Template talk:Railway lines in New South Wales

Do abandoned and proposed lines belong?

Before I start adding abandoned and proposed lines to the Country Branch Lines section, do they belong there, or should there be more sections?

I'm thinking, for example, of the abandonded Belmont line, Toronto line, Richmond Vale line and the proposed Fassifern to Hexham (Newcastle bypass) freight line (which would use part of the Richmond Vale line).

Oh, and the skitube isn't a branch line! --Athol Mullen 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think abandoned and closed lines deserve their own template, otherwise the template is getting too big. I personally think all the CityRail stuff should go off it- the CityRail Northern Line is after all the Main North etc, and there is enough CityRail stuff around. Something more simple and streamlined like the UK line templates would be good. This is how the template started...

Main lines:	Broken Hill Line,   Main Northern Line,   Main Southern Line,   Main Western Line,   North Coast Line,   South Coast (Illawarra) Line
Country Branch Lines:	Berrima Line,   Blayney - Demondrille Line,   Bombala Line,   BHP Port Kembla,   Binnaway - Werris Creek Line,    Boggabilla Branch,   Canberra Branch,   Cobar Branch,   Coonamble Branch,   Gwabegar Line,   Grenfell Branch,    Hay Branch,   Lake Cargelligo Branch,   Medway Quarry Branch,   Merriwa Branch,   Mungindi Line,   Murwillumbah Branch,    Naradhan Branch,   Oaklands Branch,   Parkes - Narromine Line,   Picton Loop Line,   Pokataroo Branch,   Sandy Hollow - Gulgong Line,    Skitube,   Stockinbingal - Parkes Line,   Temora - Roto Line,   Tottenham Branch,   Troy Junction - Merrygoen Line,   Unanderra - Moss Vale Line,    Walgett Branch,   Wallerawang Colliery Branch,   Warren Branch,   Yanco - Griffith Line
Sydney Suburban Lines:	Airport Line,   Bankstown Line,   Carlingford Line,   Cumberland Line,   East Hills Line,   Eastern Suburbs Line,   Cronulla Line,    Inner West Line,   Illawarra Line,   North Shore Line,   Northern Line,   Olympic Park Line,   Richmond Line,    South Line,   Western Line

Something nice and simple before it was 'sexed up' a bit too much IMHO.The Fulch 11:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It still needs fixing - but it was bad in the first place I think. We do need to fix it up better. Please add the branch lines to the list. JRG 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My only problem would be that a lot of lines have been proposed over the years and where does one draw the line (so to speak) as to what gets included and what doesn't?The Fulch 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't add proposed lines unless there's clear evidence that there is serious thought about them - like the four I already have listed. Abandoned lines can be added to that list if they are partially open. I think that another table would be better for closed lines. JRG 10:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible Sections?

I'm not sure if the manual of style permits it, but how about putting collapsible sections in the template? This quick example has something broken in it but gives the general idea:

--Athol Mullen 06:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks good in concept- I reckon, for example, a "Country branch lines" template with the other groupds of lines ( eg closed lines, suburban lines etc) in a collapsable section, and vice versa etc. The Fulch 03:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that, if you work how to construct the script structure, it would be possible for the template to take a parameter which told it which section to expand. That would allow it to remain one template, making for a lot less maintainence work! --Athol Mullen 07:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For Athol's sake, I am objecting here now. See my comments below. JRG 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How to classify...

How do we classify the partly built but unfinished Maldon to Dombarton line? It is a country line, but construction was stopped part way through. It apparently remains reserved in perpetuity in case a future government or private company decides to complete it. --Athol Mullen 07:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was meant to supplement the Moss Vale-Unanderra line, so how about we just add a section to that article about the line? JRG 08:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sydney suburban Lines

I believe that they should all be listed individually as per before the change by JRG- without colour dots. For example, the Illawarra line is a different line to the Eastern Suburbsa line etc, even if Cityrail runs the same trains over them and markets them as a unit. This template should be on infrastructure not how CityRail markets their services- we already have CityRail line templates. 10:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)The Fulch 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. It might be appropriate to use both cityrail and infrastructure templates on all pages that have cityrail services. I don't see benefit in effectively mixing routes (cityrail) and underlying infrastructure in one template. I think that it is ultimately confusing for a reader who knows nothing about the network. I'd suggest that perhaps a brief note on the cityrail lines template explaining this might also be helpful. --Athol Mullen 11:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But the infrastructure as marketed is more commonly known than the actual terms. No one calls the line the "Main West" - it's the Western Line to most Sydneysiders, and we have to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not for rail enthusiasts. We can have articles on both, but both of these should be included as part of the template. Change the wording if you want, but don't delete them. JRG 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Then why are we persisting in calling part of the current Ulan line the Merriwa line and the rest the Sandy Hollow - Gulgong Line? ARTC and the federal government call it the Ulan line. It's no longer commonly known by the historical name... --Athol Mullen 13:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to change it. JRG 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Table size

