Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Johnsonville Branch

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

Route map

[edit]

What is the point of having a rail line diagram showing freight sidings that are not there and indicating the line continues past Johnsonville when it patently does not ? This diagram should be labelled "Johnsonville Line Circa 1936" ! Bigglesjames 21:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closed sidings are indicated by their light red colour. Since this is an encyclopedic article, it is better to show that the line did continue on from Johnsonville, and there was a few sidings on the line. --Lholden 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard practice, see WP:TRAIL for comunity agreed worldwide standards. Pickle 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say I really appreciate the work someone has done on the route maps but because I have been following them - I believe there is a very small error in that the Rangoon st bridge is between Khandallah station and the tunnel not as the route map suggests.121.73.90.127 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Ok worked out how to change - it has been done.[reply]


proposed merger b/w C. Downs and Jvl Line

[edit]

Are you planning to make an article for every stop on the Johnsonville line? Because, don't; that's just proliferation for the sake of proliferation. And, Crofton Downs is the prescendent. Kripto 22:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the limited information already posted under Crofton Downs Station, I do not have any problems with merging it into Johnsonville Line. Bigglesjames 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard practice across wikipedia worldwide to have articles on every railway station and every railway line/service. Pickle 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Pickle on this one. I imagine K. R. Cassells' Uncommon Carrier has enough info on the station to be able to expand the article a bit. I'll have a look sometime soon. - Axver 03:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cool. It's not that I think that an article about the Crofton Downs station is a bad idea in and of itself, it's just that if there's only one article about one station on the line, it makes more sense not to have station articles. I'm still not sure there's that much to say: This is a train station. It is in Crofton Downs. 'Train station' is a misnomer, it is a platform beside some tracks. People get on the train to go there. Once they get off the train, they are there. But if you want to make soemthing other than a eight stubs, then good. Kripto 03:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would prefer a paragraph for all stations on the line saying when each was established rather than a “stub” type article for each. When were the additional stations established? Stations added with electrification, 1938: Awarua Street Simla Crescent later: Crofton Downs (Sept 1963) Box Hill (?) Raroa (?) probably the 1940s as I went to school from it! I suppose the wooden one-way Rangoon St road bridge over the line is the original bridge, but later than the line?

If you have access to any published sources for the dates on these stations, please consider updating the List of Wellington railway stations article. Thanks! -- Matthew25187 11:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The North Auckland Line/Auckland West & Eastern Line, Auckland pages have extra pages for some of the stations, but they are pretty brief! See List of Auckland railway stations & Panmure Train Station. The idea is to have a box showing the station either side. Hugo999 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just becasue you may only percive scope for a stub, i refer you to otehr stations in Wellington that have been extenislvy wirrten about such as; Masterton Railway Station, Renall Street Railway Station, Solway Railway Station, Carterton Railway Station, Matarawa Railway Station, Woodside Railway Station, Featherston Railway Station, Maymorn Railway Station all on the Wairarapa Line and even the clsoed Greytown Railway Station. (In)famously Wikipedia 1,000,000th article was Jordanhill (railway station). Pickle 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this line

[edit]

There appears to have been some dispute as to the most appropriate name for this article, and the line itself. This is an attempt to discuss the rationale for and against the names Johnsonville Branch and Johnsonville Line. The way I see it, there are (at least) the following points to consider:

  1. Publications on the subject use both Johnsonville Branch (The Railways Of New Zealand, New Zealand Railway And Tramway Atlas) and Johnsonville Line (Rails That Built A Nation).
  2. The only operator of services on the line, TranzMetro, refers to it as the Johnsonville Line.
  3. Greater Wellington Regional Council, contractor for services on the line, refers to it as the Johnsonville Line.
  4. The Gazetted "official" name of the line, given as Johnsonville Line (ref. Final Decision of place names).
  5. Wikiproject NZR Manual Of Style has the following to say on the topic:

"Branch lines should always be referred to as the Terminus-Name Branch"

"In some cases lines are also known by other names by current operators, such as Ohai Industrial Line for the Wairio Branch by Toll Rail; Melling Line by Metlink for the Melling Branch. Convention is to favour the Terminus-Name Branch style, with the alternate name noted in the introduction and a redirect established under the alternate name."

