Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand Railways

(Redirected from Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR)
Shortcut

Welcome to the New Zealand Railways (NZR) WikiProject!

This project was established to facilitate co-operation with regards to Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand's national railway network. Recognising the unique facets of this isolated rail system, this project seeks to enhance and expand coverage wherever possible while fostering closer communication between participants.

Please note that we have an NZR Manual of Style for articles related to New Zealand's railways; it seeks to provide guidance on matters of notability and style for all editors of articles on related topics.

Taieri Gorge Railway at Wingatui Viaduct, Otago, New Zealand.

Goals

edit
  • To expand coverage of NZR by creating articles on all relevant encyclopaedic topics that do not currently have articles.
  • To enhance the standard of currently existing articles through the addition of information, pictures, maps, and anything else pertinent.
  • To provide information of a high calibre; detailed, well referenced, well written, precise, and accurate.
  • Establish guidelines for articles related to NZR.

Scope

edit

This project's scope encompasses all articles related to rail transport in New Zealand. Although its name is "WikiProject NZR", it also covers the Wellington and Manawatu Railway, other NZR-era private operators, and NZR's provincial predecessors and privately owned successors.

Members

edit
 
New Zealand – railway maintenance cabin

Please add your name below if you are interested in joining our group.

Current issues requiring attention

edit

Railway preservation in New Zealand

edit

Patronage Data

edit
  • Within the last day or two, the station data for Auckland's Southern Line has been changed. The 2010 boarding data has been replaced with 2011 data that includes both boarding and alighting. Although it is good to have more up-to-date information, the problem is that it is measured differently to the other data (which could potentially confuse people into making unfair comparisons), and this new data is only available for the Southern Line. So, should the new data be deleted because it could cause confusion, should it be left as is, or should it be left, but with different wording to prevent confusion? Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some station's articles still use 2009, when the 2010 is available. Videomaniac29 (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

W&MR

edit
  • Whether Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company should be moved to "Wellington and Manawatu Railway", with the current title used for the actual company and the Company-less title used for information about the origins, development, and operation of the actual railway. See the talk page.

This issue has been taken care of with the separate articles for Wellington and Manawatu Railway Company and Wellington - Manawatu Line.

Auckland lines

edit

Agreed, the Auckland lines could certainly be split like Wellington, with Hutt Valley Line which is part of the Wairarapa Line and Paraparaumu Line which is part of the NIMT

The main lines articles would be mainly historic, while the suburban articles would be largely cover proposed improvements and upgrades. It would also reduce the lengths of some of the articles! PS: Need to add to the Rail Line Navigation Box Eastern Line, Auckland, Western Line, Auckland (currently a redirect) and Southern Line, Auckland?

Lyttelton Line

edit

For Lyttelton, how about turning the present Lyttelton rail tunnel article into an article on the Lyttelton Line also (i.e. Redirect), as there is hardly enough for two articles, apart from the difficulty of separating it out! PS: Is the Lyttelton Line regarded as part of the Main South Line as stated; it seems more like a branch line to me?

First; I don't agree that the Lyttelton Tunnel article should be removed simply because of the current poor state of the article under that name, for several reasons:
  • It is not the only article on railway tunnels in New Zealand (e.g. Otira and Rimutaka), which though not in of itself establishing notability for this particular subject, does mean that there is at least precedent.
  • The Lyttelton Tunnel is notable for various reasons, including being the first railway tunnel in New Zealand.
  • The current article could be expanded with additional information, given access to the appropriate sources (a simple search of Archway lists many files with potentially useful information).
Second; that which is referred to as the "Lyttelton Line" is indeed the portion of the Main South Line from Lyttelton to Christchurch. It is not, and has never been, a branch. The Main South Line by definition (Notice of Final Decision to Assign Place Names) starts in Lyttelton and terminates in Invercargill. I have previously questioned the purpose of a Lyttelton Line article myself; other users are of the belief that this line is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am essentially with Matthew on this one. The Lyttelton tunnel is certainly notable - the real problem here is that there is no article for the Kaimai tunnel! The other major tunnels are covered, but bizarrely not that one. Where I disagree is with regards to a Lyttelton Line article; I believe it should be done, for two primary reasons: firstly, until 1972, it was a distinct suburban route and deserves the same coverage as the Auckland and Wellington suburban lines; secondly, it was and to a degree still is quite operationally distinct from the rest of the MSL, and treating it separately follows the precedent of separating the Hutt Valley Line and Rimutaka Incline from the Wairarapa Line as a whole. - Axver (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the real problem here is that there is no article for the Kaimai tunnel! The other major tunnels are covered, but bizarrely not that one."
This most egregious oversight has been rectified.  :-) -- Matthew25187 (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC) PS: Good article. Was it built by the MOW, not by a contractor? Hugo999 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the work was carried out by the MOW, though the concrete track bed was laid by a private contractor. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) The Ministry of Works is worth mentioning in the Kaimai Tunnel article I think? But not "Bob the Builder" though he helped, see his article Bob Clarkson MP! 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is now an article for the Lyttelton Line so you may judge for yourself whether or not there is sufficient information on the subject. I'm sure there probably is more information I could add with the appropriate source material, but I think the current article is a good start. HTH. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasw not proposing that the Lyttelton Tunnel article be removed but that the Lyttelton Line redlink be redirected to it! The early history of the line - whether, when and how it should be built - is the history of the tunnel. The operation as a suburban line could be separated out later. Hugo999 (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line templates

