Talk:South Coast railway line, New South Wales

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

Untitled[edit]

If anyone has any information about the closed stations on the line that would be really interesting to have in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.66 (talk • contribs)

Where was it going?[edit]

I've always wondered where the line was supposed to go before it was interrupted by the Shoalhaven River. Joestella 08:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a Line diagram![edit]

Could somebody with the proper geographical knowledge please add a line diagramm (like here)? I was making an effort but cannot get it straight, the text is much too confusing and if at least the enumeration of the stations was in the right order. There also seem to be contradictions between the text and the enumeration. Thank you very much for your help! MichaelXXLF 10:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There has been some consternation regarding line maps on CityRail pages- I have done a lot of the NSW country line ones and am reluctant to put time into one here for fear it will be deleted. The Fulch 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of consternation are you referring to? MichaelXXLF 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some users don't think they belong on CityRail pages, and have wanted them removed. An opinion I don't agree with, I must say. I'll need some consensus before I put any time into it, meaning that if no-one raises any objesctions here, I might give it a go. The Fulch 01:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is both a CityRail line and the name of the line as well - so there's no problem with a diagram, so long as it isn't at the top of the page. I'm happy to do it myself. JRG 05:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point in not having a diagram in a city line, too. But I have also learned that some people in Wikipedia have very strong feelings about certain things, quite irreproducible for others. Anyway I would very much appreciate a diagram and am gladly willing to put in some work as well. I speak German, maybe those abbreviations are easier to handle for me? Let me know what I could do! MichaelXXLF 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks! :-) MichaelXXLF 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a kml file would be useful ? [Newnes railway line] (it's down the bottom, on the right) and looks like this[1] Dave Rave (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Line Naming[edit]

The tracks themselves are called the Illawarra Line, which officially extends from the Flying Junctions at Central to the terminus at Bomaderry/Nowra. The Illawarra Locals extend from Hurstville to platforms 20 and 22 at Central. What Sydney Trains, NSW Train Link, CityRail, CountryLink, State Rail or the NSWGR market or marketed the services as is somewhat irrelevant. The lines are called, in any technical or official context, the Illawarra Line. I think the title of the article should reflect this, instead of the current "South Coast Line" name which is only used by one of the operators on this line as a brand name. 49.181.184.229 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Mo7838

