Jump to content

Talk:List of closed railway stations in Melbourne

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


  • Pic Nic (closed July 19, 1898) - original terminus of what is today the Lilydale and Belgrave lines

I propose that the main list be kept only for electric-era closed stations (post-1919 servicing electric trains). The reason for this is that the mother-page, List of Melbourne railway stations, only covers the electric network. Stations like the above, ought to be differentiated. The problem is that vast tracts of the pre-1919 system no longer exist, so once you start listing those stations, it would be a very long process. Also, some of today's stations are rebuilt versions of those old stations, (in slightly different positions). Should old versions of current stations be included (such as the original low-level Richmond station, the at-grade Camberwell station, etc., be listed too? Or are they not technically "closed", just "redeveloped"?

Another point I just noticed: does anyone know if the Mont Park Asylum station and line branch were ever open to public access? It doesn't seem like a common destination. If not, should it be listed? Same for any other private stations.

I've been basing this list on the London equivalent, which lists stations that closed in the late 1800s. I think we should be listing those here - but only within what is today the MET. This would include the Inner Circle and Outer Circle lines. Other routes could go in a regional article if it comes to that. I'd include the stations that have been redeveloped under the same name in a similar location (in most cases) in a section in the main station's article.
As far as I know, the Mont Park Asylum branch was. But I don't think we should be making judgements as to how often stations get used. A lot of these weren't used heavily, like General Motors - but they still make for interesting articles. Ambivalenthysteria 12:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It might still be worth differentiating between electric-service stations and steam-era stations. And just a nitpick, but the Met hasn't existed for over half a decade now!
Well, the page is called "List of closed Melbourne railway stations" rather than "List of closed electrified Melbourne railway stations". I changed "Closed Stations" to "Closed Electrified Stations" and the other headings - "Converted to light Rail", "Closed Locomotive Lines", "Greater Metropolitan", and "Proposed but never constructed" pretty much disambiguate them from the electric lines - though you may want to put the ones that were built prior to the electrification, and the ones built since, under separate big headings if you wish. I don't think (at this stage) we have enough stations to justify 2 separate lists though.
Personally, I think both the pre-electrification lines, as well as some that were seriously proposed but never built, are perhaps of greater interest than the stations that were closed after electrification. And in some cases there was even work ready. Take the extra high light pylons in the median strip of the Eastern Freeway to Bulleen Road, and the wider median strip (built with the East Doncaster Train Line in mind). And the Rosstown and the Inner / Outer Circle lines are certainly of interest.
As for Mont Park, check an old Melways - the State Library has some. It was there. In fact, MacLeod is a 3 platform station. Platform one ends abruptly, and yet the line continues past the barrier. One day, after a day at La Trobe University, I decided to follow it. Now in the past few years a lot of the former Mont Park Assylum site has been sold off and reduced to being the North Eastern Mainstreamed Psychiatric Service. But certainly - as of the late '90s - there were still pylons chopped off about a foot off the ground and verious other bits of debris heading north east through the YMCA site and Harry Pottage reserve. And given that guests, staff, and mainstreamed patients would all have had to go there, it would not really surprise me if there was a general public service there, though this is just speculation. Though it did exist. - AJ (AmishThrasher)
How about making the first list closed stations on open lines (which could include both modern stations like General Motors, and old stations like Pic Nic), and then having a seperate section for closed lines, and the stations that were on them? Ambivalenthysteria 21:29, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I know, Williamstown Racecourse was on a seperate branch - not on the main Williamstown line. Ambivalenthysteria 16:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For reference, here is a list of closed stations in and near Melbourne I've found: http://www.railpage.org.au/ausrail/99may/msg00106.html Problem is it doesn't indicate what stations are suburban, mainline, etc, except that they're all from lines still operating. I'm looking for more basic information before adding them (those not already added that is). Hypernovean 11:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a useful resource - it's what I've been using to build the articles I've written. I'll have to get down to the State Library soon and start going through books, but I've been busy lately. I like the additions that have been made to this article - nice work.
http://pigfish.vic.cmis.csiro.au/~ajw/VRMaps/ is another useful resource - gives maps of the rail system every 10 years from 1860 to 2000. Alas, some stations have opened and closed in between maps, and it can be a bit confusing. I still haven't managed to work out a complete list of Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Rosstown stations.
Anyone mind if I re-add Pic Nic to the list? Also, wasn't Cremorne on a line that is still open, and if so, wouldn't that go in the first list? Ambivalenthysteria 22:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Regards the Inner Circle line, the list of stations I've put in for that is the complete list - there were only 3. I got it from http://www.aattc.org.au/Times%20October%202001W.pdf (last page). Hypernovean 04:37, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ugh. That map just doesn't want to load. I hate Acrobat. Still, now that I look more closely at the maps I mentioned above, you're basically right. However, the 1890 map mentions "Scotchmere St.", on the Fitzroy branch - but it isn't on the 1900 map. Ambivalenthysteria 07:49, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Puffing Billy was closed as a regular passenger service some time ago, but is still open as a tourist service. Does it deserve any mention here? It's not technically closed, only operating a different service. Hypernovean 07:51, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's not on the mainstream system, but it's still in operation. Ambivalenthysteria 12:09, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, what exactly do we mean by "closed"? Do we mean closed as a commuter / freight service? Or closed as in "a bunch of tracks rotting in a field somewhere"? Because Puffing Billy, the Mornington Peninsula Tourist Railway, and the Healesville Tourist railway are, at this point, glorified museum exhibits, effectively run as a hobby. However, they were in full active service at one point. So, to me, that would justify some sort of mention on the closed railway page... AJ
Good point. Perhaps we could have a 'converted to tourist railway' section here. I wonder if this would be worth an article in itself - 'tourist railways in victoria/australia'? It's not too hard to define here, but I'm not looking forward to working out the answers to these when I get around to adding more to the regional stations article. Ambivalenthysteria 13:28, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether the closed Warburton line was electrified, I think I heard that it was but I want to check. Also, does anyone know if there was a station on the Healesville line at Healesville Sancturary? (As there is a 'station' listed on the line here on the ancient network map in Melbourne Central across from platform 4). Also on Parliament's ancient map, a branch is shown from Camberwell (or maybe East Camberwell) to 'Kew - Deepdene'. Sounds like the Outer Circle but as far as I'm aware it was only electrified south to Alamein. These are all mysteries, but I want to see if anyone here knows anything about them first. Hypernovean 13:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd ask at the aus.rail newsgroup. They're the people who would know. :) Ambivalenthysteria 06:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The Warburton line was never electrified. Philip J. Rayment 8th July 2004

