Talk:Schuylkill River Passenger Rail

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.

Philadelphia Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia 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.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed, not approved?[edit]

The article as written now sounds as if the System is approved and will be constructed as described. This is (from my understanding from newspaper articles) untrue and a new report with a new proposed system is due this coming September. Also, a mention that the previously submitted plan was deemed "not reccomended" by the FTA is warranted. Overall, this should require a rewrite to reflect the proposed nature of the subject matter. Skabat169 14:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the Gov'nuh is saying this will never happen [1][2]. Is there any further support of this claim, or does this seem to be nothing than pre-election Rendell jargon to try and spark an outcry for transportation funds so that he can come and save the day at the last moment? --Thisisbossi 17:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oaks[edit]

The big official studies have a station in Oaks, but that seems to be missing on other diagrams, and the article's station list. Does anyone know if there was a specific change, or if this is a mistake made by someone assuming the use of only the old Reading Company track? Perhaps the change was dictated by the partial collapse of the Phoenixville Tunnel that would be needed to include Oaks. --J Clear (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated proposals[edit]

The Amtrak proposal really has nothing to do with this, except that both propose restoring service to the ex-Reading main line. Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein, the Cross-County Metro is/was its own thing and never got all that far in the developmental stage. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved and reorganized this article to generalize it for all proposals for Philly–Reading train service. There's no reason to have an article for every abandoned proposal. This is very similar to what I did for Front Range Passenger Rail. I'll continue to improve this article as I have time, as there is a lot of unsourced material and missing info. QuincyMorgan (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title implies that it's a proper name. I'm also working separately on an article for the old Pottsville line. I don't know that there are really sources to write about any of the other proposals (besides SVM) in any depth. Mackensen (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route Map[edit]

This proposed Amtrak train route should have a route map. 98.115.168.68 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]