edit

I've raised this issue on both the Paraparaumu Line and Johnsonville Branch articles - the project needs to standardise the templates we use. In my view the project should stick to the standard rail templates. --Lholden (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail privatisation in New Zealand

edit

The article Rail privatisation in New Zealand is an unreferenced and orphaned stub at the moment. This is a pretty big topic, especially with the recent acquisition by the government of Toll's operations, and there is plenty of material that belongs in the article.

I think this article won't add anything to the WikiProject - apart from bringing together information already on the New Zealand Railways Department, NZRC, Tranz Rail, ONTRACK and Toll Rail articles. --Lholden (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that would be a good idea. At the moment, the information on the privatisation/re-nationalisation process is all over the place, and not terribly accessible or easily followed for a casual reader. A central article clarifying the process would, I think, be of quite considerable benefit. - Axver (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article references to rail operator

edit

There are numerous existing articles that make reference to Toll as the operator of the service/line/etc. These need to be updated to KiwiRail where appropriate. The easiest way to accomplish this is to go to Toll NZ/What links here and go through the list of articles to verify or update the references. – Matthew25187 (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class registers

edit

Hi all, the class register from New Zealand DX class locomotives has been removed as the registers are now considered to be not notable. I propose we remove these from all the locomotive articles. Thoughts? LJ Holden 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably users editing - @Yak52fan: @Pcuser42: @Akld guy: --LJ Holden 21:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, for certain classes in particular (the DC class especially) it's difficult to even cite them properly, so removing them makes sense. Certainly the DFT/DFB, DX and DL registers would not be notable, except for maybe 7117. In saying that, I think preserved examples should remain as they become notable, so 4818, 4248 and 4369 can stay. pcuser42 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's become very messy with the likes of DCs, DBRs etc. The other issue raised on the DX talk page was WP:OR which seems to be happening a lot (e.g. which DCs are being preserved!!!) --LJ Holden 23:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DCs especially, but it's also happening a lot with DL and even AK(V) commissioning. Seems like the DX talk page also agreed that only preserved examples are notable, so now I favour the following:
  • Removal of any locomotive or vehicle not preserved from class registers (keeping recent preservations of DBRs 1254 and 1295, and DCs 4248, 4369 and DCP 4818)
  • For classes with no preserved examples (either because they're all scrapped or all in service), remove the class register entirely
  • Update the disposition to include preserved and in service counts only, unless the class is entirely preserved or scrapped (e.g. all steamers) - in this case, keep preserved and scrapped counts
I feel like the in service counts in the infobox may be contentious so any feedback is appreciated. pcuser42 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
I have added a register to the Mainline Steam page done purely out of my own research and own time, and would like to keep it there so I am advising you all here now, and also would like to know why it is OK to have rolling stock registers and overseas locomotive registers but not the actual fleet. It will not make any sense for users visiting the page who will think they have no working fleet. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case, based on the page history the class register was removed, restored across two edits then partially removed again (based on this discussion), so wasn't in a complete state either way. pcuser42 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list is all here at the NZ Locomotives Fandom Wiki. Re your question, the answer is it's not OK, esp since (based on your comment) the information is WP:OR. I get there's a lot of people unhappy with the removal of class registers etc, but it's not like the information has disappeared. --LJ Holden 00:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how WP:OR has anything to do with it, and mind - if your removing class registers, why are we looking at overseas locomotives and rolling stock? Doesn't make sense. You can't remove class registers without removing rolling stock and overseas locos, as that misleads people.
Also explain why we have pages about sports eg 2022 NBA Season or 2022 Formula One World Championship but can't have a simple thing such as a class register... ConcordeAAIB (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the thread above. Your statement is that the register is "out of my own research" which is pretty much the definition of WP:OR. You've conducted original research and added it to a Wikipedia article. You're right, it doesn't make sense to have the overseas rolling stock in there but not the NZ rolling stock. Both registers should be removed. Honestly though, I can't be bothered with this whole class register issue and I'm not going to remove it - I suspect what will happen is another editor will see the number of small edits made to the page's tables eventually, as was the case with the DX article, and just remove them anyway. There's plenty of other far more productive things to focus my editing time on here --LJ Holden 08:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean about original research? So according to that, people can't submit their own research that they found looking at websites for example I looked at Mainline Steams website for all the details.... ConcordeAAIB (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you're citing a website then it's not original research. In this case, if you've come up with the list yourself based on going to Mainline Steam and recording details to be added to Wikipedia, then that is. A big problem with the tables in the past was that a lot of additions were either uncited or incorrectly cited. Either way, I'm not going to bother removing them. --LJ Holden 09:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if I cite the website, would I do that as a ref? or How would I cite that, sorry I'm new to citing things.
