Talk:Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad fate: does it still exist?[edit]

Does the Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad still exist? There's an ongoing discussion on this Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad fate topic. Granthew (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article says "Today, the Lehigh and Susquehanna Railroad is a holding company founded in 1837 that continues to lease out the trackage rights for several important rail corridors in Eastern Pennsylvania's Anthracite Coal Region to various successor railroad operating companies replacing Penn Central and Conrail." --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking a question, I decided that should be the appropriate title for the discussion. You can't just put that it is a holding company today, it has to be backed up with references. Granthew (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone[edit]

I find the whole article structure strange. The primary subject should be the historical company; if a holding company has lingered on that should be discussed later and maybe get a line at the end of the lead. There aren't any references except an aside (which is original research) and a link to a railfanning site. The tone is unencyclopedic, idiosyncratic, and conversational. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Doing my best to fix it. Want to help? PRRfan (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PRRfan: Finally got around to this. Corporate history only, which the previous version didn't discuss. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]