Talk:Lackawanna Cut-Off

message: In as much as the Cut-Off has been historically referred to as a "high-speed" rail line, it does not meet the current definition.  Even in the US, which has a lower threshold for the definition, high-speed means a minimum of 110 mph (in Europe even higher).  And while trains have reportedly hit in excess of 100 mph on the Cut-Off, although no documentation exists in this regard, the fact that the official speed limit has never been higher than 80 mph, and probably won't be higher in the future, I regret to say that the "high-speed" designation should be removed (which I have already done).   If anyone should disagree, by all means I wouldn't object to putting "high-speed" back...but I think we need solid justification.  If I were to play the Devil's Advocate here, one justification for keeping "high-speed" would be that the designation refers to the historical definition, but I personally think that would be misleading in the modern context.Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[High-speed rail]] Designation (removal) 

message: I'm been noticing that more and more non-Cut-Off material is creeping into this article.  For example, while I really like the schematic map that has been added to the beginning of of the article, it includes 60 miles of trackage west of Slateford Junction, Pennsylvania, when the entire Lackawanna Cut-Off itself is only 28 miles long.  As a result, I would strongly recommend the deletion of the trackage west of Slateford in the diagram as it's confusing and may be misinterpreted by a reader as being part of the Cut-Off, when of course it's not.  
By the same token, I fully understand--and support--the rationale for a discussion of the trackage west of Slateford in the article, particularly in view of the fact that the reactivation of rail service on the Cut-Off would depend on service being operated to northeastern Pennsylvania.  However, my concern is that a first-time visitor to this page is being bombarded with a lot of extraneous information that, in my opinion, should be placed in a separate section entitled something like Extension of Service to Pocono Mountain Region so that it doesn't overly-complicate the discussion of the Cut-Off itself.
At some point we may wish to consider a separate page for the "Pocono" trackage, but for now I think it's appropriate, with some modifications, to leave it where it is now.Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of non-Cut-Off Information 

message: Right now I'm trying to organize the page, including its headers, more or less chronologically.  What I see is that various contributors over time have added disparate blurbs--most of which are quite good--but which often duplicate (or triplicate) what's already somewhere else.  What I'm doing is consolidating these blurbs.  In addition, I want to consolidate the NJ Transit proposal and Cut-Off restoration into one section chronologically, as there is a lot of duplication there.  I also want to go through the Notes (most of which I put there myself) and see if it can be trimmed down by adding to the main section of the page above or perhaps eliminating some of the items entirely.  I also want to address the station table at the bottom by creating pages for those items which have dead links presently.  Last, but not least, I want to add in missing references.  Please feel free to dive in and help consolidate.  Once again, my goal would be to try to get the page promoted from a "B" to the next grade level.Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General "clean-up" 

message: I've been tweaking the article little by little to change the article's tone to comply with Wikipedia standards.  Some of this verbage was originally written by me, so I don't have any reservation in changing it (and I only have myself to blame for having written it that way initially).  
Having said that, since we have multiple contributors here, I just wanted to let you know that I'm not trying to usurp your judgment in writing, but rather trying to improve the article without making large-scale changes.  One "large-scale" change I would suggest, and which dovetails with my discussion in the section on non-Cut-Off material, I would like to consolidate west-of-Slateford information and other tangential discussions (such as those involving the DL&W RR, unless they directly involve the Cut-off) into a separate section.
I'm hoping that we can upgrade this article to an A from a B--with your collective help.Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone Issues 

message: I was initially skeptical about the $1 billion figure in the July 1990 Tel-News article that I found regarding a modern-day estimated cost of rebuilding the Lackawanna Cut-Off.  So, I've set out to either confirm or refute that figure, even though it is sourced information and we could just blindly accept it and move on.  The dilemma we have is that if we just convert currency from 1911 to 2009, we obtain a figure (about $220 million) that, in my opinion, is too low, especially if we just look at a NJ Transit per mile estimate of replacing track, much less the right-of-way, bridges, culverts, viaducts, environmental issues, etc.  I'm still in the process of identifying and quantifying all the potential costs involved in rebuilding the Cut-Off, literally from the ground up, in 2009.  This is not a scope of work, which would be enormously expensive.  Even so, I hope to provide an estimate shortly that will at least give us an inkling as to whether the Tel-News article's figure is in the right ballpark or not, although my initial estimation shows that the $1 billion figure itself may, in fact, be too low. Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that in, using the conversion, and only now see this part of the discussion. Is there any way to get a construction-inflation figure that's not original research? PRRfan (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Probably not.  The only present-day figures we have are from the engineering firms that are looking at restoring the line to operation, not planning and building it from scratch.  WallyFromColumbia (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction Cost Figures 

