Jump to content

Talk:Proposed Melbourne rail extensions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flinders Street to Spencer Street

[edit]

Although it's not entirely relevant to this page (as it's not a current proposal), I felt it interesting to note this article [1] from The Age mentions a 1963 proposal for a station betweeen Flinders Street Station and Spencer Street Station, at the intersection of Flinders and King streets. Cnwb 03:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


PTUA proposals

[edit]

There don't seem to be any (or many) of the generally well-researched/thought out PTUA proposals here. If there are no objections I believe these should be added, as the PTUA suggestions seem to be, at the least, considered by the public and government. The list of suggestions can be found at [2] Natronomonas 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could dispute that the PTUA researched these things well, and a number of their proposals are already in the list, but many of their proposals have been officially proposed in the past or proposed by others anyway, and I see no reason to not include any that aren't already there. Philip J. Rayment 09:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have they addressed how a Doncaster line would operate in relation to the Epping & Hurstbridge lines? The 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan included along with a Doncaster line an express juncture between Victoria Park and The Loop, allowing for direct services too and from the city and avoiding a bottleneck between Collingwood-North Richmond-West Richmond-Jolimont-Flinders St. But without it...? LamontCranston (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced changes

[edit]

Three changes were made on 02 April 2007 - these are unsourced (barring their poor spelling and style). E.g. stations on the proposed Doncaster East line. My main reference for that rail line (Melway #14) does not show stations at Chandler Hwy and Burke Road. The mini bus proposal for the City of Manningham can be sourced (Manningham Leader, 28 March 2007), but then, it is not relevant as it is a bus proposal, not rail. Thoughts? - Bricks J. Winzer 14:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

The paragraph beginning The Cranbourne East proposal has re-emerged in recent years... only cites one source from 2001. — The Storm Surfer 22:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a resident of Cranbourne, I can reassure Wiki-readers that this proposal has been talked about in many different newspaper articles and council meetings. I am sure there are other sources out there.

Also, the possible location for the Cranbourne East station is not likely to be on the corner of NW-Cranbourne and Berwick-Cranbourne roads, as this is too far from the current disused line. The most likely positioning (as debated in council planning sessions) would be (-38.11107, 145.29845), as this is council land and is currently undeveloped, and sits on the disused line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.210.244 (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1969 rail map

[edit]

I reckon we should keep the 1969 rail map image, it adds some authority to the article and is interesting regardless. So why was it removed?

Steamtostay (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was me sorry. When I included it I found it created this big wide empty space between 'Proposals' and the actual text. Where should I place it to not cause that problem? More talk of the 1969 MTP would be good too. LamontCranston (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

We need a map of all the proposed railway lines in Melbourne amongst the current network. Nick carson (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network Development Plan

[edit]

The new Network Development Plan - Metropolitan Rail [3],dated December 2012, on the PTV website lists numerous new rail extensions etc. planned for the next 20 years, for example the Clifton Hill to City rail tunnel for the South Morang line, an extension to Fisherman's Bend, the reopening of the Upfield to Somerton link, electrification to Wallan, Baxter electrification, Werribee to Wyndham Vale and electrification to Geelong, among other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.147.187 (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Proposed Melbourne rail extensions. 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:

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) 01:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Proposed Melbourne rail extensions. 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:

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) 18:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure

[edit]

I've restructured the article to have three sections: under construction, current plans, and proposals. This is closer to the structure of the proposed Melbourne tram extensions article, and I think makes more sense. It means at a glance a reader can see easily which proposals are current government policy and which ones are older or independent proposals. My metric was plans announced by the state government (which reflects the train proposal map), though happy to discuss the details. I think long-term this article needs to be restructured to be chronological (like the New York Subway extensions article and the Sydney Trains extensions article), so you can more clearly see when and where the proposals come from (e.g. having the PTV network development plan proposals all in one section). Would love to hear other editors thoughts. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracchus250: I've just realised some of your edits during the restructure were copied and pasted from other articles. This has broken dozens of refs which are now not ref tags at all but links to other articles. I would go through and fix it but since you probably recall where each came from it might be more efficient for you.
Alternatively, let me know the source and I can fix things. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I copied the same references from bits I wrote on the main Railways in Melbourne page, clearly doing that doesn't work as I thought. I'll take a look and fix them Gracchus250 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gracchus250: Good work, thank you. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SRL Cheltenham Station Rewording

[edit]

Proposed Melbourne rail extensions#Suburban Rail Loop

Hi, I've noticed an error in this article. Under the SRL section it says "The Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) would connect the existing station at Cheltenham" which also links to the Melbourne Metro Station of Cheltenham.

This is incorrect as the SRL is technically stopping next to Southland Station which you can see here.

It is unclear weather the SRL station will also be called Southland and connect directly to Southland or if it will take on the name of Cheltenham and have connections to Southland (like Flinders and Town Hall).

Is it possible to rewrite that line to the following:

"The Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) would connect to the existing station of Southland located in Cheltenham"

Thanks. Esc.Trains (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_Melbourne_rail_extensions&oldid=1209508958"