Jump to content

Talk:Pakenham line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pakenham railway line)

General Motors

[edit]

Hi all, I was reading the Werribee line article and noticed that the line guide on that page includes former stations. Could someone please add the former General Motors station to the line guide on this page? Thanks LivingInTwilight (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Steelkamp (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pakenham railway line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 16:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start the review tomorrow. Steelkamp (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

checked the article and seems stable and neutral currently NotOrrio (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, this is much better than the Cranbourne article so it won't be a quickfail. Steelkamp (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I look forward to acting on your feedback over the next ~7 days. HoHo3143 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

[edit]

Well written

[edit]
exclamation mark  I disagree with this. The North South MRT line article (a good article) has this in the lead section. I think it should be kept. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if that was gone as well. Good articles aren't infallible. Unless the line is colloquially called the "light blue line" or something, the colour has little practical impact. Steelkamp (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Thanks for hearing me out- I agree with your perspective now. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the external link to Vicsig.net as per WP:FANSITE, which says that external links to "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority" should be avoided. Steelkamp (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Ok. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY I've clarified it. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The system is being delivered by CPB Contractors and Bombardier Transportation will deliver the $1 billion Rail Systems Alliance, which includes the roll-out of high capacity signalling and communications system on the rail network. This sentence should be reworded as it's confusing. Steelkamp (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Split the sentences and reworded. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Good point. Gone through and removed them. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Aka electrified signalling. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Previously, the line was only served by regional passenger trains connecting Gippsland to Melbourne. What is this referring to? The section between Pakenham and Pakenham East? It should be clarified (and a source added as well). Steelkamp (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed with source added. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
exclamation mark  Why? It makes more sense to have each section be 19th, 20th, and 21st century, then inside each section the paragraphs are split up into groupings. For example in the 21st century, there are two paragraphs- 2000s and 2010s. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the phrase Despite the investments because the station closed in 2002 but the development plan was from 2013 so surely the investment happened after 2013 and had nothing to do with the General Motors station closing. Steelkamp (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Good point. Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • In 2018, a new depot opened at Pakenham East Depot. Change this to In 2018, the Pakenham East Depot opened. Steelkamp (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Changed. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best if the future section went directly below the history section. This fixed the problem of the Metro Tunnel being mentioned several times before the Metro Tunnel is explained. Steelkamp (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 9:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

[edit]
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Night service doesn't operate on Sunday nights right? You could replace On Friday nights and weekends, services run 24 hours a day with On Friday and Saturday nights, services run all night. Steelkamp (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY I got rid of it. Accessibility is at some stations only, whilst not at others. This is mentioned on their specific wikipedia pages. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some inconsistencies between the service described in the infobox and lead and the service described in the network and operations section. For example, 20-30 off peak vs 20 minutes off peak. 5 minutes and 10 minutes during peak vs 6 to 12 minutes during peak. Steelkamp (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  What does medium mean? Don't know what you are talking about. HoHo3143 (talk) 7:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
https://medium.com/the-gauge/comeng-retirement-b6138e8ac83b. This website is used as a source. Steelkamp (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed with a more reliable government source. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY I've fixed the source with one from PTV. I usually have sources in the lead section. No harm in doing so. HoHo3143 (talk) 1:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. I've gone through and removed all self published fan sites. HoHo3143 (talk) 2:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. I've gone through and removed all self published fan sites. HoHo3143 (talk) 2:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • "Wayback Machine" (PDF). web.archive.org. 25 March 2012. Retrieved 19 December 2022. This ref formatting needs to be improved. You need more information than just "Wayback machine". Website should = Department of Transport and Planning. Title should be The Victorian Transport Plan. There needs to be a page number as that is a fairly long pdf. Steelkamp (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 2:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. I've gone through and removed all self published fan sites. HoHo3143 (talk) 2:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 2:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 2:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Thanks for letting me know. I've gone through and removed all self published fan sites. I think I've removed most blogs except for Daniel Bowens one. He is one of the most respected transport commentators in Melbourne, who is always interviewed on TV and therefore what he says is almost always correct. If there are any more referencing problems, let me know. HoHo3143 (talk) 2:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that Daniel Bowen is a self-published expert and meets the requirements at WP:RS/SPS. Steelkamp (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Acknowledged. HoHo3143 (talk) 7:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 7:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • In 1877, the Pakenham line began operations from Oakleigh to Bunyip, as part of the main line to Gippsland. The reference here doesn't verify this claim. No mention of Oakleigh or Bunyip. Steelkamp (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Fixed. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Added. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Fixed. No idea why that happened HoHo3143 (talk) 9:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

