Talk:Wairarapa Line

Hutt Valley: separate article?

Just a quick question for those with an interest in this article. I'm thinking of doing some expansion of it, but I'm unsure whether or not the Hutt Valley line should be treated separately or not. The way I see it is that the primary argument in favour of a combined article is that it's one line straight from Wellington to Woodville, while the primary argument in favour of separate articles is that the Hutt Valley section of the line is operated far differently to the Wairarapa section and could be viewed as a separate line, and that a fair bit can be said about the separate histories either side of the Rimutakas, so two articles may be more manageable than one big one.

Thoughts? - Axver 11:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. Plus seperate pages required for Melling Branch & Hutt Park Private Brance (is Hutt Park extn of Gracefield Branch? In the meantime have added re 1950s deviation from Western Hutt & electrification Hugo999 12:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Route map consistency

I have recently made changes to the Route Map for this article in an attempt to introduce some consistency in the way some of the visual elements have been used. In particular, the following changes were made:

• Staffed (or previously staffed) stations are indicated by a Major Station icon (e.g. ).
• Unattended and flag stations are indicated by a Minor Station icon (e.g. ).
• Names in bold indicate a Major Station that is currently operational.
• Former or alternate names are indicated in parentheses and in small type after the current or most recent name.
• Distances from the zero-kilometer peg are indicated in small type before the name or, in the case of bridges and tunnels, the length.

The staffed/unattended status of stations is derived from the New Zealand Railway and Tramway Atlas.

I have applied this approach to other route maps I have written for New Zealand lines, but if there are any other suggestions, comments are welcome. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. BTW, can I add to the anon editor: please don't add each and every heritage groups' position on the route map. It makes it much too large. --Lholden (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate logo

A recent change has been made to this article that removed elements from the infobox that associated the article with the Wairarapa Line service run by Tranz Metro, and replaced them with an image that associates the article with the Wairarapa Line track owned and maintained by ONTRACK. There are few, if any, other New Zealand examples where the same name is used for both a track and a service, thus the issue of which visual elements are most appropriate for this article's infobox should be discussed.

Therefore, should this article's infobox contain:

• The ONTRACK logo, evoking associations with the line owned by ONTRACK or,
• The Tranz Metro logo and colour yellow, evoking associations with the service operated by Tranz Metro?

Thoughts? -- Matthew25187 (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I created this discussion thread before I noticed similar changes to the Wairarapa Connection article. -- Matthew25187 (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi matthew

• the line is ontrack
• the service is tranzmetro called 'waiararapa connection', for some strange reason the stupid people at GWRC (metlink) what everyone to call the service the 'wairarapa line' this is incorrect.
• As this article is about the line I used the Ontrack logo and placed the service colour and tranzmetro logo in the service page.
• In the infobox areas for the wairarapa connection stopping stations really needs to be changed to reflect the fact the service is called the wairarapa connection not wairarpa line.
• Also the Hutt Valley page is more about the line than the service so really should be ontrack logo not tranzmetro logo but ill leave that up to you as im not that intrested in the hutt section of the line -- Palmeriain (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ontrack logo.jpg

The image Image:Ontrack logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Ontrack logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Locale

For some years now, the Wairarapa line hes not connected to the Manawatu - Whanganui area. I also am certain the line no longer connects to the Hawkes Bay region but stops at Masterton. Freight only comes in from the North, but rarely.Red Penn (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wairarapa Line still physically exists in its entirety from Wellington to Woodville and no portion of this line (on the current route) has been officially closed therefore the line is still connected to the PNGL. Whether or not trains regularly run on the northern portion of the line is irrelevant to whether or not it connects to the Manawatu region. — Matthew25187 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2025

Wairarapa Line → Wairarapa line – For this line, sources don't usually cap "line". See books and news. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: No opinion on this, but please consider all other railway lines both in Wellington and in New Zealand as a whole as they're all similar articles in the same or similar categories as this article. Fork99 (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Definitely, though I tend to start small with things I stumble on. In many countries, X line and X branch aren't capped, but in New Zealand they mostly are so far. I don't see support for that in sources, in cases I've looked at. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't "start small" but maybe pick the most viewed article that fits the intent of this RM and close this one. This was done at the comma discussions years ago where "starting small" created a long list of RM's before reaching the most recognized article. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a most recognized railway line in New Zealand? I've run into this one in various places. Dicklyon (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

  My guess is that the most recognised / busiest line is North Island Main Trunk, which unfortunately does not contain "Line". Thereafter, I'd go for Main North Line, New Zealand. Schwede66 03:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Main North Line" is pretty often "main North line" and "Main North line" and "main north line" in sources. So yes, maybe we should work on that next. The other is less common in n-grams, but I do see "North Island main trunk" in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Randy. The most viewed seems (by far) to be North Island Main Trunk with 4,307 views in past 90 days. Next is Main South Line with 1,671, and North Auckland Line with 1,657. (Main North Line, New Zealand is no more than 10th on the list.) But either of the two starting with "Main" would be fine, especially if evidence and discussion cover use in running text, as Dick's prelim look does. Nurg (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Also "North Island Main Truck" was always capped in the old days, and is only recently seeing significant lowercasing of "main trunk". Treating that as a proper name is rather different from capping "Line", which is much more often lowercase in sources, that I wouldn't think that's a logical alternative place to start. The "Main" ones would be good to take on together, as n-grams suggest they are over-capitalized here. I'd have to first investigate whether some of those are not referring to the New Zealand lines. And the n-grams for North Auckland Line are quite peculiar; must investigate. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and evidence provided. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)