Talk:River Line (NJ Transit)

message: Somebody might want to check on the hours that Conrail can run freight.  I think they've changed since this was written.TimeriderTech 18:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conrail hours

message: Hi Jfruh - I included this in See Also because River LINE is linked to from the List of rapid transit systems article, which, by the way includes many links to light rail articles.  To be consistent I think that the link should be in this article, or else you should remove River LINE and all of the other light rails from the List of rapid transit systems.
Bhludzin 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I zapped the US light rail systems that were inappropriately on that list.  I wasn't really part of the discussion that established it, but "rapid transit" was the wikipedia compromise term for heavy rail metro/subways.  While rail categories are a bit squishy, there's no way the River LINE qualifies. --Jfruh 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a major change!  I don't think that was necessarily the solution.  Are all of the systems that you removed on the List of light-rail transit systems?  Besides, at the top of the List of rapid transit systems article it says: 'This is an alphabetical list of cities worldwide that have a rapid transit system, or a light-rail system with some elements of rapid transit.'  Bhludzin 20:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of rapid transit systems

message: Last I checked, both the Capitol Extension and the Delair Transfer station (and the West Trenton Extension, for that matter) were projects that NJT has made actual plans for, even if funding hasn't been secured yet.  Respectfully, I think they should both be re-added to the article.  --CComMack 04:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok i have no problem with it being re-added, if it's redone. In the form that it was in it's nothing more then a personal opinion. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future extensions listed on NJT 2020 wishlist 

message: Add the system map.  It seems like a clear cut case of "Fair Use".  The maps are put out there for public consumption.  No reason to withold them from a free pubic forum like Wikipedia.
:The sources found so far are a bit unwieldly. The line goes down the Delaware River coast of New Jersey -- 50 miles. It'll be tough to turn these into a usable reference.
:http://www.riverline.com/images/pdf/riverline_railmap.pdf
:http://www.riverline.com/images/pdf/riverline_sched_jul2005.pdf
:http://www.njtransit.com/images/rivfinishcolor0220.gif
:http://www.kahrrealestate.com/River_Line_map.jpg
:http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/snj-lrt-river-line-route-map.jpg
:Bill D 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well the PDFs would only work as external links, the nj transt image, would be the easiest to use on the coypright side, but it to big, theo other ones are just blah, hummm, might just have to make one when i get a chance, base if ot the NJT map or something, dont expect anything right away though. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently making an SVG map of NJTransit's routes. First I'm doing all the rail lines; after that I'll do the River LINE. Hopefully that will be done this weekend. lensovet 06:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The route and stations are done; I just need to add station names. lensovet 17:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yay! Map is now up. Comments can go either here or (preferred) on the map's talk page over at the Commons. Cheers! lensovet 07:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great!  Thanks for taking this on.  My one suggestion is that it's not particularly clear which stops are rail transfer stations, even when the graphic is increased to full magnification.  Also, it should be made clear that Walter Rand Transportation Ctr is a transfer stop to the PATCO Speedline.  Strangely, there's no mention of that on the station page... --Jfruh (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made those changes and also a few others ones. Take a look. lensovet 16:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great. --Jfruh (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add The System Map 

message: I notice that some speculative information about later service has been added, citing Railpace as a source. I'm tempted to remove this, for a few reasons. First, Railpace is often referred to as "Rumorpace" because it tends to speculate on things that turn out to be entirely or partially wrong. Secondly, everything I've heard when the idea has come up at the railroad.net forums is that while it would be a great thing to add later service during the week, Conrail is already running on a very tight schedule with their alloted time, and there isn't much they could cut out and still be able to offer service to freight customers on the northern part of the Bordentown Secondary. Thirdly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this is just speculation. Unless we're able to cite an official source in NJT or the Southern New Jersey Rail Group, I don't think it should be included. —LrdChaos 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Railpace as a source 

message: "It is the first light rail system in the United States (but second in North America after Ottawa's O-Train in Canada) to use these instead of more typical electric vehicles." Is this true only of modern light rail, or have there been no traditional streetcar or interurban lines to use DMUs? This should be clarified, as "light rail" is a somewhat ambiguous term. --SPUI (T - C) 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DMU first?

message: Hi all, just wanted to tell you that we have a NJT-specific template for using on the station articles; it's . If you go to the template talk page, it has very detailed instructions on how to use it. Take a look at a sample edit to see how to convert the rail line template into the NJT rail line one. lensovet 22:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using rail line templates for the station articles 

message: We seem to be in an edit war that is creating multiple double redirects. Let's resolve this quickly. The main question seems to be what source should drive this decision: official naming or colloquial use. Please state your cases and let's get this decided quickly without warring. Alansohn 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#River LINE or River Line? --NE2 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title: LINE vs. Line

message: When the project was first floated and looking for support, NJT was projecting 14,000 passengers per day.  As it became clear that this estimate was excessive they lowered their estimate to 5,500. So the ridership is less than half of what NJT originally projected. 
Jaysbro 15:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "5500 passengers per day"? 

message: It seems like the article should mention the section of line that runs in traffic on Camden streets.  Its very unusual (IMO) especially given that it otherwise acts a little like a commuter rail line and not a streetcar or light rail line, some of which do operate in traffic (e.g. SF Muni and Sacramento).  No, it doesn't use FRA-blessed trains and rules, but unlike e.g. other US LRT operations, its not electrified, it doesn't run often (as in more than 15 mins between non-rush hour trips), its not double-tracked, etc.  I did add "diesel" to the start to highlight that distinction. Jason McHuff 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a diesel interurban, and since interurbans have practically gone the way of the dinosaur in some places, no wonder people think it a bit strange. 204.52.215.14 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Street running portion

message: As noted by the  template, a .png or .svg is always preferred over a .gif or .jpg. Please do not revert the logo. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: It appears that the only place the in-planning (but, I think, more or less assured to happen) Camden-Glassboro line is discussed on Wikipedia is in this article.  Is that appropriate?  As the article notes, there's no gaurantee that it will be branded as part of the River Line (or even operated by NJ Transit).  Not sure if it merits its own article at this point, though.  Perhaps a separate article for the Regional Transportation & Economic Development Initiative, which includes this line, BRT into other parts of South Jersey, and improvements to the Atlantic City Line?  It's a maddeningly vague name to be sure, but it can be changed and/or split up as the projects progress, and having them grouped together (as the agencies actually implementing the changes are grouping them together) could at least solve the problem of having this orphaned paragraph in a hard-to-find place. --Jfruh (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camden-Glassboro line