CityRail was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 3, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 2, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Sydney / Transport Mid‑importance CityRail 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Trains High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

• List of lines is not 100% correct since Cityrail clarified things recently - see [1] for an up-to-date network map.
• Illawarra line article really describes the intercity South Coast line, should be moved.

—Stormie 06:49, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I know this is from a long time ago, but Illawarra line refers to the metropolitan section of the line; whereas South Coast line refers to the inter-city services. This is an important distinction because although they share the same tracks, South Coast line trains bypass all but the major metro stations (eg. Hurstville). Also, Illawarra line continues to Bondi Junction; whereas South Coast line ends in Central.--Alexio 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some peak hour south coast trains run to bondi junction 113.211.210.222 (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone's going to update the simplified map, please correct the spelling of Wollongong, correct the purple line ending at Campbelltown and not Macarthur, and might as well add the airport stations, Wolli Creek and the Epping-Chatswood proposal.
• Patronage is needed for stations and lines. I know it is out there somewhere because I remember reading something in the North Shore Times but I can't remember their source. But we NEED patronage data. Ziperingzap 11:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that as of April 18 2010, the "MyZone" fare system will be introduced, rendering the current prices listed in the article obsolete. 120.153.110.10 (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in contrast to railway systems in many other large cities around the world. For instance, a person living in Oakville thirty kilometres west of Toronto, Canada who works in downtown Toronto approximately two kilometres from Toronto's Union Station will need to catch a commuter rail train service operated by GO Transit to Union Station, where he/she will have to change to a subway train service operated by the Toronto Transit Commission to complete his/her journey to work. This commuter will have to buy two different tickets from two different railway operators.

Meanwhile, a person who lives in Blacktown thirty kilometres west of Sydney and works in the city centre two kilometres from Sydney's Central Station can catch a CityRail suburban service from his/her local station. However, the train does not terminate at Central Station; the train then proceeds onward into the underground portions of the network which criss-cross Sydney's downtown area and some inner city neighbourhoods without the need to change trains or buy tickets from two or more different railway organisations.

Is such a verbose example neccessary? Is it really that hard to understand that you only need one ticket to travel from the suburbs to the city centre? T.P.K. 22:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I realise this is an old debate, but I'd like to point out that just because Oakville and Blacktown are both 30km from downtown does not mean anything. Blacktown would be like Finch in Toronto, whereas Oakville could be likened to the Blue Mountains. The Blue Mountains trains DO terminate at Central and do not stop at any but the biggest stations on the "urban" line from Emu Plains onwards. In fact the "yellow" line in Toronto is quite similar to the "yellow" line in Sydney, in that it passes through the City - Finch-Downtown-Downsview, Emu Plains-City-Berowra (although in Sydney most trains do not travel the entire distance just because nobody will go all that way anyway). It's just for convenience that the trains in Sydney run on the same lines as the trains out of Sydney, because they were never built underground.

---

A section of this alone would be interesting. Me being a fellow Hong Kong Australian, there's a massive difference between the MTR trains and CityRail.

Ronnknee 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A public company is one listed on the stock exchange and available to purchasers shares. CityRail is a Crown Corporation owned by the Crown in right of NSW.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.9.20 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your posts with four tildes, or register with a username. The correct term is "State-Owned Corporation". JRG 08:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference for this section? Otherwise, it sounds like someone's original research. Alex.tan 08:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal "exists" but it is not government or CityRail policy - it is mere pie-in-the-sky by some guy on the Internet who made his own map (I cannot recall the page but it has been cited at http://www.railpage.com.au in the New South Wales forum). The proposal would never really occur and should probably be removed from this page as mere personal speculation.

Removed section. If someone can come up with a valid reference, please repost it back. Alex.tan 23:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be debate over the proposed express route between Central and Parramatta. This was an actual proposal expressed by the Carr Government, and given the number of proposals they have made that won't get off the ground there is reason to doubt whether they are "proposals" as such, but the Government actually suggested this, so it still may go ahead. Given that proposals like this exist in other countries' transport systems (like some MRT lines in Singapore that have been proposed but are on land that hasn't even been reclaimed yet), I think this should stay.

For proof of this proposal, see:

• EcoTransit Press Release
• SMH Letters page - the day after the announcement - sorry, can't get the actual article

Or do a search for "Western FastRail" on Google.