I just did a bit of digging, and found that the Mont Park Asylum line was freight-only. Remove? Ambivalenthysteria 09:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since when was it the List of closed Melbourne passenger-only railway stations? I think it can stay, just be indicated as freight.Hypernovean 10:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But then there's so many freight-only places, sidings, etc...do we want to get into those as well? So far, they've all been stations that have been passenger at one point or another. Ambivalenthysteria 10:58, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Well, was it a station with a platform do you know? I guess if it wasn't, it can go. Although later on maybe a freight-station table could be tacked on if more were found. Hypernovean 11:11, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hm, that's a hard thing to know without seeing pictures. Speaking of which, if you're in Melbourne, have you been to the museum down in Williamstown? I've been meaning to see what they have that might help us (both in information there and in books), and also the State Library, but I haven't had a chance to get down there lately. I should be able to in a week or two though. Ambivalenthysteria 00:59, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Mont Park was an electrified good-only line, although it did have passenger trains in the form of troop trains during WWII, I think it was. Philip J. Rayment 8th July 2004

What's the story with those two government lines? I've never heard of them. Ambivalenthysteria 08:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about them on the Railway Archaeology forum at RailPage Aus. I don't know what kind of vehicles were used on them, except that the East End line was horse-drawn originally, but as it made it to the 60's I assume it became mechanized at some stage, so could be called a (short) railway. The mail-rail, however, I didn't find out anything other than where it is. It may not have been mechanized? Will require more research. Hypernovean 12:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Page name?[edit]

I'm probably speaking out of line here, as I haven't edited this page at all, nor read the talk page in great detail, but perhaps the page name could be changed to "History of Melbourne railways" or something similar? --Chuq 06:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good page to have, but as a seperate one from this I think, because there are so many closed stations/lines they deserve their own page. The history page would invlove the development of the existing network probably, and would be the next stage in the Melbourne railways work. Hypernovean 06:46, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a history of Melbourne railways. It's a list of closed stations. There's certainly a need for an article on the former, and I've collated information to write a fairly good article on at least the early part of that history, but it doesn't belong in with this one. Ambivalenthysteria 13:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Has anyone heard of this 'Gardens' station on the Williamstown line before? I've never heard it mentioned, anywhere, until I saw it on here, which makes me a little bit suspicious, particularly considering it suggests that it only closed in the 1980s. If no one has any proof of its existence, I'll remove it.

Secondly, should Sydenham be listed here? It's a hard call as to whether we just mention it as a moved station in the Watergardens article, or give it an article of its own.

Thirdly, I'm undecided about Stopping Place 16. There were a lot of these - should we list them all? I'm inclined to lean towards mentioning it in the Mornington article, and not here. Ambivalenthysteria 07:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I believe that 'Gardens' is a plaftform in the Newport workshops, branching off from the Williamstown line. If there was a station outside the Workshops called Gardens, I don't know, but I'm guessing that is the one - if so, it must still be open as its shown in the latest Melway. As for Sydenham, I don't think there would be enough info for a seperate article - just mention it at Watergardens and Sydenham line. There may be a few other stations in a similar situation... As for SP16, was this the original Mornington station, or something else? as it says it was replaced with the modern Mornington station. There certainly is some history about the old station, so if this is it, it could be renamed (Old) Mornington station or somesuch, with a seperate page on the new, if it deserves it, otherwise, just a mention of both stations in the one article. If SP16 is something else entirely, I say, if it wasn't a passenger station with at least one platform, drop it. TPK 08:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Re: 'Gardens'. That makes some sense. I'll take it out, then, as the branch to the Newport Workshops is already mentioned somewhere else. I agree on Sydenham/Watergardens, so I'll make that change as well. But I'm really not sure about SP16 - I can't say I know very much about the Mornington line.
