Talk:List of Sydney railway stations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.

Portal	List of Sydney railway stations 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.
List	This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.

Does the number of 301 include the intercity or greater metropolitan stations? I assume it does. It would be nice to have a number for just the suburban stations, as if it is still high enough, it could be added to the list of world's largest networks by station number on List of metro systems. (The justification being that only metro station counts can go on that list by definition). Hypernovean 14:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

168 in what CityRail defines as the 'Sydney Suburban Area', 133 in outer suburban areas (2 of those are closed). Doesn't quite make it into the 'Top 10 rail systems in terms of number of stations' list if counting by suburban stations alone; but would be #3 if counting the entire CityRail network. (Unsure if CityRail qualifies for that list anyway, as it's not a Metro - does that page only cover Metros?) -Spiky Sharkie 12:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"World's biggest city by area" - does anyone have proof of this? I'll gladly put it back if there is. Hypernovean 14:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble finding out where Sydney ends, as such - where to go from BlahBlah station, Sydney, to BlahBlah station, New South Wales. It's not so hard with the eastern lines, which are somewhat self-evident, but I'm quite confused with some of the the southern lines. Anyone able to help? Ambivalenthysteria 14:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are the intercity lines electrified? I would say that only electric stations should be counted as suburban, and the intercity as greater metropolitan, along the lines of Melbourne's setup. If they are electrified though, it doesn't help. Hypernovean 14:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

They're mostly electrified. The electrification does stop before the end of some lines; but it's not like Melbourne, where it's one line to the end of the electrified system, and then a greater metropolitan line. That's what makes things messy. Ambivalenthysteria 13:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Although probably moot now that most (if not all) station lists have the correct Sydney/NSW designation, CityRail distinguishes between their Sydney suburban network - bounded by Macarthur, Emu Plains, Berowra, and Waterfall - and their outer suburban network. This should guide you as to whether a station should be listed under Sydney or New South Wales. (Unfortunately CityRail only offer a map covering the entire network on their web site, but only the suburban network is shown on posters in most trains - although some now have entire-network maps - and in suburban line timetable booklets.) -Spiky Sharkie 12:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 banners 1.1 banner source 2 "Mt" vs "Mount" in station names 2.1 Olympic Park 3 Pictures 4 LU comparrission 5 Static pixel sizes 5.1 A

[edit] banners

Should the coloured bars be left out altogether? I think, considering that Sydney's train lines have specific colours, as opposed to a lot of the other Australian networks, they are useful to have. TPK 23:52, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to use the coloured bars, then IMHO, they need to be linked themselves (so we don't have two headings saying exactly the same thing), and we also need a map of the network - otherwise having the colours there is pointless. Ambivalenthysteria 00:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i think they are useful. a solution to avoid having the duplication of titles (which is a valid point) and headings here would be to use them on the individual line pages, see what I have done with: North Shore Line, Sydney. i have copied all banners from the main page below so they aren't forgotten and can be copied to the individual pages as they are created clarkk 00:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's better, but it's still redundant. It's obvious that it's that line from the title, and it's even more redundant due to the Template box with lines having the line colour marked next to it. Ambivalenthysteria 00:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

but the links in the template box don't have the arial font which is the distinctive part of the signage, and the original heading "List of stations of North Shore Line" is somewhat redundant anyway, so i think it's no worse than it was before. clarkk 00:14, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you want to replicate the signage, why not go take a photo of one of the signs? (as the London Metro article has done), rather than trying to replicate them with HTML tags. Ambivalenthysteria 00:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The signage being described has been deprecated since about 2000 (in favour of signage in CityRail corporate colours of navy/gold/white). I would think that the Lines of Sydney CityRail sidebox is enough of an indication of line colours. -Spiky Sharkie 12:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] banner source

banners below so they aren't forgotten.

East Hills and Airport Line

South Line

Bankstown Line

Inner West Line

Illawarra Line

North Shore Line

Western Line

Northern Line

Cumberland Line

Olympic Park Line

Southern Highlands Line

Blue Mountains Line

Hunter Valley

[edit] "Mt" vs "Mount" in station names

I recently moved the page for Mount Kuring-gai station to correct the spelling of the station name to CityRail's naming convention (particularly 'Kuring-gai'; which is now correctly spelt with only one hyphen, as opposed to 'Ku-ring-gai'). However I also expanded the word 'Mount', also as per current CityRail conventions.

The reason I bring the latter up is that there's some disagreement among the station/line lists as to which form of 'Mount' should be used - this article uses 'Mount Druitt' but the Western Line article uses 'Mt Druitt', for example. (The article is currently at 'Mt Druitt', leading to a broken link at this article.) This article also uses 'Mt Colah' and 'Mt Ku-ring-gai' [sic] under the North Shore heading but 'Mount' for the Northern line. (Whether they should be under Northern Line at all is debatable as it now only officially extends to Hornsby, but I digress.)

I'm not exactly aware of any Wikipedia naming convention for this, but I would like to suggest that we follow CityRail's naming convention of spelling out 'Mount' in full for the other 'Mt' station articles (Mt Druitt and Mt Colah). -Spiky Sharkie 12:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (apologies for the lack of pithiness of this comment! :-)

[edit] Olympic Park

Currently says "Special Events Only" This is not correct as the Olympic Park Sprint (and limited services from Central) run every day of the year. Olympic Park station caters not only for visitors to the Olympic Park precinct but also for the residents of Newington and workers in Homebush Bay.

