# Talk:Oslo Commuter Rail

This article was just added to Category:1854 establishments in Norway, which would entail that the editor who made that addition (Arsenikk) thinks that no ostensible distinction needs to be made between NSB Lokaltog Østlandet, NSB Lokaltog and NSB. Is this appropriate? For one, I find it odd that we do not have an article on NSB Lokaltog, only on this subsidiary branch of that in itself subsidiary branch of NSB. Also, the interwiki link to the Norwegian Wikipedia goes to Kollektivtransport i Oslo. Is that appropriate? Perhaps some of these relationships and distinctions need to be addressed and discussed in the article? Or at least here in the talk page? Because I'm just a little bit confused. __meco (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The history of this service dates back to the opening of the Trunk Line, which occurred in 1854. NSB was not established until 1883. As for when NSB started using the term "Lokaltog", I have no idea, and it is not really important here; at least some of the services along the Trunk Line were from the start in the nature of a commuter rail, with stops at all station (mostly the same stations as today). Regarding the interwiki link to Norwegian, it is at best misleading, and I've removed it. If NSB Lokaltog needs it's own article, I don't know. There is one on NOWP, but there is nothing there that could not be included straight in the NSB article. After the latest rebranding, all of NSB's trains are either local or regional, and personally I feel there is no need for an intermediate article to discuss "half" the services. The observant reader will notice there is an article called NSB Night Train, NSB InterCity Express and NSB Agenda, while I did recently redirect NSB Signatur and NSB Puls to the classes of trains that used the terms, respectively. If someone created NSB Lokaltog (or what now the English term is), I'm not going to hasten it off to AfD. But I don't really see the need to create it myself either. Hope this answers your questions, meco. Arsenikk (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this seems okay. What I'm still not clear about is Oslo Commuter Rail's administrative and organizational status. In the first sentences of the article it is characterized as a "commuter rail" and a "system". Neither of these terms inform of these aspects. I'd like to understand whether Oslo Commuter Rail is a company in its own respect, or if the phrase is a term invented by the creators if this article. __meco (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Organizationally, the system is probably a business unit within NSB, and marketed in Norwegian as NSB Lokaltog Østlandet, see for instance this pdf map. Legally, it is the same company as all of NSB's other passenger train operations, but the commuter rail services have their own dedicated rolling stock and have their own service level, for instance lack of reserved seating etc, compared to the regional trains. The commuter rail services are for instance also grouped together in the contract between the ministry and NSB. The organization could be called a mess, with the ministry financing the operations, with additional support from Ruter, NSB and NSB Gjøvikbanen running the trains (the former on contract, the latter as a PSO), and the National Rail Administration responsible for the tracks, which are also used by other trains. NSB has been through a number of reorganizations the past few decades, and was for instance at once organized as NSB Fjerntog, NSB Mellomdistansetog and NSB Lokaltog, each with regional subdivisions. Now they seem to have been merged back into one soup. To summarize: this is describes a product (or service if you like) with a specific geographic scope, not a legal entity or company. Arsenikk (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this "mess" which you seem to have a rather good grasp on could be laid out in detail somewhere, in a transparent and easy-to-understand manner? for instance in the main NSB article? Ideally there would be some (sourced) problematization of the opaque lines of responsibility, for instance as the different parties try to blame one another when incidents occur. __meco (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will accept criticism for the NSB main article is not in a good shape. Can't promise to do anything right now, but perhaps within reasonable time. It partially depends on the availability of sources. The other article (which is even worse) is rail transport in Norway, which should contain this opaqueness in a much more transparent manner. Thanks for pointing out these sorts of things; knowing as much as I do about the issue, I sometimes forget to present the basics ;) Arsenikk (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)