Also, how about changing the location field from being a vague indicator of area (such as north of Foo station), to putting a specific street, or if that isn't available, some sort of other, more specific indicator of location. Ambivalenthysteria 08:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Definately, particularly the more historic sites which might be something to see on a rail-trail. I also have to bring up the question of whether a lot of these stations deserve articles at all? Definately, the currently open stations need articles, as they can prove useful for people navigating the city, but a lot of the closed stations (particularly the ones from mid last century onwards, that have been demolished, and which were on a still open line) don't have much history to them as they weren't very special when they were open. Certainly there are closed stations that need articles, and the ones that already have them have some meat to them, but does every single closed station need an article? A lot of the possible info on them is summed up in the table here already, or sometimes there isn't even that. TPK 11:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't know about that. For some of these, there won't be much. But there's quite a few people interested in their history, and if we can collate whatever information is known about any of these, then someone who searches Google can find it easily, without having to hunt around through all sorts of sources. I think I've been able to gather reasonably good articles on General Motors, Paisley, Galvin and White City, for instance. I could probably, with a bit more information, come up with similar length articles on several more (depending on which ones have been covered in books, and whether I can get my hands on them). And for some of the older ones, such as Botanic Gardens and Salt Water River, for which information is really scarce, surely it can't hurt to bring together what is known, even if it isn't very much. Ambivalenthysteria 11:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Who added the opening date for the Warburton line? As it's clearly wrong (apparently it opened thirty years after it closed). Ambivalenthysteria 02:44, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have the odd feeling they may be reversed... TPK 02:53, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ho-hum, and look where they turned up: 00:42, 6 Apr 2004 Ambivalenthysteria (Adding in lots of dates.) Gotcha! TPK 02:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Oh dear. I didn't think I'd added that. Must go look up where I messed up. Ambivalenthysteria 04:51, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've done a few things today. Fixed the Warburton date, removed the Converted Stations section (as none of them were, per se, converted to "tram stations" - they were simply either demolished or reused for other purposes), and moved those to the main section, and found exact addresses for all of those that I could find in the first edition Melways (which is all of those since 1960, except the far-flung lines such as Whittlesea). I hope no one minded about removing the Converted Stations section - it didn't seem to make much sense anyway. Anyone have any ideas as to where we might find the locations of stations that closed before then? Ambivalenthysteria 12:41, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other thank looking for street name remnants such as 'Railway St' or 'Station St', I can't think of any simple way other than digging around. Speaking of street names, regarding Williamstown Racecourse, there is a Racecourse Rd besides the Altona-bound track near Kororoit Creek, which suggests the station was on this little stretch of track, or somewhere nearby. As for the converted stations, it does make more sense to put them in the main list and make use of the Current Status column. TPK 11:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Williamstown Racecourse was on its own branch using the junction that is now Altona Junction (i.e. off the Geelong line). Later, the Altona Beach line diverged from the Williamstown Racourse line near the throat of Williamstown Racecourse station. When the Racecourse station closed, the branch became the Altona branch. The station itself was on the east side of the existing Altona line just south of Kororoit Creek Road. Last time I was there a few years ago you could still see some stanchion bases sticking very high out of the ground, as they used to be at platform level. The racecourse itself was on the other side of the creek. Philip J. Rayment 8th July 2004