message: In my opinion, we need to do some re-organization of the history of the operations and reactivation efforts.  I added more detail to the opening section--too much detail I'm afraid--so I have no-one to blame but myself.  The section I added needs to be incorporated down below somewhere.  There is redundancy in several sections, so feel free to edit out or move redundant parts and phrases.  Also, in view of the "tone warning" from Wikipedia, I suggest we be mindful of our choice of words.  I'm a big offender, so I'll try to watch my phraseology as well.  Let's see if we can't get this page elevated into the A-Class.Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organization of History needed 

message: I put this map form NJT in, as discussion said a map was needed.  I hope I improved the page, if not please discard my change. The map does not label the Cut Off. I think that the earlier 1910 usage of Lackawanna cutoff was just a part of the current project. The Cut off is not specifically shown.  The external links have maps that might be used with permission.  NJT forbids substantial alteration of their image, but marking the cut off on their map might not be considered substantial alteration.Geo8rge 20:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that map isn't really "free." What we need instead is for someone to create the map by hand using free sources, such as aerial images produced by the USGS, whose work is in the public domain. —lensovet–talk – 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do have a map, which I'm sure doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, that could be used in a pinch.  Due to a misunderstanding by the folks who review the copyright status of images, the map has been deleted.  I plan to re-introduce the map, however, and I confident that I will prevail in bringing back the map.  In the long-run, however, we definitely need a better map, both for the historical Lackawanna Cut-Off, but also for the phase approach to the extension into Pennsylvania.  As such, does anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed in creating such maps.  I'll be the first to admit that this isn't my area of expertise.  Many thanks!WallyFromColumbia (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try making a map at sharemap.org. PRRfan (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PRRfan, I owe you big-time on this one.  Many thanks, Chuck.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Any progress to report on the map?WallyFromColumbia (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I've put in some time with the mapmaking tools at share map.org, and they are terribly clunky. My next attempt will just be to simply draw the thing using Acorn, probably tracing over the relevant territory from Openstreetmaps. PRRfan (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: PRR fan I'm back again checking to see how you're making out on the map of the Cut-Off.  I thank you for your efforts.  I realize this must be a terribly tedious process, especially if the available tools are, to use your term, "clunky".WallyFromColumbia (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: PRR fan I hate to be a pest...any luck with the Cut-Off map?WallyFromColumbia (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: The current version, as edited by me, I believe, makes more sense. It has a column for the municipality/town in which the station is located, and then a link to an article about the station itself. The fact that the links are all red shouldn't bother anyone. Otoh, the version is just reverted, last edited by Wallyfromcolumbia, has two columns which show nearly identical information and links for all of the rows. I ask, what is this the purpose of this second column (which, mind you, is labeled Station/Landmark) if it's going to have the exact same info as the first column? Please leave the current table content as is. —lensovet–talk – 00:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Station/landmarks listing

message: , I noticed your enthusiasm for this particular article and wanted to mention that I've reverted your edits on image size. Using the "thumb" parameter alone without indicating a px size allows user preferences to command the size of the image. If you want to see large images by default, you can change your preferences. Do remember that everyone viewing this article will have varying sizes of monitors and we want to maximize accessibility to this article. Your preferences for the article tended to incorporate gaps in text and larger than normal image sizes (unnecessarily, so). Can you explain why you'd like to see all images at least 350px on this page? --Rkitko (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size dispute 

message: The article made an unsourced claim that the Tunkhannock Viaduct remains today the largest concrete structure ever built, however this is contradicted by the Tunkhannock Viaduct article which says it was only the largest at the time it was built. I would recommend a source be added to verify its status as largest (these "largest" "oldest" etc.. are usually based on legend anyway). Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tunkhannock Viaduct]] 

message: Seems to me from a quick glance at the results of a google search that the one word spelling of "cutoff" is far more common and even NJT uses it as such. It's certainly easier to type. I'm wondering if we shouldn't move this page, as doing such would seem to follow the sources. oknazevad (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cutoff": One word or two?  