[edit]
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs you added have no references. Steelkamp (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Forgot to add them in- added them now. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Done. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  This basically isn't going ahead- does it still need to be included? HoHo3143 (talk) 8:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • the rolling stock will consist of 70 High Capacity Metro Trains (HCMT), once fully delivered. This implies to me that there are other trains used currently that are being phased out. Is this the case? If not, it needs to be reworded. Steelkamp (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  All of the rolling stock used on the Pakenham line specifically is the HCMT. The government has ordered a total of 70 HCMTs for use on the Pakenham, Cranbourne, Airport, and Sunbury lines. They have been fully rolled out on the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines, and from 2025 the Sunbury, and 2029 the airport line. Right now they have some extras that have already been delivered in preparation for this line. HoHo3143 (talk) 7:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • A number of semi-automated features are included in the HCMT design, including the capacity for low-speed shunting by remote control and for trains to be started without the presence of a driver. The trains will also automatically estimate the passenger load, and the reading can be accessed remotely.[3] Furthermore, the HCMTs will include "stopping aids" to maximize accuracy of the position of train's arrival at platforms. The trains are powered by a 1500 V Overhead Catenary System, the same as all other electrical systems on Melbournes railway network. Unlike other Melbourne trains, the HCMTs feature electronic maps and passenger information screens to update passengers on live information about their train.[4] I feel like this is all unnecessary detail on the HCMT for this article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Removed. HoHo3143 (talk) 7:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The section from South Yarra to Hawksburn was duplicated from opening, ... This implies the original section was single tracked. I suggest changing the first sentence to In 1877, the Pakenham line began operations from Oakleigh to Bunyip, as part of the single-tracked main line to Gippsland.
checkY Changed. HoHo3143 (talk) 8:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
checkY Added it in. HoHo3143 (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  The department of transport doesn't release line patronage, instead only releasing individual station and entire mode statistics. HoHo3143 (talk) 9:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

[edit]

Stable

[edit]

Illustrated, if possible

[edit]

General

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Technical info update

[edit]

I am still working on updates for: service infobox and route map, physical track infobox and route map, table of station histories and table of service stopping patterns. I hope to find enough time in the next day (or 2) to finish this. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the service infobox and the route map. Much appreciated! Adding an infobox for the physical track isn't necessary and makes the page very messy and disorganised as it pushes the route map (and other stuff) much further down. Can you add the pakenham east extension to the route map in a grey colour? Adding service stopping patterns would also be great but what do you mean by "table of stations histories"? If that means when did they open, I've already done that. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The unfinished "table of stations histories" can be seen here: User:ThylacineHunter/Lines/Metro#Pakenham. The one already on the page is not very mobile phone friendly... 'Accessibility' is not needed as it is covered on individual station pages, same with 'Terrain'. 'Services' will be their own table. 'Connections' are also shown in the route map so not needed to be duplicated here.
As for not needing a separate infobox for the physical line, I disagree, it is useful to mention things like former stations, former connections, and other things not related to the Metro Trains service (eg. freight sidings), while the 'Service' infobox deals with just the current Metro Trains service. A separate line map attached to this other infobox can also show stations no longer part of the current Pakenham service (Hawksburn, Toorak, Armadale, General Motors). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Station histories and stopping pattern both updated. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you get rid of the station connections??? You've gotten rid of important information. Also the accessibility and station terrain is featured on the North South MRT line article which is a good article. The stopping patterns you added are good and I now agree with the idea of a track infobox. However, the stations bit is unnecessary and messy. Instead former stations should be mentioned on a map (and mark it as closed) and there should be a table like the one on North South MRT line page. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Cross spans 25 rows, Flinders Street spans 15 rows. These are not easily viewed on a mobile phone screen. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steelkamp who is doing the GA review hasn't highlighted this, and as the article is currently undergoing the review I'd let him decide then we can work from there. He raised no issues before you went and deleted it. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer HoHo3143's stations table over ThylacineHunter's table, however I agree that the train connections are too long. You could try using Template:Collapsible list within each table cell so that the list of transfers only appears if you click "show". Steelkamp (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Currently doing it now HoHo3143 (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finished it! HoHo3143 (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for "such-and-such line" having it shown, Bergen Line, Ålgård Line, & Stavne–Leangen line all are good articles without showing station connections, accessibility or terrain, so this is obviously not compulsory to include. I would argue that they don't have too much to do with the 'Pakenham Line' as a whole. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's not compulsory to include, however, there isn't a policy that prevents it or any harm caused if it was to be included. Other lines in Melbourne have these details that show what stations connect to. Those articles were approved in 2012 vs North South MRT line in 2020. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also working on updating this type of table on all current and former train lines for the state of Victoria, to bring about some consistency between articles. Most of these lines do not currently have any table (eg Werribee railway line). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That's good, however I don't know how important it is to include former stations. These should be mentioned on the route map. A good example is the Glen Waverley railway line map. It mentions former stations where they are linked to their respective pages. Information under the stations section should only include current and confirmed future stations. If you do go and update all the lines, I think it would be best if you do something similar to what has been done on this page, showing train, tram, bus, and coach connections as well as accessibility, terrain and opening dates which is inline with some of the Singapore articles that have been promoted to GA status recently. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most former lines would have stations with no connections, and as they have been removed, no accessibility or terrain info. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those articles are stubs, and if they were better quality they would mention the terrain and former connections. Accessibility would only be mentioned if the station was still operating past 1992. An example would be Mont Albert or Surry Hills stations, both of which will be closed next year when Union station opens. When this is the case, these articles will still mention terrain, connections, and accessibility. HoHo3143 (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an infobox for the physical track isn't necessary and makes the page very messy and disorganised as it pushes the route map (and other stuff) much further down. I agree with this. Steelkamp (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand for this line, it (and the former stations on the line) can be covered by the continued former line (Orbost). This would also work for Alamein (Outer Circle), Cranbourne (South Gippsland) & Lilydale (Healesville/Warburton).
I'm unsure what the process would then be for service lines that are the full length (Belgrave, Flemington Racecourse, Frankston, Glen Waverley, Hurstbridge, Sandringham, Stony Point, Upfield & Williamstown). And then there's the complexity of what to do with: Craigieburn (old version of North East - now a different gauge), Mernda (Whittlesea - they are merged), Sunbury (Deniliquin - merged with operational Echuca), Werribee (former Geelong line - now runs differently). This is without even looking at V/Line services.
I would put forward that all these lines in Victoria, Australia should try to have a similar layout to show a unity of the lines in one location. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you need the information inside an infobox. All of the information inside that infobox can be included in the railway line map, this history section, and other areas of the article. HoHo3143 (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable referance

