Talk:City Rail Link

Renaming

Now that the current proposed 'City Rail Link' is gaining more traction and advancing futher into the planning stages should this article be renamed to reflect that. See Auckland Transport documents below with new branding;

• http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/current-projects/Rail/Documents/City%20Rail%20Link/AT-CRL-factsheet-feb2012.pdf
• http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/current-projects/Rail/Documents/City%20Rail%20Link/AT-CRL-overview-feb2012.pdf

I feel that people arriving at this page will be looking for information the current project an it would be best to restructure the article to reflet that. Have the lead talking about the current proposal then have a history section with previous proposals. ShakyIsles (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I decided to move it. ShakyIsles (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Updated 1920's plan?

I don't think it is correct to call this an "adapted version of previous proposals to improve rail access to Auckland's city centre since the 1920s". Apart from the poor English, it is an entirely new plan. Any similarities to 1920's ideas are coincidental.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Royalcourtier: You might be surprised. Plans for a tunnel southward underneath the CBD to Morningside existed in the 1920s. See these old newspaper clippings: here and here. Note that a couple of the stations were even located at the same places as the currently proposed ones. Rather than the CRL being dreamed up in the 2000s, it has actually existed since the 1920s but was deferred due to cost (in the 1930s), and a deliberate running down of passenger rail in favour of the private motor car (post WW2) in order to get the struggling British car industry back on its feet after the war. Mayor Dove Myer Robinson attempted to get the scheme started again in the 1970s but by then Aucklanders were too attached to their cars and the government was making too much money out of petrol taxes. Nobody wanted to change. Akld guy (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

See "Robbie's Rapid Rail", a diagram of the mayor's proposal circa 1970. Note the two new city stations that he proposed. Akld guy (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City Rail Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928061012/http://www.arta.co.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=A99C6001-BCD4-1A24-9CDE-FCF8BDB29DC8&siteName=arc to http://www.arta.co.nz/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=A99C6001-BCD4-1A24-9CDE-FCF8BDB29DC8&siteName=arc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City Rail Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513080938/http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/auckland/introduction/bush/chap4.asp to http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/auckland/Introduction/bush/chap4.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/News/NewsArticles/Pages/cityrailLinkworkaccelerated.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218155617/http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/OurAuckland/mediareleases/Pages/progressoncityraillinkwelcomed.aspx to http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/newseventsculture/OurAuckland/mediareleases/Pages/progressoncityraillinkwelcomed.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mount Eden rail configuration

I have made a change to the route map. There is not much online info about the proposed configuration at Mount Eden station. I based my changes on what's here. How the CRL tracks will connect to the existing Western Line is not clear and I think the tunnels continue under the Western Line until they emerge from its southern side and swing east and west to ground level. I'm happy to spend hours drawing the route map if anyone has better info or better still, can point to something authoritative. Akld guy (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Underground stations

Two things:

1. the two proposed underground stations would already be notable, so are deserving on their own articles, and
2. I'm unsure how they should be named

I'm not sure the first point needs further discussion, as there's tons of media coverage. With regards to the second point, though, I note that all existing (above-ground) stations are named "Foo railway station". I wonder whether the naming convention for the underground stations is different, as I commonly see "Foo Station" (note capital "S"). Should we thus have Aotea Station and Karangahape Station? Schwede66 02:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The stations don't exist yet, so it seems premature to start articles on them. There doesn't seem to be much information around, so the result would be stub articles with lots of "will be"s and "may be"s.

On the second point, someone went through all the Auckland railway station articles within the last few weeks and Moved those with upper case to "Foo railway station" with lower case, which necessitated a change to "Foo railway station, New Zealand" where name conflicts resulted. He was apparently following WP policy (dumb policy in my opinion, since the title of an entity is, well, its title). So it looks like we're going to get stuck with "Aotea railway station". In the case of Karangahape, Auckland Council has not been consistent. It has referred to published images depicting signage as "Karangahape", which is consistent with the naming of stations on the Northern Busway which are sited adjacent to roads of the same name, such as Akoranga, Constellation, and Hibiscus Coast. It has also referred to depicted signage of "Karangahape Station". I suspect that no matter what it's eventually named, everyone will refer to it as K Road. Akld guy (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this talk page once more because of the note on my talk page, I thought I'd offer a belated reply to the above. Notability, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether something exists, did once exist, or will exist sometime in the future. It's either notable or it's not. The stations clearly are. Hence my question - what should they be named? I'm not planning on starting those articles but we might as well get the red links correct. And the higher station can't be named "K Road" as that's the title of a disambiguation page. Schwede66 03:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Schwede66: You asked in your first post whether we should title the articles Aotea Station and Karangahape Station. That would not follow convention. These stations will be on Auckland's heavy rail network, where the convention is "Foobar railway station". Therefore, Aotea railway station is the logical choice. In the case of the station at Karangahape Road, it's not at all clear whether Auckland Transport will name it Karangahape or Karangahape Road. If we make the wrong choice, we'll end up with red links for either Karangahape railway station or Karangahape Road railway station. I did not mean to suggest that the likely colloquial use of K Road for the station means that we should name our article that. Akld guy (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Underground stations may not necessarily follow the naming conventions for above-ground stations. Britomart Transport Centre is a case in point. Schwede66 06:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

New Lynn railway station and Manukau railway station are not above ground, and New Lynn is actually an important transport centre with a customer support centre, but I take your point. Akld guy (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Names of the new stations have been confirmed - "Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa New Zealand Geographic Board announces seven new names for Auckland railway stations" https://www.linz.govt.nz/news/2023-03/new-names-auckland-railway-stations Turini2 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, I reverted the previous edits too fast and it wasn’t until I read the NZ Herald that I realised they were officially confirmed. DDMS123 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 October 2018

Update or remove the caption "Current plan (as of 2015). Newton station was previously removed from the plan in favour of upgrading Mt Eden station.", since this is now the logo and the caption doesn't make sense any more.

(I guess the edit warring was that bad? ) pcuser42 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Cars versus carriages

The term "car" was used in this article until recently to refer to Auckland's electric train units. This is the correct term, as used in the associated reference. It is also the term used throughout the New Zealand AM class electric multiple unit article. The distinction seems to be that "carriage" is the NZ term when referring to older style passenger trains that were pulled or pushed by a locomotive, whereas "car" is used in NZ for self-propelled passenger units, as the Auckland ones are. Terminology may differ in other countries. For example, "car" seems to have long been the term in the US even for the old locomotive-pulled trains. I am changing this article back to car. Akld guy (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely debatable. AT's own new automated announcements at stations use the term "carriage", as in "this is a six carriage train". pcuser42 (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

But the signage at stations also says "3 car EMU stop" or "6 car EMU stop" as the directions to drivers on where the front of the train should be stopped. Akld guy (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Len's loop

from what I can see, that name hasn't been used for years, and it was mostly used disparagingly by a couple of right wing bloggers. If suggest having that in the first line is unnecessary. Mykuhl (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Without any actual reliable sources using this name, I tend to agree. It certainly has negative connotations. pcuser42 (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's hardly notable or in common use. --LJ Holden 09:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)