This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for CSD as a short article lacking context. Given that it then consisted of one line, that is understandable. However, it had a couple of links in What Links Here and as an Australian, I had some background in it. I have created it as an Australian rail stub. It still needs more referencing. Capitalistroadster 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I indend to expand his article into either Rail gauge in Australia or Gauge standardisation in Australia, with discussion of the various gauge standardisation proposals that have appeared over the years. Not just the origins of the gauges.
Eg:
A few sources found so far:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)Feel free to jump in and help! Wongm ( talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Additional break of gauge stations were at:
Tabletop ( talk) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
For over a century, newspapers and parliaments in Australia debated two issues:
Thus South Australia considered building more 1067 than they actually did, with possibly more breaks of gauge.
Thus Victoria considered in the 1870s building large section of the country network in either 1067 or 2' 9". This is separate from the small lengths of 762 lines actually built in the 1900s.
Thus Queensland also considered introducing 2' 9" to reduce costs compared to their original 1067. [1]
Tabletop ( talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Do not put it in without refs Satu Suro 04:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Tabletop ( talk) 13:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Rail gauge in Australia → Track gauge in Australia – Per Talk:Track_gauge#Requested_move. HTML2011 ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If someone feels up to it I think a detailed map or maps showing the different gauges in Australia would greatly help the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.180.127 ( talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
How can the number of rejections go DOWN from 1922 to 1933? Tabletop ( talk) 12:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
a lot of internal wiki converts are written where the gauge was built to blah blah (metric) (btw that's halb imperial)
shouldn't these be all written with the imperial measure quoted and the metric in brackets ? no-one built a 600mm rail track, it was a 2' gauge!! -- Dave Rave ( talk) 09:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
lk=on
option links the gauge to the defined unit:
1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) or
4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm).first=met
. That would produce text 1,435 mm (
4 ft 8+1⁄2 in), consistent in both ways. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Common usage in Australian publications - internal railway documents and published books was always stating the imperial measurements, and long after the official introduction of metrical standards in the 1970s they were still being used. As always the need to show the local usage/nomenclature first - then the conversion into the other measurement within a template - as outlined by User:DePiep - seems the most sensible and obvious solution to the issue. satusuro 10:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
|first=imp
-or- |first=met
in {{
RailGauge}}; this graciously does not change the gauge definition you found.I question weather fisherman islands is actually a break of gauge. there is no transference of goods between gauges here. it is a dual gauge line, but they run straight from port to destination.
Pga1965 ( talk) 10:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have done some work to expand the section on the origins of the gauge muddle, in particularly to draw on the scholarship of Mills. Given how significant the decisions between 1849 and 1853 were I think the level of detail given is justified. I also added reference to the context within the British Empire at the time. I think some further small amendments could be made to indicate the changing views of the development of railway technology in that period which saw the apparent technical benefits of broad gauge all but evaporate; this is I think a secondary consideration when that key to the history was the advice and understanding of the importance of a common gauge and the subsequent inability of the figures involved to bring this to fruition. Australia was not alone in this problem. Tjej ( talk) 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Is Murray Basin project about rail standardisation? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 01:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for CSD as a short article lacking context. Given that it then consisted of one line, that is understandable. However, it had a couple of links in What Links Here and as an Australian, I had some background in it. I have created it as an Australian rail stub. It still needs more referencing. Capitalistroadster 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I indend to expand his article into either Rail gauge in Australia or Gauge standardisation in Australia, with discussion of the various gauge standardisation proposals that have appeared over the years. Not just the origins of the gauges.
Eg:
A few sources found so far:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite web}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)Feel free to jump in and help! Wongm ( talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Additional break of gauge stations were at:
Tabletop ( talk) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
For over a century, newspapers and parliaments in Australia debated two issues:
Thus South Australia considered building more 1067 than they actually did, with possibly more breaks of gauge.
Thus Victoria considered in the 1870s building large section of the country network in either 1067 or 2' 9". This is separate from the small lengths of 762 lines actually built in the 1900s.
Thus Queensland also considered introducing 2' 9" to reduce costs compared to their original 1067. [1]
Tabletop ( talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Do not put it in without refs Satu Suro 04:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Tabletop ( talk) 13:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Rail gauge in Australia → Track gauge in Australia – Per Talk:Track_gauge#Requested_move. HTML2011 ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If someone feels up to it I think a detailed map or maps showing the different gauges in Australia would greatly help the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.180.127 ( talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
How can the number of rejections go DOWN from 1922 to 1933? Tabletop ( talk) 12:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
a lot of internal wiki converts are written where the gauge was built to blah blah (metric) (btw that's halb imperial)
shouldn't these be all written with the imperial measure quoted and the metric in brackets ? no-one built a 600mm rail track, it was a 2' gauge!! -- Dave Rave ( talk) 09:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
lk=on
option links the gauge to the defined unit:
1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) or
4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm).first=met
. That would produce text 1,435 mm (
4 ft 8+1⁄2 in), consistent in both ways. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Common usage in Australian publications - internal railway documents and published books was always stating the imperial measurements, and long after the official introduction of metrical standards in the 1970s they were still being used. As always the need to show the local usage/nomenclature first - then the conversion into the other measurement within a template - as outlined by User:DePiep - seems the most sensible and obvious solution to the issue. satusuro 10:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
|first=imp
-or- |first=met
in {{
RailGauge}}; this graciously does not change the gauge definition you found.I question weather fisherman islands is actually a break of gauge. there is no transference of goods between gauges here. it is a dual gauge line, but they run straight from port to destination.
Pga1965 ( talk) 10:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have done some work to expand the section on the origins of the gauge muddle, in particularly to draw on the scholarship of Mills. Given how significant the decisions between 1849 and 1853 were I think the level of detail given is justified. I also added reference to the context within the British Empire at the time. I think some further small amendments could be made to indicate the changing views of the development of railway technology in that period which saw the apparent technical benefits of broad gauge all but evaporate; this is I think a secondary consideration when that key to the history was the advice and understanding of the importance of a common gauge and the subsequent inability of the figures involved to bring this to fruition. Australia was not alone in this problem. Tjej ( talk) 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Is Murray Basin project about rail standardisation? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 01:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)