Was there a discussion that took place on your widespread changes of South Coast -> Illawarra & associated link changes? I'm just trying to find it to add my comments. --Inas (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of. The Illawarra line is the historically correct name for the physical railway line. Technically neither is 100% correct given that the Illawarra region extends from the boundary with Sydney to Kiama, where it becomes the South Coast, I presume the Illawarra name was adopted as that covers the largest part of the line (about 80 km out of 150).
Certainly in the lead up to electrification in the mid-1980s, it was referred to in official documentation and trade press as the Illawarra line. At some point, CityRail began branding the services beyond Waterfall as the South Coast Line, I believe to reduce confusion with its Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line.
Presumably this was the basis on which the article was named. More recently a separate South Coast Line article has been created for the service, leaving this article for the infrastructure, however it should be renamed to reflect the correct name of the line. Official documentation on line from RailCorp (line owner) is a bit thin, although the Australian Rail Track Corporation refer to it as the Illawarra line in their track diagrams. Mo7838 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading your changes before reading your explanation I was hopelessly confused. We need some careful renaming and disambiguation to make it clear, and stop people adding the wrong information to the wrong pages. The two Illawarra pages need to refer to each other. And this one certainly to the South Coast line. What is the distinction you are trying to make between the phraseology "railway line", and just "line"? --Inas (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The South Coast railway line, New South Wales article (ie this one) covers the physical railway line, the South Coast Line article covers the NSW TrainLink service that operates over both this line and the Eastern Suburbs railway line. South Coast Line is the brand name applied by NSW TrainLink.[2] Similar principle exists for Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line for the service that operates over the Cronulla railway line, Eastern Suburbs railway line and this line.
South Coast railway line has been set as a disambiguation page. Both articles have hatnotes to distinguish. Mo7838 (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illawarra / South Coast name discussion[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 16:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast railway line, New South Wales → Illawarra railway line – There has been a discussion that has been started recently regarding the proper name of the railway line between Redfern and Bomaderry. The official name is the South Coast railway line, though the line is more commonly referred to as the Illawarra railway line. Mo7838 has also pointed out that some official documents still call this stretch of track the Illawarra line. I think it's only appropriate that there be a discussion, with as many people involved, preferably from WikiProject Sydney and Australian editors at WikiProject Trains, on deciding what this railway be referred to, at the very least, on Wikipedia. --Relisted. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC) PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 07:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move You make the unsupported claim that most people refer to this as the Illawarra line - evidence please. My family has lived on Nowra for over 100 years and we have always known this as the South Coast Line which as you admit is the official name. I realize that is OR, but I have included it as a counter to your own OR Claim. In common usage railway lines are named after their destination, in this case whilst the line passes through the Illawarra, it terminated on the South Coast. The current article title is correct. - Nick Thorne talk 02:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment, this isn't my claim. I'm on the fence, really, which is why I decided to bring forward the discussion. This is the claim of a number of editors that doesn't include me. It would be wise to direct the anger at somebody else, such as Mo7838, who has been a proponent for the Illawarra line case. Just a heads up for the next time you respond to a neutral party such as myself. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you did make that claim. You did not attribute the claim to anyone else, you quite plainly said it is "more commonly referred to as the Illawarra line". Your words, your claim. - Nick Thorne talk 02:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—I live on this line, and it's commonly known as the South Coast line. Tony (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The Sydney end of the line appears to be referred to as the Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line (or lines?).[3] The track starts in Sydney's eastern suburbs and runs through the Illawarra region and down the South coast. This is also how it was referred to on a 'trackwork' poster I saw on a suburban Sydney station last night. However we also have the separate Eastern Suburbs railway line page. Some text suggests the 'Illawarra' line goes only as far as Waterfall, then becomes the 'South Coast Line'. (I think elsewhere the opposite is stated!)
• Also, are we talking about the physical track infrastructure, or, the train services that run on it? 'City' services for example terminate at Waterfall. Living on the more City end of the line, I would personally call it the Illawarra line. :-/
This comes from http://nswtrains.wikia.com/wiki/Eastern_Suburbs_and_Illawarra_Railway_Line, so not WP:RS, but may give food for thought:
- 220 of Borg 12:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal[edit]