[edit]

You should probably use the referance "Anderson-All Stations" over "www.ptua.org.au/2018/08/03/railway-stations-years-opened". Anderson-All Stations is a published book (and therefore a reliable source), unlike the other which is a website. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it a step further

[edit]

I help bring this article from GA to FA status over the coming week(s). During this time I will be taking inspiration from other FA classed railway line articles. NotOrrio (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, and good luck. Some tips before you take this to FAC:
  • Request a copy edit at the Guild of Copy Editors. The prose standard for FAC is very high and doing this will help you get there.
  • Make citation formatting consistent.
  • Borderline reliable sources might not be accepted at FAC. The sourcing standard there is higher than just "reliable", the criteria says "high-quality reliable sources". I would get rid of the mirage news references.
Steelkamp (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NotOrrio a few extra things that need to be noted:
  1. For the depots section, if you want this to be a FA you'll need to mention all the other depots that are in use by the line (drivers depots, Westall, other stabling facilities, and more). I didn't add these to my GA nominations as they are complex to research and aren't overly important.
  2. The PIDS section needs to be changed to mention that basically every station now has the flatscreen TV PIDs rather than the dotted ones (you can mention that stations that are going to be rebuild don't have them yet)
  3. The operators could go into some more history and detail (what's there is fine for a GA but should be stepped up for a FA)
Hope this helps. If you have any questions let me know! HoHo3143 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the PIDS section will almost be an identical generic section for every Melbourne service, it may be better to update that section on the Railways in Melbourne article, which could then be added to each service using {{Excerpt}}. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the points made by User:Steelkamp. In addition, I have comments and suggestions about changing the structure of the article, to improve the flow of the content and the readability of the article:
  1. relocate the content currently under the heading "Future" well down the article, to be the last level 1 heading before References. It is distracting to have this future-focussed or prospective development content so early in the article, when the basics of the subject have not yet been fully covered. Also, I recommend changing the heading title of this section to "Planned developments"
  2. Promote the content currently under sub-headings: Route, and Stations to new level 1 headings, and move these up the article so that they are the second and third level 2 headings respectively. The content of these two sections is important descriptive/ geographic content that needs to be placed early in the article to give the reader a full introduction in a logical sequence, before the detail of services and operations is discussed.
  3. "Planned stations" should be merged into the "Planned developments" I have discussed above
  4. Remove the "Main" template link under 21st century. This link is not needed, and the article should not have a link to itself.

I wish you every success with getting this article to FA status...Marshelec (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some concerns re reliable sources. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't like to count so called "amature" pages like VicSig, victorianrailways.net and other similar pages as reliable. This can cause issues with being able to source information on Melbourne's railway lines as some information that they are able to source is not easily accessible to the public. There are some official documents that these people have had special access to over the years.
I don't want to put a stop to your pursuit, just let you know what issues you may run into and I wish you luck on this task. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I chose the structure, I followed the Singapore MRT line articles as a reference point. If you need any assistance, let me know and ill try and help. HoHo3143 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NotOrrio in my opinion, this would be a better structure, as it organises it better than what you've made it now.
History
  19th century
  20th century
  21st century
Route
  Stations
      Planned stations
Service
  Stopping Patterns
  Operators
  Patronage
Infrastructure
  Rolling stock
  Depots
  Signalling
  Stations (this bit would talk more about accessibility and the physical stations rather than the services bit from above)
      Customer Service
      Accessibility
      Passenger Information Displays
Future
  Metro Tunnel
  Melbourne Airport rail
  Pakenham East line extension
  Level Crossing Removals
References
External links HoHo3143 (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This looks good to me. The content will flow in a way that will help the reader..Marshelec (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think this would be the best layout for any future work to turn an article into a FA. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 July 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Sourcing appears in support of the originally proposed move. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pakenham railway line → Pakenham line – WP:COMMONNAME swap with redirect ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests, and there is no need to list the redirect, Pakenham line, to be swapped. A title swap will happen automatically if the Pakenham railway line article is moved as proposed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakenham_line&oldid=1227046665"