Talk:Queensland Rail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Trains (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Australia / Queensland (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Queensland Rail is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.

Rail transport in Queensland[edit]

This article contains information (history, etc) that is probably more appropriate to Rail transport in Queensland. Should it be moved? --Lholden 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point, but for about 130years - up until the advent of Pacific National - railway history in Queensland and the history of QR have been one and the same. It would be extraordinarily difficult to create a non-entity specific history of Queenslands railways, without basically repeating what is said here. (This is not including the various small private railways that exist/have existed in Qld.)--Johnmc 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't saying that the information on the QR article should be written on Rail transport in Queensland as if railways in Queensland only had something to do with Queensland Rail, my point is that the information should be moved. In New Zealand, we've basically got Rail transport in New Zealand tying all the various information about our railways together, and different articles for each operator - even though the NZR was the main operator of our railways for about 100 years. --Lholden 05:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done it. The history information I believe was definitely more suited in Rail transport in Queensland (plus it was a stub and needed beefing-up; the history content was just the ticket). This is especially the case since QR/Queensland Rail became a Company Government Owned Corporation as of 1 July 2007, is now known as QR Limited, and the page here should focus on this entity that is now, more than ever, a big business and not just a railway. I've left essential history to briefly describe QR's 140+ year life, with a "Further information:" link to Rail transport in Queensland. Seo75 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of railway corridors in Qld[edit]

QR does not actually own the railway corridors in Qld.

From the "Rail" section of Qld Transport's site: "The department holds the perpetual lease over all rail corridor land in Queensland (about 9550 kilometres)...(and)...subleases the corridor to railway managers such as Queensland Rail (QR), Airtrain and heritage railway managers. Under the sublease arrangements, the railway manager has the duty of care for the land."

Who *actually* has title to the land is not specified, so I presume it would be the state of Qld. I have modifed the "It owns and maintains the physical infrastructure of the railway network" to suit. Johnmc 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)----

Government ownership of other railway systems in Australia[edit]

The urban systems of Sydney (Cityrail), Adelaide (TransAdelaide) and Perth (Transperth), are government owned and operated, as well as Victorian, New South Welsh, and West Australian country services (V/Line, Countrylink & Transwa respectively). The "Unlike the railway systems in all other Australian States" phrase has been tweaked appropriately, to refer to freight operators only. Johnmc 11:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)----

Private sector operations in Qld[edit]

To date, only one private sector operation runs freight trains in Qld, Pacific National, and is currently only operating container traffic on the North Coast Line, between Brisbane and Cairns. All mineral traffic in Qld is currently hauled by QR. Johnmc 11:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tramways[edit]

http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/forestry/rfa/qld/qld_se_saw1.pdf and following. Personal knowledge: formations in Beaudesert shire; Esk line reuse. Alex Law 12:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More info on tramways at: http://www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/pdf/forestry/rfa/qld/qld_se_saw1.pdf 124.148.122.175 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles on trains/ rail services[edit]

Hi - is anybody thinking about writing about the trains / rail services? I am just doing some edits on the Traveston derailment - see Traveston railway station, Queensland for lack of anywhere else to put it. It could belong with an article on the Rockhampton Mail train, apparently also known as 21A for many years.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, as the long distance services are currently short stubs on the Traveltrain page (with the exception of the QR_Tilt_Train), and the commuter Citytrain services are covered on the respective railway lines (ie Nambour & Gympie North, Gold Coast, Ipswich and so forth. --Arnzy (whats up?) 07:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

QR National[edit]

Anyone think that this article should really be merged into the QR article for the meantime. It is a division of QR just like Citytrain, Traveltrain, Q-Link and so forth. I've added the merge tags for QR National in the meantime. --Arnzy (whats up?) 05:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. As you have said, QRNational is division of QR the same as Passenger Services Group (Traveltrain & Citytrain), which both have their own pages, so QRNational should be no different.
Also, Q-Link no longer exists, as it was merged into QRNational when the latter was created. --EMBaldwin 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't be merged. I created this article and I intend to expand it. --WikiCats 06:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"No" to merging. This should remain as the "home page" for QR corporate, and articles for individual divisions should be hung off it. This will also allow for seperate articles for the Infrastructure Services Group, and Network Access Group, should they ever be required.--Johnmc 15:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


The result of the debate was do not merge. --WikiCats 06:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Citytrain, Traveltrain miscapitalisation[edit]

I have replaced the capital 'T' with a lowercase in Citytrain and Traveltrain — the CamelCase of those business groups is incorrect (Sydney's CityRail is in CamelCase). This brings-up a bigger issue, however, because the Wikipedia pages for Citytrain and Traveltrain are case-sensitive and will need to be replaced with redirects to the correctly capitalised versions. This is also the case for the QRNational page, as there is no space between 'QR' and 'National' (and the N is capitalised). Seo75 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from Queensland Rail, per the discussion below. If common usage changes over time, this issue can be revisited. Dekimasuよ! 11:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


On 1 July 2007, QR/Queensland Rail became a Company Government Owned Corporation and is now known as QR Limited. Therefore, I strongly believe that this page needs to be moved/renamed accordingly. It is Wikipedia's naming convention to drop "Limited" from page titles, however QR already exists, a disambiguation page. Should we:

  1. Move Queensland Rail to QR, QR to QR (disambiguation), and have a redirect from Queensland Rail to QR; or
  2. Move Queensland Rail to QR (company), and have a redirect from Queensland Rail to QR (company)?

