Talk:Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line

Merge with Cronulla Branch Line
There's not enough information on the Cronulla Line to sustain its own article at the moment. Some users here seem to think that the template is for a link to another article. That's not what it's for: it's for when there's too much information in an article for it to have all that information in the main one. The Cronulla branch is so caught up with the Illawarra Line nowadays, and should go with the information on that line as a whole (including its other branches, like the RNP Line and the now closed Woronora Cemetery Branch). There's no point in separating articles like this. JROBBO 10:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the Cronulla branch deserves it's own page- it can be expanded upon, give it time! The eastern suburbs line Could also be considered caught up in the Illawarra line as well. I think there warrants an individual page about the line to explain its history and infrastructure etc. How does one define the Illawarra line anyway? The Illawarra line page as it stands reflects more what Cityrail currently markets as the 'Illawarra line' rather than the traditional meaning of Illawarra line, which historically meant the entire line down to Nowra. I remember a few years ago the suburban services from Bondi Jct to Waterfall were marketed as Sutherland line and what is now marketed as the South Coast line was marketed as the Illawarra line. No mentions of eastern suburbs line then, but I digress....Quaidy 11:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose This line has a history outside of the CityRail network and is of not inconsiderable social and historical significance. It also meets the criteria for notability, unlike some of the stations it serves. Does this mean, JROBBO, we can merge the branch's stations into this article? Joestella 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Well I've already begun to expand the page, so I believe it should stay. I also whole heartedly agree with Quaidy about the Illawarra Line. - Vicer 05:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Illawarra Line series of articles
Hi all - I'm keen to see the Illawarra Line series of articles fixed up to a better standard like the Airport and East Hills railway line, Sydney article is now. My plan is to keep the existing articles on the Eastern Suburbs line and Cronulla Line as agreed to above, as there's already enough information on them, but to change this article back to the "Eastern Suburbs and Illawarra Line" and have the other two articles as sub articles coming off that with a more specific focus on those parts of the line. At present there's a lot of overlap between the articles, and it needs a bit of work to consolidate the info in a good way. I do need a photo or two of the National Park branch though, if anyone is keen for that. Even one of the old station would be great. JROBBO 02:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Stopping patterns
Do we really need such detailed stopping pattern and service information?- Seems a bit directory like to me. Quaidy 06:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that the way that trains operate on the line is an important part of how it is run. No one at Wikipedia seems to be able to define what a "directory" is in terms of being part of the operation of a railway line? I would see a "directory" as encompassing something like including the times that trains arrive at a specific station, or where you can catch a train where. This is just about the different patterns that trains use. JROBBO 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just think that the stopping pattern chart is a pretty tenuous thing and liable to quickly change with timetable revisions.Quaidy 10:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from tthe adjustment of stops to serve Wolli Creek since the Airport Line opened, they haven't changed all that much since the electrification to Waterfall in the late 80s. Sure, every now and again lines might add a stop or two to serve school students or relieve traffic on a particularly busy line (the former happened on the South Coast Line between Helensburgh & Thirroul when Lawrence Hargrave Drive was closed), but they have remained fairly regular. Having a look at a copy of a page of the 91 timetable (see here) the stops are very much the same, with the exception of Tempe which had more trains at that time as Wolli Creek wasn't open then, and the RNP station which was still open at the time). JROBBO 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to match it to the timetable and failed. Apparently you have to discard some early morning trips to get it to match up; that seems to be original research. --NE2 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course early morning trips and late evening trips (when trains are being relocated into and out of depots) and many peak hour services don't strictly follow standard patterns. Regular stopping patterns occur between say 9:30am and 3pm.  That's true of all rail systems and if its original research its fairly trivial.--Grahamec 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Grahamec here - most metros and commuter systems, even ones like the Hong Kong MTR and London Underground have very early morning trips that don't match their normal stopping patterns, but no one's suggesting that to discount them is original research; I've suggested the peak hour amendments in the paragraph that's written there (and I did use the word "usually" as well in describing the passenger stops). No one publishes a list of stopping patterns of trains - you have to get it from the timetable. And according to WP:NOR that's ok: I'm drawn to this paragraph:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.


