User talk:HoHo3143/Rebuilding the pages for metropolitan, regional, tourist, and interstate lines

Once a discussion has concluded with a clear final consensus, move content and information into the table provided on the user page and provide a 'Resolved mark' icon next to the discussion

• Add general discussions into the 'General discussions' section
• Add line specific discussions to their respective area
  • For regional service action plan discussions, see the Regional service action plans page
• Add discussions about the naming or classification of two or more articles to the 'Classification discussions' section
• Once a discussion has been resolved and added to the table, move the discussion to the archive area

General discussions

There needs to be a standard as to how to deal with lines / services that then continue as other lines / services. These are the ones in Victoria I have identified --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter great work that you have done in this section. It is so much easier to visualise in a table to see comparisons etc. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you add in the content that has had a final consensus into the table now

I'm away from my computer at the moment, I'll get onto it asap.

Ok thank you HoHo3143 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Line-specific discussions

Albury

Albury V/Line - North East

Albury is a service on the North East line. Both opened / operated first as broad gauge then converted to standard gauge. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

With working on better defining of line and service names, I've change my view on these 2.

• Albury should cover both the service and the line to Albury only (VR, STA, PTC, V/Line)
• North East should cover the interstate service and line that forms the Victorian section of the Sydney–Melbourne rail corridor (Sydney Limited, Sydney / Melbourne Express, Spirit of Progress, Southern Aurora, Intercapital Daylight, XPT)

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Albury railway line

Broad gauge (standard gauge from 26 June 2011)

Opened:

• 21 October 1860 - Spencer Street to Essendon
• 18 April 1872 - Essendon to Dysart
• 26 August 1872 - Dysart to Seymour
• 20 November 1872 - Seymour to Longwood
• 20 March 1873 - Longwood to Violet Town
• 18 August 1873 - Violet Town to Benalla
• 28 October 1873 - Benalla to Wangaratta
• 21 November 1873 - Wangaratta to Wodonga
• 14 June 1883 - Wodonga to Albury

North East standard gauge line

Standard gauge. North East railway line needs renaming and splitting off all info about the "Albury railway line"

Opened:

• 3 January 1962 - Melbourne to Albury

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Daylesford

Daylesford - Daylesford Spa Country Railway

Daylesford line links to Daylesford Spa Country Railway. Should they be separate pages as Daylesford Spa Country Railway only runs on part of the Daylesford line? --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Geelong via Deer Park

Deer Park–West Werribee - Geelong V/Line - Warrnambool V/Line - Warrnambool (Port Fairy)

Warrnambool line should be changed to Port Fairy line. Consider changing Deer Park–West Werribee line to Wyndham Vale service. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Wyndham Vale should not be its own page. Instead it should be mentioned in the Geelong line article with the Deer Park-West Werribee page merged into the geelong article. The PTV map shows that it isn't a metro service (not like the Stony Point line.) @ThylacineHunter. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wyndham Vale discussion below. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Shoot sorry! HoHo3143 (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mornington

Mornington - Mornington Railway

Unlike the other tourist services/lines that are linked but don't run the full length, these are separate pages while Mornington Railway practically runs the full length of the Mornington line. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Queenscliff

Queenscliff - Bellarine Railway

Queenscliff line links to Bellarine Railway. Should they be separate pages as Bellarine Railway only runs on part of the Queenscliff line? They are also 2 different gauges. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Shelbourne

Shelbourne - Victorian Goldfields Railway

Shelbourne line links to Victorian Goldfields Railway. Should they be separate pages as Victorian Goldfields Railway only runs on part of the Shelbourne line? --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Classification discussions

Regional services that split into 2 (non-branch lines) that can cause issues due to length of line and duplication of history for section pre split:

• Ballarat - Ararat (Serviceton) - Maryborough (Mildura/Yelta)
• Bendigo - Echuca (Deniliquin) - Swan Hill (Piangil)
• Seymour - Shepparton (Tocumwal) - old broad gauge Albury (North East)

May need to reconsider how to show the physical line info as it will be very long on the full lines. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC) ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Melton & Wyndham Vale

The following refer to one or both of Melton & Wyndham Vale as metropolitan services:

• Template:Victoria railway lines - Both under Metropolitan lines operated by V/Line
• Template:Melbourne railway lines - Both under Metropolitan lines operated by V/Line
• Template:Regional Victoria public transport - Previously removed from Regional train section
• Template:Melbourne public transport - Both under Regional train section
• Template:Victorian railway lines - Melton under V/Line section
• File:Melbourne rail map with former lines and planned extensions.svg

I believe this dates back to Connex (and its predecessors) who listed Melton as a Metro service operated by V/Line (see Connex map). --ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Someones made the mistake between a regional service operating through metro Melbourne vs a metro service operated by diesel trains. As per the PTV network map, the Stony Point line is a metro trains service. In comparison, the Melton and Wyndham Vale 'lines' are just the timetable (like services that terminate at Ringwood (for example)). The melton article needs to be merged into the Bendigo article, and the Wyndham Vale needs to be merged into the Geelong line. When these are electrified or operated by Metro trains, then they can become their own article. In terms of the templates you showed above, they need to be changed to reflect the newly merged lines. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter in addition melton and Wyndham Vale stations use vline branding whereas the stony point line stations use metro branding. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

According to all Melbourne railway maps (pre 2017 as after only Victorian rail map is available), Melton and Wyndham Vale have their own line desginations. [1][2] And during certain time periods of the day, Melton and Wyndham Vale have more than half of the trains terminating there, which is very different from e.g. Ringwood. Current works are also extending Melton to fit 9-car trains and Wyndham Vale already does, so even if the same rolling stock is used, due to historical reasons and frequency differences I think they deserve to be in seperate articles just like Pakenham and Sunbury.

For middle ground, maybe change the "lines" section of regional trains to "services"? So in case really PTV no longer considers them seperate lines, vline is acting as a commuter rail in these two services so it is no appropriate to put them together with Ballarat and Geelong lines. Purin128AL (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL @ThylacineHunter I think it's important that both articles are merged into their respective others (Melton into Bendigo etc) and the Deer Park track article is merged into the geelong line too. Both of those maps that you show distinguish that they are vline services which are different to the diesel stony point line. When these articles are rebuilt, it can be mentioned that vline puts extra capacity and frequency on these lines as they serve Melbourne suburbs. At the end of the day, all of the stations on the melton and Wyndham vale 'lines' are served by vline cars, have vline station signage, are distinguished as vline services on maps, and don't show as their own route on the vline homepage. It would make it confusing to someone who doesn't have an extensive knowledge of the Melbourne rail network that these exist when they are just timetable variants from Geelong and Bendigo services. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Deer Park track article should not be merged, as in railway operations Warrnambool line goes via Werribee line (See Warrnambool line page for details). Merging it will only cause more confusion due to historical and operation reasons. Vicsig also seperate the lines [3].

But merging Melton into Ballarat is debatable, so I suggest put on a propose merge template on that article and let people to vote on. Wait for ~10 votes then we can see the wiki concensus. Purin128AL (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL @ThylacineHunter The Warrnambool line goes past Wyndham vale - not Werribee ([4]). When I rebuild the Werribee line article, I will talk about how it used to be used for Geelong and Warrnambool services. When the page is created for the Little River-Werribee track that'll also be mentioned there. Subsequently the Deer Park track article should be merged as Geelong and Warrnambool services travel by that track permanently.

Good idea in regards to the Melton and Ballarat lines. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The main reason I don't agree is I think service and line are seperate entities. According to the sources in the articles there is no indication that in railway operations that the railway line has rerouted. Only the train service is rerouted. Also there are plans for Geelong fast rail to run through Werribee again. Purin128AL (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL @ThylacineHunter Put it this way. If they were to (for some reason) rip up the track between Werribee and the junction there would be no impact to the Warrnambool and Geelong lines. As the service was rerouted a few years ago, the wikipedia articles need to be updated to reflect these changes. As these changes would occur, nothing would talk about the track between Werribee and the junction which is where a new article would be created. As for the Geelong fast rail plans, there would be a mention under the future sections of the Geelong, Warrnambool, Werribee, and Little River-Werribee articles about these future developments. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 There are 2 Warrnambool pages...

• Warrnambool V/Line rail service - runs via Wyndham Vale-Deer Park
• Warrnambool railway line - track goes via Little River-Werribee

ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Well that's interesting. What's the difference between them? Runs via Wyndham Vale-Deer Park would be correct?! HoHo3143 (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Warrnambool railway line (the actual track) should be renamed to Port Fairy railway line to avoid this confusion. This is why I'm working of producing an updated naming convention to cover station and lines. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I found this [5] site about how vline breaks up their operation track sections. So Southern Cross via regional rail link is seperate from werribee-warrnamnbool.