This page needs a lot of work; we need to figure out a good way to put actual proposals that probably will go ahead or are going ahead (eg. Clearways, Harbour Rail Link, NW & SW rail links), and some more ambitious plans for the far future, like this, and the western metro lines suggested in the Christie Report. (JROBBO 09:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

those articles don't prove its a Government project. Professor Newman was removed from his post by the Minister. it doesn't get a mention at all in the Metro Strategy [2]] or the 2006 State Infrastructure Strategy which lists 10 year spending on big infrastructure. [3] Steven Fitter 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there could be more details on the troubles? including the driver shortage, the new timetable, and the airport line fiasco. As you can probably tell, I'm dissatisfied with CityRail, and have been ever since they cut my line entirely in off-peak hours. --Sumple 04:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These would require a bit of research with newspaper archives, I would think. enochlau (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in doing similar to this infobox for western / richmond / blue mountains lines but what colour scheme should I use? Also - I'm not a "train" person. What is meant by "trainconnect" - I am guessing "Blacktown" = yes but say "Emu Plains" = no? is this "connect from limited stops to express" or is it "connect from suburban to countrylink"? thanks

Garrie 03:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only colour information that you need to put in is the servicearea_color parameter. For the Western Line put in #FEBE10. The other line colours are on this page if you need them. Harryboyles 06:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We desperately need an update to the network map - the one here is awful. In fact, from the way I've now set it out, we should have two, one with the suburban lines, and one with the intercity lines. I can't draw so I'd love someone to do a decent job on this. Anyone? (JROBBO 12:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

These are a Bad Thing for a couple of reasons. Primarily it looks ugly as it is, in the link. Otherwise, it conveys no extra information at the start of the article, since the reader has no idea what the colour means or is used for. In any case, CityRail is much less emphasizing the use of colour to code the lines -- consider the replacement of signage on platforms which are now a simple uniform blue and white. Dysprosia 07:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree here. The ugliness is your subjective judgement. This formatting is used elsewhere on Wikipedia articles such as MTR and so on. Secondly, the information is conveyed at the first instance down the page - it's not as if the page doesn't explain it. Thirdly, CityRail still does emphasise the colour. The reason the signs were changed is because the network map changed so the line colours were different and way out of date in some cases (eg. Carlingford line); and to avoid having to change it if the lines were changed again (which will probably happen because of Clearways - the East Hills line being a prime example.) The line colours are still very important and are used on the timetables (both the handheld ones as well as the poster ones at the stations), as well as on the platform indicator posters (indicating the line routes for each line - they are found at all major stations), and are primary to identifying lines on their website and on the network maps. CityRail is not emphasising the colours less. (JROBBO 12:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The key fact here is that the use of seemingly random colour at the very beginning of an article does indeed convey no information until it is explained. This is bad because it is akin to using an acronym before it is explained -- it has the net effect of confusing the reader. Furthermore, excessive use of colour can serve to clutter and confuse instead of clarify. I'm not saying colour shouldn't be used at all, but it needs to be used aesthetically, and where it will serve the most purpose. Dysprosia 12:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better argue that too with the MTR page people then! I've moved the offending photos down the page after they've been explained - I hope to tidy the rest of the page at some stage and add more information (especially on history, fleet, ticketing, safety, problems with the network). I don't actually want those photos there, but we don't have any better photos illustrating CityRail at the moment and when we do those ones will stay on the articles they came from and the new ones will be featured. I hope the network box looks ok with my changes - see the Talk page for more info. (JROBBO 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think most (if not all) rail systems use colours to distinguish between the different lines in the network. Colours in an article about a train network should be pretty obvious. enochlau (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good solution, what you've done there, except the photos may not really correspond with the text, but that's solved simply with a little tweaking. Dysprosia 21:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They do correspond - the thing about Sydney Buses is totally unrelated to the article though. This article is on CityRail, not Sydney buses. Deleted. (JROBBO 22:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No, they did not. An image of a random North Shore line station does not correspond to to the section on "Fleet", and neither does an image of a random Northern Line station correspond to "Electrification". Now, they have at least some passing connection. The image of a ticket did not correspond to "Network overview" either -- the text vaguely implies ticketing at some point, and it is a valid fact that tickets issued by CityRail are compatible with Sydney Buses ticketing machines, so it was entirely an appropriate edit to make to strengthen the link between the text describing ticketing and the image. At least now the image of a ticket has some connection with a section on ticketing. Dysprosia 04:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to be so pedantic? There is no Wikpedia policy that every picture has to correpond to every single section. The photos are relevant to the article itself, so why can't we leave it at that? I say again - the article is not about Sydney Buses. It is irrelevant that they fit in with Sydney Buses on the caption - put that in the Sydney Buses article, not here. By the way, you are allowed right-hand-side photo montages where the photos don't necessarily accord to the subject of each article. That's what I was trying to get originally - it is done on lots of different pages like MTR and NYC Subway; there's been no complaints from anyone about layout on that page, so I don't see why that has to apply here. The images are all appropriate to the article and that is all that matters. If you want to argue, show me Wikipedia policy that says I can't do that. (JROBBO 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with pedantry and everything to do with getting a higher quality article.