 * The timetables are published information, and I'm only putting into written form what's included on there. JROBBO 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to give a breakdown on this talk page of rush hour trains and how many of them follow each pattern? Then maybe I can judge better how "original researchy" it is. --NE2 12:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I'll start doing it on Talk:Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney/patterns. --NE2 12:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing these patterns... do they have common names? "Hurstville local", the obvious choice, doesn't turn up anything. --NE2 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Train patterns don't have names like "local" or "express" in Australia. You have to read the timetable or the station signs to work out stops.  In my memory Sydney stations had wooden destination rollers set by hand.  Train service patterns change in various steps to the peak and down again, and are only regular between the peaks and in the evenings. If you look at trains leaving Bondi Juction, they become regular interval 10min services at 9:58  and continue regular to 3:18pm, when they begin stepping up for the peak.  At 6:58  they return to 10 min schedules (leaving aside return workings at 7.23 and 8.51) and at 9.00  they step down to regular 15 min workings until 12.30 .--Grahamec 00:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research
NE2, can you please explain how the stopping patterns is original research? I've already shown that it's derived from an already published source, and as per the paragraph above that is not original research - it's just research using primary sources. I'd like a reply that explains why it isn't. JROBBO 09:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Already done below. --NE2 10:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not good enough (from the OR page, not you). That doesn't answer the question. JROBBO 11:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Stations Table
Here's the station table in original form in case some of it is every needed again. JROBBO 09:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Line Maps Pictures
I moved the Cronulla map to its appropriate section, felt too out of place being put a paragraph after the lead. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research with stopping patterns
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research: without citing easily-verifiable facts, this section is original research. You could count the number of trains that follow pattern 1 exactly and add a footnote saying how many trains that is out of all the Cronulla trains; if it's a large majority then it's not original research, as anyone can verify the figures (or simply trust that they're right). But right now there are somewhat vague statements that are not backed up by figures, and it's not possible for a reader to judge how closely those patterns are followed without digging through the timetables. --NE2 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems a large majority follows that pattern (after going through the entire TT), but I'd have to agree that finding verfication without going through the entire timetable seems to be a bit hard and probably bordering on OR. All I can say is if in doubt, either leave it out, or just explain the verified facts/patterns in simple terms. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My question still hasn't been answered and still stands - this is sourced from a reliable published primary source; the fact there's 26 pages of timetable should make no difference - the information is there. What's wrong with me writing that during off-peak most trains run to these timetables with some peak hour exceptions? JROBBO 11:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restricted the pattern naming to off-peak and weekends which are regular and put a note that patterns alter during peaks, early morning and late evening; I've added an example for each terminus, and an example for each pattern in the regularised periods as mentioned. There's not much more I can do to show this is a sourced document. You must remember this is not a metro - it's a commuter railway and the stops are liable not to be regularised sometimes (except for the rare case when stopping patterns are numbered or named as is the case for TransPerth. JROBBO 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The core issue is: are you doing a great deal of calculation to arrive at your conclusions? We are allowed to do trivial analysis, etc.  The line between trivial and complex is where we cross into OR. Wjhonson 18:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's still not sourced well... you give examples of three trains, one for each pattern, but don't give any figures on how common those are. I'll have a go at it later. --NE2 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I listed out all the weekday outbound Hurstville trains at Talk:Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney/patterns. Of the 33 trains, 26 of them (79%) run totally local. I will add a citation to this pattern. --NE2 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you NE2. That looks good now.JROBBO 07:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow... there are no outbound trains at all that end at Mortdale, but this is a common inbound starting point... who comes up with these schedules? --NE2 19:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason why trains start at Mortdale is because of its carriage shed (built (at the time of elecrification (?)) on an old path of the railway deviated in the past because it was too straight for the climb (maybe this should be mentioned in the article)). Trains start at Mortdale at times when service levels are increasing.  I presume the reverse situation when trains are being taken out of service they are run on to Sutherland and then go back to Mortdale carriage shed empty because Mortdale is not considered an appropriate place to throw passengers off the train (either because it is a backwater or because its platforms are narrow).--Grahamec 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just would like to pipe in and say that I don't thinking extrapolating data from a timetable is "original research" given the timbre and scope of WP:OR. Actually, I applaud it as a great example of interpreting primary source material, and as it's taken directly from a primary source, I believe it should meet WP:V and WP:RS. It is no more "original research" than a contributor with a background in poetry (especially scansion) looking at a poem and saying "that's iambic pentameter" or "alliteration" or a mathematician or physicist explaining what each variable represents in E=mc2&mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's original research when I do the same extrapolation and get different results, as is becoming apparent... --NE2 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The root of that problem is that some people on Wikipedia have nothing better to contribute, so they interpret the rules to the extreme (or hypocritically) on others partly in compensation for their inability to contribute content or to avoid appearing intellectually inferior. It's the vicarious side of narcisstic personality disorder. The worst type are the WP editors who resort to WP:CIVIL as a crutch only when they lose arguments and their logic is proven faulty.  There seems to be an extremist faction right now that is big on enforcing WP:OR without self-restraint, and since the policy is vague in many areas, and interpreted with notions not even mentioned in the policy, often, I don't think a complain of "That's a violation of WP:OR" is credible.  On face value, most of them aren't.  I'm only a rule nazi when it comes to content, writing style and citation.  I have a high expectation and even higher standard for articles on WP, one that I impose (consistently) on my own work.  Unless the objections are with merit, on face value, and in keeping with the strict dictum of policies, MOS concerns, etc.  I ignore them.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I'll ignore this. --NE2 20:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised that a user who is proud of his occasional drink is concerned with the application of WP:CIVIL?--Grahamec 00:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take offense with the word "occasional." Men of Drink are not dilletantes in approaching the bottle.&mdash;ExplorerCDT 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Waterfall
Quick note - may need to include something on the Waterfall train disaster, given that it happened on this line and was a very notable event, even if it's only a mention. Orderinchaos78 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that south of Waterfall, thus not on this line? --NE2 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep - should be on the South Coast railway line, New South Wales article. There was another Waterfall accident at Waterfall station in 1994 where the train demolished the overhead bridge though - see here - not much info on it though. JROBBO 09:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with stopping pattern tables
There are a few columns that concern me. Each is discussed separately.TransitPolice 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Most trains stop
Given that this information is not published by anyone as such, it would appear to be original research. Poring over the publicly-available data and reaching a new (ie previously unpublished) conclusion about it: that's original research, pure and simple. Marking down the staffed or interchange stations (information which can be directly verified using CityRail's website) would be a better way to communicate what constitutes a more or less important station.TransitPolice 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Code

