Jump to content

Talk:North East railway line

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

Double track

[edit]

What's the situation now? Is it a double-track (one line, one direction) railway to/from Albury and then triple-track (double-track standard, plus bi-directional 1,600 mm) closer to Melbourne? —Sladen (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albury line

[edit]

@ThylacineHunter: I know you’ve explained to me the difference between the North East line and the original broad gauge Albury line, but in my opinion, unless you can surpass the quality and length of the #History section of this article, which already outlines the broad gauge history, I can’t see if there would be notability for a separate article.

What I do suggest in the meantime, is either a redirect to here from Albury railway line, or if that is too ambiguous, possibly make it a disambiguation with the Main Southern railway line as well. Fork99 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, possibly if that link were also a disambiguation, maybe add in a link to Albury V/Line rail service as well. Fork99 (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This will be sorted out when @HoHo3143 gets up to updating the Albury line, Albury service, North East line and XPT service. Currently they are taking a break due to real life things, before that we have just started the regional lines/services with Warrnambool and Geelong (then we were going to continue with them going in a clockwise direction) -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such think as the Albury railway line. The line between Melbourne and Albury is the North East railway line, both standard and broad gauge. When the standard gauge track was added in the 1960s, it was a third track built alongside the existing alignment from Jacana to Albury with other lines from Melbourne to Jacana converted to dual gauge. A stand alone article would only be justified if it travelled along a different alignment. Today's Albury V/Line rail service traverses three line; the Western standard gauge railway line to Albion, the Albion-Jacana railway line to Jacana and the North East line to Albury.

Creation of an Albury railway line would just be content forking and inevitably that article would end up being redirected back to this one. Bagufleat (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, there has been confusion in the past with North East railway line and North East standard gauge railway line as well as Albury V/Line rail service and Albury railway line. Similar issue have arisen with:
Secondly, according to the official "Victorian Railways Gradients and Curves" book, the junction just before Kensington station all the way to the Murray River just past Wodonga station is referred to as just one line. All early references (pre standard gauge conversion) refer to this as the Albury Line.
Thirdly, the Western standard gauge railway line doesn't go to Albion, it's Southern Cross to Tottenham via Dynon then follows the Newport–Sunshine railway line. The North East standard gauge railway line also runs Southern Cross to Tottenham via Dynon then follows the Albion–Jacana railway line. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HoHo3143, I suggest that instead of finishing updating the Warrnambool V/Line rail service article and then going onto the Geelong V/Line rail service, Port Fairy railway line, Ballarat V/Line rail service, Ararat V/Line rail service, Maryborough V/Line rail service articles can wait as Albury railway line, Albury V/Line rail service, North East standard gauge railway line are becoming more urgent to be properly clarified. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThylacineHunter: Can you please provide the exact source and page number that backs up your claims, I’m not looking through hundreds of PDF pages I found online. Also, if possible, could you link to these past discussions you’re talking about? I do agree with @Bagufleat, it seems extremely pedantic to fuss over the minute details. @HoHo3143 (pinging on behalf of ThylacineHunter as they didn’t do it properly). Fork99 (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is:
  • "Victorian Railways Gradients and Curves" pages 87-91
  • "Names of Victorian Railway Stations" by Thos. O'Callaghan JP, 1918, various pages - extracts:
    • "Craigieburn - Melbourne to Albury..." page 39
    • "Seymour - Melbourne to Albury..." page 85
Discussions are (Note: These discussions are from before WP:AUTS):
Also taken from Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines#Australian lines:
  • Lines should be named after the last station that officially opened on them (even if that station has since been removed).
  • Those that cross over the state border, should use the end of the line if not connected to the other state's network.
    • If connected to the other network, then they should use the last station that was part of the each state's network followed by Comma-separated disambiguation for both lines.
ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThylacineHunter I'll do this shortly. I'll just quickly finish the Warrnambool page as it's almost done and then move onto the Albury V/Line rail service. I'll need quite a bit of help and your input for the NE standard gauge page as ive never done track pages only the current metro lines and V/Line services. Also sorry for the lack of action- I had my exams and am now overseas so its been hard to dedicate time towards wikipedia. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of the differences between infoboxes for Albury line and NESG line can be seen here User:ThylacineHunter/Lines/Albury. Will start sorting out the 2 separate railway lines shortly. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have sorted out the main problem of the "North East railway line" (Albury line) and the "North East standard gauge railway line" muddle. The problem is that both lines share the name "North East". Things will become fully clear of the differences when I finish the various line diagrams. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mess (continued from above)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a proposed article merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page.

With no opposition after 7 days, the result was: Merge.

I agree with some of the users in the previous discussion and I do not see a purpose in having separate broad gauge and standard gauge articles. The two gauges follow the same alignment from Jacana to Seymour, and historically up to Albury as well. They have a common history as well, in particular the gauge conversions in 1962 and 2011. The only difference is the alignment of the SG via Jacana, which is already covered by Albion-Jacana railway line, and I doubt the latter is even considered part of the North East railway line anyway. With these justification, I think the broad and standard gauge articles should be merged.

Noting there is duplication between this article, Western standard gauge railway line and the Albion-Jacana railway line, but this issue would need further research to be resolved.

I have already cleaned up the Albury V/Line rail service with content reduced to the service and brief description of fleet, route and stations, so I think that article is good enough to be left out of this discussion (though it stills need to be improved). The previous content about the Regional Rail Revival (North East Upgrade) have been moved to both the broad gauge and standard gauge physical railway articles for now, to be cleaned up further again when both articles merge (or not).

