Talk:Bomaderry railway station

Bridge

Looking at a map I don't think the line could have been heading for the road bridge, the bridge is too far west.--Grahamec 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No - it was definitely meant to cross the Shoalhaven on the old bridge. I have at least two books that confirm this. The bridge over Bomaderry Creek is an old freight line that would have been separate from the main line. The main line I think was supposed to continue along the south side of Bolong Road, then cross over Bomaderry Creek and onto the bridge alignment - but the whole layout of the area has changed so much since the railway line was built that it's probably impossible to tell where anything went. JRG 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit suspicious about this. Grahamec, I tend to agree with you. JRG, can you please cite all those references you have in the article. The same story appears in the Nowra Bridge article. It would need references as well. Bleakcomb (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article by the RTA confirms that the bridge was intended for a railway track http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=heritage.show&id=4301658 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.210.167 (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. My Gran said she had a map or knew someone with a map from the time or something. Robotboy2008 (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Paper mill siding

This siding or branchline no longer reaches the paper mill. It is probably still used by other industries along the way. Manildra Sugars I think used to use it. Perhaps Shoalhaven Starches. Historical and current industrial use would be an interesting inclusion to the article. Bleakcomb (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Platform allocations

There has been dispute recently as to whether this station should contain a table showing which services depart from which platforms. As the station has one platform, I think this is redundant. Mqst north (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The platform diagrams whether for one platform or more are most helpful for users to determine what the layout of the station is. Without such a diagram the user would not even know that there is only one platform - hence it should be included.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The intro par and info box make clear there is only one platform. Mqst north (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still convinced that the diagram is by far the best way to go as it gives a clearer mental picture.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think reasonable people could probably disagree on that. What tips the balance, however, is the fact that these platform-allocation charts are usually accompanied by false references – timetables typically don't contain platform information. Mqst north (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Does that imply that I am NOT a reasonable person? And I am most disappointed that even though no consensus has been reached on this as yet, you continue to delete this information as you have done from Kiama. I thought we were getting somewhere. Fleet Lists (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the phrase "reasonable people can disagree" acknowledges that multiple reasonable viewpoints on a given topic are possible. Please don't raise your voice. Mqst north (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

user:FrietjesBut reasonable people can also agree so that makes things square in that respect. While I did not raise my voice previously I think I might do so now, as you raised the subject, I think you only believe in your own opinion and ignore anything that anyone else says. Many of the older editors who are no longer active, would be disgusted that the information that they built up over the years, and which I have been maintaining recently, is being destroyed by you - specifically the next station information as in Berry railway station which is most helpful. It appears as though I have been wasting my time and that it may be time I left as a Wiki editor so that I will no longer be frustrated by you.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

List of bus routes

While the connections to local bus services are, in aggregate, relevant to an article about this station, a full dot-point list of route numbers and operators, for which the only references are primary sources from the operators themselves, doesn't appear particularly encyclopaedic. Such content is more suited to a directory or travel guide. It also looks a lot like advertising for the bus operators themselves. Interested to hear the views of others on this. Mqst north (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been a matter of contention for some time with other stations and I have unsuccessfully been trying to get some consensus as to what information should be included. I agree that the full lists tends to be non encyclopaedic. I have been maintaining these lists for some time and the non inclusion would certainly lighten that workload. However I believe we should at least show that certain operators operate services from the station concerned without going into further details Liverpool_railway_station#Transport_links is an example for that and I believe this should be adopted throughout. This is certainly not advertising for the bus company concerned. If it was we could also not include the names of the train operators.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No dispute there. I agree the Liverpool example provides the right level of information. It's also the level of information I included in this article – though only for the operators who hold government contracts. Feel free to add the others to the list if you think they're significant. Mqst north (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly only Government contract operators - trying to keep up with school only or charter operators would be impossible. And if we go this way all the Sydney station changes for 4 October 2015 which was going to be a mammoth task would be considerable reduced. I may just polish things up a bit but that wont be tonight.Fleet Lists (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)