Talk:Waitematā railway station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

"Auckland spreads a suburban population of 1.2 million over an area rather larger than London" -This is simply not true, while the regional area may cover an area greater than london, the suburban (i.e. urbanised/developed) area of Auckland is much less. The regional area include huge tracts of land in Rodney, Waitakere and South that are farmland, bush or mountains. The urban area of Auckland is less than half that of Sydney for example. Population density of urbanised Auckland is comparable to Mebourne and Sydney.

"making bus and rail services more expensive to implement" -Also not particularly accurate, Auckland pays some of the cheapest subsidies for its bus system in the world, so it is unfair to claim that it is expensive to operate. And certainly expanding the bus and rail networks would be expensive, but this has little to do with the area of Auckland alone. -Nick R. (User:202.27.216.35)

Disambiguation[edit]

I found the redirect to Britomartis confusing, particularly considering that the transport centre seems to be more notable than the character of The Faerie Queene (as can be seen by Google searches), so, I've added a disambiguation page. --Dom 05:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links[edit]

I do not diagree with formatting standards. I disagree with the necessity of linking to 12 September and 2006 at these particular points. What good is clicking on them, and being referred to these articles, in connection with ARTAs DART project? Is it really interesting to the reader of "Britomart Transport Centre" that the Apple computer "it's Showtime!" special event happened on that day, or that 2006 was a "Mozart Year"?

Providing date links in these instances runs contrary to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, as does providing date links WITHIN the references (which only talk about the day they (the references) appeared. MadMaxDog 04:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not about linking dates, it's their displaying in accordance with users' preferences. "September 12 2006" will always display just like that, irrespective of those preferences: September 12 2006 will display in the style that the user's prefences are set to - "12 September 2006", "September 12 2006", "September 12th 2006", "2006-09-12" - whatever the user has specified. It's covered (can't remember where!) in the Wikipedia guidelines, and is entirely consistent with the guideline that you quote. Birdhurst 07:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Britomartlogo.png[edit]

Image:Britomartlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern duplicate tunnel[edit]

I have removed the following section, because I have never heard of such a proposal, HAVE heard that the current tunnel width was constrained by land ownership issues and most importantly, because it was absolutely unreferenced: Happy to have it in with refs. Ingolfson (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Ok, I have replaced the eastern duplicate tunnel section and included the appropriate references. FYI, the current tunnel width was constrained by ownership issues, but only in as much as it was designed to be completed as quickly and cheaply as possible due to the covenant allowing the tunnel to be built expiring at the end of 2000 (and due to the uncertaintly that any Britomart project would proceed in any form). The main reason for the minimal width tunnel was due to the fact that it was originally intended to service only the the eastern and southern rail lines, which it could do quiet easily. The western line and proposed new lines (such as what has now evolved into the Central Connector busway), were to have been serviced by light rail vehicles traversing city roads and entering Britomart from the west at street level. -Nick R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.204.65 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Quote>

Duplicate eastern tunnel[edit]

A proposed alternative to increase capacity is the duplication of the existing eastern Britomart approach tunnel. This would require a new twin track tunnel of approximately 500 meters length to be constructed parallel to the existing twin track tunnel, providing a total of four tracks from Quay Park Junction and retaining Britomart as a terminus station. Estimated costs are in the range of $150 million to $200 million dollars with a plan and build duration of 4-5 years. Such a project would allow the same capacity increase as the CBD loop at approximately one sixth to one fifth the cost, but without any of the additional benefits that the two new CBD underground stations or the more direct route to the western line would provide.

Initially seen as an inferior (yet cheaper and more politically acceptable) alternative to the CBD tunnel, the duplicate eastern approach is regaining favour due to the comparatively short build time. Even if planning commenced immediately the city underground loop might not become operational until several years after the maximum capacity of the existing corridor is reached (see above).

While typically seen as removing the need for the central city underground tunnel, a duplicate eastern tunnel does not preclude a city underground line from being built at a later date or as stages of the same project. In fact a widened eastern approach would allow the city loop to operate at full capacity, by allowing trains terminating at Britomart to enter and leave the station on their own set of tracks. With only two tracks along the first section from Quay Park junction to Britomart, the remainder of the city tunnel would have to be run at lower than maximum capacity to provide regular entry and exit slots for terminating services.

<Unquote>

I agree with your decision to remove that and to only include it with references. James Pole (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has a reference now (would be good to have more, and online refs) so it's okay for it to be back in. I did however remove the ruminations on terminating trains and benefits etc in combination with a city tunnel. This strongly depends on which trains would remain or become terminus services. After all, in theory the trains could connect (i.e. an eastern train arriving becomes a western train departing etc...) thus making discussion about future demands and scheduling drift into the direction of pure speculation. Ingolfson (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't speculation, it is simple math. I think you missed the point a little there. The report I referenced there discusses it(sorry it is not online, I have a hardcopy), and indeed suggests that the majority of trains would become connect to become 'through services' rather than terminating. I agree it's not really that relevant for publication on the page and to hard to get down concisely and academically, but I will explain it anyway as you might be interested.

