Jump to content

Talk:Connex Melbourne

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

Blast and start over?

[edit]

I've rewritten bits relevant to performance with a section detailing Connex'es obligations as a franchise operator (and probably broke 100 Wikipedia NPOV rules in the process), but seriously, isn't it time this article gets trashed and started from scratch? Connex ain't going to go away any time soon, so maybe articles on Melbournes rail system should go in for a total reorg?

Articles for other metro systems both in Australia and around the world show articles on public transport operators can actually be informative, and not a bashing ground for pissed off commuters.

--Mcbridematt 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Reliability of Service

[edit]

POV -- pls read Wikipedia:NPOV Jackk 09:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this section should be cut and replaced with a blurb with press coverage, performance obligations etc.... I'm not trying to defend Connex but this bit sounds like a typical disgrunted commuter --Mcbridematt 13:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for travel without ticket

[edit]

The second that inspectors have been reporting people for not possessing a ticket, even when there was no opportunity for the person to purchase a ticket. The Victorian Public Transportation Act has a provision which states that travel without a ticket is legal in circumstances where the passenger took all reasonable steps to purchase a ticket immediately before and after their travel, but one was not available for purchase.

Can someone substantiate this text (I've tried). According to the [Victorian Fares and Ticketing manual]

"Validation is required to ensure that passengers travel with a valid ticket. It is an offence to travel without a valid ticket and passengers who do so risk being fined." (Page 9)

There are exceptions for Tram and Bus Travel, however since the article is about Connex I don't think that that is relevant. Page 83 has a large section of text explaining what happens if a ticket cannot be validated. Essentially an infrigement notice will be issued and the person will need to appeal the notice stating that they could not reasonably validate the ticket.

The Department Of Infrastructure differentiate between travelling without a ticket, and travelling with a ticket which has not been validated. If the person doesn't have a ticket they have committed an offence.

I think that the second sentence regarding legal travel without a ticket should be removed, should the first sentence be rewritten or removed? loom 06:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Victorian Transport Act (1983) can be viewed here. Unfortunately it's in Word/PDF format, and thus the entire document needs to be downloaded in order to view it. --СђrΐsτσρhΞr ScЋδlτξη 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Authorised Officers (Ticket Inspectors)

[edit]

Personally, I think that the Connex article should cover details about Connex the company (history, ownership, profits/loss, control over network, plans for future, and performance). Details about the Ticket Inspectors, as much as people may dislike them, doesn't really belong in this article. Perhaps a new article "Authorised Officers (Melbourne Public Transport)" should be created, and it could cover the role of such officers tram and train networks, what they can & can't do, and what they have done.--СђrΐsτσρhΞr ScЋδlτξη 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a late reply, but I'd like to add that I'd definitely agree. Apart from the fact that the article should mention details about the company as you said, ticket inspectors are in no way unique to the Melbourne public transport network, and a link to Revenue Protection Inspector would be more than sufficient, especially if some of the content in the section in this article is moved over there. The section is currently way too long, being longer than any other section in the article, and even longer than any two other sections in the article. invincible 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have to say I disagree, the conduct of Revenue Protection Officers is a solid reflection upon the company itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.99.166 (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badly non-NPOV edits from 31st January 2007

[edit]

Honestly, the additions made from 31st Jan 07 to 2nd Feb 07 read like someone's blog or a letter to the editor. As such, I've reverted them.

If someone wants to edit it into a decent state, it's all in the history (it was too much to dump here, but if someone would like to put parts here for working on, I'd support that).

For now at least, I'll make a small addition (really, that's all that is needed) about the Siemens brake issue and resultant problems.

--Evan C (Talk) 10:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Insideconnextrain.jpg

[edit]

Image:Insideconnextrain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Connex Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Connex_Melbourne&oldid=1206775162"