Jump to content

Talk:Indian Pacific

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

Verify statement

[edit]

The statement that this line was opened in 1970 was made by a suspicious user ID. Please verify this statement. --Gary D 06:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From a quick look, [1] appears to verify this as being genuine. -- Chuq 07:05, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Date it was opened

[edit]

It says the Indian Pacific service started in 1970, but also says that "even in 1968" when the gauge from Perth to Kalgoorlie was changed, a change of locomotives occurred in Kalgoorlie. So was it running in 1968, or not? - Mark 08:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as a complete east - west - east service it was opened by 1970 and called the Indian Pacific, prior to this the service was a series of seperate train journeys each on different gauage lines, with seperate ticketing requirments. Gnangarra 05:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Connections

[edit]

What about mentioning the ability to cross over to the Ghan Service in Pt Augusta or Adelaide Gnangarra 05:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re connections

[edit]

Suggest mentioning ability to connect (the term "cross-over" is archaic) between the "IP" and "The Ghan" at Adelaide only, as GSR does not adverside Pt Augusta as a connecting point between these trains. I travel twice-monthly ex Broken Hill on the "IP" and often sight the departures and arrivals of these trains as Keswick Terminal in Adelaide.--Jslasher 03:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== re GSR's branding of it's first-class and economy-class services as "Gold Kangaroo" and "Red Kangaroo", respectively. I have added this, as these names are cited in all of the GSR brochures, timetables, etc., in print and on the internet.--Jslasher 03:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents

[edit]

What about the Glenbrook train accident? Surely this would rate a mention as one of the Indian Pacific's train accidents. No one was killed or injured on the IP, but it caused a great deal of damage to the car carriage. (JROBBO 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

What am I missing? Trans-Australian Railway implies it refers to the stretch between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie, yet the template there refers to Sydney through to Perth stops. I can't see the need for two articles. —Moondyne 14:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The TAR strictly speaking is between Port Augusta and Kalgoorlie, the section Sydney- Broken Hill is the Main West line and the Broken Hill line. What the template on the TAR page refers to is the route of the Indian Pacific, rather than the TAR as such, and should be changed. I will bring this up on the relevant template discussion. The Fulch 02:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose - There are two sort of articles - one is about the passenger train service between Perth and Sydney - and the other is about the track - very different in time and space - in the Trains wiki project - they fall under quite separate categories within the trains project.

To join them could possibly set a precedent where articles that exist such as 'the Westland' would then be implied into an article about the Perth Kalgoorlie railway line. In the trains project we have the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Passenger trains task force and there are separation of the two in most areas. SatuSuro 15:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difference but reckon it's better explained in a single article. —Moondyne 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the passenger train Sydney/Adelaide/Perth is sufficiently different from the Pt Augusta-Kalgoorlie railway line to keep them as separate articles. I oppose a merge. Either or both may require minor edits to ensure they are properly focussed. --Scott Davis Talk 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per other reasons above. Nomadtales 22:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' - the TAR predates the IP by a few decades, and was notable without the train that runs over it. Wongm 00:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often does the IP run?

[edit]

The article mentions that the journey takes 65 hours, but unless I've missed something it doesn't say how often the train runs. Could someone please add that information to the article? 81.158.1.156 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO frequency is irrelevant to the article, subject to change and weather conditions such information would turn the article from encyclopedic to advertising, there is a link to the web site which has such information. Gnangarra 01:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the train normally runs twice a week. A brief mention of that fact would not be irrelevant. It would at least imply that the train is more of a rail cruise than an integral part of the Australian intercity transportation system—but without having to express that opinion. 66.234.220.195 (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GSR see themselves not as a train operator, but as a provider of hospitality - ie very much a "hotel-on-wheels"Sulzer55 (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008 Clean Up

[edit]

I just cleaned up and sourced some of what's in the article to the best I could. Couple of questions:

  • why the focus on the eastbound route? It seems overly long for what is just one aspect of the journey.
  • is someone falling off the train an incident worthy of inclusion? I'm not sure and I didn't add it, I just happened to come across it in my search for sources. In the same vein, what about the recent incidents in Adelaide?
  • The listed December 75 incident doesn't have a source (I removed the PDF, dead link) and it didn't get a mention in this chronology, does anyone have a source on this?
  • I feel like there's "something" missing, but I'm not certain what that is. Any thoughts?