In the other case, you are currently arguing a moot point as I've changed the article. Regardless, it is important to point out that certain tickets are compatible with other modes of transport as, while of course CityRail is not Sydney Buses, the different modes of transport form an integrated system, and pointing out that ticketing across the system is compatible and flexible is an important point. Not mentioning this is akin to omitting saying that if you're in Melbourne and you have a Metlink card, you can use it on trains as well as trams -- it is one of the Metlink card's redeeming features. Dysprosia 06:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I know you don't fancy yourself much of I drawer. I took the liberty of replacing your map of Bradfield's railways. If there's a problem, let me know. - Hornetfig 02:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments as on your talk page:

• There were two lines coming from the Western suburbs - one was meant to continue through St James and continue towards the Eastern Suburbs, the other would join with the City Circle just after St James (there were to be crossovers) and head back in the other direction. You have only drawn one.
• There was another station in the City at Oxford street (on the Eastern Suburbs line) at the other corner of Hyde Park to Museum - this was part of the City plan. You've left it out.
• The Southern Suburbs railway went through both Central and Redfern before diverging. Your map shows it going elsewhere.

I'll put my map back for the moment - when you have fixed yours you can put yours back. (JROBBO 08:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a source though? I have this this diagram which I actually assumed you had used for reference:

-- I can see a Liverpool St (Oxford St) station on the Eastern Suburbs line.

-- But I cannot see why, given a station at Goulburn St, one block from Central, that there would be a Southern Suburbs line station at Central. Nor have I ever heard of one planned by Bradfield.

-- Lastly regarding the Western Suburbs line, I know there are crossovers at St James for it to be possible for rolling stock to proceed O'Connell St, St James, Museum, Central and vice-versa I also don't know of any plan for said movements (and it's a little incongruous as presumably as many services would be requried on the Eastern Suburbs line as Western Suburbs line)

Thanks - Hornetfig 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hornetfig. My source is not that map. That map is accurate, but it doesn't show all of the details outside of the Northern CBD. I've read some of Bradfield's original plans here - which I can't show on the net of course, but [this site] confirms the crossovers for interchange services between the City Circle and the Western Suburbs line, as well as the Oxford St station under Hyde Park.

-- Goulburn St is not one block from Central, it's one block from Museum, (it was to be located at Goulburn St near Wentworth St) and trains on this line were not stopping on the City Circle so they needed their own station in that area of the City. The line was to use the Chalmers St platforms (24-27 at Central) and then the unused platforms at Redfern before diverging southwards. I'll put some sources up when I do the whole article properly. (JROBBO 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Well, if you count Hay St as a street then I suppose Goulburn St is two streets from central. Anyhow, is this more to your liking? - Hornetfig 10:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the links between Goulburn St, Museum and Liverpool St (which should read Oxford St according to the Bradfield reports - they weren't one massive interchange station, they were three separate stations. And Chalmers St should be part of Central - it looks like a separate line- in fact it wasn't - it linked up with the above ground stations just after Central on the same line. You should also continue the blue line towards Central after diverging from St James. Remember that the present conceptions of the different lines that we have today didn't exist under Bradfield's plans so it doesn't have to fit completely with what we have today. (JROBBO 13:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

---

The diagram shows track pairs. It would, in my opinion, be incorrect to show a second line running through Museum to Central.

Given the proximity of Museum and the station at Liverpool and College Sts (itself more correctly styled Museum than the actual Museum platforms) I don't see how it is possible for them to retain separate concourses.

I will see what can be done with respect to moving Chalmers St closer to Central proper.

