Talk:Mandurah line

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

"Canning Bridge" or "Canning"[edit]

seems the name inside the trains maybe mistyped with the word [Bridge]. the word [Canning] may be refer to Canning River, Canning Highway or City of Canning, and Canning Bridge may refer to the particular place. And the train diagram at Transperth InfoCentre in Perth Train Station has shown that it's Canning Bridge, not Canning. Also see here for the Train diagram for details (as at 3/5/2005), and the NewMetrorail description page is shown here. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 16:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canning[edit]

It seems that the newest ones in the trains say that the station is "Canning" Trisreed 06:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just have a check, the term "Canning" has been used in A-set trains, but "Canning Bridge" is used in B-set trains. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 13:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The name "Canning Bridge" is used on the B-series. I think the A-series now has a mix of "Canning" (these also say that the line is opening in 2007) and "Canning Bridge" (these just show the line as a normal line). Brian Jason Drake 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Perth Station[edit]

I have found a source([http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=333898&page=59] the link is about halfway down the page) stating that a station will be built on the Mandurah railway line at Richardson Street South Perth in 2010. Should this info be added to the article. Hossen27 07:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because forums aren't reliable sources, usually. Auroranorth 13:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is a question and answer from Parliament good enough, (see here) Hossen27 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the context that it is given. i.e. We do not announce without an announcement that there will be a station, but we can say that members of the Government have said in Parliament that it has been planned. As a complete aside, wonder when we'll get an RS on the Airport/Forrestfield line... Orderinchaos 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can also be noted that South Perth was considered as an option in the Supplementary Master Plan, and that space has been left in the freeway for a station to be constructed. As for the Airport line, mid-2008 is when planning will start, for a 2020 implementation date. PTA WA forums, including posts by someone who works for the PTA. Dunno whether that makes it RS, but still useful to know. Note: you might need to register to view that link. TRS-80 14:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the lead design engineer for the Package E roadworks - the decision to leave space for the South Perth station was taken (at a high level) during the period of the Package E design & construct contract. The design was actually changed to accommodate it. Paul Fisher 00:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review 1[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Auroranorth 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error on map[edit]

The strip map shows the railway passing under Kwinana Freeway, then over Riverside Drive. This is incorrect - the railway passes under Riverside Drive (actually part of the freeway ramp) then under one carriageway of Mitchell (not Kwinana) Freeway. Can somebody who knows how please make the correction? Paul Fisher 07:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it passes under Riverside Drive - Mitchell Freeway (North) it is still considered in the tunnel, I believe the tunnel ends while it is between the bus lanes. I have changed the Kwinana Freeway entry to Mitchell Freeway. The rail line then crosses over Riverside Drive towards Mounts Bay Rd. 리지강.wa.au (의논하다|기여) 09:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was thinking of the Riverside Drive - Mitchell Freeway ramps. You're talking about the Narrows Bridge (where the under-road is still Riverside Drive). I have just amended the map, so I'll undo that edit. Paul Fisher 10:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the same vein, then, Mill Point Road is under the Narrows Bridge, but the Judd Street overpass is missing. I'll add that in. Paul Fisher 10:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judd Street overpass? While the overpass runs next to Judd Street, it seems to be a continuation of Mill Point Road and doesn't connect to Judd Street at all, so why label it Judd Street? I have changed it to Mill Point Road. Brian Jason Drake 08:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite as it appears. Mill Point Road actually turns at the intersection with Labouchere & Judd Street, and runs up to Mill Point (where it passes under the Narrows Bridge). The whole reserve between the intersection and the Freeway is Judd Street - what the map shows as Judd Street is a service road. I'm pretty sure Main Roads (who own & operate the bridge) refer to it as the Judd Street overpass. Therefore I think the edit you made to the map should be undone. Paul Fisher (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the Main Roads list of ramps & rotaries [[1]]. It seems you are right - MRWA do refer to this ramp as Mill Point Road on-ramp northbound. Paul Fisher (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who's responsible for this, but when you're on the train travelling north, you can see a little sign next to the track that says "Judd Street" just before that bridge (not sure about the southbound track). Brian Jason Drake 01:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you're on the train travelling north, when you get to the freeway bridge, you can see a sign in the centre of the bridge. I think it says "Kwinana Freeway" on it. I haven't checked the Main Roads list (interpreting it correctly seems to be a nontrivial task). Brian Jason Drake 01:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's marked as the Hillman depot is where the construction started, but there's no infrastructure there any more. TRS-80 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the exact location of the depot? I believe it was just before Mandurah station? 리지강.wa.au talk 14:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's immediately north of the mandurah station, adjacent to the bus depot. Paul Fisher (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a link to a nonexistant article on this depot, with no reference. There's a comment above that "there's no infrastructure there any more," but I'm not sure exactly what this means (there are certainly trains there, so presumably there's at least enough infrastructure for trains to travel along those tracks). I've added {{Fact}} to that sentence. Brian Jason Drake 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was referring to the track diagram, which used to show (incorrectly) a train depot at the former construction depot in Hillman, which is some distance before Rockingham. There is a depot at Mandurah station, although it's not a full service depot, it's just for cleaning and overnight storage. TRS-80 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interurban - reverts[edit]