Again, I don't think we should name article for line endings that no longer exists and it is being ripped up not disused.

I suggest merging Warrnambool V/Line rail service into Geelong V/Line service, and all other long distance services into their relatvent short distance ones just like how vline classifies it on their website. So only Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Gippsland, Seymour for V/Line service pages.

Then rail lines should be named after its furthest main line section that a freight train can reach.

Examples:

Not Maryborough or Mildura but Yelta

Not Gippsland or Orbost but Bairnsdale

Not Echuca but Deniliquin

Not Swan Hill but Piangil Purin128AL (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

How does this way work for places like Girgarre railway line, Colbinabbin railway line? Would you rename Patchewollock railway line to "Hopetoun railway line"? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made a start into getting an updated naming convention to cover this [User:ThylacineHunter/sandbox3#Lines, routes & services]]. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also if only changing the names of the main lines to the furthest main line section that a freight train can reach, what about South Gippsland railway line? With my proposal it's Port Albert while yours is Cranbourne. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the furthest point- its much simpler and less complicated. HoHo3143 (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:VER and WP:RS we should find external sources and try to see the official namings of the lines, instead of doing what we want or think is better.

I'm currently finding official databases and see how rail lines are named, or else we should go by the namings by an external source.

Hopetoun railway line is already in the article of Patchewollock railway line, and that is how vicsig, a external source, names it. Or we could put our proposals up to wiki projects or somewhere and seek community concensus, instead of drafting our own naming conventions privately and fight against each others'. Purin128AL (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

People constantly say VICSIG is unreliable so might not want to take information directly from there (you can use it as a reference though). HoHo3143 (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

And because I run my own railway website, I have to be careful of a WP:COI. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL @ThylacineHunter I have merged the Melton line article into the Ballarat article and requested for the Melton page to be deleted. I have also updated this talk page and the table to reflect these changes. @ThylacineHunter I am also continuing to work on the Lilydale article and am awaiting your additional content (once you feel better). HoHo3143 (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping to finally get this naming convention accepted like those for WP:UKSTATION, WP:USSTATION, WP:CANSTATION and to expand it to cover lines (something that has been suggested in WP:TRAINS as being needed). This proposal shouldn't mean too many pages need renaming as most already follow these as unwritten rules. The aim is to fix the small number that are a little confusing and not conforming to how the majority are listed. The problem with find external sources and try to see the official namings is things were part of a line gets closed and starts to be known by 2 names, or things like the original Bairnsdale via Maffra or the current Bairnsdale (and Orbost) via Sale.
What about when lines slowly are closed and cut back eg Patchewollock, now it is Hopetoun, what if in a few years time it is cut back to Beulah, if WP:VER and WP:RS external sources are referring to the line as these other names are we then obligated to change the article name to match the new official name?. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The official namings of the lines 99% of the time will probably also be conforming to this proposal; Bairnsdale was officially called Orbost, and Warrnambool was called Port Fairy. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I just want wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not a rail fan page. That's why I don't believe technical information that is unverifiable should even be on wiki. And for example the Mernda line was previously the South Morang line and the Epping line. It was changed every time the line is extended or closed. So the answer is yes, when a line closes the article name should be changed, also line closing/opening isn't as frequent as you've mentioned.

Another method is to have currently operating line named to be its current end. Then entirely closed lines to be named to its historical furtherest. But I agree naming rail lines are controversial as offical names for every line cannot be found. But the naming convention can roughly be determined from current sources, such as:

1. Murray Basin Rail Project [6], where it says Yelta line instead of Mildura line (current wiki article name)

2. Department of Transport and Planning [7], where it says Sea Lake line instead of Kulwin line (current wiki article name)

3. V/Line coperate [8] mentions "HOPETOUN Line" instead of Patchewollock line.

Better bring in more people to discussion. Three people should not decide the naming convention for a set of articles. Also, WP:UKSTATION, WP:USSTATION, WP:CANSTATION doesn't have a line naming convention that the community has agreed upon yet due to complex naming convention in different regions. Purin128AL (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL I see where you are getting confused with Whittlesea, Mernda, South Morang, Epping lines...

