Talk:Sydney Trains

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because there have been substantial edits by other users. --Junior Lightfoot (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sydney trains, Commuter rail?

Is Sydney trains Commuter rail or more like a hybrid commuter rail/metro system. I think that it should be classed as hybrid. The trains network has some metro-like characteristics such as minimal level crossings, has a large underground core, is electrified and has reasonable frequency. I understand that it has many commuter rail aspects like track sharing, moderate station spacing, and 15-20 minute frequency at off peak minor stations. I think it is somewhat similar to the RER, on which page it IS characterised as hybrid. Many people (especially in the USA) think of commuter rail as a diesel, extremely low frequency, above ground, largely station spaced system and I don't think it's fair to give Sydney trains the same title as that. It is almost like the Tyne and Wear, they have track sharing, level crossings and mostly above ground running. And it is fairly given the Metro title. I believe that Sydney trains is worthy of a hybrid rail system title. Any disagreements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.33.245 (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's stated on the article that it is indeed a hybrid rail system, however I'd say that it is more of a commuter/suburban rail network. Metro networks are separate as they consist of mostly underground routes as opposed to a commuter/hybrid rail network like Sydney Trains. Sydney Metro is an example of a Sydney metro network. KaitoNkmra23 talk 11:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the Sydney Metro. However I feel that since the RER's page also states that it is a hybrid system at the beginning of the article, Sydney trains should do so as well. I do also understand that there are differences between the RER and the Sydney trains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.198 (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree - Sydney Metro covers the Metro parts of the Sydney rail network. Adding that it is rail/metro system to this article would make it very confusing and should not be done.Fleet Lists (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Map showing Metro line

The map includes a turquoise line between Tallawong and Chatswood which it sounds like has been transferred to be the only Sydney Metro line? -- Beland (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It was removed from the map on 28 Dec 2022. -- Beland (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Integration of light rail in interchange stations

It is common for light rail services to be integrated into articles on railway stations, with London (see Birkbeck station for a typical example) and Manchester Metrolink providing models for what could be done, as does Newcastle Interchange.

I've been seeking to improve the integration of light rail services in Sydney in this way as of late (example). The other services section in the infobox template is ideal for this purpose. The fact is that light rail in Sydney at present lacks visibility, as light rail stations (unlike in many other cities) do not have articles of their own, and the integration of light rail elsewhere has been limited. This may well be a hangover from just a little over a decade ago when the system was far smaller.

220.245.186.241 has objected, stating that "Noting that each station already has some info about connections, the info there is suffice and shows that it is a connecting service." I had listed Light rail services under other_services in the infobox under that heading, though now it might be better to change it to Light rail connections if that is the opinion of others.

Light rail is indeed a rail service, and we have the technical provisions and practical models evidencing that light rail services can be better integrated. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Whilst light rail is indeed a rail service it is a separate mode of transport. The thing that it has in common is that it runs on tracks. However it is a different mode of transport. Just like taxi and bus are listed separately even though they run on the same infrastructure (the road).

Unless the light rail station is part of the area managed by Sydney trains it shouldn't be listed as a service in my opinion. For example if they create a new light rail line and use wynyard platform 1-2 for light rail then it would make sense to put the line in as it then would be a service from the station.

Otherwise, for example circular Quay if we were to follow the same example we would need to list the ferry services under a stopping pattern for the train station. Or if it is based on name Sydney Olympic Park ferry and metro stations share names but doesn't make sense because they will be miles apart.

I understand that the light rail stations have limited coverage, I'm of the opinion that it is better to relook into creating an article for its own stop rather than piggybacking off an article off a different set of transport. I'm not sure the history of why there isn't a separate light rail for each station considering we have one for every other transport mode.

Noting that tfnsw has information on all modes of transport because it manages all modes of transport, whereas for station articles the station is about the railway stations itself, which only services Sydney trains NSW train link Sydney Metro and private operators such as journey beyond

Let's see what other people think of this topic. 220.245.186.241 (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Aye - hopefully there will be some other opinions.

I would differentiate ferries from light rail and other rail modes (not quite as incomparable as taxis and buses, light and suburban rail both being forms of train system) however, and ferry wharves (which are likely to have less patronage than light rail stations) are covered in their own articles.

If light rail stations don’t receive their own articles (following the examples of several cities) then they must be sufficiently integrated into heavy rail station articles where there is an interchange, roughly following the examples of Manchester and London. This can be achieved whilst the article still primarily covers the heavy rail aspects.

I imagine better integration would also warrant consideration if a significant rapid bus line terminated at a station, too. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Will anyone else venture an opinion on this or are we doomed to a situation in which there is no obvious way forward? Will Thorpe (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been working on Dulwich Hill railway station as an example of what better integration could look like; any feedback at all would be appreciated; it seems imperative that we improve integration though there are particulars of how to achieve this. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)