Interurban line is the correct term for the line as Mandurah isnt part of the metropolitan area of Perth. Gnangarra 03:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but to refer to it so prominently as ‘Perth’s only interurban railway line’ implies that there is something dramatically different about it in terms of infrastructure, service patterns, or fares, none of which is the case. If the distinction is an important one, I’d suggest expressing it as you have here, saying simply that the line is Transperth’s only railway to run beyond the Perth metropolitan area. David Arthur (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DavidArthur's comments. The effect of the current phrasing is to put a lot of emphasis on 'interurban' as a feature of the line, and leaves the reader wondering what exactly is meant, and why this line is so different to the others (which it's not). I'm not even sure it is even technically accurate, as the Prospector and Australind services could be described as 'interurban' too. SDavies (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the AvonLink. - Mark 04:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be interurban. Although it extends beyond the Perth metro area from a planning law perspective this is not really determinative. During planning and construction this has been called the "Southern Suburbs Railway" and "South West Metropolitan Railway", referring to travel within an urban area. Interurban lines do not have 15 minute all-day frequencies. The line is entirely integrated with the rest of the suburban network. --Chewy m (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the integration with the rest of the network or the term "suburbs" relevant? Just because there are suburbs in Mandurah doesn't mean that it is in the Perth metropolitan area. I hadn't heard the name "South West Metropolitan Railway" before, but it seems that it was used "officialy" (http://www.google.com/search?q=site:pta.wa.gov.au+"South+West+Metropolitan+Railway"). Just because people used these names doesn't make them right anyway, although I can't find any evidence that the term "interurban" is correct either (Interurban points to Inter-city rail, which has the word "express" and a contrast to the vague "commuter train" in its definition). Brian Jason Drake 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority of the stations on the line are within the Perth metro region. To call it an 'interurban' line misrepresents it. The term 'interurban' is usually used to refer to lines such as the Eurostar, which directly connects London and Paris. The Perth-Mandurah line is very much a suburban line in nature (eg. it stops at lots of places along the way), and the fact that the very last station happens to be just outside the (semi)official boundaries of the metro region doesn't alter that fact. In any case, I'd argue that Mandurah is- functionally if not officially- very much a part of Perth.

Map - Thornlie Spur connection[edit]

The Thornlie spur connection is incorrectly shown on the map, but I don't know how to fix it. The two spur tracks depart the main line from the centre (north-bound) with the tunnel passing under the southbound mainline and southbound freeway carriageway. The tunnel does not pass under the Forrestfield freight line. (And of course this end of the Thornlie spur does not actually exist). Could somebody have a look at these corrections please. Could somebody also point me to a reference for this type of map? Thanks Paul Fisher (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of the pictograms for the route diagram; once you have this, the syntax shouldn’t be too hard to work out. David Arthur (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disused stopping patterns[edit]

Is this notable enough to remain on the page? Adondai (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related question: What does “deprecated” mean in this context? A citation would help answer both questions. Brianjd (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Importance ratings[edit]

I don’t understand how this topic can be low importance in Australia, high importance in Western Australia and back to low importance in Perth. Has this been discussed anywhere? Brianjd (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joondalup railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joondalup railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandurah_line&oldid=1203869449"