Talk:The Ghan

Australia: South Australia / Northern Territory / Transport Mid‑importance

	Australia portal The Ghan 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia, or the Northern Territory Library.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Passenger trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	September 29, 2009

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

January 2008

I've just completed a massive re-write of this article with the addition of sources. Some remaining issues:

I know there needs to be more information about the construction of the new line in the 1980s, I just haven't been able to find much. It seems to have been drowned out with the coverage of the expansion to Darwin in 2004

* Ghan Preservation Society: doesn't seem to have a website. I've looked for some information on their work, especially in preserving some of the sidings, do you think it's worth including here? I found one citation that seems to cover their work adequately.

What else? I'm sure the article could benefit from more work, but I'm not sure precisely what. Travellingcari (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was book published back in the 1980s about the extension of the line. I think my local library has it, will give it a look at some point. Wongm (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh the benefits of being relatively more local (I'm now in the US). Thanks for that and for fixing the image spacing. Travellingcari (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Darwin

Not sure if it's an issue with my browser but the "connection to Darwin" section's text seems to overlap the 'edit' tags for the photos. Anyone know how to remedy this? I think I caused the overlap when I added text to that section, but I haven't worked with photos and am not sure how to best correct it. Travellingcari (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the extension to Darwin was discussed in South Australia around 1993, it was mentioned that the Federal government had received the land for that railway line in the process of Federation. But soon there was World War I, then the Depression, then WWII and subsequently the change to freight being moved by trucks which caused the project not pursued. Then someone mentioned as a joke that the former, now late SA Premier John Bannon (originally a lawyer), should be used to take the Federal government to court to build the railway or return the land. That was in 1993. Things went quiet but then building started ten years later. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:5936:9A98:2E56:2E2A (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It happens when all of the 'code' for the images is in one place of a page 'section' between headsing, and the total amount of images is more than the area in the 'section'. Fixed now, by moving them apart. Wongm (talk)

Service Class

I was just looking at The Overland and wondered whether we need to include the classes of service information here? I don't think so since that's more of information that someone would look for on The Ghan's website. Thoughts? Travellingcari (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

There is a need for explanation in either edit summary or here - as to what is going on - please help with explanations one way or other in AGF - cheers Satu Suro 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume good faith but I reverted back to the clean IP version as the first revert missed a chunk of the creation of the new line. I'm going offline, hope either of you can keep an eye out for further content removal tonight? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

One source for the train's name (see last paragraphs): [1]. Jpatokal (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on edits

Some comments.

Make sure it's all in Australian English, or at least British English.
"Australia's largest civil engineering project to date" is simply not true. The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme is the largest engineering project in Australia's history.[2]
The picture of the first Ghan to Darwin is wrong. This is the first Ghan. The picture is probably the first freight train to Darwin several weeks earlier.
The "Connection to Darwin" and "Operations" sections read like a current travel guide, which Wikipedia is not. Where is the information on how the train was operated before it was privatised?

203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Australian English: fair enough, I may be guilty of some of that. I'm American and while I've spent significant time in Australia my spellings and phrasings are mostly still American English
Civil engineering, the claim is sourced from a reliable source. Perhaps this project eclipsed that of the Snowy Mountains.
If you have information on the privatisation, please add it. I've said from the beginning of my expansion that it wasn't complete and needed more information. I'm not local anymore and had a hard time finding complete information. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Civil engineering, the claim is sourced". Yes it's sourced but the source is wrong and contradicted by many other reliable sources written after the the railway was completed. "The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme (SMHES) is the largest engineering and construction project ever undertaken in Australia." Powerhouse Museum "The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme is by far the largest engineering project ever undertaken in Australia." Australia's Culture Portal "The scheme is important because of its history as a post WWII engineering initiative at a national level; for its technological significance as the largest engineering system developed in Australia" NSW Heritage Council "The Snowy Mountains Scheme (SMS), constructed 1949-1974, is the largest engineering scheme ever undertaken in Australia" Australian Heritage "The Snowy Mountains Scheme remains far and away the largest engineering project in Australia's history" ABC Landline "the Scheme was the largest single engineering project ever undertaken in Australia" [3] "Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, the biggest civil engineering project ever undertaken in Australia" Tourism New South Wales 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source among those are the state ones and ABC, I think it makes sense to have a note that the claim is disputed by another claim, I'll have a go at wording it. Check back in a moment and see what you think but I don't think one RS trumps another but rather they should both be acknowledged TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are all reliable sources. All are run by State or Commonwealth government agencies. The Powerhouse Museum is Australia's largest science/technology/industry museum. CNN simply got it wrong. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: agreed re: the photo, not sure where that came from. I think it's been here a while but since I couldn't prove it wasn't the Ghan, I left it be TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

have made a number of suggested changes to this page:

Before changing back - please read the rational below - I hope it makes sense. I also note my changes may have been lost in the vandalism that has happened.

