Talk:Railways in Perth

Australia: Western Australia / Perth / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Railways in Perth is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Perth (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New publication

I have just looked through a new release called A History of WAGR Passenger Carriages ISBN 0646459023 written by Andrew May and Bill Grey. As the name says is covers all carriages used by WAGR includes original photos, drawings/diagrams and scaled drawings. It covers purchase and where they were used (including carriage numbers) . Its upto date with sections on AEA & AEB (current metro passenger cars) and the WDA, WDB & WDC the current prospector trains. Gnangarra 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

The history section could do with quite a bit of wikilinking to relevant pages. Wongm (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railways in Perth

At the moment Railways in Perth is just a redirect here, and this article only deals with suburban passenger services. From my limited knowledge you also have the dual gauge goods lines from Midland to Forestfield / Kewsdale, as well as another freight line north to Fremantle, and south back onto one of the passenger lines. Unfortunately I don't know enough to expand it out.

Railways in Adelaide and TransAdelaide is an example of how to manage the split between it all, if anyone wants to jump in. I have never liked the Railways in Melbourne / Freight railways in Melbourne / Connex Melbourne split, even though I added the middle one.Wongm (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are also a number of disused lines. Gnan garra 13:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

The whole thing could do with alot more historical information, I'm especially interested in knowing what year each track was opened, and that sort of thing. Oxinabox (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful stuff

These links have a few useful titbits - I have already gone though the Midland line: [1] [2]

Wongm (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luggage

to do - listen to http://www.6pr.com.au/do-transperth-trains-have-a-luggage-limit/ (After a story a emerged out of Queensland that a man was fined $250 for using Queensland rail to transport his fridge, we decided to check in with Transperth to see exactly what the rules are here in WA for commuters.Listen here to what PTA Spokesman David Hynes had to say)

Thoglette (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railway map

Could anyone be able to complete the railway map (File:Transperth railway map.svg)? The map is a bit cut off to the south. It does not show Mandurah line completely! --106.68.124.109 (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armadale/Thornlie railway line

Will the new Stadium station be at the same location as the old Belmont Park? Useddenim (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to www.perthstadium.com.au, "the now closed Belmont Park Station will be expanded into a six platform rail station called Stadium Station." So the answer is YES. -FrancDeBx (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transperth Train Operations

According to http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/AboutUs/tabid/38/Default.aspx and http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/AboutUs/OrganisationalStructure/tabid/40/Default.aspx the division is Transperth Train Operations not Transperth Trains. Does someone have reference that says Transperth Trains? Or shall I rename and update the article to Transperth Train Operations? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything come of this? It still appears that the article should be renamed to Transperth Train Operations. Steelkamp (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BOLDLY moved the article name. Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transperth Trains. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090522212930/http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/scripts/viewarticle.asp?NID=2687 to http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/scripts/viewarticle.asp?NID=2687

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

I've been doing some edits to improve this article. I think it may make more sense to rename it 'Railways in Perth' or something similar, given its about the system rather than the operator. And the operator doesn't seem to exist as a separate entity from Transperth, for which there is already an article. Nor does 'Transperth Trains' seem to be in common usage. So it would make more sense to have this as an article about the network and then the Transperth article for the operator. This would bring it into alignment with Sydney and Melbourne. However, I'm not from Perth and happy to defer to locals with more knowledge. Gracchus250 (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed, the current page title doesn’t make any sense. It should be Perth Metropolitan railway system or something. Adondai (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp Transperth Trains#Stations section

As we all know, with new Airport and Morley–Ellenbrook railway lines coming up, I do think we need to organize the list of stations on Transperth Trains#Stations section.

Especially the Midland Line column, having Redcliffe, Airport Central, and High Wycombe stations under it seem to be inappropriate as these three aren't actually in Midland line. Maybe we could replace the whole table with Template:Transperth railway network diagram to reflect the actual railway lines? – McVahl (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transperth Train Operations#Stations inconsistency

Is there a reason why the Joondalup line and Mandurah line templates are different from every other line? The Joondalup line and Mandurah line ones seem to be designed for the infoboxes on their respective pages (which they are also included in), but the Fremantle line, Midland line, and Armadale/Thornlie line pages use separate, somewhat different route diagrams in their infoboxes. If the Fremantle, Midland, and Armadale/Thornlie lines have a different route diagram here to give a cleaner view of the current stations and their facilities, without showing platform transfers, crossovers, etc. (except where tracks are shared), shouldn't this also apply to the Joondalup line and Mandurah line?

Or is this related to "railway line" vs "railway service", which are almost synonymous for the purpose-built Joondalup and Mandurah lines but can be significantly different in parts of the heritage lines? If so, why are the "line" route diagrams included in pages like the Armadale and Thornlie lines, which specifically state in the intro that they are describing "services" rather than "lines"? DrRespect (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the edit history of the Joondalup and Mandurah lines - it looks more like the opposite of what I had assumed above had actually occurred.