• the "Epping Line" (a service) ran on the "Whittlesea Railway Line" (physical line)
• the it was extended and became the "South Morang Line" (a service) which ran on the "Whittlesea Railway Line" (physical line)
• the it was extended again and became the "Mernda Line" (a service) which ran on the "Whittlesea Railway Line" (physical line)

The problem is that the services are named by the operator as "[NAME] Line" instead of "[NAME] Service". -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I also want Wikipedia to be just an encyclopedia. If I want a "fan" page, I'll just stick to editing my own site. I am trying to help provide correct information on a subject I know a bit about (and know what books and sites to look at to find the information).

With the sources your listed, V/Line corporate are not the official line names they are section names. Metro documents also break them up into section, so neither are useful for this discussion.

This page was firstly to deal with identifying what Services were also Railway Lines (eg Sandringham, Williamstown, Hurstbridge, etc) and which were on part of other lines (Pakenham, Cranbourne, Sunbury, etc) to update the Service page. Those on continuing lines do not need physical track info or physical track diagrams as they only belong on pages about physical tracks.

I agree with bringing in more people for the discussion of a naming convention. That discussion will take place on a different page after I've look into the basics of what the original government railway companies (VR, SAGR, NSWGR, WAGR, etc) did for naming lines and how all the current operators name their Services. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically there shout be 2 pages for things like Sandringham, Williamstown, and Hurstbridge. A "Sandringham Line (service)" and a "Sandringham Railway Line", but to avoid confusion, and to speed up the inevitable of merging the 2 together, we are making them as a single page from the start. If, for example, one day a V/Line service is reintroduced to Port Albert, the South Gippsland railway line (officially the Port Albert railway line) page would updated and renamed "Port Albert V/Line rail service", but if it only reopened to Korumburra then there would need to be a page named "Korumburra V/Line rail service". -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this structure as it makes the most sense. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Metro service names

We may need to consider a different name for articles relating to metropolitan service articles, even if they go against the official service name so that they can be distinguishable from physical tracks. There is now an issue with the former "Melton railway line" page. A user is trying to change it's redirect to the Servicton line instead of the Ballarat service.
This is something that I have thought about for awhile now. I propose something similar to the V/Line ones eg: Werribee Metro rail service.

1. Line and service are the same: 6 (Belgrave, Flemington Racecourse, Glen Waverley, Hurstbridge, Sandringham, Williamstown)

These would be a single page covering both service and physical line.

Suggestion would be to rename them as "... Metro rail service" with a simple redirect from "... railway line".

2. Line and service are not the same: 6 (Craigieburn, Cranbourne, Mernda, Pakenham, Sunbury, Werribee)

These would be a page covering the service and a disambiguation page pointing to both the service and physical line.

Suggestion would be to copy them to "... Metro rail service" and change the contents of the original page to a disambiguation page with: for the Metro service see "... Metro rail service" and for the physical track see "... railway line".

3. Complicated: 5 (Alamein, Lilydale, Frankston, Stony Point, Upfield)

As per discussions, these are to be treated as a line and service (see 1 above).

--ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter I think it should stay mostly the same that we currently have been going about it

1. When the line and services are the same- keep a single page covering both the service and the physical line. Keep the current name (Glen Waverley railway line)
2. When the line and service are not the same- keep a page covering the service (Cranbourne railway line) and a page for the physical track (South Gippsland railway line). Keep the current name (Cranbourne railway line) but add a message at the top of the page saying "for the track that continues past Cranbourne, see the South Gippsland...)
3. Complicated articles would have this problem solved if the changes I suggested were implemented (eg for the service that goes beyond Frankston station, see stony point...)

Let me know your thoughts HoHo3143 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with that @HoHo3143, although there still is a potential of confusion between a "line" and a "service".

I'd like to hear what @NotOrrio and @Purin128AL think about this suggestion. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter here's an additional idea- you could keep it as I said above but add in brackets 'Metro' or 'V/Line'. eg Glen Waverley railway line (Metro) or Ballarat railway line (V/Line) HoHo3143 (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter then for an article like the south gippsland railway line you just leave it as it is without anything in brackets. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that every metro service should have a seperate article. Rail lines that continue should be in a different article, and yes seperate Frankston and Stony Point.