 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

This is operational arcana. The information adds nothing to an understanding of the line or its stations - and the source isn't top-notch either: web archive of an ISP hosting account. (No offence, Rolfe.)TransitPolice 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

TravelPass zone
I would argue that this column is not encyclopaedic. But as a graphic designer I feel strongly that text in pink and yellow is poor web design. I think we can trust users to know what pink looks like without needing coloured text.TransitPolice 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Serving suburbs
This column, lacking a source, concedes itself as original research. Those interested in how best to use the rail network are best directed to 131500.info.TransitPolice 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Connections
I would argue that the references to South Coast line links are redundant. These stations are for all intents and purposes on the South Coast line - they appear on the South Coast line timetable, they are signposted as such at the stations. They should be in the table that will doubtless one day appear at South Coast railway line, New South WalesTransitPolice 07:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cronulla branch and tramway alignment
Seeing as though today it's a featured article, I thought I'd point out that the opening paragaph is incorrect, the Cronulla branch does not follow the alignment of the former tramway, the tramway ran down the Kingsway (a road), the railway followed a new alignment to the south.The Fulch 01:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The info is correct in the Cronulla line section, but not at the top. I'll edit the sentence to make it more accurate - as the line was mostly over the tramway alignment, but not between Sutherland & Kirrawee. JRG 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The tramway ran the entire length of the Kingsway to Cronulla, not just between Sutherland & Kirrawee. The railway was on a completely new alignment away from the Kingsway. The Fulch 12:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So it is - I'll fix that up. JRG 13:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the scheme of life, its a minor thing but I think its worth being as accurate as possible. Seeing as the page is your baby, I'll leave it to you to fix as suggested. The Fulch 23:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Wow! Thanks so much for this article. My favourite railway line ... a featured article. Made my day! Have a drink on me, mates and mate-esses. :D Alastair Haines 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Star class or not, Wollongong was not electrified in 1984. December 1985, although through trains from SYdney could not run with the Stanwell Park viaduct out of action through to late Jan 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.130.50.199 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern railway line, Sydney which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line → Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line – More accurate name as of 21/10/13. Evidence on Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060107001604/http://www.railzone.org:80/ppt_faq/faq2.html to http://www.railzone.org/ppt_faq/faq2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821023430/http://www.tidc.nsw.gov.au/SectionIndex.aspx?PageID=590 to http://www.tidc.nsw.gov.au/SectionIndex.aspx?PageID=590
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070117004953/http://www.nsw.gov.au:80/stateplan/pdf/State_Plan_complete.pdf to http://www.nsw.gov.au/StatePlan/pdf/State_Plan_complete.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cityrail.info/timetables/2010/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra 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/20070929130027/http://www.railpage.org.au/neety/trains/elec.html to http://www.railpage.org.au/neety/trains/elec.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110328115511/http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/files/f602d3c6-5af3-48e8-a2ff-9e800104c663/old_study_6_scanned.pdf to http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/files/f602d3c6-5af3-48e8-a2ff-9e800104c663/old_study_6_scanned.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100422193706/http://www.cityrail.info/news/2010/100406-timetable to http://www.cityrail.info/news/2010/100406-timetable
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/trendy_rechauffe/Wset.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecotransit.org.au/campaigns/baylight/west.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110328115511/http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/files/f602d3c6-5af3-48e8-a2ff-9e800104c663/old_study_6_scanned.pdf to http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/files/f602d3c6-5af3-48e8-a2ff-9e800104c663/old_study_6_scanned.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 19 December 2016 (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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra 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/20070716071538/http://www.railpage.org.au/neety/trains/ESR_Illa_names.html to http://www.railpage.org.au/neety/trains/ESR_Illa_names.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927051239/http://railpix.railmedia.com.au/index.php?page=illawarra to http://railpix.railmedia.com.au/index.php?page=illawarra