The size of the infobox is not too big; there are plenty of boxes that are much bigger. The collapsible version looked horrible, and as it's usually the only infobox on the relevant page there is no need to have it collapsible. Collapsible boxes are where there is a need to cut down on space for multiple infoboxes. This box outlines major railway lines in a whole state, and it's bound to be big - so it doesn't matter, let's just leave things as they are. I'm inclined though to merge some very small railway lines into the main line (things like Medway Quarry, eg. should be merged into the Main South Line article, for example) - this would cut down some of the content, and make it manageable (and stop the articles getting deleted as they are bound to be by the anti-stub patrol). JRG 05:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's one person's opinion- anyone else? You need to be a bit more polite in your criticism matey.The Fulch 10:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I was very happy to see that the collapsible format, which has already been discussed on this page, had been implemented. I was rather surprised to see it reverted considering that the person who reverted it has taken part in discussion on this talk page since the collapsible format was proposed some 18 days ago, and had never made any comments objecting to the idea. Oh, and in terms of bulk, when placed on the same page as a line diagram (eg Main North railway line, New South Wales), the smaller we can make the infobox the better. I'd also like to see the ability to collapse sections of the line diagram between major stations but I'm not sure what that would do to page formatting when expanded and shrunk. --Athol Mullen 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree- it will be interesting to see if that can be done to the line diagrams- I will try and investigate.The Fulch 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• The deluxe version would be able to expand a section that was specified as a parameter, and perhaps highlight a specified station, junction, etc.. :-) --Athol Mullen 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• You guys want to give Wikipedia:Railway line template#Collapsible Sections a try? Vagary 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I created the template, for what its worth, and I think the expandible form looks good. -Quaidy 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've put it back, as this needs more discussion. The collapsible format is still not not in the proper use of a collapsible template (it is for multiple stackup templates). We should use it according to the guidelines or not at all- ie. leave it or fix it in a way that is done properly. The fact that I haven't objected until now is because I thought that we had decided to leave it as is - it's only The Fulch's idea that it was getting too big (which isn't true) that the collapsible format was done. Let's do it in a way that doesn't collapse everything - there isn't a need to collapse all of it. (Why not collapse the old abandoned branch lines and leave the main lines visible, for example? You don't have to collapse the entire template.) The table also looks uninteresting. Let's find a better way to do this and find something that looks good and is useful - I would say that perhaps neither of the tables is all that good, but the older one is currently better than what was proposed, despite The Fulch's work. I'm all for the collapsing of the line template, though - that is far too big for any page and is an example where a collapsible table is clearly warranted. Let's work towards a better solution - proposing something first before we implement it. Please? JRG 10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks very nice now.The Fulch 21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy with the current arrangement, except that I am woondering if it would be better to make the template a bit wider (larger percentage of page width). --Athol Mullen 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Navigation was deprecated

{{Navigation}} was deprecated, which is why I have previously converted this template to use {{Navbox}} instead. Navigation was deprecated due to problems in some browsers, and problems when javascript was not enabled. Sorry to have to keep changing the template, but it seems as though it has not changed much in appearance. --CapitalR 13:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

New look

I have changed the look to one collaspable section and subgroups after seeing how the kiwis have done it - Template:NZR Lines. I guess I should have bantered it through here first, after now reading the past discussions. So if no one likes it then I have no problem with it being converted back .. under concensus. But for my mind the older version though had too many show buttons and titles and took up a big chunk of space at the bottom of the articles from the outset. This one takes up a big chunk of space as well, but only after it is expanded. Nomadtales 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the splitting of the regional lines list into north, south and west but I'd prefer to see the main lines remain outside the collapsible section. --Athol Mullen 12:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, sorry. It's too big and looks awful. And what defines "Northern region", etc.? As far as I can see they are made up terms which are non-definable. Even the ARTC definitions are only used for their maps, not for anything else. The main lines need to be at the top and in a non-collapsible section that people can see. Please change it at least to something that looks acceptable. JRG 12:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The lines were grouped the same as over on NSWrail.net. They sounded reasonable enough. Obviously they are northern if they branch from the Main North line. I was about to revert the box back until I saw the old one again .. now there's awful - all those v.d.e things and boxes inside boxes, and that's just the intial view. The only problem is that Navbox is limiting. We can't have some expanded and some collasped unless we put the main lines in the title bar. Nomadtales 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The vde things weren't there originally - someone decided to add them all when the bars were changed. The old box was fine, really, and if we can't find something that shows the main lines without having to uncollapse a box, we should keep it or ditch the box altogether. JRG 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

