Talk:Leppington & Inner West Line

Old Main South vs Main South

I don't get the difference between Main South and Old Main South. In the list of stations, stations between Canley Vale and Merrylands are considered on the Old Main South while stations between Cabramatta and Macarthur are considered on the Main South Line. I thought the whole section is all Main South? Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to that, on the Main Southern railway line page, it says the line branches off at Granville, meaning Merrylands - Canley Vale belong to Main Southern railway line. Also, I cannot find any site that states that the Main Southern railway is from Lidcombe to Cabramatta via Regents Park. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

https://railsafe.org.au/handbooks-guides-diagrams-signal-box-list-and-registers Open the drivers route diagrams page. MrHarper (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Airport and East Hills Line be merged into Airport, Inner West & South Line. I think that the content in the former article can easily be explained in the context of the latter, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the former will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. A former operating pattern for a train line that is not substantially different to the current operating pattern fails the notability test. Mqst north (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support. These Sydney line articles really are a mangled mess at the moment. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: At this stage, I'm thinking that there should be an article for each discrete section of a suburban line, (in this case City Circle, Airport Link, East Hills and Main South) with a focus on infrastructure, history, social significance, architecture etc.; and a much shorter overview article for T2 covering current and historical services and rolling stock. For the intercity and country lines, where services and infrastructure are less complex, a single article for each corridor will probably do. Not that all that needs to be resolved here in this discussion. Mqst north (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Each section of the line already has its own article (and focusing on the infrastructure), however it might be difficult to move the historical part of the suburban service to the "Airport, Inner West & South Line]] article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Gareth (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Though, whoever will take up the effort of merging the article should take note that the service history of both the South and Airport / Inner West routes of the T2 are pretty large and sometimes don't bleed in together. It can potentially be really, really messy rewriting the history section of the article. Philip Terry Graham 05:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support We don't really need Airport and East Hills Line when we already have Airport Link, Sydney, East Hills railway line and Airport, Inner West & South Line. A merger will eliminate information duplication. Wcp07 (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Seems there is widespread support, but no one wants to do it! -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started the merger; but it's a work in progress. Give me some time to complete before I message you all and invite feedback. Rangasyd (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mqst north, The Drover's Wife, Marcnut1996, Gareth, Vesna Wylde, Wcp07 and Whats new? Hi all. The merger is now complete with a redirect on the Airport and East Hills Line to the Airport, Inner West & South Line. There has been some content omitted as it had no relevance on the new page. There could be some editing of the history section to move content into the East Hills railway line and Airport Link, Sydney articles. Anyway, your feedback on the merger would be appreciated. Rangasyd (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a crack. Ugh, I was in Sydney staying on this line last week and no wonder it's so difficult to explain coherently here - so confusing in practice too. I think it should list all stations on the line: Sydney public transport's penchant for going "oh, they won't need that one" in signage and such is hell frustrating! I also think the lede should clearly summarise which terminuses the line actually covers. Apart from that - looks good! The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've had a crack at rewriting this article so it's less reliant on tables and better-referenced (though it is still highly reliant on primary sources). I think this provides a lay reader with a better sense of the context in which this timetable was introduced, and how it works operationally. I've also slimmed down the material that duplicates infrastructure details provided elsewhere. Finally – and I'm guessing most contentiously – I've removed the main table, as this contained unreferenced material (intervals between stops, internal station codes found in the internet archive, etc) and material better presented as a map or on individual station pages (connecting services, opening dates, etc), and OR (serving suburbs). Mqst north (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the work to slim down the article is generally good - I particularly like the removal of the list of stopping patterns (though how long this remains absent from the article remains to be seen!). I'm not too sure about the removal of the table, essentially this just replaces one form of list with another and I'm not sure how this would work for North Shore, Northern & Western Line - the city's most complex line. I also think that vertical lists are easier to read than horizontal ones. I note that tables are a common way of listing stations in articles: Fremantle railway line, Bakerloo line, Line 4 (Budapest Metro), G (New York City Subway service), U2 (Berlin U-Bahn), Yamanote Line and Barcelona–Vallès Line all have them. Frankston railway line, North London Line and Paris Métro Line 2 have route diagrams instead. Some articles have both, though this can certainly be silly. Gareth (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airport, Inner West & South Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711182127/http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/Projects-Completed-Projects/Rail-Clearways-Program to http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/Projects-Completed-Projects/Rail-Clearways-Program

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:North Shore, Northern & Western Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Leppington & Inner West new name

I know that the transport minister's map that was released prior to the metro city portion opening on 19 August 2024 stated that the T2 was the "Leppington & Inner West Line" and not "Inner West & Leppington Line", but this appears to not have occurred per the TfNSW T2 timetable and current Sydney rail network map. I suspect this could have just been a typo and was not a confirmed line name change - but please provide any additional new sources that disprove this if a rebranding is still expected or has occurred. Fork99 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2024

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: Uncontroversial move given that this service has been officially renamed by Transport for New South Wales (non-admin closure) GarbageKarate (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Inner West & Leppington Line → Leppington & Inner West Line – Per TfNSW press release and timetable that will take effect on 20 October. Mounstreip (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Support - This should be a relatively uncontroversial move and can be done accordingly GarbageKarate (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

@GarbageKarate: I believe that the redirect in the way might not allow you to complete the move, you should list this at WP:RM/TR and link to this discussion. In future, it might have just been easier to let the usual 7 day period pass and let someone else uninvolved close the request - as unlike with split and merge requests, move requests are usually closed and completed quite quickly. Fork99 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: thanks for cleaning up the copy and paste move - it was in relation to this RM, however @GarbageKarate is WP:INVOLVED and so shouldn't have closed it, prematurely or not.

I know your expertise is in NPP but do you know if this would have to go to a move review due to the improper closure? I really don't want this to be dragged out since GarbageKarate is likely new to the process and that there was only another day until the RM could have been closed, with no opposes either. Fork99 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fork99 Easiest way to resolve this is to have GarbageKarate revert their close or give another editor permission to do so. I left a message at their talk page. I'm going to remove the technical request you posted as that's not the correct venue to address this sort of issue. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ahecht: thanks for that, I've already let @CFA know that I don't object to the move. Reason I put this request there as there is a redirect in the way. Fork99 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it as an uncontroversial technical request since no one has objected. C F A 💬 02:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, many apologies again for the mess! I will ensure future instances like this will go through the proper processes. GarbageKarate (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)