Hornetfig 02:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the diagram is a lines diagram, not a track diagram. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a track access website - the image was to demonstrate the different train routes through the city that might have been built under Bradfield's plan, not the track diagrams through the city - this would be much more complicated. Secondly, Image:Bradfieldplancolour.gif - see here (I'm deleting this image as soon as I can show you)- as shown on this map (a cover over a street directory page) the three stations near Hyde Park were completely separate and the Goulburn St one was some streets away from the other two. Linked concourses for separate stations are only a modern invention in rapid transit systems - they certainly weren't around in Bradfield's time. You can see by the way that Museum and St James were built that there was no intention to do anything like this. Please believe me so we can get on and keep building this page!! (JROBBO 13:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

---

Well I have now seen that image so you can remove it if you wish. I wasn't suggesting that the paid areas would be linked but their unpaid areas would be. That's doesn't really make it a transfer station, I suppose.

On the contrary, a track pair diagram is simpler:: Except the Western Suburbs line from St James to Central, the diagram you posted otherwise shows track pairs. Why, whoever drew that map (I have a suspicion it was 'James C') chose to draw it like that, I don't know. So, either I can leave the diagram showing as is, or I can run four colours - East Hills, Bankstown, Illawarra and South (and probably West and North for correctness with the timetables of the time) around the City Circle. What do you prefer?

Anyhow, it's not my intent to be belligerent...

Hornetfig 09:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, leave it with the crossover - should be fine to upload once the links between the three stations are removed. Thanks Hornetfig for your effort. (JROBBO 13:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry to not do this very promptly. I got busy...

• 
  Fixed as requested. Minor additional changes
• 
  Alternate. Fixed but no other changes.
• 
  cf Actually Built

OK, take your pick! - Hornetfig

Second one is good - it fits in with what users have already seen on the lines diagram. Looks good. (JROBBO 12:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• We need pictures of all the different types of trains - these would also go on the pages of C Set, RLS set (train), Endeavour, V Set (no article yet), Millennium train, K Set, Tangara (both G set and T set). For those who have no idea what these types of train are look at the CityRail Fleet page (click the link.) Get a good shot of the front of each train and maybe an inside (of a Millennium train maybe?)

There's a media launch for the H set (Outer Suburban Car), Hunter Railcar (new type) and the refurbished XPT at Central station on Monday 24th of April - the sets will be there from about 8am till about 3pm. If anyone can take photos it would be a great opportunity to get some pictures for WP. (JROBBO 01:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I also agree, we need pictures of trains but also we need more pictures of stations to add to the tables next to each station page instead of the logo. I will see if I am able to get some but I won't be able to cater for every station, so if possible try to get some pictures of surrounding stations in your area. It will also be nice to try to get the patronage of every line and station if possible. Ziperingzap 08:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a common summary article about CityRail sets, and all existing pages named in a standard fashion e.g. by their letter codes or names e.g. V-Set (CityRail) (or DDIU (CityRail)), T-Set (CityRail) (or Tangara (CityRail), Endeavour (CityRail) etc? The current array is pretty messy and there is no table to link them all together as per the CityTrain, Connex Melbourne and other Australian systems.

For a good example of such articles, see the Transperth B-series train or Walkers-AdTranz Interurban Multiple Unit.

Also, note the page CityRail DDIU is in serious need of work. SM247 20:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I think the "T set (CityRail)" is the best format, as doing something with "Sydney" on the end makes us split the trains with those on Intercity and Regional lines. I desperately need pictures of the different types of trains though - I now have an OK picture of a V-Set and ok picture of a T-Set, but C Set, K Set, 620/720, Hunter Railcar (new one), OSCAR, Endeavour, and G-Set (and all previous generations of trains like Tullochs, W Sets, M sets (the old ones) and so on) are all minus pictures. I'll start working on something soon. We do need a good summary on the main page though. (JROBBO 05:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I have assembled a little template presently on the bottom of the page - I'm unsure exactly how to align it as I am not fluent in the markup lingo. I have also changed about the rollingstock pages to match, but most need substantial editing. Only the Tangara page is OK at the moment. What would be good would be an infobox with performance characteristics, as per the Perth A/B sets and the QR ICE/EMU/SMU/IMU articles. SM247 05:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be necessary to disambiguate "K set" for example to "K set (CityRail)". I've moved articles to conform with style conventions first, but I wanted to get some views before I move "X set (CityRail)" to "X set". Dysprosia 10:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used capitals for 'set' because the CityRail site shows the terms as proper nouns, but it really doesn't matter I suppose. However, I think including (CityRail) gives some context e.g. List of British Rail classes. The term V Set of itself means little to somebody who doesn't already know to what it pertains. SM247 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australians should know that Google maps is now available for Australia. However, I was looking at the intercity/regional lines on Google and I found that half of the stations are wrong! For example, from Maitland to Dungog, the only real station visible google maps is Telarah, and the rest of the line contains stations with names I've never heard of. What's happening here? 218.102.220.129 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the stations aren't very much full fledged "stations". From memory, Wirragulla, for example, is basically a bare, very very small platform. It's possible you might just not be seeing them. Dysprosia 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that CityRail has been put down as a metro in the list of rapid transit systems, but by definition CityRail wouldn't be a metro, even the suburban part due to the fact that it is not on separate tracks to the intercity, country and freight lines. Am I incorrect or is this a mistake? Ziperingzap 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list of rapid transit systems says that CityRail is not a metro in the overseas sense of the word, but rather a hybrid system, of which some of it (the parts close to the City and the Eastern Suburbs line especially) are run with metro-like frequency. In that sense, CityRail is definitely like a metro, but in other senses it isn't. As for sharing tracks, there are metro-like systems in the world that share tracks with intercity trains (like Hong Kong's KCR line). I don't think we should be deleting it from that list. (JROBBO 14:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The colours for the line names, and the destinations for the different lines, have been set by CityRail's promotional material. If you are the unregistered user that keeps changing them, please desist. Also, stop adding duplicate information. (JROBBO 04:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I checked the CityRail map and found that some of the colours we were using were incorrect: Here's the list of the correct ones in hexadecimal format:

• Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line: #0072C6
• Bankstown Line: #FF7800
• Inner West Line: #8D80B8
• Cumberland Line: #CC00A0
• Airport & East Hills Line: #339E35
• South Line: #90CEF2
• North Shore and Western Lines: #FCB514
• Northern Line: #CE1126
• Carlingford Line: #002B7F
• Olympic Park Sprint and special event services: #EEEEEE

• South Coast Line: #0072C6
• Southern Highlands Line: #339E35
• Blue Mountains Line: #FCB514
• Newcastle and Central Coast Line: #CE1126

• Hunter Line: #6D28AA

I think thet User:218.214.62.53 was trying to correct the colours. Harryboyles 12:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They must have changed the colours recently to suit the web better. I copied them from the CityRail website originally. I've copied these straight from the timetable page. I think the "grey" denotation should continue to be used for Olympic Park - the colour there is unreadable; the same goes with the old south line colour (). I'll get around to start changing the colours on the templates, and all the railway stations with platform allocations will have to be redone. These should be the colours used:

Suburban Lines

• Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line: #0072C6
• Bankstown Line: #FF7800
• Inner West Line: #8D80B8
• Cumberland Line: #CC00A0
• Airport & East Hills Line: #339E35
• South Line: #99CCFF
• North Shore and Western Lines: #FCB514
• Northern Line: #CE1126
• Carlingford Line: #002B7F
• Olympic Park Sprint and special event services: grey

Intercity lines

• South Coast Line: #0072C6
• Southern Highlands Line: #339E35
• Blue Mountains Line: #FCB514
• Newcastle and Central Coast Line: #CE1126

Regional line

• Hunter Line: #6D28AA

(JROBBO 08:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

When you do change the colours, use the template so it's easier to edit the colours in the future. Harryboyles 08:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of CityRail-related train articles talk about "Sector 2" and "Sector 3" etc. What are these sectors? --Sumple (Talk) 04:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a group of lines, based around one of the train depots. As far as I know, the designation is used internally by Cityrail (and with IPART etc) as a way of splitting the network into chunks that are bigger than individual lines but smaller than the entire network. I've never seen them mentioned in documents intended for the general public, such as timetables or newspaper articles. -- Mako 05:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Cityrail sectors are; Sector 1 (Mortdale Maintenance Centre) is Bondi Junction to Cronulla and Waterfall. Sector 2 (Flemington Maintenance Centre) is City Circle, Airport Line, East Hills, Campbelltown/Macarthur, Liverpool, Carlingford & Bankstown. In the old days, Punchbowl Maintence Centre was Sector 2. Sector 3 (Hornsby Maintenance Centre) is Hornsby, Berowra, Penrith and Richmond. Sector 4 (Flemington Maintenance Centre) Intercity. All V Sets get maintained at Flemington. I can't say the same for the G Sets as the South Coast G Sets get maintained at Mortdale and and the Central Coast and Blue Mountains (Springwood) G Sets get maintained at Hornsby. MikeyAus069 10:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before the closure of Punchbowl MC and the introduction of the G sets, the sectors were much more clearly demarcated than they are now. Quaidy 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There weren't enough references. mrholybrain 13:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there are few sections with 0 - 1 reference. Will do my best to find additional references and hopefully will renominate this article by late September.