Unbuilt and proposed stations and line extension[edit]

Several additional train lines, or extensions to existing lines, and stations were, at various times, seriously considered - to the point that they were even printed on Hitachi train destination rolls. However, they were never constructed, and you could consider them 'closed' before the first piece of track was laid (some of the old plans are now currently being discuss by the Transport Network). Some of these lines include:


  • East Doncaster line (along the median of the Eastern Freeway - this proposal has recently been resurrected however, no definite plans or decisions have been made)
  • Rowville line - (same situation as East Doncaster proposal - to the extension of the Glen Waverley line)
  • South Morang line - (extension of Epping line to South Morang)


I've stored this here as it really has no place in this article, so until List of proposed Melbourne railway stations or whatever is made, it can wait here. Does anyone think the Rebuilt stations should stay here? It's more in place than the Unbuilt, but it doesn't really seem like a worthy list of its own, and then again, it doesn't seem quite right here, either. TPK 12:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not an exact fit, but I think it's alright here, in it's current form. It's useful, but wouldn't really work as an article, and there's not really any other place to put it.
Are there any other proposed stations/lines worth mentioning? Ambivalenthysteria 12:19, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There's quite a list of stations and extensions of lines; this list is very short. A lot of them are only 'pipe dream' propsals though, which begs the question of whether there should be some threshold of likelihood for what is listed... There are only 2 new lines proposed as far as I'm aware, though. TPK 13:13, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd be happy to write the article, but I'd like to have a list of a fair few on hand before I go about it. I think we should list most of them, as long as they're not entirely pipedreamish (like the Geelong suburban network I once saw suggest in aus.rail). Ambivalenthysteria 13:15, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I had a go at creating it. Any thoughts? Ambivalenthysteria 00:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Is there any chance that any of you would be able to get a picture of General Motors station for that article? I'd go take it myself, but it's too far to walk from either Dandenong or Hallam, and there doesn't appear to be any way to get to it by other public transport. Ambivalenthysteria 09:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know we now have a photo of it on Wikipedia, but anyway: If anyone is thinking of getting there via Public Transport, don't. The only way to get there via public transport is to get off at either Dandenong or Hallam stations, walk all the way to Princes Hwy, walk down Progress St to the other side of the crossing [which has no pedestrian gates], walk down a 1km track then do the normal business of walking on the tracks and climbing up onto one of the derelict platforms (then doing that again to go between platforms, as the pedestrian bridge is now fenced off). The only way to get there is by road - there is no bus route that goes nearby, and it's in an isolated location. Somebody in the WWW 06:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I thought I'd read somewhere that this was electified, but it would probably make more sense if it wasn't. Ambi 12:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it wasn't too, though I assumed it was at one stage. TPK 13:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've done a fantastic job with redoing the table and all that - it looks a lot better, and will be much easier to edit in future, I'm sure. Ambi 13:46, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Paisley and Coldstream[edit]

