Talk:Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re-opening to Andover delayed[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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[edit]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lackawanna_Cut-Off_Restoration_Project&oldid=1208073271"