And If I cite that would that help a little bit? ConcordeAAIB (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Always better if you cite things, but remember it's not a guarantee that something won't get removed. The discussion we've had on class registers also includes a lot on WP:Notability, as other editors might consider specific locomotive/rolling stock details as not notable. Use the reference tag <ref></ref> and a citation template, for websites use {{cite web|url=???|title=???|date=???|accessdate=???}} --LJ Holden 00:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so it is a reference, I thought so. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why Im discussing it here, best to talk to you guys and hopefully get this sorted first, before anyone makes rash decisions in removing it. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging the ping (ty) but I'm way out of my depth here. I have no specialist knowledge and as a frequent train rider in Auckland my interest is mainly in its lines and stations and the AM class units. Akld guy (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so lets replace class registers with a "disposition" section? E.g. "One DX class locomotive has been scrapped (26xx) blah blah, but the rest remain in service". The issue seems to be that we've got lists which create pointless edit wars. I see one starting on the DA page now... --LJ Holden 10:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Only preserved locos need a list, and they tend to be the best sourced. pcuser42 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed most of the Class Registers, or at least the ones I could find. Interestingly there was a lot of additional stuff added to the tables over the years, I'm guessing the feedback is that we've removed this info, it can be added back in as part of the article though. Overall it's clear that there is a lot of uncited nonsense in these articles... time for a clean up! --LJ Holden 01:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that LJ Holden, I've also updated the manual of style to discourage class registers per this discussion. pcuser42 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it appears that there's going to be an edit war on the basis that the removal wasn't discussed, I've messaged the user and let them know it was discussed, here --LJ Holden 07:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2406:E006:AC8:9101:68CF:3BED:1AF7:7E08: @2406:E006:AC8:9101:5125:A453:A39F:B9E0: Please discuss here before restoring class registers. Your edits are going against community consensus. pcuser42 (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2406:E006:AC8:9101:68CF:3BED:1AF7:7E08: - has now been warned about reverting changes. I've reached out to them asking that they discuss before making changes. Hopefully they will join this page to discuss --LJ Holden 05:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Easyg777:: please join the discussion on class registers before editing them. I've started adding links to websites that have locomotive lists so that people can see them --LJ Holden 06:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object strongly to removing this information without a more detailed explanation and discussion. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? I support removal per Talk:New_Zealand_DX_class_locomotive#Class_register_notability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR, as most if not all class registers contained original research. pcuser42 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion @NearEMPTiness:, we have been trying to encourage others as you can see to join this discussion. Unfortunately, restoration of the Class Registers as they were isn't really an option given the breaches of Wiki policy highlighted on the DX class page. Do you have alternative suggestions that would comply with Wiki policy? --LJ Holden 19:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a minimum, I recommend moving the tables to the discussion pages. The table of the DX seems a bit boring, but I think it is still notable. It could be for instance exported into a separate list. In the case of some or most steam locomotives, I think these lists are very useful and should not be removed, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest that preserved locomotives (steam, diesel or electric) should remain, so on that point I agree with you. In the case of preserved stock, citing sources is much easier so won't fall afoul of WP:OR as easily. However I don't think that every single locomotive needs to be listed. pcuser42 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A good compromise might be to collapse the tables, as shown on Talk:New Zealand DX class locomotive#Class register notability. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a compromise though. The issue isn't that the class registers take up space, it's that they're not notable (WP:NOTABILITY) and contain original research WP:OR. Adding links to websites that have rolling stock lists (e.g. NZ Railways Rolling Stock Lists) and putting in preserved locomotives (as @Pcuser42: suggests) satisfies the notability requirements and ensures the information is easily accessible for anyone who might want to find it. --LJ Holden 08:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's ashame is without the class registers now we can no longer confirm weather or not a locomotive of what class has been withdrawn however the weebly rolling stock site some of which hasn't got the correct update cuz no one was bothered to correct the remainder on their, when can we add in a brand new register to confirm what's scrapped or such on the list becasue yes you had to erase due to a number of other reasons that was going on but is they're any future hopes to find a way around wiki policy or etc how to make a brand new class register sometime for all NZR Locomotives in future. Trooper201 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a way around Wikipedia policy just to provide unverified information isn't going to happen. Verifiability is one of the core policies of Wikipeida, and the class registers routinely broke that policy. pcuser42 (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@2406:E006:AC8:9101:F5DC:4FD2:5274:A264: - please discuss your revisions/restorations of the class registers here, yes you can refer the removal of class registers to Wikiadmins if you prefer. --LJ Holden 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be completely honest, I see the removal locomotive registers a rather pointless thing to do. I'm assuming there is somewhere else (New Zealand Rolling Stock Lists?) where I can find locomotive registers. TomMort1 10:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is on New Zealand Rolling Stock Lists on Weebly they hardly update or do anything keep us more upto date which is dumb! Trooper201 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping anyone from starting their own website with rolling stock lists. --LJ Holden 09:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