[edit] Pictures

Is there a list of those stations that still need a picture ? --Marc pasquin 01:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just look at any of these and see if they don't - if there's been one taken it should have a picture uploaded and on the page. Any picture for any station would be good. Make sure it adequately depicts the station correctly. (JROBBO 13:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

Just to be sure, what do you mean by "adequately depicts the station correctly" ? do you mean specific local landmark and such or do you mean it should include as much as possible ? --Marc pasquin 02:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just butting in here... I had the opportunity to provide photos for all the Melbourne railway station articles, and in most cases I tried to find a shot that would give a good idea of what the station building(s) looked like from a reasonable distance, usually from either the station platform or from a pedestrian overpass. In some articles I also added a photo of the station's main entrance, particularly if the building design was unique and interesting. Moreland railway station, Melbourne is probably a good example. --ozzmosis 06:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marc - ozzmosis has the right idea. Just something that captures the platforms in the best way it can. A shot of the street level is ideal too, but not completely necessary. Thanks for your offers anyway. (JROBBO 14:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

- and it would be nice to get photos of special features (like wrought iron work at Stanmore for example). --Mike 09:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• All stations on the Cronulla Branch line will have pictures by tomorrow, if not then Thursday. - Vicer 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you get a better picture of Caringbah railway station? It looks like it was taken from a moving train that didn't stop there... The colours on the camera are pretty bad too - I'm not blaming you, but WP does have pretty high standards for photographic inclusions. A photo of the quality more like your Cronulla shots would be more appropriate for Wikipedia. Have a look at stations in Sydney Train stations in Sydney for the sort of photos that Wikipedia has for its railway stations here. (JROBBO 13:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] LU comparrission

Why the comparison with London Underground ???

"In contrast, the London Underground has a total distance of only 408km, and has 275 stations"

A brief look at the Sydney system and the tube shows your not comparing the same thing, surely you would have to add the tube and other stuff in London (DLR, tramlink, etc) to the extensive commuter rail network (that is hard to define in places, with the added confusion of parts having metro frequency so are in effect "tube" lines) to get a number .... 81.79.147.5 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Static pixel sizes

I note that my removal of static pixel sizes has been reverted, so I'm back to seeing miniscule photos with about 45mm of blank space between them and the table. Not a good look in my opinion.

I'm assuming that someone is trying to tune this to the specific combination of browser and screen resolution that they are running. That is not the correct way of doing it, since obviously not everybody is running that same combination. Some people may be running lower resolution, some may be running higher. I choose to run a thumbnail size of 300px in my preferences, and would go bigger if the option existed. I don't believe that deliberately forcibly shrinking the images to about half that size is appropriate, and apparently neither did the editors who wrote this in WP:XIMG:

From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences).

Note that, in the case of a non-logged-in person looking at this page, they'll default to an image size of 180px, which will give comparable results to the static size that has been imposed on these images. In general, the higher your screen resolution, the higher you'll set your preference. The images will only usually cause a problem if you have your preference disproportionately large for your screen resolution. --Athol Mullen 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Athol - I did put a comment as to why I undid your edit - you can discuss these things with me, you know. I am not just "someone". I have tried the page on several different computers, and without the set pixel size there are problems with the images overlapping the table. This has been done elsewhere where a specific size was set for the picture so as to fit it in with the table properly. Without the pixel size limitation, there seems to be a consistent problem with overlap. If I could set the pictures to take up a specific percentage of the page (as opposed to a fixed width), that might solve the problem. JRG 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was about midnight, I wasn't in a good mood and I didn't actually notice who had done the reversion. Okay, I've just done some experimenting. I tried this on 3 different computers here including an ancient win98 box and all had a wide band of space between the text boxes and the image frames when the browser was full screen. It appears that, even with the current image size, this wikimedia rendering bug still occurs at horizontal resolutions less than about 900px, in firefox at least. That suggests to me, as I originally noted, that you are tuning for a specific combination of browser and screen resolution (WP:MOS says somewhere not to do that) and that for smaller browser windows, the rendering will still be screwed up even at the current pixel size. I'm totally exhausted right now and not really up to trying to find a better solution except to suggest putting the images either left or centred at the top of each section, rather than alongside. That way, you avoid the rendering bug and can avoid having static pixel sizes. For example:

[edit] A

Station	Line(s)	Distance from Central Station (km)	Date opened	Previous name(s)
Aberdeen	■Hunter (Scone Branch)	300.730	20 October 1870
Adamstown	■Newcastle & Central Coast	161.120	15 August 1887
Albion Park	■South Coast	103.340	9 November 1887	Oak Flats (1887-1888)
Allawah	■Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra	13.690	25 October 1925
Arncliffe	■Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra	8.420	15 October 1884
Artarmon	■North Shore	10.300	6 July 1898 (original site), 7 October 1900 (present site)
Ashfield	■South ■Inner West	8.380	26 September 1855
Asquith	■North Shore	35.690	1 November 1915
Auburn	■South ■Western	18.630	18 February 1877
Austinmer	■South Coast	68.590	1 September 1887
Awaba	■Newcastle & Central Coast	137.310	15 August 1887

This works correctly all the way down to about 800px frame width, at which the table gains a horizontal scrollbar. --Athol Mullen 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Athol. Apology accepted. Your suggestion is ok - as long as the pictures are on the left, and not centred. I notice List of London Underground stations, a Featured Article has done this and it looks acceptable; so I'd be happy to change it, except that will mean the tables all need to be changed so that they don't only cover 75% of the page as they do now. My ideal would be a photo of every station, but it will take me years to get every station in the network, despite the efforts of people like J Bar, yourself, myself and others who have given us lots of photos (it would also make the page way too big). So I think that's a good solution for the page as we have it now. Feel free to go ahead and change things. JRG 12:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Had to make the image position "none", not "left". Otherwise, the tables were to the right of the images. :-) --Athol Mullen 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)