Opinions? -- Matthew25187 09:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel points 1, 4, and 5 are all relevant. I consider point 3 to be irrelevant. Now, my university's history department has a really good manual of style for research essays, but I'm not about to refer to it for Wikipedia formatting conventions; similarly, I'm not in a hurry to refer to a regional council, a body not exactly full of railway experts, for the naming of a branch. I think point 2 is of dubious relevance too - Tranz Metro could decide tomorrow that it's the "funny yellow and blue swirls line". The way Tranz Metro brands its services, including line names, is related to marketing. I do not believe this article's title should be subject to the whims of Tranz Metro.
I would also like to add a point six: Johnsonville Branch is the most precise name that defines the line. It is a branch line (of the North Island Main Trunk) to Johnsonville, hence Johnsonville Branch. We use "line" for some trunk and all secondary main lines, e.g. Stillwater - Westport Line and Main South Line, not insubstantial branches such as the J-ville Branch. The title "Johnsonville Branch" is clear, is not subject to the whims of any operator or marketing department, and is in common use amongst railfans, reliable sources on the topic, and locals (I'm a Wellingtonian whose friends/relatives have lived in Johnsonville; I have never known anyone to call it anything but the Johnsonville Branch). And ultimately, this isn't an issue with any other article on a New Zealand branch. It seems to me that a couple of users have decided to completely buck Wikipedia convention and pointlessly make an issue out of this. I think this should be left as "Johnsonville Branch", with "Johnsonville Line" given equal prominence in the intro to appease people such as Birdhurst (this compromise intro was in place for a while until someone, I don't know who, changed it again). - Axver 11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this article should be filed under "Johnsonville Branch" to comply with Wikipedia naming conventions, I disagree that the GWRC's view of the line name is irrelevant. Not only is the service provided provided due to a contract between GWRC and Tranzmetro (it would not exist without council subsidy support), GWRC also do all passenger rail the marketing to the public as Metlink[1] and their web site calls it the "Johnsonville Line"[2]. Interestingly the printed broucher for the Johnsonville Line[3] call it the "Johnsonville Train Line" (no prizes for consistency). Anyway, this also means the Wellington public have been "taught" for many years to refer to this as the "Johnsonville Line". It also of note that "Johnsonville Line" is the term used in official documents such as those for the North Wellington Public transport Study and Land Transport's National Land Transport Programme (neither mention the "Johnsonville Branch"). Finally, "Johnsonville Line" has 1,560 hits on Google whereas "Johnsonville Branch" only has 563 (and this includes many entries like "Johnsonville Branch Library"). It is for this reason I believe "Johnsonville Line" should be the official name. - Bigglesjames 21:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, what does it matter? If we change the name of the article back to Johnsonville Line, it will not comply with the NZR Wikiproject guidelines, and will require some sort of a caveat. Personally I think the article name now is fine, as it clearly states that "Johnsonville Branch" is an unofficial name, albeit technically correct. --Lholden 04:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, if we did have to create a caveat, I cannot think of a single reason that would apply solely to this line. In other words, if this article is located at Johnsonville Line, not Johnsonville Brnach, we would then have to change every other NZ branch line page on Wikipedia. Such stupidity would be a waste of everyone's time. - Axver 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also disagree that the Council/Tranz Metro designation is "irrelevant", but I think it should be pointed out that when the Council and Tranz Metro talk about a "Line", they're not talking about the same thing that this article is. The article is about a piece of track, but when they say "Line", they're usually talking about a train service that runs on that track, not the track itself. (After all, they also talk about the Paraparaumu Line and the Upper Hutt Line, which would be the NIMT and Wairarapa line from a track perspective). My personal opinion is that the track is "the Johnsonville Branch", while the trains that run on it are "the Johnsonville Line of the Tranz Metro service". (It's confusing to have "line" given two separate meanings, but I think that's probably how it's getting used in practice.) Just my thoughts. -- Vardion 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussed the name of the line above, there seems to be an apparent consensus that the article should remain titled "Johnsonville Branch". It also seems agreed this article should also include information about the Johnsonville Line (i.e. the service operating on this branch) as opposed to having another article called "Johnsonville Line" that provides information on the service operating on the Johnsonville Branch. Can we now agree there is no dispute and remove the Point of View qualifier ? Bigglesjames 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I do agree that it makes sense for the name of this article to remain as is, and for it to include information on both the track and the service, as is the case with the Melling Branch. -- Matthew25187 06:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of the NZR Manual of style, the name should remain as is. --Lholden 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seems to me that there is consensus. Also, I failed to notice last time around that this was referenced, but I just checked the Quail Atlas and it calls the line the Johnsonville Branch. As Quail is pretty definitive when it comes to this sort of stuff, it provides significant weight and I think we can safely consider this matter closed. The article stays at Johnsonville Branch. - Axver 12:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I have been perusing the 1957 NZR Geographic Mileage Table this evening, and it refers to the line as, surprise surprise, the Johnsonville Branch. It is the Johnsonville Branch according to NZR, Quail, most publications, and sheer definition; Johnsonville Line is simply branding. Furthermore, with this info, it can be seen that the intro's assertion that "Johnsonville Branch" is an unofficial name is absolutely incorrect. I am changing the intro to reflect this and will actively revert any attempt to return to the current incorrect intro. - Axver 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

Is it really necessary to add another template to the article? The rail line info box allows a logo to be added to it, and none of the information in the 'new' template is new.--Lholden (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With the exception of the Tranzmetro logo, everything is repeated. IMO the new template just clutters the page and detracts from the article. Can we lose the new template but keep the logo (which is appropriate) ? Bigglesjames (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:Ontrack logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matangi introduction

[edit]

In the comments section of the Dominion Post article "Commuters frustrated with old trains", someone claiming to be from GWRC has posted a note to the effect that the Matangi EMUs will begin service on this line on 19 March as "originally" planned, thereby refuting the 28 March date given in the same article. If the Matangis do indeed commence service on this line on 19 March as stated in the article "Old trains pulled from Johnsonville line", I'll amend this article accordingly. — Matthew25187 (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jville Line Schedule Changed

[edit]

From the 25th of October, the GWRC changed the Johnsonville Line Schedule (including going from 3 to 4 trains for hour at peak on a 15 min schedule) (Ref: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1510/S00146/improved-train-services-for-johnsonville.htm). The new schedule also made all services slower (between 23 and 28 minutes) as the Maitangi trains have proven incapable of operating to the 21 minute schedule provided by the old English Electrics. I want to up the article with this information (but perhaps not so bluntly). Does anyone have anything else ? Bigglesjames (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Johnsonville Branch. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johnsonville Branch. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnsonville_Branch&oldid=1200334923"