile post 116, and Quemehoning, near Mile post 107, both on the North or Westbound side of the pike, are the other railroad tunnels not used by the turnpike. Quemehoning was eventually completed as single track by a short line logging railroad. JimBoylan 23:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Good info. Incorporate it into the article. --Captadam 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "First" and "Second?"

I'm copying below a question posed to me in my talk page, with my response. It's a good question. Thoughts? --Captadam 02:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What's with the "first" and "second" distinction? It was the exact same company, just under new management. Choess 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well ... not really. Vanderbilt's group picked up an unused charter and used it for an entirely different project. The fictitious person entity might have been the same, but everything surrounding it--backers, financiers, right-of-way, history--were different. Anyway, I was just trying to figure out a way to differentiate between the two because they had entirely different histories. "First" and "second" might not have been the best choice ... perhaps a better solution will arise. --Captadam 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)