[3] shows that template "Mandurah Line", which matches the name format used for lines in Stations on this page (and so was presumably designed for this page), was substituted by an anonymous user into the Mandurah line page instead of the previous template, "Mandurah railway line map", which includes additional crossing information, etc. in the same style as the heritage line pages.

Similarly, [4] shows that the template "Joondalup Line" was substituted in the place of "Joondalup railway line map", which is now deleted, but presumably included similar features to the Mandurah equivalent. The substitution was made by the same anonymous user, 58.108.86.194.

For consistency of formatting, styling, and information provided, I believe that it would be best to re-separate the Joondalup and Mandurah line templates into an "infobox with extra info regarding line" template and a "service-only for Stations section" template. DrRespect (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a particular reason why the Joondalup and Mandurah ones are different to the others. It seems to just be something that nobody has bothered to look into or fix. If you could try making them consistent, then that would be most welcomed. Steelkamp (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with overall editing/terminology is different editors, rather than any particular schema - as steelkamp says, consistency or editing towards that, is appreciated. JarrahTree 01:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2023

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. (non-admin closure) {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transperth Train Operations → Railways in Perth – This would be consistent with other cities in Australia (Railways in Sydney, Railways in Melbourne, Railways in Adelaide) and consistent with Buses in Perth. The current title puts an undue emphasis on the operator of the service, which has only existed since 2003 and is a division of the Public Transport Authority. This article isn't about the operator, it is about railways in Perth. It would make more sense to go with a more general name such as Railways in Perth, to cover the 142 year history of railways in Perth. Steelkamp (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Always thought it was confusing how there were two similarly named articles Transperth and Transperth Train Operations (even though they have different scopes). Agree with the consistency argument, just make sure there's enough information at Transperth to link to here. Fork99 (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Transport#South East Queensland rail article overlap for a similar proposal. Fork99 (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: will this article cover freight trains/railways and the interstate standard gauge line in the Perth area? Fork99 (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I was thinking of doing regional and interstate passenger services on Rail transport in Western Australia, and having a hatnote to that at the top of this article, thereby limiting this page to suburban passenger rail services. Freight transport can be covered at Rail transport in Western Australia as well, and if need be, Freight railways in Perth can be created like Freight railways in Melbourne. Steelkamp (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The way I'm thinking about his is like this: If Perth's passenger rail system had its own name (similar to the London Underground or New York City Metro), then this page would take that name. It doesn't though, and is branded as part of Transperth, which covers more than just the railways. That's why we need to take a generic and descriptive name, which is Railways in Perth, so regional and freight go on other articles. Steelkamp (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  So this article would be similar to Railways in Adelaide then? Fork99 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the article should be about the railways, not the current operator. Quoting the article: "Railways in Perth ... have existed since 1881" and "... adopted Transperth as its trading name in ... 1986". The lead section probably needs a bit of re-write to focus more on the railways and less on Transperth. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead needs to be expanded more than anything. It currently doesn't mention history, but history and the current state are the two things that should be covered. Steelkamp (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall articles like this should not be linked to operator names as they are determined by political changes - they can have different names due to change in government. The main drift of 'railways in perth' is sound. JarrahTree 06:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall articles like this should not be linked to operator names — I don't see a problem linking the operator name, eg "Railways in Perth are operated by Transperth". In fact I would expect it. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think this is a great idea and well overdue, so thanks for bringing it up. "Transperth Train Operations" is confusing and doesn't really exist outside of wikipedia as a term, it's also more of an operator term when the article should be about the network. I think calling the capital city rail articles "Perth rail network/Melbourne rail network" etc would arguably make more sense, but I think for consistency and given the current naming for the other articles, "Railways in Perth" will work well. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:36, 3 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.

categories - passenger vs freight

Re this - is the intended scope of the article all railways, including freight eg Kwinana freight railway, or only passenger railways? If it's only passenger, the article should be named appropriately, and it made clear in the introduction. If it includes freight, then Category:Passenger rail transport in Perth, Western Australia is probably not correct unless we also have Category:Freight rail transport in Perth, Western Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its intended to cover passenger railways, similar to Railways in Melbourne (which also has Freight railways in Melbourne) and Railways in Adelaide but opposite to Railways in Sydney, which covers both passenger and freight. It's not the best naming scheme, but consistency is the reason for the current name. I think if a move were to be proposed, it should be proposed for all of those three articles. Steelkamp (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming scheme for individual railway lines

According to the official Transperth website, it seems as though the naming format all lines use have "Line" capitalized in their names as like it's part of their names and a proper noun (similar to Sydney instead of Melbourne). Thoughts? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett: There have been a few discussions regarding this, at Talk:Yanchep line#Requested move 8 November 2021 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/Archive 13#Railway lines and services in Perth. Basically the reasoning is that unless the usage is overwhelmingly for a capitalised "L", including in unofficial sources, then the "l" should be uncapitalised. Steelkamp (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. Thank you for letting me know! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]