However, I strongly disagree adding Metro/V/Line brackets as that goes against naming conventions for all English wikipedia rail line articles. Currently it would be either <name> line or <name> railway line, or <name> (<city> <system>). So I would keep "Ballarat V/Line service" unless renaming it to Ballarat line for the service and Ararat railway line for the track itself. For Glen Waverley line either keep current article or just call it "Glen Waverley line" (without railway) inline with London and Sydney. Purin128AL (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL @ThylacineHunter ok I agree. I've never understood why its ...railway line in the first place. Once agreed, we should:

1. Change all metropolitan lines to (for example) Glen Waverley Line or Frankston Line which follows what PTV says.
2. For regional services, we would need to change the pages to Bendigo Line or Ararat Line to follow V/Lines formatting.
3. For tracks beyond the last stop, it should remain the furthest point or the region name (eg South Gippsland railway line)

This would cause issues for stations however, as they would need to be renamed to follow PTV naming conventions. For metropolitan stations, the would need to be changed to Caulfield Station or Flinders Street Station and for V/Line Geelong Railway Station or Moe Railway Station HoHo3143 (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@HoHo3143 I'm not sure what you are referring to with "issues for stations".

As for the naming of the services, we are currently in the unique position of not being fully restricted by naming conventions. That is why we need to work out how this should progress to define an actual naming convention relating to the lines and services in Australia...

1. "[NAME] V/Line service" style is good to define who's service it is, but it different dom how others in Australia are done.
2. "[NAME] Line" style does seem to match how most operators in Australia do it (note: Line should be capitalised as it's part of the propper service name)

Also on a side note, "South Gippsland railway line" will probably get renamed it's official name "Port Albert railway line", as a way to remove potential confusion with the "South Gippsland Railway". -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter when I say issue with is that currently the articles say "Caulfield railway station" when PTV (for metro) calls its "Caulfield Station". This means that all articles would need to be renamed. Similarly this is the case with V/Line stations but they keep the railway bit and capitalise all words (eg Moe Railway Station)

I agree more with point #2, as otherwise why does V/Line get its name but not metro. Also, #2 follows PTV, metro, and V/Line as I mentioned above.

And yes for #3 good point it should be renamed I just used it as a bad example. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The use of "[NAME] railway station" is perfectly fine as it's inline with WP:UKSTATION which formed the basic proposal for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations), and was how most pages were created.

On the other hand, as the Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations) has never been officially accepted, we have a unique chance of being able to change it, although it means changing most station pages in Australia and New Zealand. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter @Purin128AL I strongly believe that the station names should be how the relevant transit authority names them. For example, metro trains stations are stylised as Malvern Station, whereas V/Line stations are, for example, Geelong Railway Station. For stations that have closed, it would be better to switch it to the standard (for example) Mildura railway station. This would make more sense especially seeing as though metro stations are never referred to as a railway station, instead as a Station. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

V/Line: the address is listed as "Clarkefield Station" on VLine page for Clarkefield

Metro: the address is listed as "Broadmeadows Railway Station" on Metro page for Broadmeadows

Both companies and PTV all list them as just either "Clarkefield" or "Broadmeadows" on maps, timetables, and any written reference.-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter interesting- PTV lists metro stations as just Station whereas for vline they list it as Railway Station. I think it would be best to follow what PTV says in the search area of their website. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

But considering the current AU station proposal I would rather just keep the status quo. Changing it would mean chaning 500+ station article across Australia. Also, AU stations should keep in consistency with UK, Ireland, Canada or US stations, and only rapid transit/station with 2 or more types of railway are without a prefix before station currently. Purin128AL (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok that's fine if it's easier not to change the station articles- just a thought. I still do believe that the lines should be changed though. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Archived discussions

Key:

Resolved	Discussion finished
Y	Page updated
-	Page in process of being updated
N	Page still needs updating

Alamein

 Resolved: Outer CircleN - AlameinY also: HurstbridgeY

Alamein reopened from the closed Outer Circle. Anything after 1 May 1897 is counted as Alamein line, excepting the reopening to the APM Siding which is a siding on the Hurstbridge line. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Belgrave