Of the few links to the current QR disambiguation page, most are meant for Queensland Rail anyway, so my vote is for option #1. Others' thoughts..? Seo75 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would have to go with Suggestion 1, seems most links off QR are intended for Queensland Rail in the first place. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 06:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a Red herring argument. Of course all of the other article are correctly disambiguated since they have been there for a while. So a few new links from editors who are careless does not trump correctness. Vegaswikian 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Queensland Rail continues to be used as the common name for this corporation. The header of their home page contains the meta tags:

name="description" content="QR, Queensland Rail, provides train travel throughout Queensland Australia, with commuter, tourist and freight rail services."

name="keywords" content="Australia, QR, Queensland Rail, railroad, railway, Queensland Australia, Queensland holiday, Queensland railway, Queensland tourism, train tour, train travel"

name="author" content="Queensland Rail"

so QR even continue to use the name Queensland Rail themselves.

Why fix what ain't bust, especially as there seem to be problems finding an unambiguous new name? Andrewa 07:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the QR site (and read here), you will see that it is QR Limited – the fact is that the name of the company has changed, and it is no longer legally called Queensland Rail. It is natural with any company changing its name to go through a transitional period to minimise alienating any customers not fully aware of the change. Wikipedia must be kept current, and the great thing with redirects (Queensland Rail -> QR) is they avoid any lost unaware readers, but also educates at the same time. And if Queensland Rail is a "common name", a redirect to the correct name satisfies that – don't worry, "Queensland Rail" won't be lost through this. Seo75 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support move to QR as first choice, QR (company) as second choice (as per above). Simple fact is that the company "Queensland Rail" does not exist anymore and is called "QR Limited". The company started renaming itself as "QR" since 1999 as a Statutory Government Owned Corporation, and the recent change to a Company Government Owned Corporation cements this. There will be no confusion with a redirect from "Queensland Rail" to "QR" (or to ("QR (company)"), and a link from "QR" to "QR (disambiguation)" will not cause any disambiguation issues. Seo75 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep current name. QR currently shows a large number of alternate uses of the initialism, several of which are likely to be at least as common globally as this one; changing the name of this one article to QR could create many disambiguation issues in the future.--orlady 14:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Queensland Rail is a far better article name; It is in common use and requires no disambiguation. While I agree that Wikipedia should be up to date, we shouldn't be ahead of usage, and this official rebadging may or may not become common usage. Even QR themselves are not currently promoting their new name, as described above. Andrewa 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep current name. Still commonly used in full version, shortening would cause completely unnecessary disambiguation issues. Rebecca 06:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As long as Queensland Rail is the full name of the railroad, this name is better. QR can means thousand of things and is not clear to readers. What I suggest is to create a disambiguation page or do a redirect. Chris! my talk 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Rail gauge[edit]

This article appears to neglect mentioning 42 or 1067, perhaps because it does not use the appropriate Template:Infobox rail. Peter Horn 00:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The beginning of the history section states:
The railways of Queensland were all built as narrow gauge lines, 1067 mm (3' 6") gauge...
And that template, underneath Infobox Company, looks off-putting (as do most articles with two infoboxes) and doesn't add anything to the article. It is entirely necessary?  SEO75 [talk] 02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (round 2)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Should the article be renamed QR Limited and redirect from Queensland Rail to reflect current name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by S4119292 (talkcontribs) 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Queensland RailQR Limited — (Gezzza (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

I no longer hear QR refer to as Queensland Rail as such I support the move to either QR Limited, QR (plus move QR to QR (disambiguation)) or QR (company). What does everyone else think about this? (Gezzza (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Considering that I work for ARG, I hear "QR" all the time. Also bear in mind that before the year is out, QR will be split into Queensland Rail and QRNational, and that "QR" and "QR Limited" will no longer exist. I would propose that we keep the Status Quo, and wait for the changes to happen.Johnmc (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: With no overwhelming reason to move the article it is probably best to wait until later in the year. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - QR is facing a restructure mid-year, pending on the sale of the QRNational Coal business to potential buyers. I would wait till then. Sb617 (Talk) 03:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge stations (rail, bus and ferry) into three articles[edit]

See here. Gerry (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for go card and TransLink (South East Queensland)[edit]

I am wondering if you like to review go card and TransLink (South East Queensland)? As I am hoping to get a GA or a FA rating on them. Any help is appreciated, thanks. Gerry (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Higher Importance[edit]

Queensland Rail, along with QR National, is the main operator of railway passenger and freight services in Queensland. One would think this company is not of low importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCAspire (talkcontribs) 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. d'oh! talk 07:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox update[edit]

I did initially update the infobox (edited as logged out), but was reverted initially for removing outdated references and information. Some references behind the reasoning for my recent edits to the infobox can be found in the references section under Public_float_of_QR_National. Hope this helps. Sb617 (Talk) 06:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

S118[edit]

According to the USATC_S118_Class article, Queensland Rail owns an operational S118. Would be nice if the Fleet section of this article explained the role of the S118. 174.24.20.202 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)