Does anyone know for sure the current status of either of these sites? We've currently got Paisley listed as having the platforms still intact, and Coldstream listed as being simply abandoned. I've been looking through the photo galleries on RailPage. With this, it's a bit hard to tell if there's anything at all left at Paisley, while this makes it seem as if the station buildings are gone at Coldstream. Ambi 08:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From what I can gather, Paisley's island platform still exists, but is overgrown by weeds, other than that, there isn't anything remaining. As for Coldstream, I believe the station building was destroyed by fire. I'm not sure if that was before or after that section of the Healesville line closed, so the station may have originally simply been abandoned. TPK 10:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I've updated the list to reflect that. Ambi 13:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I took a look at Coldstream not a long time ago. There is one old platform remaining. There is no building there, and a lot of track is covered up by grass. The tracks still go through the road at Station St Coldstream (former level xing), but there is no longer a sign marking that.
I haven't seen Paisley myself, but from the info on http://www.vicrailstations.netfirms.com, there is an old platform (former island platform), and a filled-in subway/access ramp located at the site. Somebody in the WWW 03:52, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Narambi/Narrambi/Narambi Road/Narrambi Road[edit]

What is the actual name of this place? I've seen all four names and spellings used. Ambi 07:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where have you see the different spellings? The station had very little documentation, so it would be hard to determine the correct spelling for certain.
My source (which is what I based the article name change on) is the amendment I made to my Working Timetable at the time that the station opened, which was from the W.T.T. circular issued by the railway. I had Narrambi Road, and that is what I've always understood it to be. I do note that (a) Melway shows Narambi, but although Melway is pretty good, it's not authoritative in this area (and has been known to be wrong--it once had Holden for General Motors!) and (b) that Melway has the adjacent road, after which the station is named, spelled with one "r". But my Working Timetable amendment is clearly with two "r"s and with the word "Road".
I have my doubts that the station name ever appeared in the Weekly Notice, but if so, it would be interesting to see what it has. One other place that it does apparently appear (but I don't have a copy) is Suburban Tickets of the Victorian Railways by H. K. Atkinson.
In short, I have no doubt that "Road" is part of the name. I also have no doubt that the name was spelled with two "r"s on the railway's W.T.T. circular. The only question is whether or not that circular had it spelled correctly, but that raises the question of who decided the spelling in the first place, and whether any other documentation exists that disagrees with the W.T.T. circular. A photo of the nameboard on the platform would be interesting, although station nameboards have been known to be wrong before!
Philip J. Rayment 11:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah, that's good to know - thanks very much for the detailed response! Ambi 11:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The station was cannibalised and there's very little left, definitely no nameboards! One thing that comes to mind is to contact the Mornington railway preservation group, because they most likely have the most historic information of anyone, and the station is/was on the line they now operate. I'll look for an email address or something. T.PK 21:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why do you think I said "a photo of the nameboard"?? :-) But perhaps MRPS has the original nameboard? Philip J. Rayment 22:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
OK, well I've sent an email and we'll just have to wait and see if they have any information, and/or nameboards :) On another topic, I've found a great site for station photos here, and I'll try and contact whoever took them for use on WP. (I contacted someone who had a great collection of photos of General Motors a while ago, but never got a response...) T.PK 23:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for that link, TPK - that looks like a fantastic site. It be wonderful if we could do a bit of cooperating with them (and even if not, it'll take me forever to just browse through them). Ambi 00:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speak of the Devil, I just got a reply from the General Motors guy! And yes, we have some photos for that article now, anything from here (any suggestions on which one is best?). He's also agreed to let us use any other photos from the rest of his site, which covers quite a few stations. T.PK 00:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you are brilliant! No more trying to take these photos myself - yay! :) Ambi 00:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You could also try to ask the guy from http://www.vicrailstations.netfirms.com for permission to use his photos (Photos of most railway stations in Vic., inc. closed ones - some of his pictures are down due to web hosting problems). His Railpage username is something like "Rossco T.", and his email address is on the site. Then we would be able to display photos of most of the closed stations.Somebody in the WWW 03:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Has anyone contacted this guy? This would be fantastic. Not only does he have a great range of material on the closed stations, but he's also a vastly better photographer, so it'd be nice to be able to use his material on the open ones as well. Ambi 04:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've been chatting with him by email relating to his pictures, but haven't asked him for permission as I'm not good at writing permission requests. Maybe someone else can send him an email about possibly getting permission to use his photos. Somebody in the WWW 06:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Has anyone else emailed him about getting permission? If not, I might email him tonight. Somebody in the WWW 03:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That'd be wonderful, but just one thing - it'd be even better if he could be convinced to release his photos under the GFDL. It may be too much to ask (although he'd still get basically the same credit), but the days of non-free images here are probably numbered, and it'd be nice to know that we'd be able to not have to worry about taking our own photos again. Ambi 04:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He finally got back to me. He didn't agree to licence them under the GFDL, but he said we can use any of his photos as long as he is referenced/credited. I think we could have something like this for the blanket pages of his photos:
Photo by [http://www.vicrailstations.netfirms.com Ross T.] {{copyrighted}}
--Somebody in the WWW 06:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks again for organising all this. These will be far superior to the alternatives at the other site. :) Ambi 06:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Ok, lets branch this off into a seperate discussion. As well as the Metfink ones and the Vicrailstations ones, we can also get some photos from here, which according to [1] are public domain as long as the photographer is credited. Somebody in the WWW 02:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Metfink, he did agree that any of the GMH photos could be used, as well as photos from the rest of his site, but please don't use too many, as the agreement (or my understanding of it) was that we could use any, but not all, photos from his site. He also has a metf2ink website which has much higher quality pictures, but I am not sure if we could use anything other than the GMH photos (one of which I've uploaded from there). But as we get more sources for pictures, it won't be much of a problem. T.PK 04:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I haven't used many of his photos, and on some pages (ie: Laburnum railway station, Melbourne I've replaced his photos with photos from other sources (including some taken by me). Somebody in the WWW 06:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
<sigh> I think we are going to have to delete the metfink and other non-free images we're using. Someone has just added Image:Aircraft-metfink.jpg to WP:PUI (as {{nonfreedelete}}), and now it is probably going to be deleted. Anyone here willing to go out and take some GFDL/PD photos on their own? Somebody in the WWW 02:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Damnit. I knew they weren't going to last forever, but I didn't realise they were already being deleted. I've had bad luck lately in that every time I'm near a station, I either don't have my camera, or the conditions are too overcast or dark to take a good shot. I guess I just got lucky the day I did the Alamein line. If we can get a decent day in the next couple of weeks, I might go down for the day and spend it doing one of the longer ones. Ambi 02:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We could probably get the vicrailstations ones up as {{CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat}}, as vicrailstations (Ross) said that he doesn't mind other sites using his photos as long as he is credited. Could we get away with that, or would that just get deleted? I have some photos of some stations, but I don't really want them released under the GFDL as Wikipedia forces for images you hold copyright on (I would prefer to use another free licence). Somebody in the WWW 09:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That wouldn't work, either. I've seen a bunch of noncommercial images on that image deletion page. What license were you thinking of licensing your photos under? If it's a more stringent license, then you're out of luck, but if it's a more lenient license, then multilicensing is easy enough...User:Dysprosia licenses hers under some obscure one that I've never heard of. Ambi 10:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to go on some photo touring, but the digital camera we just got is conviently with my brothers in New Zealand for a month... As for metfink, I could ask if he (or she? I've always just assumed) would be willing to release the pictures we're using under the GFDL or similar, but I doubt it. I'm fairly certain he/she wants to keep his/her copyright. T.PK 08:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. I guess we'll just have to get busy ourselves. Alternatively, another solution may be to post about this situation on Railpage. While the serious collectors like Metfink and Ross may be unwilling to license theirs under the GFDL, we may be able to get some more amateurish gunzels who'd be willing to. Ambi 10:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Try posting on Railpage then. [2] may help.Somebody in the WWW 10:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Narambi reply[edit]