But then how do we know the information on the locomotives fate scrap or preservation now or withdrawal. they're has to be another way. Trooper201 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start your own Wiki I guess... try Fandom? --LJ Holden 08:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New lede for Rail transport in New Zealand and citation tidy-up

edit

Hi all, I've expanded the lede greatly and tidied up a lot of the citations. --LJ Holden 01:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More citation tidy-ups

edit

Hi all, as many of you know there are a lot of references which are in common across Wiki NZR articles. I've started to template all of these so that they are uniform across all articles, and it's much easier to reference specific pages, the first I've created is:

  • Palmer, A. N.; Stewart, W. W. (1965). Cavalcade of New Zealand Locomotives. Wellington: A H. & A W. Reed. ISBN 978-0-207-94500-7.

Which you can access by using the template: *{{Palmer & Stewart}} Cheers --LJ Holden 02:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination for Rail transport in New Zealand

edit

I've nominated Rail transport in New Zealand for Good article status. Hopefully the last round of edits / tidy ups has improved the quality --LJ Holden 09:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rails magazine

edit

There's an article on Rails magazine which needs expanding, given its usefulness as a reference it really shouldn't be a stub :) --LJ Holden 07:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Styling of TMS/Pre-TMS numbers in articles

edit

Recent edits to the Glenbrook Vintage Railway page has highlighted the fact that on that page and many other pages, TMS numbers are displayed inconsistently. Rather than get into an edit war with a rather obtuse editor who keeps undoing an edit, I will follow his suggestion and raise the issue here first.

In NZ Railway vernacular, it is commonly accepted that Pre-TMS numbers are styled correctly with a Capital Letter, then a space, then the number (e.g. K 911). Where a secondarly letter is involved with the Class, styled correctly this should be shown as a superscripted letter (e.g. KA 942) but informally styling the second letter as a lower-case letter is also considered acceptable (e.g. Ka 942). Generally in most articles that I can see, it seems the correct style using the superscripted second letter is generally applied but I cannot see anywhere on this page that denotes a standard to follow.

Similarly, it is commonly accepted that TMS numbers are styled correctly with All Capitals for the letters, then the number with no space (e.g. DCP4818) - due to the original TMS computer system being unable to handle case sensitivity so it was always displaying capitals, and equally for the calculation the system needed to provide on the letters and numbers there was no space. The use of a space with TMS numbers is not only a styling error, but it also can introduce confusion. However again, there is nothing to denote a standard to follow and on many pages TMS numbers are styled both correctly and incorrectly on the same page - for instance my edits of removing the space from some TMS numbers were rejected because "spaces are consistent with the rest of the article" yet on the very same page, all the carriages that are listed by TMS number do not have spaces.

Sticking to proper styling is the difference from being able to tell carriage A 2001 (b.1941) apart from carriage A2001 (b.1938 as A 1861). It is a small change but can have big implications, and I feel that we should make an effort to get it right and portray information as accurately as possible.

Can we set an agreed standard where Pre-TMS numbers use the superscripted style with a space, and TMS numbers are All Capitals with no space? Gosteamnz (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage for human-readable TMS numbers has been to include a space - this is how GVR do it themselves, as well as Steam Inc (note "DA 345"), and from memory NZ Railfan does this as well, which is cited in most articles on this subject. Conversely, TAIC reports omit the space.
I've been (attempting to) be consistent with the inclusion of the space for some time and it's only just now being challenged, so the discussion is appreciated.
I'll also note that "DCP4818" isn't even a valid TMS number due to the P subclass. pcuser42 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a read of New Zealand Railway Observers from the time TMS was implemented (1977-79) and it appears that the system reads locomotive/wagon classifications as a single string of letters and numbers, i.e. there's no space. The NZRO records all the reclassifications that happened then as being without spaces. I'm surprised by this as I always thought the system only actually read the numbers, letters are just so stupid humans know what the vehicle in question actually is --LJ Holden 10:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Amicus database system still used by KiwiRail does not use spaces between the class lettering, just as TMS did. NZ Railfan know about TMS/Amicus numbers not having spaces but Reid made a stylistic choice to put in a space, which he later said he regretted. Steam Inc might have DA 345 listed on their website but I think that is an exception rather than the norm, their internal newsletter has used TMS numbers with no spaces for many years. Unsure why GVR would adopt the space unless for stylistic reasons also. If we are to be properly accurate, without a space is the way to go. As for DCP4818 - it it is a valid TMS/Amicus style number but not a valid one when applying the TMS check formula, which has not been necessary since the switch from TMS to Amicus but has been used ad-hoc during that time. Gosteamnz (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've started to make changes to articles on the basis that:
1. Pre-TMS (1979) the second letter is smaller (e.g. DA) and post 1979 is capitalised (e.g. DC)
2. Post-TMS the numbers come right after the class, i.e. there is no space, e.g. DC4006
I've added notes to articles where the lede text states the class in the post-TMS form (i.e. "The New Zealand DC class[nb1]...") --LJ Holden 21:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates for south Auckland stations