message: Over time, the Cut-Off article has acquired a number of photos with captions.  Obviously, the number became excessive in terms of formatting of the article and, in fact, within the past few days the article received a "too many photos" comment.  As a result, I moved about 15-20 photos into a "gallery", which significantly improved the "look" of the article.  However, this action in turn earned the article another comment about the use of a gallery.  Presumably, this is an automated process that is triggered by the placement of a gallery within an article.  Based on what I've read about the use of galleries, although they are generally discouraged, but are acceptable if they (1)  don't contain "random" photos (photos without a specific purpose); (2) don't add important detail to the article; and (3) cannot stand alone in a separate article.  As such, I believe that the use of a gallery is acceptable in this article.  Indeed, the photos contain descriptive captions, some of which are quite lengthy.  Granted, some of this detail could be moved to the textual portion of the article, and that's probably not a bad idea, but some of the captions (e.g. Greendell and Lake Hopatcong) really would lose significant impact, in my opinion, by intransferring the text away from the photo.  Please feel free to weigh in on this point.  Finally, I've added an Andover Extension gallery, the purpose of which will be to include updates on the reconstruction of this portion of the line.  I plan to add updated photos, if no one else does so, on a roughly monthly basis.Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an automated process. I added both templates. A careful read of WP:IG would indicate galleries are only to be used "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." That is not the case here. Several images are wholly unnecessary; these images don't represent a cohesive collection, as in the example given (1750–1795 in fashion). Also from WP:IG: "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." The use of galleries in this article is incorrect and should be removed. Rkitko (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this gallery is quite properly done as I see it; it is organized quite logically, showing major features of the Cut-Off in a logical geographic sequence, from east to west. The images convey more than just text could (especially the scale of the thing). I do think the captions could be trimmed a bit, though. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Gallery to Exhibit Photos

message: Based on the definition of defunct, or abandoned, these terms, in my opinion, no longer apply to the entire Cut-Off.  Although the eastern portion of the line is not yet operational, it is in the process of being reactivated.  Unless we plan to create a "partially-defunct" or "mostly-defunct" category--or perhaps even a "partially abandoned" category--I don't believe that "defunct" accurately categorizes the line.  For now, the term is misleading at best.  I'd say that once they start relaying tracks on the line, which is apparently due to happen sometime later in 2011, I think the Cut-Off should be removed from this category.
By the token, the opening paragrpah will also need modification in the future, as the term "former" railroad line will also be incorrect.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: - Good point. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for removal of article from "defunct" railroads category 

message: I'm starting in on this.  My first task will be to remove the points that are clearly duplicative of other parts of the main article, or are really unimportant trivia. That should be relatively easy, and I can probably finish that today.  If any of you folks disagree with specific deletions, please feel free (as I'm sure you will) to find those facts a "home" in the main article.  Indeed, the bigger task, as I see it, will be to incorporate the remaining items into the main article, and to rewrite sections so that the text "flows".  Any help would be greatly appreciated.
WallyFromColumbia (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Miscellaneous Info (Notes) Section 

message: There needs to be improved explanation of the connection of the eastern end of the restored line.  The line will not end at Port Morris Junction.  Will not the next station to the east of PMJ be Hackettstown?  This needs to be stated more clearly.  It appears that the line will be a west-ward extension of the Montclair-Boonton Line.  This needs to be stated more clearly.Dogru144 (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Improved explanation of eastern connection needed, context confusing

message: Hi, WallyFromColumbia. First off, thanks for the truckload of work you've done on this article. I have question about your recent edit: 1) When you say "several of the surveyed routes would have required significantly longer tunnels than already existed on the Old Road," can you quantify "significantly"? I'm of the opinion that "significantly" rarely adds anything to a sentence — if it weren't significant, we wouldn't mention it — and that's it's generally preferable to omit or replace it with something more specific. 2) I know what it means for "the railroads' proposed end-to-end merger" to fall through: the merger never happened. But I don't know what it means for a proposed merger to fail, which sounds like the merger happened but then fell apart. Can you explain? PRRfan (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "significantly" and "failed"

