Talk:Sydney Metro

Extension Proposal
Quick questions...it mentions that at least part of the service on the extension proposal will use the Bankstown Line (T-3). Will it simply be using the physical railway/instrastructure, or will it also replace the T-3 service? This doesn't seem to be made clear in the write-up as the link goes to the Bankstown Line service page. Also, in the list of stations, you guys have where one can transfer to the other lines save for St Leonards railway station. St Leonards railway station is currently served by the North Shore Line (T-1); shouldn't it be put in parentheses that one will be able to transfer to T-1 from this new service? Finally, I take it that Pitt Street and Victoria Cross are new stations and located in the CBD? Are there any maps showing the new route and how it interacts with existing routes/services in the CBD? Sorry for all the questions; hopefully, the page can be made a bit more clear as we get more information. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * More questions about the extension proposal. Can it be made more clear whether the the service will use the existing North Shore railway line between Chatswood and the harbor or a new route?  Also, it should be made clear on this extension which stations are above ground and which are undergound, because as it's written now, there is really no clarity whether the ECRL is continued underground from Chatswood to Central, or if you'll still have to transfer at Chatswood to the above-ground North Shore railway line, and if you will have to transfer, exactly when the North Shore railway line goes subterranean on its way to Central. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Rapid transit in Sydney → Sydney Metro – 'Sydney Metro' seems to be the official name for the rapid transit system as of today. See the media release, official site and news article. Strata8 (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. See also this post on the "sydney transit" blog describing the change. Wittylama 12:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Previous redirects from Sydney Metro Authority have now been corrected. Coult61 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Khestwol (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppport per nomination. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support ca-ching Red Slash 07:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nominated. Perhaps the various abandoned projects could also be consolidated into a History of the Sydney Metro article? David Arthur (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 8 June 2015‎
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Structure of Sydney Metro articles (after the metro opens)
The ECRL is soon to close, meaning we should clarify how we intend to structure out metro coverage going forward. Here's what I think we should do:


 * Epping to Chatswood railway line: This article covers the construction of this line and its operation from 2009 to 2018, thereafter it becomes part of the Sydney Metro Northwest.
 * Sydney Metro Northwest and Sydney Metro City & Southwest: These articles cover the planning and construction of these projects, but not their operation. This is because the Northwest article is rather long and complex (admittedly it needs cleaning up) and because the two projects will be operated as one line, making the distinction between them academic come 2024. These would be similar to the 7 Subway Extension and Northern line extension to Battersea articles.
 * Metro Line 1: A placeholder title for a new article that would cover the operation of the line from Tallawong through to Bankstown. Splitting the operation of one line across two articles is irritating and confusing for readers, and non-standard.

In other words, the first three articles become "frozen" as their subjects shut down or are completed. Metro Line 1 becomes the "active" article, covering any notable changes and occurrences that take place after the line opens. This article (Sydney Metro) provides a summary covering the system as a whole - i.e. Tallawong-Bankstown, Sydney CBD-Westmead and (assuming it is delivered as a metro) St Marys-Western Sydney Airport. - Gareth (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible. There is too much drama associated with the two metro projects to merge them into the operational line. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, let us proceed on that basis. Also keep in mind that after last Saturday's result in Wagga there is no guarantee that the current government will be returned next March and Labor has stated that they will not proceed with the Bankstown line conversion.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that Sydney Metro is opening, we know the new line will be officially known as Metro North West Line (for now, until the extension to City and Bankstown is completed). I suggest a new Metro North West Line page be created, i.e. same as the Metro Line 1 page that was suggested, where all information about operation of the line should go into the page, for example, North West Night Bus, change in frequencies etc. This is similar to having a North Shore railway line page for the infrastructure, and North Shore & Western Line for the operation. So to add on to the above dot points suggested by Gareth: What do you guys think? 23:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sydney Metro (this article): This article should be just about the system as a whole, with minimal information about the operation or the construction of each metro project.
 * Metro North West Line: A new article that would cover the operation of the line from Tallawong to Chatswood. The article may be renamed in 2024 when the operations are extended to Bankstown.
 * Good idea if you'd be willing to prepare the pages for Metro South West Line, and the ones for the new line that would be heading west to Parramatta, and the North/South line to the new Western Sydney Airport --Metrobjects (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably would not prepare Metro South West Line as it will be years before we find out how operations will work in the south west portion (name, number etc). Same for West and North/South, which are not confirmed. I have created the Metro North West Line and have migrated most operation information to the new page. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I find the current system of having two parallel articles to be confusing and non-standard. I understand the precedent for rail lines, where service patterns often differ from physical infrastructure, but this is not the case for metros and virtually ever other metro article in Wikipedia has a single article covering both. I have thus suggested merging them back together. Jpatokal (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Two good comparisons are the articles for the Carlingford railway line and the Olympic Park railway line. Both articles cover both the physical line itself and the service along it, as those services operate exclusively on that line and they are therefore one and the same. trainsandtech (talk)
 * The consensus appears to be to merge. As it is now 2 months without any further reply, should we proceed on that basis? Fleet Lists (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While it makes sense for the pages to merge, I personally don't like the idea because the merged page will be disproportionate, mostly about the project and a very small section about the metro service. 06:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I share some of those sentiments so perhaps we should closes this off, not taking any action.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Difficult sentence in lede
The following sentence is tricky to read:

"It has been announced that Jon Lamonte will be the Chief Executive of Sydney Metro,[6] which will be part of Transport for NSW's Opal ticketing system."

It reads like: "Jon Lamonte will be [...], which will be part of Transport for NSW's Opal ticketing system." I understand it is saying Sydney Metro will be part of the Opal ticketing system. I don't have any suggestion but think it can be written better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.162.10 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reworded it to make it more clear. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The first
This article repeatedly emphasises the claim that the latest metro proposal is also the first. This elides over the 1800s Sydney Tram Network and the 1980s Metro Transport Sydney monorail. Calling the latest metro proposal the first seems untrue, contentious and unnecessary. Why not just write that it was raised in 2001 though the legacy of other metro networks predated it? It doesn't need to be the first to be cool. 49.195.106.204 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The tram is a tram/light rail and a monorail is a monorail. They are not metro systems despite the name in Metro Monorail, just other modes of transportation. Look at the pictures in List of metro systems and see how the tram and monorail do not fit into the "metro" category. General understanding of metro is an electrified rapid transit system with segregation from road and pedestrian traffic. Marcnut1996 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Station article naming format
Apologies if this has already come up (I didn't find it), but I was wondering if the current format of "X railway station" came around by consensus, or as a left-over of the naming format for main-line railway lines. Normally metro systems don't use the same name format as main-line services do for that region. Other metro systems follow a plethora of formats:


 * Natural disambiguation
 * London Underground: "X tube station", unless it is a joint station, then neutral "X station" (so not to be a railway or tube station) – Bayswater tube station, Westminster tube station, Waterloo station, Greenford station
 * Forced bracketed disambiguation
 * NYC Subway: "X (line)" or "X (New York City Subway)" depending on the number of lines – Lexington Avenue/59th Street (New York City Subway), Pelham Bay Park (IRT Pelham Line)
 * also Berlin, ...
 * Disambiguation where necessary
 * Hong Kong MTR: "X station", occasionally followed by "(MTR)" for disambiguation – Central station (MTR), Sheung Wan station
 * Paris Metro: "X", occasionally followed by "(Paris Metro)" for disambiguation – Charles_de_Gaulle–Étoile, [[George V (Paris Métro)]

I'm not trying to force a change, and may be going over already sorted out somewhere I'm not aware of, but just wanted to raise the question to settle the issue if it hasn't come up yet. As this is the first rapid transit system in Australia by any traditional definition, it would seem wise to settle the issue now to create a consensus for any future developments in Sydney or elsewhere. Shadowssettle(talk) 13:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Covered in Naming_conventions_(Australian_and_New_Zealand_stations) but it appears that the new stations were allocated names before this was drawn up. Chatswood station which is given as an example is interesting as it redirects to Chatswood railway station Fleet Lists (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * While the argument can be made that the stations are metro not railway stations, reality is they are served by trains and thus are railway stations. The existing Central railway station, Sydney format is fine. See no real benefit in embarking on a wholesale renaming of articles to fix something that isn't broken just because it has been in another geographical region. Balgil (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have amended Naming_conventions_(Australian_and_New_Zealand_stations) to specifically include Sydney Metro under heavy rail.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The format originated when the North West Rail Link was going to be part of the old mainline network, as seen here. It seems that nobody bothered to change it when the project was changed to a metro. So not exactly a great reason to maintain this non-standard (unique on English Wikipedia?), and thus confusing, format. Now some user has created two new articles that use the format "X metro station", presumably because there are already non-metro stations with the same or similar names. And so the format has already broken down. As for Balgil's point, the network is so small, any change hardly qualifies as "wholesale renaming". 5910 C (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)