still using the single Navbox how bout the following with the main lines listed in the title? It is only way I can see displaying the main lines expanded without nesting navboxes like before or building a template table from scratch. Nomadtales 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks even worse than the original table. NT, I suggest that if you want to implement your improvements that you rebuild the table altogether, or if you don't, to put back the table we had before. JRG 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Something better?

JRG I don't see you coming up with any ideas, just your glass-half-full, reject everything vision. If you look at the templates for the UK - eg {{Railway lines in North England}}, {{Railway lines in South-West England}}, {{Railway lines in Wales}}, {{Scottish railway lines}} etc - you will see there is a standard. Using a single navbox. If the idea I put forward was rejected (and rejected I dare say by the power of one) because it is too big, that is a result there being a lot of lines in NSW. Why don't we either break the template into seperate regions like the Uk .. or JRG you come up with something better, perhaps then you actually might like it. Nomadtales 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Spilt out CityRail lines

Seeing as there is already a CityRail lines template - {{CityRailSydney}}, I cannot understand why we need to duplicate the info in these templates. It unnecessarily bloats them. So I am proposing a new NSW regional lines template (see below). In it I have broken the lines down, instead of their region, to instead their current state - open, closed or lifted. I have also included a clause to specify either it to be collapsed or not in its initial state. So can I please get a few more views on this than just one negative one. Nomadtales 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with that is that some lines are partially closed or truncated, such that the name of the line is not consistent with the current open end point, for example, the Gwabegar line. I would suggest not breaking it up into line status but keeping them in the current regions, which i think looks good. The cityrail lines should stay IMO as sydney is part of NSW. My problem with how they are included now is that this template should be for pieces of infrastructure not service patterns, so I would have individual entries for the suburban lines such as Eastern Suburbs, Illwarra and Cronulla lines for instance, as they can be considered individual pieces of intrastructure, depite the fact that CityRail runs the same train over them. Good luck though, I've tried doing this before but JRG keeps changing it back. The Fulch 01:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The template is much better, but we must leave it in its uncollapsed state so as to show the main lines which are the most prominent ones. CityRail lines are part of the NSW system, so they should be included. As for Fulch's suggestion, that isn't going to work. The lines are put together, not separately, and we don't have enough information to make separate articles on every line - all we are doing is creating empty articles with templates and nothing else - and because I'm the only one who puts any effort into creating fuller articles I think I have a right to be annoyed, so please stop your whinging about glasses being half full or whatever. Nomadtales, you might like to look up a book and find out what is lifted and what is just closed - Toronto Line is not lifted, for example, apart from 2 level crossings - it's just closed. Lifted lines actually require an Act of Parliament before they can become officially "Closed" and may be lifted. JRG 02:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Hmm, there are already separate pages for Eastern Suburbs, Illawarra and Cronulla lines, and I could write very nice separate pages on the East Hills line and the Airport line (which i wont because it will be deleted). I just think it would be better to have them all listed separately as they are separate lines with their own history, even if some of them will end up linking back to the same page.The Fulch 02:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The separate pages on the ESR and Cronulla lines contain nothing but but a repeat of the information that is in the main article, and in some cases less. I'm happy for there to be extra articles, but they should be expansions of specific parts of the main article, not simply articles in addition. JRG 07:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Further to this, i would take out Blue Mountains, Southern Highlands, Newcastle and Central Coast lines, as these are just marketing terms for sections of the Main West, Main South and Main North lines respectively, and not separate pieces of infrastructure as such. The Fulch 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't. There's a need to list both as per above. JRG 07:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the quick replies. If we do want to show the CityRail lines on certain articles, and I can see a need for this, then why can't we just include the existing CityRail template as well (A project in the future can be too get a standard look for the two templates). In terms of which line goes in which group that is just semantics and we can alter that around without any issue (I was following NSWRail.net but swiched Totonto to lifted to see if you were paying attention - and because it has technically been "lifted" and is a walking track). Using a group naming like "Branch lines" should include partially open lines. I did also think about keeping them in regions, but then thought we would want to show the closed lines as well, and then it would become more messy. The template can initially be set as uncollapsed by adding a state=uncollapsed field into it. Or we can just decide that it should be uncollapsed full stop. Nomadtales 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My intention was to delete the CityRail box altogether except on the lines page. I've made its contents a subset of the navigation box instead of a separate template to save space on most pages, and on the lines page I'll use the CityRail template instead, which I will go about modifying now. JRG 07:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - if someone wants to fix the spacing, go ahead. JRG 08:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK So with the CityRail template changed to a Navbox if we change to my suggestion for the regional lines Navbox, any articles that could benefit from both can easily have the two added to the bottom and they will at least match. Is there a consensus for change now? Nomadtales 10:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think you are trying to fix something that isn't broken, and the current format is fine by me IMHO. You also seem to have lost the closed Sydney lines, and Sydney goods lines under regional lines seems a little odd. The Fulch 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think something is broken when we have numerous templates duplicating the same information and we have a spasmotic jumble of Navboxes being used to create this template. So far I haven't even talked about {{List of public transport infrastructure in Sydney}} and this is what all the CityRail lines have at their footer, instead of the more obvious CityRail template above. So what this means is for each CityRail line instead of just being listed on one template they are included on 3 seperate ones. So what I would like to see is each line just listed on one template (whether this means as you propose we define between CityRail lines and historical lines is another matter). But to do this for everyline in the state would require a massive Navbox, so this is why I would like to see them spilt into regions. The obvious way seems to break regional lines from Sydney Metro ones. Nomadtales 01:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The list of public transport in Sydney box was put there by Joestella as a replacement; since Joe is no longer editing Sydney public transport infoboxes it's probably ok if you put the CityRail one back. I agree, though, with the Fulch about including all the Sydney lines - there's no point having two boxes, except for something like South Coast Line which is both an operating line and a line name. JRG 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current CityRail navbox duplicates the Railway lines in NSW navbox to a degree, and putting both on CityRail line pages is excessive. It seems to me that the Railways in NSW box covers the CityRail lines quite well, so deleting the CityRail lines navbox would seem to me to be the best solution. I've always found the Public Transport in Sydney box a little odd- are there precendents for such a box on other cities pages?The Fulch 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Something better Mark II