edit

Is there a reason why stations from Homai to Pukekohe use coordinates which don't show on the Wikimap? Johnragla (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works ok for me. --LJ Holden 06:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NZR locomotive list

edit

I've started a deletion discussion for the Template:NZR locomotive list, mainly as a consequence of removing rolling stock lists. --LJ Holden 06:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Adjacent Stations Infobox Template Issues (archived/resolved)

edit

I've noticed that many stations don't have the correct links. E.g. when you type e.g. "Grafton" into to the preceding station for Mount Eden's infobox, it will show up as a dead red link because the thing (I don't know what it's called) thinks that you're trying to type Grafton railway station, Lower Hutt, when it should be Grafton railway station, Auckland. Same for Kingsland, Newmarket, Avondale, Morningside, Penrose, and Panmure's adjacent/next to stations. Some of them use 'Wellington Region' as well as 'Lower Hutt'. I have a suggestion to fix this, could we make a page redirect for each station's dead links, so could we make for example Grafton railway station, Lower Hutt redirect you to Grafton railway station, Auckland? I know that this is not the best solution, however this is my first time working on NZ articles, and I have no knowledge on how the infobox template thing was set up. It will still help get rid of all of the dead links. Please suggest any ideas and/or support/oppose any suggested ideas. Fork99 (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC) :List of Auckland railway stations also has a similar problem under the Western Line section. Fork99 (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I’ve found the template which was causing this issue. It can be found at Template:NZR station title. I’ve also managed to fix the issues found above. Note to anyone, please read the note that I have left on that template’s page. Fork99 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for fixing this! One thing - on the Wellington stations Metlink links to the Australian entity, not Public transport in the Wellington Region. Could you fix this please? --LJ Holden 21:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LJ Holden: Hmm, I’m actually not too familiar with how it works (it took me 6 months to find that template above) as I’m used to working with Sydney’s public transport articles, but I’ll see what I can do. Fork99 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LJ Holden: After some experimenting, I actually don’t think it can be fixed. Unfortunately, even if you try using Metlink|Public transport in the Wellington region, it will just default to Metlink. Your old s-rail adjacent stations system is so different compared to the newer version that Australian systems use! I’ll still try and see what else I can do. Or possibly, I could ask on the talk page on the Australian article to consider moving it to “Metlink (Melbourne)” or something similar due to this reason and then redirect Metlink to Wellington’s Metlink? What do you think? Fork99 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fork99: Ah, thanks for looking into that. Perhaps change the template to "Metlink Wellington" and redirect Metlink Wellington the the Public transport in the Wellington region article? --LJ Holden 22:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:::::@LJ Holden: Yeah, good idea, one problem is that it doesn’t really agree with the official name? I think moving the current article Metlink to Metlink (Melbourne) actually makes sense because that branding in Australia hasn’t been in use for almost 10 years (so I don’t think it would break too much over in Melbourne’s articles and also most people wouldn’t use the old term for it, and even if they did, I think putting a “for the Metlink in Melbourne” template on this article makes sense), which I would assume makes this Metlink more notable and significant than the other one? Fork99 (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC) :::::@LJ Holden: Also, do you happen to know why the article is called Public transport in the Wellington Region instead of Metlink (Wellington) or something? Is it because it’s not noteworthy enough to split into two articles? Fork99 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S-rail operator names

edit

@LJ Holden: After some discussion over on the Australian Metlink article, it was actually agreed to change Metlink in every single Wellington station in the adjacent stations template to Transdev Wellington instead of changing it to either of our ideas suggested in the above section. This would also be consistent with how it works in Auckland, where all of them use Transdev Auckland instead of AT Metro. Thoughts? Fork99 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every Tranz Metro, AT Metro, and ONTRACK in that section of the infobox would need to be changed to Transdev Wellington, Transdev Auckland, and KiwiRail respectively. Fork99 (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks @Fork99: --LJ Holden 08:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Te Huia timings

edit

Bringing attention here to the original research issue I brought up at Talk:Te Huia pcuser42 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Rolling Stock Tables from Rail Group pages