• History 50%  Done
• Changes to Cityrail  Done

• Network overview (Proper explanation required instead of the use of examples)  Done
• Passenger Information Systems (As per above)  Done

YuMaNuMa (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will be renominating the article for Good Article review in 24 hours from now. If there is any outstanding issue with the article please comment under this before the 24 hours. I feel that the article is worthy of renomination. The history section can probably be forgiven as information as such may be difficult to obtain and only a few sources have been found so far but that's better than nothing!YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the services provided as well as the agency providing them. Please don't delete all information about what services are provided where, and so on. JROBBO 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial amounts of service, ticketing and fleet information are on other pages. The page is also quite long. Joestella 01:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still means that we should have some information on this page - have a look at MTR, London Underground and Singapore MRT, all Featured Articles which have subsidiary articles yet provide substantial introductions to each section. I agree that the article needs to be split off, but the article should still be informative in itself without having to link to the other pages. JROBBO 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including CityRail's own maps would appear to be an obvious copyvio, unless they gave us permission, so I think the NightRide map is out. The enormous map that was there was cool in that it had a similar visual style to the CityRail network map we know and love, but:

• it was still a schematic map, so it didn't add all that much to a reader's understanding of the network
• it only covered the Sydney basin

So I made some new ones in Illustrator. They're pretty rough, and only show key stations. But they address the above concerns. Things to consider:

• which stations merit inclusion on these maps, since they won't all fit?
• how best to colour-code them, given that certain colour "lines" share track in places?

Feedback is welcome. Looking at them I must say it's fascinating how different Sydney looks in comparison to the schematic that, for many, shapes our understanding of its layout. Joestella 18:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The maps that were included aren't CityRail's own maps. They're substantially different enough to include them here and not to be a copyrighted image - we're not using the CityRail fonts, images and copying the maps as they are; they have been changed significantly enough to be our own creations and they are legitimately used here for illustrative purposes. The other images of the trains were claimed as fair use (legitimately) for the purposes of illustration, and we're entitled to have them there. Taking a photo of a ticket is definitely NOT copyright. I own the copyright to that image and I've agreed to release it to appropriate public use on Wikipedia and elsewhere. There's no problem including it there; if you want a better image you're entitled to one, but taking a picture of the ticket is no more copyright than taking one of a station and claiming it's CityRail's. It's not.

All other maps of railway networks show all the stations on a network. My absolute preference would be a geographically accurate map of the CityRail network with ALL the stations included (perhaps one of the suburban, one of the intercity/regional stations), but a generic one is ok if we can't do that. I thought Astrokey44's map was good, and I'm going to put it back until we get a better one. - it's your preference only that you don't like it, Joe; the previous map was liked by other users, so we'll keep it till we get an improvement on it.

Also, the intercity map should show all 4 routes leading to Central - including the Southern Highlands Line with a dotted line; a reader unfamiliar with the network would think that all services stopped on the edge of Sydney, which is not the case. JROBBO 07:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the Nightride map though, although we could assert fair use again here - but can you, Joestella, with your great graphic skills, design a generic Nightride map for here and for the Nightride article? JROBBO 08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about where the lines go is taken. I think it's clear, but obviously I have magical powers with which to decipher my own work. :) For now, any shortcomings with the maps can be redressed through extended captioning.

There is no need for a schematic map - CityRail makes one available at its website. A scale map with all stations would be impractical, hence the widespread use of schematic maps by rail authorities. In our mapping, we can add to a user's understanding by presenting the regional context and a sense of scale. Users interested to know which station comes after which can find, or indeed the co-ordinates of each station, can find that in the text of the linked articles. The schematic from User:Astrokey44 was great, but did not add anything to the reader's understanding of the network, since it was not to scale.

Who cares if it wasn't to scale? A diagrammatic map of a network shows people what a network looks like and the extent of a network. It is informative and interesting - according to Wikipedia users, not according to your own biased judgement. It doesn't have to be related to the city's actual appearance. I get my cues from featured articles like MTR and Singapore MRT and the like, which all have diagrammatic maps and have been judged by other editors to be good articles with good content - and until you came along and messed things up, I had been trying to make this article a little better along those lines. I said you could include a map that was geographically accurate, but you don't have a good one at the moment. It should include all the stations, not just those which are main stations. Make it as big as you want -that's why we have thumbnails. And stop basing everything on your own judgement and what YOU think is good or bad. JROBBO 13:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm flattered you'd suggest that I could create a replacement NightRide map, getting parallel lines neat in a network map is hard, as I'm sure User:Astrokey44 will attest. If someone knows the secret, let me know and I'll fire up Illustrator immediately.