message: When discussing the Efforts to restore rail service (2001–present), a lot of the information presented is without citations to reliable sources. Do we have sources that back up these points? If not, it appears to be mostly personal observations and original research. At best and we do have sources, it may be unwarranted synthesis of information, e.g. the discussions about grade crossings and complications may synthesize sources in a way that was not intended by those sources. We actually need a reliable source that says the grade crossing at County Road 602 will cause construction complications to the west or we can't include that speculation here. Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis and original research 

message: In looking at the article as a whole, I see that a lot of good detail relevant to other articles has crept into the Cut-Off article, specifically within the Rise/Decline of the DL&W RR and E-L sub-sections.  My proposal would be to transfer the lion's share of this detail to the Lackawanna Railroad and Erie Lackawanna Railroad articles (where it doesn't duplicate the already existing narrative) while retaining a cross reference to the other articles with only information directly relevant to the Cut-Off being retained.  For instance, there's a nice discussion of how the Lackawanna Railroad (and subsequently the E-L) tried to retain business during the 1940s through the 1970s.  Indirectly, this would affect the Cut-Off.  However, the discussion is far too detailed, in my opinion, and wanders far afield from the intended subject.  Nevertheless, the discussion should be preserved, but within the context of the railroads themselves rather than the Cut-Off.  Your thoughts on this proposal would be most welcome.  WallyFromColumbia (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to transfer Rise/Decline of DL&W and E-L Discussion to other articles

message: I've added this table in an attempt to minimize the confusion over the construction progress on this section.  In doing so, I'd like to incorporate the relevent Andover Extension photos here.  I've debated whether the Andover Extension (AE) photo gallery can be eliminated or not.  The problem is that in using a thumbnail for the table there's no provision to include a caption as there is in the Gallery.  One option would be to leave the AE Gallery intact and use different photos for the thumbnails. WallyFromColumbia (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of Andover Extension Construction Progress section

message: I noticed in the 1979-1984 section the addition of a discussion of the Scranton wye (aka Steamtown Wye or Hyde Park Wye) vis-a-vis Conrail in 1983.  I'm on the fence regarding the discussion's relevance to the NJ Cut-Off, and I'm rather skeptical regarding the veracity of the information.  Even so, I've kept it, but with some revisions such as removal of the size of the warehouse that was built on part of the wye and the name of the warehouse's owner (these, in my view, are not relevant).  In any case, my question is whether the western leg of the wye is still usable for through trains from Binghamton to New Jersey?  The existing discussion indicates that it isn't without a run-around move of the locomotives, but clearly the wye track still exists, so it isn't clear as to why a run-around move would be necessary.  I've ridden over the "new" wye and it also is seen on present-day aerial photos (Google Earth).  The question is whether the curve is too sharp for most locomotives (due to the encroachment of the warehouse), or is it that the wye trackage has been reconfigured so only one track remains?  On aerial photos the former mainline does not appear to be any more sharp than the connection to the Bloomsburg Branch (south leg of the wye), which is used by CP trains.  The wye is no longer signalled, but I see no reason why the current right-of-way could not support through service between Binghamton and NJ in the future.  I'm inclined to remove the statement unless there's some additional clarification provided.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hyde Park Wye Discussion