edit

I have just noticed that the rolling stock tables on 3 pages have been removed - those on the Mainline Steam page, Steam Incorporated page, and Dunedin Railways page. There are possibly others that I haven't noticed yet. I have undone the edit for the MLS and Steam Inc pages, but left the Dunedin Railways one for now. I do not see any reasonable justification why these lists were removed, and in fact without them the page does not make sense as it was left. While the reasons for why the lists were taken off the Locomotive pages are well established (though clearly not adhered to worldwide on Wikipedia), I don't believe the same arguments can be applied to the Rail Group pages as the information is always able to be sourced officially from the groups in question, and websites like NZRSR. It should, at least, be discussed first? Gosteamnz (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I removed them as per the discussion above. There's nothing fundamentally different from a page on a locomotive class with original research and not being up to Wikipedia's notability standards and a heritage organisation, especially some of the details on freight wagons. I've moved the lists to the site I've created, under organisations (which I created after much moaning from people who don't seem to understand Wikipedia has content policies) so the information is still available on the internet. Disagree that the pages don't make sense without them, Mainline Steam needs to be expanded with information relevant to the article, e.g. the history is pretty thin. --LJ Holden 09:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a fundamental difference between a locomotive class list which is constantly updated with hearsay information, making it original research rather than a table which largely remains static because the information only comes from the groups involve when they publish it (making the information citeable). I also stand by my comment that the pages don't make sense without them - on the Steam Incorporated page for instance, without the locomotive table it just has a blurb about saving locos, and then it just says locos that used to be at Steam Inc or belong to others at Steam Inc - but no Steam Inc locos listed. Gosteamnz (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bullet-pointed lists of preserved locomotives (as per locomotive class articles) are ok, so long as we make sure OR isn't added (which it inevitably is, e.g. today I reverted a bizarre claim on that KA 942 was renumbered 949...); the issue from a notability perspective is every individual rail vehicle that organisations might own (e.g. wagons, including the chassis of wagons!) really is outside of notability policy. --LJ Holden 08:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PCuser42: - anything to add? LJ Holden 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Railway Modeler: and @PCuser42: - adding you to this discussion before we end up with an edit war. LJ Holden 23:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing I didn't get a ping because user names are case-sensitive?  
I for one would be in favour of adding preserved locomotives, if and only if the list can be reliably sourced. This for instance leaves out GVR as they don't publish their rolling stock on their website (any more). Wagons and carriages IMO are not notable by default, even if the groups publish this information. pcuser42 (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pcuser42: Oops, sorry! Yep, it's the same notability, verifiability and WP:OR problem as the other lists. A lot of time is being wasted arguing over irrelevant details that aren't really encyclopedic. --LJ Holden 01:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we could use this as a guideline - if a locomotive arrives in a town, does it attract media attention? The answer would be no for (e.g.) the entire DL class (accidents notwithstanding), but often yes for preserved locomotives. pcuser42 (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, individual locomotives are notable and there's verifiable information on them, I don't think that's the issue with the lists though - the issue is the minute detail the tables go into of things that aren't notable or verifiable (in any case most of it is replicated on websites anyway). As I've said before a bullet-point list of locomotives or notable rolling stock, but these tables of exact details aren't. --LJ Holden 23:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that lists aren't. pcuser42 (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The railway modeler: and @Gosteamnz: --LJ Holden 01:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional website to use for photos etc

edit

New page re new Wellington EMUs & new category

edit

Added a new page with details of the NZR FM class; still to add infobox, and picture of new units obtained from GWRC.

Also have put Wairarapa Connection into Category:Named passenger trains of New Zealand as a (standard) subcategory of Category:Named passenger trains. This could supersede Category:Long-distance passenger trains in New Zealand Hugo999 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's official they'll be known as the FM class? --Lholden (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to the Official Information Request 2008/083 of 4 August 2008 “The new Matangi trains official class is F. The motor car will (be) FM and the trailer car will be FT.” I presume they will be Bo-Bo classification. The GWRC also supplied a file of the illustration of the EMUs for this article; so I think it will be fair use (OK on English Wikipedia); not free use, so cannot be on Wilkpedia Commons. Uploaded and added to the Infobox which Lcmortensen had added (thank you). This is the picture used in their public handouts. Hugo999 (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodo. It looks like Bo-Bo from the picture - although it would make more sense to create an articulated unit, I would've thought. --Lholden (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Metlink News Issue 5 of April 2008 [1] refers to “two-car units joined by a large gangway so people can move easily between them”; i.e. presumably unlike the links on the existing units and at the front of the FM in the picture, which are intended for use by guards only. Hence I assume that in the middle each car has its own bogie and the two cars can be uncoupled; unlike the Fiat railcars or the EW locos with a single common bogie, a Jacobs bogie. Hugo999 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the date by the references from the GWRC or Metlink website (i.e. an official source, not a news source) on the FD page is the date of the press release/newsletter, not the date that it was retrieved, so should be shown as date of press delease or similar Hugo999 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent re Illustration

edit

Re the illustration of the NZR FM class EMUs, this was provided by the Greater Wellington Regional Council for this article so I think counts as Fair Use (not Free Use). But it was tagged as requiring a tag. Reading the Wiki articles on Copyright and Image Copyright Tags which go on at great length about how they are a GOOD IDEA etc., I have attached a FAIR USE tag to the illustration but it seem this may not be enough Hugo999 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names Passenger Trains Catergory

edit

Isn't this new Category:Named passenger trains of New Zealand category in effect duplicating the work already done on Named trains: New Zealand? – Matthew25187 (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Palmeriain (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No: Named trains: New Zealand is a List not a Category, and is part of a series of National/Regional lists. The NZ trains are in Category:Named passenger trains - but most trains in this category are in subcategories by country which is what Category:Named passenger trains of New Zealand is. Alternatively Category:Long-distance passenger trains in New Zealand could be made a subcategory of Category:Named passenger trains instead, as it would then be accessible via the general categories on Rail Passenger Transport etc. Long-distance passenger trains etc. is a unique NZ category Hugo999 (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage railways in New Zealand