These two articles cover remarkably similar ground and don't really stand on their own. Although it would be theoretically possible to discuss services in one and infrastructure in the other, since the infrastructure dictates what services can be provided and the service strategy dictates what infrastructure is required in future, the two stories are utterly intertwined. To a lay reader, the distinction between the South Coast Line and the South Coast railway line is likely to be needlessly confusing. To an editor, it doubles and complicates the workload when changes are made to the operation of the line. I therefore propose that the South Coast Line service pattern and Waterfall–Port Kembla/Bomaderry infrastructure material be combined in this article. (The line north of Waterfall is ably covered in Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, which I see won featured article status in 2007.) Mqst north (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Never liked the split articles concept much and this seems like a particularly unnecessary example of it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The split between the suburban and intercity service articles has always been awkward and the suburban article has excessive scope. This article is fairly new and some transfer of content from the established articles into this one should be performed. The following sequence, from Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line, is valuable but tangential to the article topic; it should be here, where it is on-topic:
The idea for a railway between Sydney and the Illawarra area was first raised in the 1870s. At that time, railways to the north, west and southwest of Sydney had already been constructed, and a committee of prominent citizens formed to investigate the idea felt that a railway might help to develop agricultural and mining potentials in the Illawarra. In 1873, the committee asked the Government Surveyor, R. Stephens, to examine the area between Sydney and Bulli for a suitable route. The suggested route led from Rozelle in inner-western Sydney (at the site of the former Balmain Power Station), crossing the Georges River at Tom Uglys Point, climbing the Gwawley Range on a steep gradient, then following the Port Hacking River towards Stanwell Park. The railway would connect to the main line at Petersham station. When Stephens went to survey the route, he encountered many difficulties with terrain, especially between Gymea Bay and the Port Hacking River, as well as along the river itself. Stephens noted his concerns about the Gymea Bay-Port Hacking route in a letter to the Engineer-in-Chief of the New South Wales Railways, John Whitton:
[The country] consists of a sort of plateau or tableland about 200 ft (61 m) above sea-level, and deeply indented with numerous deep chasms and narrow ravines, the bed of whose creek is, to all intents and purposes, on the same level as the sea... Mr Carver, previous to my arrival, attempted to overcome the difficulty by heading up all the creeks, and he ran a trial line upwards of eight miles (13 km) in length, but this brought him to the summit of the range from which there was no getting down.
Similar things were written about the route along the River itself:
[There was] a confused jumble of huge boulders and rocks covered with thick brushwood closely interwoven with vines and creepers... a quarter of a mile per day of setting out is the most I can manage..."
Besides the terrain, problems were also found with the proposed descent from Bulli to Wollongong. Stephens found that any proposed railway would have required a series of zig zags to enable trains to climb the Illawarra escarpment. The committee presented the route to Parliament in 1876, but despite a pledge of £740,000 by Parliament towards construction costs, and petitions from Kiama coal-miners, it was rejected.

The sequence isn't about modern day services - it isn't even about the extant railway infrastructure. It covers areas in Sydney and the Illawarra. It just doesn't fit comfortably into either article about the passenger services. Across the three articles, there is also scant mention of the freight services that use the line. This article would be the logical place for such information, not the articles about passenger services. Some of the recent splitting of infrastructure from services is unnecessary, but in this instance I think it's an improvement that solves a long-standing structural problem. I'll propose merges for the Olympic Park and Carlingford lines. Gareth (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the page about 'the line' will devolve into just the current day services being run, and other things not current get deleted.
whilt the history of the line goes missing.
the sydney railway page was almost merged into the bankstown line or something, rather than left as the historical point of it.
this could do the same. one for the build from Sutherland, the tunnel deviation, the pre-joinging the rest, the electrification, and keep the other for the 'look at me, i have a train ticket, where's my station' Dave Rave (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly, strongly, strongly oppose. I created this article to document exclusively the NSW TrainLink service itself, not the physical railway. Merging it would defeat the entire purpose of the article and worsen the already blurred enough line between railway service and railway line. The nominator talks about "theoretically" making one article about infrastructure and services in the other; that's exactly what I sought out to do. The South Coast Line article talks about the NSW TrainLink service that runs not only on the South Coast railway line, but also on the Eastern Suburbs line and Port Kembla railway line. It also talks about the history of services on the line, commuter stations, precursor services and accidents/incidents involved with the South Coast Line service. It does not talk much at all about the infrastructure itself, the South Coast railway line, which is the puropse of the article that it is named after it. The South Coast railway line not only has the South Coast Line service run mostly on it, but also has its own non-commuter history, railway landmarks, branches, and a whole heap of other thigns that have nothignt o do with the NSW TrainLink service. There needs to be an understanding that railway line is not the same as railway service. They are very different things. Philip Terry Graham 05:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it too quickly falls into the current day services provided and you lose all the whys of how it came to be. You'd lose the original Sydney Parramatta rail if it was merged into the Main Southern Line. Too much current operational, not enough history. Dave Rave (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose jamesbushell.au The service and the infrastructure should be separate. Perhaps the articles need to be better focused to their respective purpose. This is an extreme example of where the service and the infrastructure are similar, but if you looked at the Main South line and the XPT service, you would never merge the two. I see the same principle applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbushell.au (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Coast railway line, New South Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_Coast_railway_line,_New_South_Wales&oldid=1204099189"