This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
I really like the map, as it provides a schematic map that was lacking. I was wondering, though, if the points of interest west of Slateford (about 60 miles of trackage) could be deleted as the Cut-Off itself is only 28 miles long. Perhaps the removed part of the schematic could be included later on in the article--I'm thinking in terms of something like a discussion of the Pocono Mountain section--to show/discuss the Slateford-Scranton section, since it is obviously relevant to the Cut-Off. I think right now, however, it would appear to a first-time visitor that the entire 88 miles (Scranton-Port Morris) is part of the Cut-Off, which of course is not correct. Could you possibly make that change?Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I didn't create the map, I just created the map discussion page. You probably want one of the editors listed in the map history. However, if they aren't interested, I'd be happy to help. Scillystuff (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this map was originally created to show the proposed NJT service along the line, rather than just indicating what the cut-off is. I think it is nice to have both sections of the line. Maybe it wouldn't be as confusing if the map were moved to the NJT proposal section. Something else to consider is what to do once there is service on the line...should there be a new page for the NJT service, in addition to this page? Answering that question might determine what to do now. I'm not sure there would need to be a separate article about 1 section of trackage that is entirely encompassed by a line. Instead, renaming this article for the NJT line and moving all of the current headers one level down under a "History" parent heading would probably be sufficient. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
