Comments.
"The sturdiness of the trestle was a major reason Conrail closed the Wallkill Valley rail line": well, it was really the lack of sturdiness, or concerns about the sturdiness, that led to the closing. I think this should be rephrased. Same issue at the end of the "Active rail service" section.
"After it was seized by the county in 2009": suggest adding "for unpaid taxes". I also think the way the switch from past tense to present tense is handled in that sentence is a little odd: how about "It was seized by the county in 2009 for unpaid taxes, and is now being renovated as a pedestrian walkway for the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail"?
The infobox says it crosses the creek but doesn't it also cross the canal? And the first sentence of the Construction section says it crosses the Wallkill river, and it apparently also crosses NY 213 -- the article says the highway is "underlying". I'm not sure if any of these contradict each other -- maybe the canal and river are the same thing -- but shouldn't they all be listed in the infobox?
- The 413-foot bridge over the Wallkill was in Springtown. I only mentioned it because it allowed the rail line to reach Rosendale where it did, on the west side of the Wallkill. In the area where the Rosendale trestle is, it's only the Rondout Creek (though it's at a point where the Rondout and Wallkill are concurrent, and some early sources may refer to it as the Wallkill). The canal ran along the side of the creek (mules would walk along it pulling the barges on the creek), but it was pretty much obliterated during a series of flood control projects in the late 1960s. Route 213 definitely does run under the trestle, so I put in in the box. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's great information, and worth adding to the article. Rereading the sentences about the Springtown bridge I can see I misread it, but since the reader doesn't know where Springtown Road is, would it help to make it something like "began building a 413-foot (126 m)[4] bridge at Springtown Road, south of Rosendale, to cross the Wallkill River" or "to cross the Wallkill River and enable the line to reach Rosendale"? The next sentence is just about financing, and the next paragraph talks about bridge construction, so it's really quite easy for a reader to assume all these are the same bridge. Some additional material after the notes on the Springtown Bridge explaining that this bridge enabled the railroad to reach the point where the Rosendale Trestle would be built, and also clarifying what the obstacle was at that time -- the creek and canal, but presumably not US 213 back then -- would allow you to add the other information. Then a note later about the flood control projects would clarify what the bridge crosses now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, but none of the sources I have for the flood control projects specifically talk about the canal (the canal's land may have been already appropriated by locals long before the flood control projects, because the canal closed in 1910), so it would probably be OR to mention that. All I know for certain that the canal route (visible along the creek here) no longer exists. I added in the infobox that it formerly crossed the canal. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the old map of the original rail line, but it's hard to read at that size. I'd suggest adding a "250px" parameter so the reader doesn't have to click through.
I think "persistent problems with quicksand" would read better than "persistent quicksand".
"the longer spans were equally 105 feet (32 m) in length": "equally" is an odd word to use here; do you mean "each"? If so I think "each" is a better choice.
"By this time, trains were running regularly to and from Kingston": this seems an odd thing to say, since presumably no train could have reached Kingston from Montgomery till the final section of track was completed. Does this mean that regular train services commenced as soon as the track was completed?
"He claimed the purchase granted him the right to "restore rail service on the whole Wallkill line", and joint ownership of Conrail. Plans to restore service subsequently "didn't pan out".' I read this twice before I realized that Rahl must have been, to say the least, a little eccentric. You have this phrased in a fairly deadpan way right now; could you point up the bizarreness in these sentences? I don't know exactly what the sources will support, but how about 'He claimed the purchase granted him the right to "restore rail service on the whole Wallkill line", and joint ownership of Conrail; these grandiose claims were ignored by Conrail, and in Rahl's words, his plans to restore service "didn't pan out".' Or if you can't say "ignored by Conrail", can you say "ridiculed in the local press"? Or something else to nudge the reader?
- The "didn't pan out" part was the author's statement, not Rahl's. He wasn't really ridiculed, the papers at the time of the purchase treated him like a savvy real estate developer who got a great deal, and subsequent articles about the bungee jumping make him out as a businessman who was prevented from operating. The sources never really discussed him as an eccentric, though he's obviously an interesting character. I thought a deadpan style would be the best manner in which to present the content in its totality, in a completely non-POV way. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see why you did it that way. I agree the bungee jumping is a perfectly plausible idea; but I would have thought that suggestions that he could restart train service would have been met with incredulity. Well, if the sources don't support it, I guess we have to leave it at that, so I'll strike. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Catskill Mountain Railroad is a heritage railroad founded in the early 1980s that runs for about 1+1⁄2 miles (2.4 km) in Kingston, just north of the trestle. I'll admit that when I first found out that a guy bought the Wallkill Valley rail corridor for one dollar and thought he could restart rail service or turn it into a bungee jumping platform, I was just astounded. But when you look at the whole thing, it's really another tragic case of a man who thought he struck it rich, but was driven to bankruptcy by a cash cow that delivered only sour milk. A local resident told me that the reason he only put decking on half the bridge was because the state wouldn't let him build anything over Route 213 without paying a great deal of money. I'd love to include this interview, but I don't think its a very reliable source.--Gyrobo (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fascinating. I enjoyed that link, but as you say it's not a reliable source in our sense. A pity, as I'd like to hear more about that; was he one of those crazies who do things like attempt to declare an independent state in the middle of Texas? Or was he truly a reasonable business brought down by a lethargic and corrupt bureaucracy? My money is slightly to the crazy side of the middle of that line, but we'll have to wait for a reliable source, I guess. Thanks for the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 17:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt we'll hear any more about him until long after fundraising for the bridge renovation is over, which is a real shame. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]