Talk:Valley Line (Edmonton)

Trains Portal

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

Low

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

Canada: Alberta Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Valley Line (Edmonton).

Operators[edit]

Who is operating the line? As I understand it Transed operates the SE leg for 30 years but Marigold is building the W leg, so do they share operations with transed, or is the city the operator of that section. P# projects are confusing. 198.48.136.149 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track gauge[edit]

The Track gauge presumably is 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in)? Peter Horn User talk 22:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for them to use anything other than Standard Gauge, no. Radagast (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Platform length[edit]

Is there something newer/better than: "Platform lengths shall be sufficiently long to accommodate the longest Train required to operate at the Maximum Service Level, and shall not be less than 90m. " on p. 18 of 57 of .pdf with page number 5-13 with footer "Edmonton Valley Line LRT – Stage 1 Project Agreement – Execution Version Schedule 5 – D&C Performance Requirements - Part 5 Facilities Date: February 8, 2016"

https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/RoadsTraffic/Project%20Agreement%20Valley%20Line%20LRT%20Schedule%205%20-%20Part%205%20Facilities.pdf --Detailaware (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 23:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Line (Edmonton) → Valley Line
Valley Line → Valley line

– The Edmonton LRT line is the only topic actually named "Valley Line". The current disambiguation list can be moved, much like how Metro Line and Metro line are currently titled. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose clearly many Valley Lines known locally to different cities In ictu oculi (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the first two pages of Google hits for "Valley Line" -Wikipedia relate to about 12 different lines (Tamar Valley Line, Edmonton Valley Line Southeast, Derwent Valley Line, Tyne Valley Line, Looe Valley Line, Crouch Valley Line, Elham Valley Line Trust, Hope Valley Line, Arun Valley Line, Valley Line West (South Wales), Conwy Valley Line.) with the Looe Valley Line the only one appearing three times. It's abundantly clear that there is no primary topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – there is only one article that would otherwise be called "Valley Line" – but the disambiguation page would be better at Valley Line (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can sort of see the argument that it's the only one with the simple name "Valley Line", but on balance I think there are enough other things that might be contenders that it's preferable to keep it as is and use a disambiguation page. — Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Amakuru. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Valley Line stop articles[edit]

In accordance with WP:GNG, the street-level stops on the Valley Line fail to meet notability and thus don’t deserve their own articles. This is common practice in other tram/light rail systems, such as the with the future light rail stations of the Toronto subway and the T Line in Tacoma. Davies station can remain since it is a properly grade-separated station, however. The existing surface stop articles can be redirected to the main Valley Line article, with any and all relevant information from each being merged into the main article. Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're no less notable than the Capital Line or Metro Line stops, I don't see how you can delete one and not the other. Whether it's a grade-separated station or not is irrelevant; WP:GNG is only interested in "significant coverage in reliable sources" which, honestly, is quite light for all these stations. 162 etc. (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of surface-only LRT systems that have individual articles for their stations; another Canadian example would be Ion rapid transit. I really feel these should be looked at on a system-by-system basis. Radagast (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]