Talk:Magnetic Rail Group

Article scope

[Note: This discussion occurred when the article title was "East Coast Rail" ]

The article is not about a defunct business unit of Aurizon, that would not justify a stand-alone article, but about a company or group of companies that Aurizon did, but no longer has any connection to. It is about a train operator, no different to Aurizon or One Rail Australia, therefore the inclusion of an infobox and fleet details is entirely appropriate. When the business is rebranded, then this article should be renamed to reflect, rather than a new article be created. Valeinmose (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

A stand-alone article was never justified in the first place when you created it (without discussion) in December last, Valeinmose, because East Coast Rail was a business unit of a company, not a corporate entity itself (I searched ASIC's website and elsewhere before I asserted that). You have continued to pursue this line of argument, apparently without looking at the wording of authoritative sources, which all studiously avoid referring to it as anything other than a business or business unit. Your views do not seem to be informed by a knowledge of corporate governance, which I would have thought might lead you to do some research rather than relying only on your own, unsupported opinion. Your assertion that East Coast Rail was "a train operator, no different to Aurizon or One Rail Australia", is totally incorrect. An entity that isn't a company cannot afford to run railway operations, essentially because it has no means of defence in the event of legal action; similarly, safety etc regulators would not deal with an entity that is not a company. One might ask: what was the legal entity for those few months? Take your pick: One Rail Australia (which remains as a company -- it has not been wound up yet, contrary to your asserion elsewhere) or Aurizon.

I agree that when the business is rebranded, this article should be renamed to reflect that, rather than a new article be created. At present, Magentic Rail Group Pty Ltd (a company incorporated in November for the purpose) is perhaps the most likely corporate vehicle (see ASIC website) but there is a company above that, Magnetic Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd, which could well be part of the brand (see Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute website). Or they might just use "Magnetic Rail". Or something else. We'll see; in the meantime, as you have likely observed, "they" aren't saying a thing. Also in the meantime, I have reverted your edits because of the factors outlined above. Please do not get into an edit war without giving solid, provable facts as your reasons. SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

If you didn't fell the article was justified, you should have nominated it for deletion. It was too early to create the article in July, hence that one was nominanted for delation. Once it was clear in December that a sale to a company without an article was going to happen, an article was justified, hence another editor accepted it.

Where did I state that that ORA had been wound up? I stated it had ceased trading, that is totally different. I am perfectly aware of what needs to happen before the process to wind up ORA can commence and that won’t be anytime soon.

Obviously legal entities, parent and subsidiaries, underpin ECR. If you know what you are looking for, the identify of the entities is available, will keep that to myself for now. Your contributions on this page and the ORA article over the past 6 months indicate your understanding of how companies are formed, operate and are wound up is not as good as you would have us believe, but won't burden you with the details.

The article can stay in its error ridden state for now, will address at a future date. Valeinmose (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Article move

Given the above comments and the fact that I've found sufficient information about Magnetic Rail Group to write an article, I've decided to progress it via the "Bold, revert, discuss" (BRD) cycle.

In doing so I've changed my mind about waiting until the company's branding is determined: it doesn't even have a website yet, so a branding decision (if any) may not occur soon. When it does, the article title can of course be changed if that's appropriate.

The second step in the BRD cycle is "revert". Do that if you have major objections to the entire article and we can discuss. Or, for a start, just discuss. If editing, please ensure that the terminology closely follows that of the referenced formal documents -- there are many traps caused by journalistic descriptions of corporate processes, valid though they are for their usual audience, and I have had to be careful with terminology.

I'm looking forward to seeing new content added as it becomes available. :-)

Enjoy! (I hope.) Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 02:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Given that you have assumed what the name will be, rather than relied on what reliable sources have stated it will be, then that was original research on your part, and thus it was incorrect to move from the established name used universally by reliable sources. But see little point in a back and forth renaming process given that the current name will at least be a legitimate redirect. Suggest leaving it as is for the moment and only moving again once the branding can be verified by a reliable source. Valeinmose (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Who is this?

ORA are really the old Freightliner, with things from GWA thrown in, have a look at the ONRSR registers and you will see that One Rail Australia uses the code FLA, the original freight liner accreditation. the holding companies under GWA ownership have been moved under the Magnetic group, still the same people running the show as in Freightliner and GWA days Sulzer55 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Quite so, Sulzer55. I guess that was behind the the International Railway Journal observation last December, "Magnetic Rail is not known to have any experience in rail so it remains to be seen whether it will become an operator in its own right, relying on existing ... management and staff, or whether it will contract out operations to an established freight operator." Are there consequences you envisage for the article, especially from the viewpoint of WP:VNT? As you'll know, the ABN register only shows details of the company that invokes the 50‍–‍50 joint venture that ultimately owns Magnetic Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd, i.e. M Infrastructure Group Pty Ltd and PT Asian Bulk Logistics.

On another note: I have responded on a few occasions to your generous offer to correct some of my SA rail maps. I would be delighted to hear from you on this. Could we pursue that conversation? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)