edit

New Zealand Rail Ltd

edit

Have redirected New Zealand Rail Ltd to Tranz Rail, to avoid Red Link in every NZ Rail Operating Companies box! Hugo999 (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Station articles

edit

I have written Otaki Railway Station, Levin Railway Station, Shannon Railway Station and Palmerston North Railway Station, which are stops for the Capital Connection and (Levin, Palmerston North) the Overlander. Photos (except Shannon) would be useful, also Coordinates and Platform type details. Redirects were required from xxx Train Station on infoboxes to xxx Railway Station. And could someone please fix the infoboxes for the Capital Connection and Overlander (train), which are displaying some formatting commands on the route map (problem is beyond me). Hugo999 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Named Passenger Trains

edit

The only redlink template on the information box (see via Silver Fern) for named trains is for the Kiwi Lager Express. I can't recall this train; where and when did it run? And was there a steam train passenger service between Auckland and Hamilton before the Waikato Connection? Hugo999 (talk) 11:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohai Coal Mines Page

edit

I posted to it's talk page but I doubt it will get noticed. The page Ohai State Coal Mines is actually a list of Ohai Railway Board locomotives and has nothing of what the title suggests. Do we write an article about the mines themselves and split the loco list and merge into the Ohai Railway Board Heritage Trust page or what? Yak52fan (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been moved to Locomotives of the Ohai Railway Board. Yak52fan (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moved again to Ohai Railway Board as the article is now about ORB --LJ Holden 23:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otaihunga railway station article

edit

I propose to make Otaihunga railway station a redirect to Otaihanga railway station and have put it on the WikiProject NZR list of tasks. Current spelling and also the spelling in WMR advertisements and in Douglas Hoy’s 1972 book on the WMR (p52,120). I do not have access to Ken Cassell’s “Uncommon Carrier” at present. NB: duplication only apparent when district categories etc. added to both pages. Hugo999 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loco Manufacturers

edit

I have added A & G Price and Scott Brothers (locomotive manufacturers) i.e. the two private manufacturers of steam locos for the NZR. However the Scott Bros article has been tagged for speedy deletion and I would appreciate some support on its talk page, as leaving out one manufacturer will leave a hole, even if they were less notable than some! ## OK now but more info on firm needed ##

Scott Brothers (locomotive manufacturers) just needs additional sources now! A & G Price has the totals for each class (5) of locos made there, which comes to 122, not the 123 total that Lloyd gives on page 139 of his Register. And the Price article needs something on Price Diesel locos? ## Price built 50 NZR A Class not 49 (+ 8 by NZR at Addington Workshops ##

The new steam locos total (81) for those built at Hutt Workshops (inc Petone) seem to add up to the 81 given in Lloyd (see table in New Zealand Railways Department, but the totals for Addington Workshops & Hillside Workshops need articles with numbers built for the remaining NZR steam locomotives to complete the numbers.

Station Names

edit

Re station articles, have just noticed that for Auckland it is Avondale Train Station while for Wellington it is Raroa Railway Station! Train Station or Railway Station? PS: have completed the last major Workshops with new article Hutt Workshops. Hugo999 (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this discrepancy is explained in the Manual of Style for this project. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

edit

The Auckland City Library has some good 'Heritage' photos to add as external links - the link works, though a very long search string??

Disregard; the search string for the Auckland City Library eventually times out, though the Christchurch City Library site is useable; see Addington Workshops. Hugo999 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush tramways

edit

The Rail transport in New Zealand article doesn't really cover bush tramways, which is a pretty major oversight. Thoughts? --LJ Holden 04:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a Bush tramway article and added references to the main Rail transport in New Zealand article, plus an explanation of our use of "trams" to refer to street cars --LJ Holden 04:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Stadler Rail locos

edit

I've created an article for these locos under New Zealand 10000 class locomotives - I'm guessing we'll get an idea of the actual KiwiRail classification later. --LJ Holden 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Te Huia original research/WP:SYNTH

edit

Attempted to resolve this once before, but still remains. The Te Huia article contains material in violation of WP:SYNTH - seeking consensus on removing this to avoid edit warring. pcuser42 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pcuser42: As it turns out I'm reading Can't get there from here at the moment and it of course mention's Te Huia's timing issue.--LJ Holden 09:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long distance passenger trains of New Zealand

edit

Hi all, I'm proposing moving The Great Journeys of New Zealand to Long distance passenger trains of New Zealand. --LJ Holden 22:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but I'd greatly reduce the contents of the Great Journeys article as a result. --LJ Holden 08:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aus/NZ naming convention

edit

Hi from over the ditch (Australia),
I have been working on an update to the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations), which has never been officially accepted. I have also been looking into expanding it to cover lines, routes & services (something that has been suggested on WP:TRAINS) and also what to include on the associated BSicon diagrams for both our countries. See User:ThylacineHunter/sandbox3
The majority of this work is now finished, but I have run into some NZ related issues:

I hope to have this sorted out by the end of this month, so I can submit this updated naming convention. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally the article names for railway lines (e.g. North Island Main Trunk, Newmarket Line and Melling Branch) follow the official names given by the New Zealand Geographic Board ([2], [3] and [4] respectively).
  • Passenger services use the service names assigned by the local authority (e.g. Southern Line and Kapiti Line). It's possible for these services to use multiple railway lines, e.g. the Southern Line uses the NIMT, North Auckland Line and Newmarket Line before rejoining the NIMT into Britomart.
    • Sometimes "Line" and "Branch" refer to the same route, e.g. Johnsonville, with "Line" being the publically advertised name for services and "Branch" being the official name for the railway.
    • Note that Wairarapa Connection isn't an official name, the correct name is just Wairarapa Line. This could be confusing though, as this can refer to passenger services between Wellington and Masterton, or the railway itself which runs from Wellington to Woodville (via Masterton).
  • There are five officially named passenger trains in New Zealand, namely Te Huia, Capital Connection, Northern Explorer, Coastal Pacific and TranzAlpine (plus whatever Dunedin Railways is doing these days).
Hope this helps! pcuser42 (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have seperated Aus and NZ sections for both lines and services. @Pcuser42, I welcome you to add this into User:ThylacineHunter/sandbox3 as best you (or others on here) see fit. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this (User:ThylacineHunter/sandbox3) now is basically just waiting on the information about New Zealand lines and services, I'll be waiting until the end of April 2023, if there hasn't been any update by then, I'll split this proposed naming convention into separate Australia and New Zealand proposals.
While it would be nice to cover both, there are enough differences to justify this split (as is done with Canada and USA).
New Zealand is also in a better position to create this sort of proposal as, unlike Australia, there is a dedicated WikiProject for New Zealand Railways. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ThylacineHunter: there is a dedicated WikiProject for New Zealand Railways; unfortunately that doesn’t mean anything if most of its members are inactive. Fork99 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Activity of this WikiProject

edit

Hi from Sydney again, just wondering, is this WikiProject quite inactive? I think it can make it confusing for any newcomers who may come here for help, and don’t get any response. Any active members who do remain here aren’t going to be around forever, unfortunately, and it’s hard to recruit/enlist new participants. There’s a way to convert inactive WikiProjects into task forces, outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces which I think probably should be done. Fork99 (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LJ Holden, @Pcuser42, @Johnragla who I believe are still active. Fork99 (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and also note that a WikiProject was established for Australian Transport, if anyone is interested, please feel free to have a look. That too, one day may be turned into a task force, but in the meantime, seems to be going fairly strong! Fork99 (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open tasks

edit
  • Create articles for all red links on {{NZR Lines}}
  • Create articles for all red links on {{NZR Locomotives}}
  • Create more maps to illustrate the routes of specific lines.
  • Add pictures of locomotives and lines in operation.

Templates

edit

{{WikiProject NZR}} superseded by ;

{{TrainsWikiProject}}

Reference templates for commonly cited NZR books

edit

Below is a list of references that are commonly cited for New Zealand rail transport articles and other topics. To simplify citations, I've created templates to be added to the "References" section of each article. To cite a particular page, use the sfn template, e.g. {{sfn|author's name|publication year|p=page number}}, so "When Steam Was King" is cited in the article as {{sfn|Stewart|1974|p=1}}. Where there's two authors, it's the author's surnames alphabetically sorted, e.g. A.N. Palmer and W.W. Stewart becomes "Palmer & Stewart":

Additional useful books:

  • Mulligan, Barbara; Cuthbert, David (2015). New Zealand Rail Trails: A Guide to 42 Ghost Lines. Wellington: Grantham House Publishing. ISBN 978-1-86934-126-8.{{sfn|Mulligan & Cuthbert|2015 |p=15}}
  • Leitch, David; Scott, Brian (1998). Exploring New Zealand's Ghost Railways. Wellington: Grantham House. ISBN 1-86934048-5. (2nd edn; 1st edn 1995)
  • Churchman, Geoffrey B. (1995). Railway Electrification in Australia and New Zealand. Sydney & Wellington: IPL Books. ISBN 0-908876-79-3.
  • Pierre, W.A. (Bill) (1981). North Island Main Trunk: An Illustrated History. Auckland: A.H. & A.W. Reed. ISBN 0-589-01316-5.

Assessment

edit
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject NZR/Assessment
New Zealand Railways articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  GA 1 1
B 1 6 10 76 8 101
C 4 9 35 53 101
Start 7 10 133 91 241
Stub 28 74 102
List 2 2 3 7
Category 81 81
Disambig 9 9
File 243 243
Project 2 2
Redirect 2 23 25
Template 26 26
Assessed 2 17 31 276 384 229 939
Total 2 17 31 276 384 229 939
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 2,526 Ω = 4.63

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Zealand_Railways&oldid=1223000121"