Talk:CBH class

April 2014

The topic of the article is the locomotive class and not the operator.

When originally written, there was no information on CBH Group's rail operations on wiki. Hence a detailed account of the background to CBH's entry into the rail market was justified.

Since then, this background information has been added to the CBH Group article. So while a synopsis as to why the locomotives were purchased is warranted, a detailed account of the history of how and why CBH entered the rail market, is not required as it is covered at the parent article.

Would be a bit like adding the history of Transperth Trains to the Transperth B-series train article. The wikilink is sufficient for a reader who wants to drill down, and the addition of the 'See also' hatnote reinforces this. Mo7838 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. The CBH Group article is a general article about an organisation that is over 80 years old. The CBH class article is about the centrepiece of CBH's recently introduced current method of transporting grain from its grain bins to its port facilities. It is therefore appropriate that the latter article have background information about the introduction of that method of transport, and that that information be more detailed than its counterpart in the former article. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

a question while the information is important here, overall for CBH its also a significant change in its operations. Is there sufficient information and resources to warrant making an intermediary article about CBH Rail? IMHO unless there is then all the information over rail should be here as thats reason behind the class even being created therefore without that information the article itself is lacking. Gnangarra 13:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Transport section in CBH Group article is about 6k (40% of total) with 20 cites, don't think there is much more to be added. At 14k in total, probably not large enough to warrant splitting article in 2 per WP:BRANCH.

Looking at a similar example, the NR class briefly mentions how the National Rail Corporation came to be, and the context in which the locomotives were ordered, with the history of the NRC detailed in the latter article. In the interest of transparency, I have contributed to both of these articles although the basic structure existed before my contributions.

Likewise the British Rail Class 373 that were ordered for the commencement of Eurostar services, doesn't give a detailed account of the operator's formation with it adequately covered in the parent article. Similarly the Edinburgh Tram (vehicle) and T-68 articles, leave the history of their operator's formation to the Edinburgh Trams and Manchester Metrolink articles.

Coming back to this article, it's the need for a detailed account (vs a brief overview) of how and why CBH entered the rail market, and how the relationship between CBH and Watco came to be, that I think is a bit of an overkill at a locomotive article level, given that it is covered in the parent company article. Mo7838 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• CBH Group is an under developed article, it has two sentences to cover 75 years of grain transport, to say that transport is adequately covered is a falacy to use comparative precentages of article content as reason for not covering the topic. Gnangarra 10:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• To clarify my previous statement that 'there isn't much more to be added', was referring to CBH becoming a rail operator post 2010. Agree that the 75 years prior is under developed, but until such time as this is addressed, can't see a benefit in splitting.
• But in the context of this article and the CBH class locomotives, it is all post 2009 which is adequately covered. My point with percentages was that at 14k the CBH Group is relatively small and that the transport section is a sizeable part of that. Mo7838 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • your whole point has been to diminish the information in this article to point of where its no longer suitable, useful and has no context in relation to CBH, You archived this talk page to remove previous discussion where editors have rejected your changes and start at it again. CBH Class doesnt exists except for the fact that CBH decide to operate its own rail transport, the class is not notable except for that reason. The whole saga of bulk freight rail in WA has yet to be played CBH is a player in that picture, all of that is critical to development of the CBH class. Your argument for CBH Class to stand alone from all of that just doesnt hold. Gnangarra 10:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• The question, quite fairly, was asked if there sufficient information and resources existed to warrant creating an intermediary article about CBH Rail? I gave an opinion with reasoning as to why I thought not. And this gets turned into a finger pointing exercise. The previous discussion developed into a farce, getting way off topic and hence I thought it best archived and to start with a clean slate. But as I appear to once again be dealing with madness, I will call time on this article and focus my efforts elsewhere. Mo7838 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record:

• In answer to Gnangarra's query above, CBH runs its own trains by sub-contracting a subsidiary of Watco Companies, Watco Western Australia (currently a redirect to the CBH class article), to run them on CBH's behalf. For that reason, a CBH Rail article would not be appropriate. Some of the background material in the CBH class article could perhaps be included in a separate article about Watco WA (as well as in the article about the CBH class). However, Watco WA currently has no other operations, and is therefore probably not (or not yet) notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, as the CBH class locomotives are owned by CBH, not Watco WA, the last few paragraphs of the background material would really only belong in the CBH class article even if there were a separate article about Watco WA.
• One of the world's most highly regarded railway journalists, Christian Wolmar, has commented (in his book Blood, Iron & Gold: How the Railways Transformed the World, at page 333) that writers on railways tend to focus on narrow technical aspects of the story, and other details geared to rail enthusiasts rather than general readers. He thinks that's a problem, and I do too, which is why I have persistently opposed the removal of contextual material from the CBH class article. Wikipedia is aimed at general readers, not just rail enthusiasts.

Bahnfrend (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)