Also pinging the users above: @ThylacineHunter, Fork99, HoHo3143, and Bagufleat:. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcnut1996 I don't mind what happens with the article. I've kinda given up on these article rebuilds that I used to do to instead focus on the real world and some other Wikipedia things. My contributions to the Albury line article is styled similarly to (for example) the Frankston line article. This includes the fleet, upgrades, and some of the other stuff that you deleted. Let me know what you think in relation to what I've said. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankston line is different in that there is no separate physical railway article so everything can be in the one article. The Albury one currently has two separate physical railway articles, so I am aiming to style it more similar to other V/line service articles such as Warrnambool V/Line rail service.Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah good point. I also redid Warrnambool so I understand where you are coming from. And as I said before I don't mind what happens with this article. Also I think ThylacineHunter is inactive and doesn't edit anymore or is on a very extended break. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge between North East railway line and North East standard gauge railway line, both articles are fairly confusing to the average reader as to which time period or what physical track the article is talking about. Both of the articles still have empty sections I assume as a result of the split from a while back.
I still doubt that either of the North East standard gauge or broad gauge lines merits their own separate article from the other gauge due to WP:NOTABILITY; it's pretty much the same alignment, same stations, etc.
For example, the Central Australia Railway is a separate article to Adelaide–Darwin railway line as they have completely separate histories and alignments. Whereas, despite the conversion of the various railway lines between WA and SA to standard gauge (i.e. Adelaide–Port Augusta railway line, Eastern Goldfields Railway), there are no separate articles for each gauge that these lines have been in the past or are currently.
Although, I admit I'm also slightly confused by the Serviceton railway line/Western standard gauge railway line, but from what I gather, the Serviceton line is between Melbourne and the VIC/SA border via the original broad gauge via Ballarat and Ararat (of which the Melbourne-Ararat portion is still broad gauge and operational), whereas the Western standard gauge line includes the purpose built line between Melbourne and Ararat via Geelong that then continues to the VIC/SA border at Serviceton on the original converted broad gauge alignment. So I guess that's fine. Fork99 (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the Adelaide–Wolseley railway line as another example of a gauge converted line that has just one article. Fork99 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HoHo3143, yes I have been on an extended break (due to both dealing with my personal health and caring for a parent after a serious health incident). Things are a bit more settled, and I hope to be able to get back into editing on here this year.
  • @Marcnut1996, unfortunately due the aforementioned health issues on my end (and HoHo3143 getting a little busy around the same time) these article never got fully finished.
I support a merge to North East railway line as this name better reflects that the article refers to the full history of the line. The reason I split the article (with the old title of North East standard gauge railway line) originally was that, going by the title, it seemed to just be about the line post 1959 gauge conversion. This article (North East railway line) was then expanded to cover the physical track of the Albury, Craigieburn, & Seymour services (just as how the Warrnambool railway line covers the Geelong, Warrnambool, & Werribee services or how the Deniliquin railway line should cover the Bendigo, Echuca, & Sunbury services). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HoHo3143: Hopefully you are feeling better.
Looks like there is a clear consensus that they should be merged. Will help to facilitate this in the next few days. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcnut1996 I haven't been sick. I just got very busy with school at the end of last year as well as some setbacks with a few of the articles I nominated for GA status so I lost motivation. I still haven't really regained that motivation for the ...line article rebuilds
  • @ThylacineHunter I hope you have been ok. I do remember the issues that you have had both medically and with your parent/s
I am entering into year 12 this year so I will be very busy and unable to complete any big projects. I will still be monitoring developments on the Level Crossing Removal Project article (adding completions, announcements, and timelines) as well as some other minor projects. If people still want my input I will still be able to remain active in conversations. I look forward to seeing how these articles develop over the next year. HoHo3143 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was meant to ping @ThylacineHunter:. But best of luck to you as well @HoHo3143:. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcnut1996 thank you! HoHo3143 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:Support per nom. Even though the consensus to date has been unanimous, the correct process is to flag the articles and allow the merge proposal process to run for 7 days before closing. I have thus undone the redirect to facilitate. Wantenline (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wantenline: unlike with renaming articles/requested move discussions, the merge process doesn't require a formal discussion for at least 7 days, it's only a recommendation. Any editor can boldly merge articles without discussion first, however since discussion did take place, I guess it doesn't hurt to give it some time until the 28th to see if anyone opposes. Fork99 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HoHo3143: Good luck, I also finished Year 12 in the past few years, it will be over sooner than you think. And enjoy the last few weeks of your last ever 6 week school holidays, try to not leave holiday homework till the last week like me lol Fork99 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a discussion is initiated, it needs to run for a reasonable period of time, not all editors look at Wikipedia on a daily basis. Declaring it run and won after 26 hours was not the correct way to close. With only four editors having expressed an opinion it was not in WP:SNOWCLOSE territory. It may not attract any further opinions, but seven days is the generally accepted minimum time period that potentially controversial discussions should run for. The status quo has existed for six months, waiting another week won't hurt. Wantenline (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree or disagree with your decision to revert nor do I agree or disagree with Marcnut1996's decision to merge ahead of time, but I already said earlier: however since discussion did take place, I guess it doesn't hurt to give it some time until the 28th to see if anyone opposes. Fork99 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fork99 thank you! I made sure to get all of my work done before Christmas so I can fully enjoy the break without stressing. I'm looking forward to the big year ahead. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_East_railway_line&oldid=1209419402"