Re: (erielack) Lackawanna and Pittsburgh

["David Green" <"davandli_@_ptdprolog.net">]

Mike:

    The "h" in Pittsburgh contention is not exactly true.  Pietrak's book
clearly shows a Lackawanna & Pittsburgh timetable dated July 17, 1888, on
p.14.  In this, Pittsburgh has the "h".  Page 177 shows an 1885 L&P pass
with the same evidence.
Page 184 shows a Form A37 (?) dated May 9, 1887, with same.  Page 190 shows
a car mileage report (Form A64) dated October 9, 1886, with same.

You have been duly flamed.

- -D. Green, on the K&P


- ----- Original Message -----
From: <"MDelvec952_@_aol.com">
To: <"kdegroff_@_starpower.net">; <erielack@internexus.net>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: (erielack) Lackawanna and Pittsburgh


> In a message dated 5/12/00 11:31:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> "kdegroff_@_starpower.net" writes:
>
> > Off of another railfan site, I noticed this question about the
> >  Lackawanna and Pittsburgh RR.  I never heard of this line.
> >  Anyone else hear of it?  Where did it run?
> >
> >     Can anyone tell me what road the Lackawanna and Pittsburgh (of the
> 1800s)
> >     was folded into, or if it went out of business on its own?    John
> Phillips
>
> The Lackawanna & Pittsburg became the Pittsburg, Shawmut & Northern, which
> became the Pittsburg & Shawmut. Genessee & Wyoming bought the P&S in the
> 1990s.  There's no "H" in Pittsburg when referring to these and other
lines
> of that vintage.  The H was added to the City name after these companies
were
> formed.
>
> Hope this helps, and you can pass it along to that other list if you want
>
>                                         ....Mike
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net
>


 ------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the erielack photopage at http://el-list.railfan.net

------------------------------