message: Hi, Oanabay04, and thanks for your cleanup edits. I'm not convinced the page needs the tags, though. Care to explain your thinking? PRRfan (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no explanation from Oanabay04, despite his further (and helpful) edits, I've removed the final two tags. PRRfan (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon, Oanabay04, you're doing fine work here. Good on you for recognizing that "DL&W" is better than "DLW". But I just don't buy the "personal reflection or essay" tag. You're going to have to make an argument for that. PRRfan (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, PRRfan. My apologies, I neglected to take a look at the talk page. First off, let me say I LOVE this article and keep biting my nails waiting for the line to be rebuilt. The article is very extensive, perhaps a little too extensive to be a Wiki article. The "personal reflection" aspect is because it borders on a railfan perspective rather than an encylopedic perspective. Also, the language used was more conversational in nature. I tried to tighten the text without removing too much, seeing as a lot of hard work was put into this article. I just cleaned up the Roseville Tunnel article, which was more guilty of the personal reflection and conversational approach and also lacked inline citations. The real RR bible for format, tone and length if George Drury's The Historical Guide to North American Railroads: Histories, Figures, and Features of more than 160 Railroads Abandoned or Merged since 1930 and Train-Watcher's Guide to North American Railroads: A Contemporary Reference to the Major railroads of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Thanx for the "DL&W" vs. "DLW" I have to remember that the acronyms are as official as the full name of the railroads themselves. That ampersand makes a difference. I am going to revert "CR" back to Conrail, since CR is rarely used in formal text. That said, I think we need to retain the tags at the top of the article until we fine tune it. Also, the tags may alert other RR fans to help tighten the text and, hopefully, make this a candidate for a featured article of Wiki. Your thoughts.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thought. I generally do not like to tag articles at all, but would rather just clean them up. However, I also do not want to step on other editor's toes because a certain article may be their area of expertise and I might bwe removing a little too much. I'd much rather trust the main editors to make the clean-up call. Oanabay04 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Oanabay04. I agree with all of this. You and I have been taking much the same approach to this long and detailed piece: tightening up unnecessarily wordy parts and bringing it in line with WP standards for style, citations, etc. (Kudos to WallyFromColumbia, who is responsible for perhaps 95% of the original text, photos, templates, etc.) I'd be happy to see this become an FA. As for next steps, beyond finding cites for the passages you've marked, I'm not sure. I confess that if we need to cut simply to bring the length down, I'm not sure where to start. Wally and I (and others) have, over the past year, done a pretty good job of deleting less-than-relevant text or moving it to other articles. PRRfan (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, gentlemen, for your assistance.  I saw that the references were missing (I presume that's what you mean by "tags") and I've added those I could immediately put my fingers on.  I'm pretty confident on the remaining tags, but I'll need to hunt those references down in my archives. Those sections that I removed because of lack of verifiability--mostly regarding Pennsylvania trackage issues--were at best, in my opinion, only tangential to the subject of the New Jersey Cut-Off.  Regarding the length and complexity of the article, I would be extremely interested in your thoughts on this.  Oanabay04 and PRRfan, I would be very happy to collaborate on any trimming that you feel would be beneficial.  Oanabay04, I see you've noticed that I trimmed off discussions relevent to the DL&W and EL railroads, although I tried to preserve the details by carrying over the text (mostly from other authors) wherever possible.  The same approach might be useful to trim the flab off of this article, i.e. by placing it in other existing articles (Roseville Tunnel, Paulinskill Viaduct, etc.) or by creating new articles...I'm thinking Pequest Fill, or perhaps devoting a separate article to the construction of the line (including the present-day rebuilding of the line to Andover) and only retaining a brief section on this subject in the main Lackawanna Cut-Off article.  I'm also thinking that each of the stations might warrant separate articles.  These are future aspirations, but as you've noticed the article has grown and I'll be the first one to admit that there's more than enough material to justify culling into other articles.  Regarding style...I would urge you to be bold in your edits.  I tend to be conversational in my writing, but it's not sacrosanct, so feel free to rework it.  If I disagree we can certainly work it out.  As such, although I'm the main contributor to the page, I feel energized by folks such as yourselves when you also offer your contributions and improvements. It's actually a compliment to the importance of the article.  Indeed, I would very much like to see the article receive a higher rating and your help will be key to that.  I can't do this alone.  I really do need your help.  Many thanks!WallyFromColumbia (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As a suggestion, I'd split the NJT proposal to a new article, leaving a brief section in this article.  Eventually, when the line is placed into service, there should be a separate article for NJT's service, and the split from this article could be its start.  A few years ago, we did something similar with the Northern Branch.  Currently, Northern Branch has the history of the line, and Northern Branch Corridor Project has the proposed NJT service on the line.  Separating out the new proposal would also give this article stability, and thus a better chance at a higher rating.  Since the NJT project is simply called "Lackawanna Cut-Off", the new article could be named something like "Lackawanna Cut-Off (NJ Transit)", or another disambiguating phrase like NJ Transit project.  Then, I'd have 2 different line maps - the historical one in the original article (from Port Morris to Slateford), and the proposed new line (Port Morris to Scranton).  --Scott Alter (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott, I really like your idea regarding a separate NJT service article, similar to the Northern Branch example you've cited.  That would pull a significant amount of material out of the main (historical) Cut-Off article and decrease the updating that's been taking place there.  An additional thought I had, which I'd be interested in your thoughts on (and any other folks as well), is whether to also create a separate article for the construction of the Cut-Off.  There's a fair amount of material on the construction that hasn't been included in the main article because of its level of detail.  But I'm wondering if that's consistent with what is done (or should be done) in other articles?WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

