Template talk:Pascack Valley Line

Line order

Hi, there was some discussion in the edit comments about changing the order of the line, and now that change has gone in. I'm not sure it is really of benefit, however. I find it confusing because the line description runs south to north and is opposite of how the route appears on maps. As an alternative, would placement of either mileposts or travel time on a north to south route description be acceptable? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a schematic diagram, not a true map, the "north=up" convention isn't an absolutely neccessary to follow; the reading from mile post 0 at top makes sense to me. That said, I don't think the addition of milepoints to make that clear isn't a bad idea. oknazevad (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, are mileposts available somewhere? Last time I checked I could only find travel times. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be the mile posts on the schedules until the current style was introduced, so if you dig up an old PVL schedule at [oldtrainschedules.com oldtrainschedules.com] (a great site, IMO) it should have them. I would take care of it myself, but I'm actually pretty bad at coding these things. I usually copy and paste my way through it. I certainly would have no idea how to add a column for the mileposts. oknazevad (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, PS, technically, the line (and the Main and Bergen County Lines as well) is an east-west line per the timetable, not north-south (the result of being an Erie branch line, as that railroad was east-west overall). Subsequently, the "north=up" is even less relevant.oknazevad (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal, got the schedule from 1986 here: http://www.mediafire.com/?j042ttiwmdz with the mile posts included. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned connections

@Epicgenius: When you have a chance, can you fix the template to include abandoned connections to the Piermont Branch, the New City Branch and the Haverstraw Branch, as are shown here? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kew Gardens 613, I think I have done this. By the way, it may be a good idea to add KML files for these old lines as well. epicgenius (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]