In the meantime, what should be included in the next version of the scale maps? Joestella 09:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a photo of a work protected by copyright is the same as scanning a work protected by copyright. Try taking a picture of a ticket barrier or at least a person holding a ticket. In any case, provided I haven't stuffed up the procedure, we'll have an answer on the copyvio question in however long that normally takes. The salient features of the ticket (magnetic stripe, what's printed on it by the TVM) are on the AFCS page; if you think readers need to know about any of the other visual elements, add it to the text. Joestella 09:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Pictures are there to add to the article - they don't have to provide extra information, they can simply illustrate the information. That was what this one did. And stop alluding to the AFCS page - the CityRail tickets may be part of the same scheme, but they are different tickets and have different pricing, etc.; they can have their own information and picture; that's not disallowed. JROBBO 13:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a picture is on the other article is beside the point. Copyright (an issue that applies to both pictures), however, isn't. Joestella is right about this, and they probably would have to be considered fair use, but easily justified as fair use because any reproduction of them would be in the same situation. JPD (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider what proportion the copyrighted work is. For example, your own photograph of some scenery with a small Coke billboard in the background is probably your own copyright. enochlau (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to find out the usage at each railway station? Simply south 14:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, unless you email CityRail and ask for each the figures, which isn't a reliable source. JRG 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I'm thinking that if you can get hold of such figures, it's better than having no figures at all? Not that I'd trust it, because there's no way CityRail can measure usage accurately at stations without ticket barriers. enochlau (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket sales at each station. At least this is what is used in the UK. Simply south 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you email CityRail through their feedback page and ask for the figures? They have given me stuff like that before. JRG 00:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading this article I've noticed that it fails to mention many of the controversies of cityrail, accusations of sexual harrassment within its staff, chronicle delays, major incidents (such as the breakdown in transport following Queen Mary II etc). When it does mention criticism of CityRail it almost invariably provies (and in many cases gives emphasis to) a counterargument, particularly when the section dedicated to criticism is called "Challenges" and portrays CityRail as being able to best them in all situations.

The way I see it the article reads more as a commercial advertisement, fails to mention many controversial issues surrounding CityRail, and continually praises the corporation through colourful language. This may be just me, but at least add in information about accusations relating to sexism and harrassment in the working culture, public scrutiny of services etc

@ JRG: my apologies for not signing the statement last time, I did not have a regular account and (given this may be more than a minor edit) was trying to borrow my brother's, so I could sign it later. Although I have not made major contributions I have made many minor edits and am well acquainted with the way of wikipedia, and this article clearly, given both this knowledge and the various criticism that CityRail has faced, is biased towards painting the corporation in a positive light. I would appreciate it if you replied instead of deleting under the false presumption of vandalism, and if others who are not regular editors of this article could have their say

Seagull landbird 09:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't biased deliberately, it's just incomplete. I'm well aware of the problems with the article, and you as another user are very welcome to add things in to outline the problems with the network - so long as they are sourced - we're not having comments, good or bad, about the supposed working culture that are mere rumours or insider information - see WP:RS. There's no point in complaining about the article if you're not going to contribute yourself. I'm sorry about the vandalism comment— I removed it because you had added extra stuff to the bottom of the article which I thought was someone playing around with the page, and had added the talk rationale as an excuse. I've removed the POV tag as the omission of the information you want is not deliberate.JRG 10:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the rampant employment discrimination by cityrail! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.126.160 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to reorganise external links to give emphasis to primary sources, "private" or "personal webpage" links should be placed last.61.88.130.61 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be missing (daily/annual) patronage figures. I'd have thought these essential for an encyclopaedia article. Can someone attend to this? - Aucitypops (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Cityrail NEVER planned a proposed railway line! NEVER![reply]