text: Scott's suggestions to split the piece into DL&W/NJT eras and to add construction info to the old era until length forces a reconsideration make sense to me. PRRfan (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Scott, I was referring to the original construction.  The re-construction information clearly should go into the NJT article.  So, I agree with your reasoning.  As I have time, I'll start putting the additional construction information into the "history" article.  I agree that other articles can pick up details.  I won't create a separate construction article at this point.  Thanks!WallyFromColumbia (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I see that we'll need to do some additional trimming to the historical article to minimize the overlap between it and the recently-created NJ Transit article.  Some overlap is desirable, of course, so as to provide context, but there is unnecessary repetition of the events in 2003 and 2006, for instance, that, in my opinion, should only appear in the NJ Transit article rather.  I believe there are other examples as well.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a whack at separating the two, but there's plenty of room for improvement, as you suggest. Go ahead and make what changes you think are appropriate. PRRfan (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tedious process of comparison between the two articles.  I haven't checked what you've done yet (but I will), but in general it's, as you know, just a matter of keeping the detailed information in one and a general overview in the other. WallyFromColumbia (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're getting there.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy with NJ Transit article 

message: In adding this table, I'm thinking to add photos for each of the significant structures and cuts and fills to the table.  Alternatively, I could create mini-articles for each of the cuts and fills and stations along the line.  I'm leaning towards the latter.  I probably have photos for virtually all of these (or I could go out and take them, since I live in the area), and this would be a way to whittle down the size of the photo gallery at the end of the article, from which I'd take many of the photos.  My one concern would be whether the table would become unwieldy in the process.  Any thoughts on this?  I'm thinking that some of the verbage in the article can be eliminated because of redundancy to the table.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction Contractor Table 

message: There's an issue with the information related to the Cut-off's crossing of the Morris Canal.  The same issue applies to the Port Morris wye track, which also crossed the canal.  Here's what we know for certain: bridges were built on the Cut-Off and the wye to cross the canal; the bridges were either removed or filled in sometime following the canal's abandonment in 1924; the top of one concrete abutment is partially visible on the Cut-Off; no evidence of a bridge is visible on the wye; we have no evidence to support whether the bridges were constructed of concrete or steel (with concrete abutments); all structures on the Cut-Off that we know of were constructed of reinforced concrete; a steel truss bridge would have been easier and faster to remove at the time of the canal's abandonment, but we have no evidence (not even circumstantial evidence) to support the hypothesis that the bridges were constructed of steel; the use of steel would have been inconsistent with the "everything made of reinforced concrete" policy that was followed for the construction of the Cut-Off.  
As a result, I would propose to change the description of the crossings of the canal to a generic "bridge" description until such time that we have more definitive information on whether the bridges were constructed of steel or all-concrete.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A 1912 article in Railway Age points out that there is one bridge on the Cut-Off that was built of steel.  Since photos exist of the construction of the abutments of the Morris Canal crossing, we can deduce that this bridge was subsequently built of steel upon concrete abutments.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morris Canal Crossing 

message: I see that there's inconsistent use of the Old Road and Warren Railroad terminology in the article.  The Old Road is the route that the Cut-Off replaced, but the designation didn't exist until after the Cut-Off opened.  As a result, my proposal would be to refer to the Old Road as the Old Road only when discussing operations after the opening of the Cut-Off (24 Dec 1911).  Until that date, the Old Road was the only through route in northwestern New Jersey on the DL&WRR.  In other words, until that time it hadn't become the Old Road yet.  I believe that referring to the Old Road as the "Warren Railroad Route" instead is more correct when referring to it prior to the opening of the Cut-Off.  There's a segue sentence in the article that describes this change in nomenclature after the opening of the Cut-Off.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is resolved.  I now agree that the use of "Old Road" should come in earlier in the article and I've retained those references.  Many thanks.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Road vs. Warren Railroad Route 