 Resolved: BelgraveY - Gembrook - Puffing Billy RailwayN

Gembrook line links to Puffing Billy - Should be ok as Puffing Billy runs the majority of the length (the rest is covered by the Belgrave service). Belgrave and Puffing Billy are separate as they are different gauges. Would need mentioning on both about the former Gembrook line conversion to broad gauge. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Craigieburn

 Resolved: CraigieburnY - Seymour V/LineN - AlburyN

Craigieburn is actually on the old broad gauge Albury railway line (Albury is both a service and line. See User talk:HoHo3143/Lines and services that continue#Albury). --ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Shepparton

 Resolved: Shepparton V/LineN - TocumwalN

Shepparton service links to Tocumwall line. These two should be separate pages as one is a service the other is an extended line. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Cranbourne

 Resolved: CranbourneY - South Gippsland (Port Albert)N - (South Gippsland RailwayN)

This seems fine. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Need to rename South Gippsland to Port Albert. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Frankston

 Resolved: FrankstonY - Stony PointY

A bit confusing. I suggest treating Stony Point as a separate branch off the Frankston line for the time being, and when Frankston is extended to Baxter, reassessing how these are portrayed. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter good idea. I'll update the table I made now HoHo3143 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Lilydale

 Resolved: Lilydale (splits into 2)

• LilydaleY - HealesvilleN - Yarra Valley RailwayN
• LilydaleY - WarburtonN

As per previous discussions, Healesville and Warburton were operated as branch services from the Lilydale line. Conventional arrangements would have most likely resulted in Lilydale as the service and Healesville as the line with Warburton as a branch. This may then cause some issues with the Healesville line and the Yarra Valley Railway. I propose to treat the Lilydale / Healesville / Warburton as their own service/lines. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Melton

 Resolved: Ballarat V/Line N - Ararat V/LineN - Serviceton N

Ararat service links to Ballarat service. These two should be separate pages as they are separate services. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Melton should not be its own page. Instead it should be mentioned in the Bendigo line article. The PTV map shows that it isn't a metro service unlike the Stony Point line. HoHo3143 (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter forgot to tag. Also I agree Ararat should be split HoHo3143 (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Melton discussion above. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mernda

 Resolved: MerndaY - WhittleseaN

Whittlesea line links to Mernda service. These two should be separate pages as one is a service the other is an extended line (a reverse of what has been done with V/Line services/lines). --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

agreed. Will update metro table. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Done HoHo3143 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter just a heads up someone has reverted the edit that split the articles in two. When I make my way to the Mernda article, I'll copy and paste over the content that relates to the Whittlesea article unless you want to go ahead and split the two and start a bit of work on the Whittlesea article. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait until you get to that line. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Maryborough

 Resolved: Maryborough V/LineN - Mildura (Yelta)N

Maryborough service links to Mildura line. These two should be separate pages as one is a service the other is an extended line and Mildura line should be changed to Yelta line. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Pakenham

 Resolved: Pakenham - Gippsland V/Line (to split into Traralgon V/LineN / Bairnsdale V/LineN) - Gippsland (Orbost)N

If the Geelong and Warrnambool services are not going to be merged, I don't see why Traralgon and Bairnsdale are. V/Line lists as this, PTV does not - may cause issues. I also suggest changing the Gippsland line to Orbost to avoid confusion between Gippsland line and Gippsland service. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest changing it to Bairnsdale railway line instead of Orbost, just like how Vicsig does. [9] Orbost is the historical name and the line is unlikely to ever extend back to Orbost. Purin128AL (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL my proposal it to change Gippsland Service to Bairnsdale Service, and Gippsland Line to Orbost Line (it already covers to Orbost). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This all falls under the issue of an Australian naming convention for railway stations and lines. Unfortunately, no such naming convention for stations has been officially accepted, and although an unofficial one exists it has never taken up any of the discussions of trying to add in about line names. On top of this, an attempt at trying to create a taskforce / WikiProject to deal with things like this has also failed.

