Talk:Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 5, 2013

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.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

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.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:NJTransit-Lackawanna-Cut-Off.

Re-opening to Andover delayed

According to the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA) that oversees disbursement of federal funding for the Cut-Off, the completion date for the Andover section has been pushed back to September 2016, assuming no further delays involving environmental permits, which as of this writing are still outstanding. Presumably, resumption of service will follow sometime shortly thereafter. The pricetag for the Andover section has also increased to $61.1 million, reflective of the additional cost of repairing Roseville Tunnel. I'd propose to update both articles on the Cut-Off with the 2016 date (mentioning that it is contingent on the permits not being delayed) once the environmental permit comment period is up on July 3, 2013.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2016 is still good according to my sources; work should begin again this fall.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The record on past station

The table of anticipated stations contained some errors. It said that Analomink (NJT station) was at the site of an old station. However, there is no record of such a station. Current maps indicate that the area is that of new developments.

By contrast, period train route maps and schedules indicate that these were the station stops from Scranton, east to the Pennsylvania-New Jersey border: Scranton, Moscow, Gouldsboro, Tobyhanna, Mount Pocono, Honeyville, East Stroudsburg, Delaware Water Gap, Portland. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FdCP4OhFLTA/TR0FO4WzyZI/AAAAAAAAAIA/CHftNUD2Aes/s1600/dlw008.jpg http://viewoftheblue.com/photography/timetables/DLW042554.pdf Dogru144 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ on Analomink. The station was decommissioned, probably in the 1920s. I'll need to confirm the exact date. But it definitely was a station stop. As for the other stations in the list, in west to east order, Nay Aug, Cresco and Henryville (Honeyville?) are missing also.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Taber book on the DL&W states that the agent at Analomink station was discontinued 1930-34.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use map?

Is this map OK for posting at Wikipedia?: As it is a map, rather than a diagram, it is better for getting context. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/06/12/lackawanna-cutoff-program-cleared-for-engineering/ Dogru144 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would need NJ Transit's approval for using the map. It's a good one, if we can get that approval.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lackawanna Railroad's flagship train removed from article?

The train line segment carried the Lackawanna Railroad's flagship streamliner, the Phoebe Snow. This gives the article some historical relevance and context, that it once carried passengers beyond the Poconos and northern New Jersey suburban market. So why was the following erased from the article? The Lackawanna Railroad's flagship Phoebe Snow train between Buffalo and Hoboken traveled via the Cut-Off. Dogru144 (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sentence has been placed back in the article. I have moved it, but retained it since I agree that it's important to mention.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single track service?

The photos suggest that this is to be a single service line. This is incredible, as the sections east of Dover, NJ are heavily traveled, and with one track, trains are due to be infrequent.Dogru144 (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates 18 trains per day. This will be difficult with one track.Dogru144 (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different sections of the article assert that there will be six trains in a direction per day; others say nine per day. Is the former the case while the train only operates in New Jersey, and the latter once the train begins service into the Poconos?Dogru144 (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed any mention of the exact number of trains per day in the article. It's confusing and it's really unclear as to how many trains will be run anyway, at least at this point in time.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approach near NJ terminus needs clarification

The article describes passengers' transfer to local transit in Hoboken. Currently, the Dover service, currently on the eastern part of this line, runs to Hoboken alternating with NYC's Penn Station. The article, as written, lends the impression that there are no plans to run this train through Secaucus Junction into NY Penn Station.Dogru144 (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown Direct service is mentioned from Andover. The exact break-down of MD versus non-MD trains is unknown right now.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phasing

The way the article has evolved, and information that I've culled from several sources, strongly suggests that there are going to be at least three phases of construction for service to Scranton: Phase 1 (Andover); Phase 2 (Northeastern PA); and Phase 3 (Scranton). There may be more sub-phases, but these are the three main "buckets" into which the service is most likely to fall. Also, for the benefit of the reader, I think it makes more sense to do this because the old text was implying that there may be additional phases. Of course, this can be revised as the project further evolves. One fly in the ointment is that the federal study states two phases (Andover/Scranton), but that's not realistic based on everything that I'm being told behind the scenes. I suggest we keep it as three phases. In a sense, this article's phases 2 and 3 equal the Federal study's Phase 2 (2a and 2b?), so I don't think we're violating the spirit of study if the final phase (Phase 3) is Scranton. Any comments on this are most welcome.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference No. 6

I may have even been the one who placed this here. This states that Conrail had plans to relay the stick rail removed from the Cut-Off as continuously-welded rail (CWR) elsewhere on its system. I've done further investigation and my sources question the validity of this claim by Conrail: the rail was already 40+ years old when it was removed, and it is doubtful that it would have met the CWR specifications of the time. Right now, the statement is "buried" in a footnote. I'd be inclined to leave it there since it appears to be true that Conrail claimed it was true. But, I would propose that the statement be amended to read something like: "Conrail claimed that it needed to re-lay the track elsewhere" be added to the footnote.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-title article

I suggest on renaming the article to Lackawanna Cutoff project or Lackawanna Cutoff Project. When the route reopens, it's not gonna be consider a different rail line (different incarnation), it's gonna be considered the same rail line (same incarnation) thus the historical article will continue and the project article would stop. Also, the project article would probably be merged into the historical article when the route reopens. Also, part of the line that is currently being used as a storage track, shouldn't that be considered an official reactivation of the line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.58.49 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lackawanna Cut-Off MOS Trackbed Restoration Project

The official project name is "Lackawanna Cut-Off MOS Trackbed Restoration Project". Article title should be changed.

Article should be retitled to Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. Granthew (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726012820/http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=355&Month=2&Year=2003 to http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=355&Month=2&Year=2003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak Interest

CitizensVoice.com just released this article detailing Amtrak's new interest in providing service to Scranton along the Cut-Off route. How can we best implement this information into this article, considering this means Amtrak may provide funding (federal funding!) for this project? DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Dogru144 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion discussion

Hiya, @"Jolly J" Fennimore:. I understand you're new to Wikipedia; welcome! I noted your reversion of my edit. It's customary to leave an edit summary for each edit, but particularly when reverting an earlier change. Among other things, it helps save everyone time. Would you please explain why you decided to revert the edit, and as well, why you decided to revert the entire edit, which made changes to several unrelated sentences? PRRfan (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Like you said, I am new. I was okay with the edit, except that you took out the name of the community group that was protesting. I figure that if they took up a bunch of their time trying to do something, they should be recognized. I like Wikipedia a lot. I just don't know the protocol or customs or whatever you want to call it. Like I said, I wrote what I wrote as best as I could, I would have just added the name of the community organization, but there was no way I could figure out to do that without making it grammatically incorrect or not understandable. If you can figure out how to revert back to your edit, but with adding the name of the organization, be my guest. I just couldn't figure out how to do it. Thanks for guiding me on Wiki-customs! "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jolly. I'll add back the unrelated parts of the edit. I'll also readd the name of the organization, though I am unconvinced that an ineffective group needs to be named in an encyclopedia article. In any case, keep up the good work. PRRfan (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were effective. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it onto this Wikipedia page! I got a bunch of other information on this railway I will add at a later date. I only know this stuff because I am a fan of steam trains and from the area. You are better at this Wikipedia thing than me. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of steam trains are very welcome! And don't worry about being a newbie; we all were at one point; you're doing fine. As for the group—and not to be tendentious—they are on this Wikipedia page because you put them there, not because they demonstrated any actual effectiveness. At least as far the cited source indicates. Do you have another source indicating actual notability? PRRfan (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]