I have had another crack at fixing this template so that it doesn't use multiple Navboxes nested inside each other to give that current awful look. Can I get a consensus that this is now better format? As to the arrangement or grouping of lines I am not bothered and not really worried if this gets altered. Nomadtales 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. I'm happy with that. JRG 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks awful. Nothing wrong with the current version IMHO Quaidy 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well two out of three says yes and without further ado I have done a direct change from the old format to the new one keeping the grouping as the same but just now separating the closed/lifted country lines. Much better. Nomadtales 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

2 out of 3! Well, what an unprecedented survey of editors! Quaidy 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There were plenty of opportunities to comment on changes to the template two months ago. I don't recall you having a say then. Nomadtales 03:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was away, Wikipedia is not my entire life. Anyway- looks good now, I was more worried about the content- a bit anxious that a lot of the lines would be dropped. I created the template way back when. Quaidy 11:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One point - the Sandy Hollow-Gulgong line is well and truly open. The coal trains from the Hunter to the west use it quite frequently. JRG 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

fixed. there was a good article in the SMH recently about this line. can't seem to find it online though. it still uses safeworking practices apparently. Nomadtales 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with dividing the lines into open and closed is that some of the open lines are closed for a lot of their length such that the name of the line corresponds to the closed section. Quaidy 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have followed what is listed at http://nswrail.net/lines/nsw-lines.php. Closed and Lifted lines are grouped together as just closed. Partially open lines are shown as just open. If you have a better suggestion, be my guest. Nomadtales 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Recreated layout from scratch

A lot has happened in navbox template development since 2007!

I recreated the template to use the newer Navbox with collapsible groups template, which greatly reduced the amount of markup and gave it a more streamlined appearance. I also used the hlist and bulleted lists to remove the need for middots.

Hope the result is in keeping with what you fine folk had in mind :)

--Ruben(nerd) (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tourist and heritage

Dorrigo, not yet a tourist but much heritage but also not operational

Katoomba scenic railway, both but not main gauge.

Ok? --Dave Rave (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)