The basic logic is as follows:

a) A twin track CBD tunnel as described would support approximately 20 trains per direction per hour(varying slightly depending on the exact signalling system), which allows for a maximum of approximately 40 services through the tunnel per hour (if all ending inbound services go on to become the start or an outbound service and none terminate). I.e. there are 20 'slots' in each direction an hour.

b) Only electric trains could operate in the unventilated western section of tunnel (the new bit under the CBD between Mt Eden and Britomart), while diesel trains would have to enter and exit via the existing ventilated eastern approach as they do now. I.e. diesels could not operate in the tunnel proper.

c) A diesel train coming from the east on the up main would require one of the 20 westbound slots per hour to enter the station. However, as it cannot continue on past Britomart in the same slot via the unventilated CBD tunnel, it must head back out the eastern tunnel again. This requires it to cross over onto the down main and occupy a second slot in the eastbound direction. Therefore a single diesel terminating service requires the same amount of slots to simply enter and exit Britomart as two electric services running through the full length of the tunnel.

d) The proposed design of the CBD tunnel would not allow trains entering from the west to head back out to the west again, which would be one way to take advantage of the leftover 'half slots' (as there is no crossover between the two tracks due to the lack of space around building foundations on the block directly west of Britomart station, the tunnel in this section would have to be comprised of two separate single track tubes).

e) Current ARTA plans indicate that diesel trains will continue to be run on the Pukekohe services and the proposed Helensville service after electification of the metropolitan network is complete (in addition to the Overlander and potentially many other other intercity or regional trains and metro expresses).

Therefore: with a need to run terminating services and the fact that one terminating service requires the same amount of slots as two through services, the CBD tunnel cannot run at full capacity without the terminating services being on their own set of tracks.

E.g. Only through services: Maximum of 40 trains per hour total (20 on the westbound track, 20 on the eastbound track). Only terminating services: Maximum of 20 trains per hour total (20 enter the station on the westbound track, same 20 exit again on the eastbound track) Mix of through and terminating: more than 20 but less than 40 an hour depending on the mix. CBD tunnel and four track eastern tunnel: 60 trains per hour (20 through services per hour per direction on the main tunnel, 20 terminating services in and out via the extra eastern pair of tracks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.89.117 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the explanation - but the rub lies in wordings like "The proposed design of the CBD tunnel would not allow trains entering from the west to head back out to the west again" - how do we know how a design for a concept which isn't even nowhere near to decision is going to look? Also, electric trains can both pull and push, and they might be electric multiple units which don't care which side is "front" at any moment anyway. Eastern-side trains also might all be electrified too, by that time! So I think such capacity discussions should be left out, as they are based on way too many unknowns.
If you have specific references talking about the capacity in your source (I am not quite sure if your words mean that those calculations are spelled out (!) there or not), then I would not object to have them in, but lets not make that part too long. PS: You are welcome to join Wikipedia and get yourself a user name, anonymous! Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Britomart Transport Centre. 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:

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) 01:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transport Hub[edit]

It is not correct that "Britomart Transport Centre is the public transport hub". It was intended to be a transport hub. But the buses were dropped from the plans. It is only a railway station now.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until Lower Queen Street was blocked off to vehicles so that the CRL could be built, buses stopped and departed from outside and opposite Britomart and from the side street Tyler Street. They now depart and stop in various streets in the vicinity of Britomart. They will return when the CRL work is finished. So Britomart definitely is the terminus for many bus routes. The Ferry Building is diagonally opposite Britomart on the wharves, so Britomart is the interconnection point that connects ferries to buses and trains. Therefore, all 3 modes share Britomart in common as a terminus. It matters not one iota that the bus terminal wasn't incorporated into the Britomart building. Akld guy (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at the eastern side of Britomart (Commerce Street) are dedicated bus stops, so it's possible to walk out that side of Britomart a few paces and board a bus. Akld guy (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Britomart Transport Centre. 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:

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) 06:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

Is there a source that states the new name for the station has actually taken effect yet? pcuser42 (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see [1], but that doesn't say the name is in effect as of now, and there's been no comms from Auckland Transport that the new name is in use now. pcuser42 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook observations suggest that signage at the station is being changed now, so this concern no longer applies. pcuser42 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the Gazette it appears the names were in effect from 16 March 2023. --LJ Holden 08:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waitematā_railway_station&oldid=1208088796"