• As practically all services are named after the last station of the service or in the case of V/Line services, last major station where most services terminate. I propose this station name be used with "... railway line" for Metro and "... V/Line service" for V/Line.
• Most physical lines are already named after the last station on them. I propose non cross country lines use this station name as the line name "... railway line".
  • For those that cross over the Victorian border, should use the end of the line if not connected to the other state's network (eg Stony Crossing, Balranald, etc).
  • If connected, then they should use the last station that was part of the Victorian network (eg Oaklands, Mt Gambier, etc). When needed include "... railway line, Victoria"
• For cross country lines, they should be a hyphenated listing of both ends of the line, unless otherwise named by the original owner of the line (eg Inner Circle, Outer Circle, Rosstown, Balmoral, Avoca, Heathcote, Moolort, Maffra)

The order the stations should be listed in:

1. closest to Melbourne & trains are able to run from Melbourne onto the line without needing to be reversed (eg Albion–Jacana)
2. order they opened (eg St Kilda–Windsor)

-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

But why rename it to Orbost? The track has already been ripped up and its now a rail trail [10]. For example you won't call Warrnambool line the Port Fairy line now. Purin128AL (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean we have to go and remove reference to all the other lines that no longer exist? (Red Hill, Springvale Cemetery, Outer Circle, Inner Circle, Mont Park, Whittlesea, Healesville, Warburton, Rosstown, etc.). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ThylacineHunter I'd name it Orbost and (if not done already) split the vline service from that article. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@NotOrrio, This discussion is relevant to your proposal on Gippsland V/Line rail service. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Need to rename Gippsland (the physical line) to Orbost.

Need to split Gippsland (the service) into Traralgon and Bairnsdale. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Robinvale

 Resolved: Robinvale railway lineN - Lette railway line

There is a current proposal to merge the proposed extension to Lette into the Robinvale line as it was going to ben an extension and not a branch. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This merge was resolved on 1 April 2023. Page still needs better merging of the 2 lines. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sunbury

 Resolved: SunburyY - Bendigo V/LineN - Echuca V/LineN - DeniliquinN

Echuca service links to Deniliquin line. These two should be separate pages as one is a service the other is an extended line. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Swan Hill

 Resolved: Swan Hill V/LineN - PiangilN

Swan Hill service links to Piangil line. These two should be separate pages as one is a service the other is an extended line. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Upfield

 Resolved: UpfieldY - Upfield–Somerton link

Upfield–Somerton link needs to be covered on Upfield. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Walhalla

 Resolved: WalhallaN - Walhalla Goldfields RailwayN

This is fine how it is. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Werribee

 Resolved: WerribeeY - Warrnambool (Port Fairy)N

Little River–Werribee to be made similar to how the current Deer Park–West Werribee railway line is. The original Geelong line (Geelong to Melbourne via Werribee & Newport) need to be noted in some way as it is the oldest operation train line left in the state (Port Melbourne not a train line anymore, and this opened before Williamstown). --ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

That track section is included in Warrnambool railway line already, so making a Little River-Werribee article will overlap the current article. Geelong trains currently goes through Regional Rail Link -> Warrnambool line, these are two infrastructures. Purin128AL (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL @ThylacineHunter That information should be removed from the Warrnambool line and moved to a new Little River-Werribee article as the Warrnambool line doesn't operate via the Werribee line anymore. It would make it simpler if a new page was created. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Are there any third party sources that indicates that the section is no longer called the Warrnambool railway line? If yes I would agree to change it, but if no I prefer to follow the current source (vicsig). Purin128AL (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL No idea but if the service doesn't run on those tracks anymore then the service doesn't run on those tracks anymore. They all go via Wyndham vale instead which requires this new page. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

But according to what you've said in the rail line name discussion, Warrnambool line (or Port Fairy) will continue to be the name of the line even if the line's service is terminated. So for this reason Warrnambool V/Line service serves for this purpose, which shows how it is currently running. But for the rail line it is still the Port Fairy line, regardless on how trains are running. Purin128AL (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Purin128AL I admit that I made a mistake with the name for the continued line. Having 2 pages named Warrnambool did confused me a little. The line past Werribee should be the Port Fairy railway line. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Need to rename Warrnambool (the physical line) to Port Fairy. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Little River–Werribee section to be included on the Werribee service (same as the Upfield-Somerton link on the Upfield page). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. What area should it go under- 20th or 21st century history (it was closed in the 2000s so im guessing there)? HoHo3143 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It opened in the 19th century (on 25 June 1857 - 2nd railway line to open in Victoria) and stopped being used by Geelong V/Line services in the 21st (2015), I'd put it under the 21th century as that is when it became seperate from the Geelong service (It will also be cover on the Port Fairy railway line as part of the original Geelong track). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Good idea- will do when I make my way there. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)