There is no mention of frequencies for the services mentioned. Do they run once every hour? Are there easy off-peak/on-peak/weekend distinctions, or would those be too hard to describe? Classical geographer (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be too hard, as on some lines, I.E the southern Highlands, There is one train a day in either direction from Sydney Terminal (Central) to Goulburn. and on others, I.E the Blue Mountains Line, its once every hour. Bcousins (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is different for every line. Most lines run at a 30min frequency for the off-peak period and this can increase up to 6 trains per hour with the exception being Western and Illawarra Line (before Kogarah). For the Blue Mountains Line, I think its 1 for every hour and during peak there are 3 trains that run in an hour. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Noted that the fares stated there are not of the new fare structure There fore i am removing the old fares User talk:Matt037291 04:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ridership information on the Cityrail page is outdated. I don't think that figure has changed since early 2006. In 5 years Sydney's population increased by 400,000 people most this were migrates who live in train accessible suburbs. For now I'm going tag it as outdated info. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:CityRail indicator board.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having travelled extensively on both CitiRail and the Hong Kong MTR, the most obvious difference between them is that the MTR is miniscule in terms of number of networks, number of lines, number of stations; and even in peak hours nearly empty of passengers. I mean that in comparative, not absolute terms. So is it really fair to compare CityRail's performance to MTR's? Old_Wombat (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Cityrail ticket.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the whole point I initiated this section, along with several images was to inform people of the many types that exists. Removing them seems to be somewhat misinforming and creates an illusion that there is only one "newest" type.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wykymania (talk • contribs)

One image is sufficient enough to support the text, there is no intention of misinformation as the prose well and truly mentions the variety of boards. Adding more images would be redundant and defeating the purpose of the prose which is also here to inform. YuMaNuMa ^{Talk Contributions} 01:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this stretch of line is now in operation, I think this map should be updated to reflect that. As my hamfisted efforts would make an utter shambles of this file, would someone else care to take on the task? Kelisi (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but I can't draw either. Anon2468 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated a new version, removing the 'under construction' text. Originally I thought I'd have to change the line itself, but the dotted line means it's underground, not under construction. Harryboyles 08:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose the restoration of the original logo of CityRail used prior to 2010. It is clearly the most well-known logo and it is still displayed on most stations. Since the current logo is no longer in use either, I don't see any need to maintain the most recent edition. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though it wasn't the final logo used, I've restored the 2010 logo and moved the older logo (can't find the year the blurred version was used). Bidgee (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the idea that simply because it is the last, it is the most appropriate. The capital of the Roman Empire is not listed as Soissons. The map of the Ottoman Empire used doesn't show the declining state that signed the Treaty of Sèvres. The primary logo should be one that embodies the topic. The final one was used for less than three years and does not embody CityRail. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better example is the Sydney Monorail, which was known as the Metro Monorail during its final years but its page was restored to its more common name after its closure. After the monorail closed, neither name could be considered current and the page was moved to the more commonly-known name. The same principle applies here. Neither logo is currently in use, so the primary logo should be the one with which the organization was primarily associated. As stated above, the old logo was also used for the majority of the existence of CityRail, which makes it a greater representation of the organization as an historical department. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just swapped the old L7 logo into the infobox and the short-lived waratah logo out to where the L7 logo was. Over a decade after CityRail was abolished as a brand, I think its clear in retrospect that the L7 logo is more strongly associated with CityRail, having been the logo for much longer. Therefore, I believe it is more appropriate to use the L7 logo as the primary logo in the infobox for what is now a historical article. Tomiĉo (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Sydney Trains be merged into CityRail. Actually, they are the same coporate. Sydney Trains is just the new trade mark of CityRail. --Coekon (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone this proposal, CityRail no longer exists as a government entity. You seem to be confusing CityRail with RailCorp, of which Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink are subsidiaries. As of 1 July 2013, CityRail no longer exists. James ^{(T • C)} • 7:46pm • 08:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article applies to Sydney Trains, perhaps the historical CityRail aspects should be moved to Railways in Sydney.MrHarper (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CityRail. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cityrail.info/timetables/nightride

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 11:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on CityRail. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cityrail.info/aboutus/our_performance/train_maintenance.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/inquiries/parry-final-report.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cityrail.info/aboutus/our_performance/summary_otr.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cityrail.info/training_rules/training_rules.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cityrail.info/security/see_something.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919095108/http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/plansforaction/pdf/swrl.pdf to http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/plansforaction/pdf/swrl.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CityRail. 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/20131005000814/http://search.records.nsw.gov.au/agencies/1635%3Bjsessionid%3D7A1460264B19CC677328C3058420CD88 to http://search.records.nsw.gov.au/agencies/1635%3Bjsessionid%3D7A1460264B19CC677328C3058420CD88
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318234233/http://www.airportlink.com.au/company.php to http://www.airportlink.com.au/company.php

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) 08:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]