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra 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/20160107145915/http://www.ats.org.au/index.php/component/content/article/4-projects/historical-projects/150-eastern-suburbs-railway-sydney to http://www.ats.org.au/index.php/component/content/article/4-projects/historical-projects/150-eastern-suburbs-railway-sydney

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
This featured article no longer meets the featured article criteria. There's lots of uncited text, MOS:SANDWICH issues, and the Performance and Metro proposal sections need updates. Additionally, stuff like this suggest that there are important recent events not reflected in the article. Hog Farm Bacon 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this has seemed to have died a natural death as there is now no mention of this in the official website. Adding it to the article now after nearly three years would be pure speculation. Fleet Lists (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I noticed this clicking through some links from the Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board. Looks like all the users who put this together are long gone from Wikipedia but I am from Australia and happy to help with this. I have moved the images to the left, added some further information on the metro section (to reflect a more recently announced project to improve capacity) and updated the performance data to reflect 2019-20 figures. Can you assist me with what parts in particular need more sourcing (I've read the critera that says there must be inline citations where appropriate, but I'm not sure how often the sources need to be added)? Fleet Lists is right that there has been no further word on the privatisation proposal but I am happy to add it in if that would "update" the article. Deus et lex (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Metro proposal
Section is largely about what was proposed on white papers 15-20 years that have long since been superseded. Article should focus on what did happen or has a reasonable chance of happening, not what has very little if any. Propose deleting section. Balgil (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is sourced and is relevant about proposals to expand the capacity of the line. I agree with Hog Farm above that it could have been updated but the information is still notable. Deus et lex (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Being sourced isn't the issue, if things proposed had a reasonable chance of happening, then yes they would be relevant, but a list of things that never got beyond the blue sky thinking stage is fairly pointless. Balgil (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is about proposals to expand the line. It is one proposal that was put forward, so it is relevant. Please don't remove content without discussing it first. Deus et lex (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is surprising is that the most recent Metro proposal that in conjunction with the extension of the North West Metro to Bantstown, it would be split with half the Metro trains going to Bankstown and the other half to Hurstville along the Illawarra line. This is just another proposal which has died without any official notification. But it shows how irrelevant this whole section is. I would support its deletion. I live on the Ilawawarra line so I know a bit about it.Fleet Lists (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to revise the section with discussion of the more recent Metro proposal and to change the name to proposals for expansion or something like that. The original 2005 proposal is still relevant and notable. Deus et lex (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly plural. I was thinking of doing something along the lines you mention, when I have a bit more time tomorrow, if it is decided not to delete.Fleet Lists (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made some major changes to this section which I hope gives a much clearer picture of the various proposals which have taken place - also now shows who Ron Christie was. It is still open to further improvement. Fleet Lists (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Sorry for not responding to the ping earlier, I got really busy. I'll take a look at this article now.  Maybe we can get this cleaned up and mark it as satsifactory for URFA. 17:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the new metro proposal section is a lot better. It's more comprehensive, and up-to-date, demonstrating that these proposals came to naught.  The section of Illawarra & Cronulla Lines is mostly uncited, but I think a map could be used to cite almost all of that information - at least the stuff detailing the path of the route.  Beyond that, there's only a few straggling spots with no citations, but I don't think a FAR would help this article at all, really.  I'm removing this article from Featured article review/notices given because it has been greatly improved beyond that state. Hog Farm Bacon 17:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much,, we appreciate you looking at this. Deus et lex (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Maintaining and/or improving this article's FA status
Per this discussion at WikiProject Australian Transport, @Steelkamp has kindly invited me to help cite information in this article and make sure everything is ok.

Sorry that I haven't been much help yet, I will get to this when I'm less busy in real life. Also, I'm currently involved in an ANI discussion of which I started about another user, so any free time I currently do have here is being used there (the discussion should likely be of no concern to anyone reading this). Fork99 (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)