Travellingcari (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The focus on the eastbound - the westbound trip is exactly the same just the other direction. The person falling off might be worth including, the guy getting hit at the level crossing isn't, it happens to every train at some point. Things to expand? A bigger history section. How the train used to change locomotives multiple times during the journey when it left each state. I would have to do a bit of research on it though. Wongm (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed re: history, wiki was being cranky when I worked on this yesterday and the talk page wasn't loading in its entirety so I hadn't seen that checklist above. I've started to do some research on the history and will add that when I can. There isn't anything so far on the '75 crash yet that I can find. I know the westbound trip is exactly the same, I think I worded my question poorly. I think I'm going to try and re-tool the section, it might make my point a bit more clear. Travellingcari (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide turn-around

[edit]

Is the train turned around at Adelaide, or does it simply get pulled in the opposite direction for the rest of its journey (as is commonly done in Europe)? 66.234.220.195 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall when I was on the Indian Pacific, they move the locomotive up to the (new) front of the train, leaving the carriages as they are. Thus if Gold class was at the front from Syd to Ade, then it would be at the rear from Ade to Per. The seats are rotated around so that you aren't traveling the rest of the trip backwardsHarryboyles 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of route, inc Adelaide

[edit]

Missing from the article is information about how the route has changed since 1970. It didn't run into Adelaide until 1983. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical consist

[edit]

This entire section is inappropriate for a general audience. Only a train enthusiast would understand what it means. Unless it can be rewritten for a general audience then it should be removed. This is only typical for the early 21st century but not typical for the previous 30 years. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite to list the number of # roomette sleeping cars, # twinnette cars, # club cars, etc might be better. Doesn't help with the past though. Wongm (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and noted as much when I first started to work on the article, it needs an explanation and context. I don't even think we need information on what it typically consists of.. is that encyclopedic? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming in late on this, but I wish to question the opinions given here, and the deletion of material that resulted from this.

As soon as I saw this, I was curious about what had been removed, but had to dig back in the revision history of the article to find out. Upon reading it, I could quite easily see that this information could be of interest to some readers, and it may be difficult to find elsewhere.

None of the reasons given above seems to me to be good enough to delete this information.

Why is this inappropriate for a general audience? Does Wikipedia have to serve only general readers, whoever they may be? Is there a policy *against* including specialized or technical information? If so, then acting on this policy would hugely shrink Wikipedia to a fraction of its present size - to its detriment, I would suggest. Dare I suggest that, if enough information were provided, railway enthusiasts may find articles like this worth reading, as well as general readers. Those uninterested in such information can easily skip over it if it is clearly labelled with an appropriate heading (as indeed it was).

Unencyclopaedic? Well, what does that mean? I'm not quite sure: but if the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide information, I would say that this removed information was *very* encyclopaedic.

"It should be removed if it cannot be rewritten for a general audience" (paraphrased). Surely in this case the remedy is to expand it rather than delete it? If the person who deleted it was unable to do this, then couldn't it have been left for someone more knowledgeable about this to do it?

The information was said to apply only to the early 21st century. But the remedy there is to add similar information pertaining to earlier years.

I am tempted to reinstate the information. (Manually, so as not to remove all subsequent edits.) Am I going to cause a huge stir if I do so? I am considering it, since I cannot see any positives at all about removing it. (And no, I do not know enough to adapt it for a more general audience - but I would like to see someone who *can* perform this adaptation do so.) M.J.E. (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dual gauge section

[edit]

is wrong, the corridor is dual gauge as far as Northam, where it reverts to single (standard) gauge.

it would be simpler to refer to this, as the train, technically is not on dual gauge track all the way from EPT to Midland Sulzer55 (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indian Pacific. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted page move

[edit]

@SCHolar44: I've reverted your page move and restored the original title. Journey Beyond Group's own website (https://journeybeyondrail.com.au) lists the 4 train journeys as "The Ghan", "Indian Pacific", "The Overland", and "Great Southern", and the specific page for "Indian Pacific" (https://journeybeyondrail.com.au/journeys/indian-pacific/), also does not use the word "the". Harryboyles 09:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only two really transcontinental trains in the world are in Australia, really?

[edit]
The Indian Pacific is an Australian passenger rail service that operates between Sydney, on the Pacific Ocean coast, and Perth, on the Indian Ocean coast. It is one of the few truly transcontinental trains in the world, the other (emphasis mine) being The Ghan which operates from the north to the south of the Australian continent.

IOW, there are exactly two "truly transcontinental" trains in the world, namely the Indian Pacific and the Ghan. Even the Rossiya, which goes all the way from Moscow (Europe) to Vladivostok (on the Pacific coast of Asia) along the trans-Siberian railway, isn't "truly transcontinental". No, really? Or is the Trans-Siberian "not truly transcontinental" because it traverses more than the full length of a continent? — Tonymec (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of day before yesterday (my time, UTC+2) by SCHolar44 has much better phrasing. Tonymec (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Pacific&oldid=1239897615"