message: Although it's too early to tell for sure at this point, there is a possibility that the Andover Extension will not open in 2014.  Depending on how quickly the remaining environmental issues in New Jersey are resolved and subsequent construction contracts are bid (including the construction of Andover Station), there may not be enough time in 2014 to get all the work done so as to get the first trains rolling in 2014.  Even under the best of scenarios, there will probably be only a little bit of activity in 2013.  
:For now, I'd suggest that we keep the 2014 date, but keep an eye on how things progress and make adjustments later on if necessary.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Further information from the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA), which handles the disbursement of federal funding to US transportation projects in most of northern New Jersey, indicates that there is a delay in the projected completion date of the rail extension to Andover.  Right now, assuming an October approval of a pending environmental permit for Andover Station, the projected completion date for the entire project, including Roseville Tunnel and the station at Andover, is September 2016. The cost of the project has also increased to $61.1 million, based on the additional work needed on Roseville Tunnel.  I think an update now is necessary since a 2014 opening date appears unrealistic even under the most optimistic scenario.  WallyFromColumbia (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've renamed this discussion point to 2018.  Right now, just about all indications point to a 2019 opening at the earliest.  The Roseville Tunnel project is proceeding through the bidding process, but since the actual work hasn't started on what will be a two-year project, the best-case scenario throws us into 2019.  And that assumes that the other issues are cleared up in the meantime.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 (?) Completion Date for Andover Extension 

message: I've done some clean up on the Gallery section.  I removed the map photo and the photo of Oxford Tunnel.  Otherwise, the photos were already in geogrpahical sequence from east to west on the Cut-Off.  I'd, therefore, suggest that the present collection of photos isn't "indiscriminate", and should, in my view, be retained. WallyFromColumbia (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this gallery, which currently has 24 images in it, has to many images. To the general reader this gallery looks like an indiscriminate collection of images, even though they are in "geographical sequence". (I don't know this area well and would not be able to easily make sense of the sequence without opening a map, which is not something we should be expecting readers to do.)  My view is that a small number of significant images should be moved into the body of the article and the others should be moved to the Wikimedia Commons category for this topic. FFM784 (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery 

message: I suggest merging Construction of the Lackawanna Cut-Off into the main article, theres no need for a third article since the NJ Transit project page was created Granthew (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before.  The rationale for creating a separate article was to pull the more technical descriptions out of the main article, but keep them in the construction article.  It wasn't my proposal to do this, but I participated in the clean-up of the article and placed the material within the "third article".  I respectfully disagree that this is a third article.  All of the stations, major fills and cuts, and the two viaducts on the LCO have separate articles.  Also, having a separate construction article would allow us to include additional photos, which I have in my possession but haven't uploaded to Wikipedia yet, that would overwhelm the main article.  So, I would vote to keep the existing construction article.  If anything, in my view, the construction-related material should be largely pulled from the main article. WallyFromColumbia (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a compromise would be to make the former "construction" article in a photo album.  Thoughts? WallyFromColumbia (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since User:Granthew hasn't responded yet, I'd propose to remove the tag regarding this issue.  If Granthew responds, we'll go from there. WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed a merger because the Section/Contractors info is on both articles. If the info was only on the Construction of the Lackawanna Cut-Off article than I wouldn't have proposed a merger.Granthew (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I haven't devoted the time as I promised to bolster the construction article with photos.  There are a number of free use photos available.  As a stopgap measure, I agree that much of the info is redundant in the two articles, suggesting that the separate construction article isn't needed in its present form.  Nevertheless, I'd be inclined to keep the shell of the article available to rebuild it in another form as an adjunct to the section in the main article.WallyFromColumbia (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe merge the articles temporally and if you are able to work on it some more than demerge the two articles.Granthew (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so for now I've merged the articles, but it can be un-merged if it's decided to split the construction section from this article. Otherwise, the page on Construction of the Lackawanna Cut-Off is entirely duplicative of this article's construction section. epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction of the Lackawanna Cut-Off merge 

message: Do you know what the name of the rail service on the Cut-Off would be called? Granthew (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the rail service on the Cut-Off? 

message: I recently took a trip to the Roseville Tunnel to check on the status of the Cutoff and I was not pleased. NJ Transit I don't think is going to reopen the Cutoff to Andover in time so I think classifying the Cutoff as a right of way and not a rail line at this time is appropriate. I think the first sentence should read that the cutoff is a railroad right of way that is in the planning and construction stages of reopening as a rail line for NJ Transit. Granthew (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifying the Cutoff