OK, I got a reply from the MRPS - as far as they know, it was only ever called "Narambi", one "r", and no "Road", and was only a stopping place, not a station proper. I would say that the MRPS is the "official" source on the Mornington line nowadays, so I'd tend towards sticking with what they say. T.PK 07:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whilst the MRPS may be the "official" source on the Mornington line nowadays, the Victorian Railways were the "official" source at the time that the station was opened (and closed), and in at least the source I referred to, it was "Narrambi Road". I would only consider the MRPS opinion (and it sounds to be nothing more definite than that) as valid if they had some VR documentation (such as the actual station nameboard) that contradicted my source, and even then it would be a case of two "official" documents from the same source contradicting each other, which would then still leave the question of which which one is the correct official name.
I agree on the stopping place bit, though. Philip J. Rayment 03:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent article in the Age's summerA2 section[edit]

Did you guys see that? I read it and considered keeping it for WP, but you're obviously ahead of the Age anyway. ;) I think this might be it: [3] pfctdayelise 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Deepdene station would be nice. It is probably out of copyright, too, considering the station closed in 1927. The suggestions about lines that might be reopened in the future are interesting, too, but I think we've already got the rest. :) Ambi 07:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change[edit]

from reading this article i was thinking the name is abit miss leading, the article also covers closed lines and rebuilt stations, perhaps somthing along the line of List of closed Melbourne rail infustructure would work better? also is it possible to archive some of this talk page? --Dan027 12:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. It is, primarily, a list of closed stations, but also provides the list of closed lines for context. Rebecca 05:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article atleast requires some revision, i have plans to do this in the future, before i started on it the name change might be benificial, it might not fit the article in its current form, but why cant it in the future?, just from using it myself ive found it very hard to read, why do we need to have a closed line then the stations from that line in seperate boxes? this could be solved by adding acouple of extra collums into one of them, then merging them together? im not 100% sure what would work but in its current state it does my head in. --Dan027 10:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why. It sets out the lines that have closed as an overview, and then goes through the stations in chronological order, being a list of stations. I would personally find the alternative much more confusing (For one, it doesn't take into account the number of stations on still-open lines that have closed). Rebecca 03:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsternwick-Oakliegh Line[edit]

I'm not sure where this line started or ended (or when), but there was a train line that went through Ormond (west to east). In the map below you can see a strip of park land between Princes Park and EE Gunn (the park just North of North Rd and adjacent to the frankston train line). This park land was where the train line was. I think the line went out to Oakliegh. Anyone know more details?


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shniken (talkcontribs) 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It was the Rosstown Railway.
Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of closed railway stations in Melbourne. 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) 21:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]