User talk:HoHo3143

@HoHo3143 (talk · contribs), I've just typed up this paragraph, now I'm wondering where it should live:

Notably, the Whitfield, Crowes and Walhalla lines all diverged from their broad gauge stations in a trailing direction, i.e. narrow gauge trains departing those stations would initially have the same bearing as a train towards Melbourne on the associated broad gauge lines. The Gembrook line was the only one to continue in the same general direction as broad gauge trains arriving at its originating station, and this was reflected when the broad gauge line was extended from Upper Ferntree Gully to Belgrave (with a then-possible extension as far as Emerald).^[a]

Had those three lines been built to broad gauge, it is possible that branch line trains would have run through the stations:

• The Alvie railway line could have connected through Colac to Beech Forest and Crowes;
• The Thorpdale railway line could have connected through Moe to Walhalla; and
• Any of the Peechelba, Bright or Yackandandah railway lines could have connected through Wangaratta to Whitfield.

The lines either side of each central station would have shared locomotives and rolling stock (thus reducing the operating cost on both sides), while also avoiding the need to tranship goods to and from mainline trains. For example, most of the branch lines only had one or two trains per week; this could have allowed the broad gauge fleet to cover the narrow gauge branches by alternating days of the week. Notably, the narrow gauge NA class engines averaged about 20 miles per day plus shunting over their lifespans.^[b]

However, this would not have been guaranteed. While some trains on the Queenscliff railway line did run through Geelong via the Geelong–Ballarat railway line to Ballarat, Maryborough and Donald,^[c] no such through-running existed in the Eastern region from the Mirboo North line through Morwell and Traralgon to the Maffra and Briagolong railway line.

I was thinking somewhere on the Narrow-gauge lines of the Victorian Railways page, maybe under a new heading like "opportunity costs"?
Anothersignalman (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC) Anothersignalman (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Anothersignalman holiday was delayed by 2 days as the plane was cancelled (/s😀). I would put it under a new subheading in the background section. Could be titled 'Envisioned expansion' or 'Junction layout and network integration' something like that. This does however raise the point that the entire article needs to be reorganised - especially as there's no history section! HoHo3143 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe for now I post the text on the talk page, and flag it for future inclusion? I don't want to rewrite the page until all the narrow gauge line articles are redone, and that could take a while (especially when work picks up in a few weeks). Anothersignalman (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You could probably get away with just adding it in. It's quality work and only needs a few tweaks (grammar and adding sources). I do agree with rewriting it later. Focus on the individual lines first and then the main one later. You could even make it a good topic which would be pretty sick :) HoHo3143 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I've put it on the talk page for now. I have four Ikea Billy bookshelves filled with railway references that I'd have to go through to replace the three footnotes with proper references. Anothersignalman (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

While you're waiting for the plane, I've just finished the first pass on the Walhalla page. I have a few books on order so might need to go back in the next week or two, and there's the various outstanding elements ex Whitfield e.g. photos and tables for siding lengths, but otherwise happy for you to have a read-through.

Anothersignalman (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)