The page previously confuses the Central Australia Railway with the "Ghan" passenger train - they are two separate issues, one being the passenger train itself, and the other being the use of the term "Ghan" to note the railway.
I acknowledge that the former Central Australia Railway (via Marree and Oodnadatta) was colloquially known as the "Old Ghan Line", because of the passenger train.
if this page is supposed to be about the railways (old and new) then please make that clear.
if this page is about the train, "The Ghan" then make that clear.
I have a reference at the bottom of the page regarding the naming of the passenger train. THere are two schools of thought. I hope this clarifies.
I have also removed the references to the accidents - these are irrelevant, and are beyond the control of the current operator, GSR. If you want to note the bingles, why not reference Pacific National who actually own and operate the locomotive. Or - add the name of the idiots in the trucks or the names of the idiots on the side of trucks. (Sulzer55 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Move comment down where it belongs. Please note that I'm reinstating the accidents section as it goes on according to the layout of the train articles. It does not matter who the operator is, the accidents still happened with what is known as The Ghan. The article is about "The Ghan" as it has existed throughout Australian history, not this particular incarnation. You need to find some reliable sources so back up your claims. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice, although the article as is posted is flawed and inaccurate. Now you have indicated that the story is about the "Ghan", the train, maybe it should be refined to clarify that. The naming of the train is well documented. I have provided a link within the version I uploaded to support the naming of the train. Good luck! (Sulzer55 (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I was thinking more about this. Should it be a disambiguation? I think when people are looking up The Ghan, they're talking about the Adelaide-Alice-Darwin train as a whole, not any one incarnation or one particular train. can't the article address all three from reliable sources? The incidents exist in the history of the train, not one particular operator. Does that make sense? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there needs to be a disambiguation - there are already pages on the new railway Adelaide-Darwin_Railway, thought confusing the old and the new. The passenger train is a separate issue and should be given its own page, without reference to the railway upon which it runs. If you wish to retain the references to the accidents (although I believe they should not be there) please use the reports on the ATSB website (atsb.gov.au) this will eliminate the hysteria reporting effects of the tabloid media. I did have a link re the name, but it seems to be lost heres one PRR and another Email Chris Drymalik - Chris is probably the Guru on Commonwealth Railways! I would hope that either would be acceptable!

Given that this page seems to be managed by the World Police, I will leave it to them to play - if there is interest, I would be happy to assist in refining it. I do note that earlier in this page others have suggested naming issues, but these have been ignored!(Sulzer55 (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sulzer55, There Is No Cabal, only nefarious rouge admins.

More seriously, the Adelaide-Darwin Railway article is much newer than The Ghan article, and the content is not properly split at the moment. Everything regarding the construction of the track and its history should go into the ADR article, leaving this only for the passenger service (in its current and previous incarnations). Jpatokal (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article contradicts another article

Article Snowy Mountains Scheme cites reliable sources confirming it as the "the largest engineering project undertaken in Australia". 203.7.140.3 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See notation above, didn't realise you put this in two spots. I added a note with dual citation. Thoughts? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Snowy Mountains Scheme employed 100,000 people, cost $6 billion in today's prices and took 25 years to built. The railway employed 1,800 people[4], cost $1.3 billion and took 3 years. There is simply no comparison. CNN simply got it wrong. The media does get "facts" wrong on a regular basis. The weight of evidence is behind the Snowy and the competing claim should be removed. If there is a place for such a claim it is in Adelaide-Darwin Railway, not here. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, might have just found the source of CNN's issue, seems as if they chopped off the 2nd half of this sentence. Ignore for the moment that it's transcluded to an encyclopedia, appears to be copied from an RS. Am about to update with it and remove the conflicting tag since I think it will make sense then. It's the largest since the Snowys TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article focus

In its present form, this article is lacking in focus, and is therefore confusing, because it blurs the distinction between the train and the various railway lines over which the train has travelled. For example, the article uses Template:Infobox Public transit, when it should be using Template:Infobox rail service. Each of the railway lines in question either has, or should have, an article of its own. I therefore intend, in the near future, to make some significant edits to this article (including changing the infobox), so as to sharpen its focus on the train. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support separation - the confusion between the actual train, and the two lines is difficult enough - why not three separate articles? sats 09:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Ghan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011125555/http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/heritagensw/mar99/7_art.htm to http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/heritagensw/mar99/7_art.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. --FranSisPac (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

It would be helpful if somebody who knows how Wiki handles pronunciations would add them in the opening sentence. People (i.e., from USA; don't know what the British would do) unaware of the train name's assumed derivation from Afghan camel drivers might tend to pronounce it as "Gaahn" (as in, say, gondola).Casey (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]