Talk:West Side Line

message: It's unclear to me that renaming this article was a good idea.  I think there are really two different articles here.  High Line is (was?) about the abandoned rail structure and the movement to turn it into a recreational facility.  It's an article which I expect will grow over the years as work in that area progresses.  West Side Line is about the history (and current uses) of the line from a railroad/transportation/infrastructure point of view, and does an excellent job of that, I might add.
The problem is, I'm not sure that covering both those topics in a single article really does either one justice.  It's like trying to merge Fort Washington and Bennet Park into a single article.  Same piece of geography, overlapping history, but two entirely different articles.  Would anybody object if I factored the lets-make-it-a-park stuff back out into High Line?  Obviously, the two articles would cross-reference each other.  --RoySmith 13:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the 2-article folks.  Nobody discussing the elevated park/reuse project would ever call this anything other than the High Line.  Also keep in mind as this project develops, this article will grow many more legs, such as lists of venues associated with the high line, high line in culture (tv film lit...), and so on. EGregory 17:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Split, per above. jareha (comments) 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving this article, maybe a bad idea?

message: Somebody's cat helping them to edit?  --RoySmith 13:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: dfjsjieowdkuideygrfyg874e9rgfyuhbjigfdsesghakjlkgacockckjcjklo;p

message: I've gone ahead and performed the split discussed above.  I tried to sort out which pieces belonged in which article, but undoubtedly I've not done a perfect job.  Please feel free to correct as required.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job -- I meant to do this last year but it got lost in the shuffle. I have no idea why anybody thought the article should be moved in the first place. (Well, I do -- railroad geekery. But nobody but a railfan would think the terminology here makes sense.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Is there a more precise description?  I get the idea it's talking about a tram engine but if the vague description is also a bit inaccurate, it could be a steam dummy as often used on Long Island at the time.  Jim.henderson (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumb Engine

message: CatskillArchive link deserves to be included, because it's much easier to read, although it's less reliably permanent. Vzeebjtf (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bradbury & Guild citation 

message: I am unsure about this part of the article:
"A wye was constructed next to Track 2 (the westernmost track) to allow diesels to turn around. South of 49th Street, there is a crossover from Track 1 (the easternmost track) to Track 2, and another siding splits off Track 2 at 49th Street."
Because looking at old aerial photography from 1924 and 1951 (available at maps.nyc.gov) shows what looks to be the same wye - track configuration being the same (in terms of what remains, obviously), etc - this seems further supported by the (long since taken offline) track diagrams by Richard E. Green, and what few rear window views from Amtrak trains are available on YouTube.
Unless the wye had been rebuilt - which I wouldn't count as construction in the same sense of making something brand new that wasn't there before, but that's just my opinion. 
I am aware of the fact that it isn't until north of Penn / the LIRR yard that the tracks re-align with the original West Side Line tracks, but this seems to happen BEFORE the location of the wye.
Travelsonic (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed on the wye's date / construction / usage?