Talk:Sydney underground railways

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2015. The result of the discussion was merge to Railways in Sydney.

Trains: Rapid transit

Trains Portal

This redirect 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Australia: Sydney

	Australia portal Sydney underground railways 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

(I don't have much information on either the old goods line tunnels or the Bondi Junction line tunnels, since unlike the St. James tunnels I have never been in them.)

Well, good job anyway, mate! --Ed Poor

The article doesn't mention the two main lines from central station out through the inner west to the western suburbs. I know these are overground, so are not strictly subways as such, but they are all part of the same system. I'd have thought these should be mentioned, just as many sections of the London Underground are not in fact underground, but are still included as part of the LU system. GRAHAMUK 01:46, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC) There's a wealth of info on Sydney's trains but it's spread between this article and the CityRail article. What's the best way to go about combining it? I'm going to try and merge some of it tomorrow, see if it can be made more cohesive. --Randwicked 14:33, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The list of lines omits the Eastern Subs line. Yes, it is operationally part of Illawarra, but really needs separate discussion. Thortful 03:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should we really be including information on how to get into the "Redfern pit"? Doesn't seem appropriate, somehow.

matrix and central disused platforms

Hi,

I clearly remember reading either on the SETS (sydney electric traction society) website or "under the wires" (their magazine) that the matrix tunnel scene was actually filmed at rozelle train yards in an set made up by the production team. It couldn't have been possible to film it at the disused 25/26 since it doesnt have rail tracks and a old u boat set was used in the tunnels! 203.24.7.9 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existance?

Should this page be part of the Railways in Sydney article? And the specifics of disused tunnels in the city into City Circle? Wongm (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. The City Circle is a specific line, it is not just another name for the underground section of Sydney's railways. The underground railways page, given the plans to build metros and more underground lines in Sydney, has a specific purpose and it should be left. JRG (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged, some of the information is covered extensively in other pages, such as the tunnels around St James station.Endarrt (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - as JRG notes, there are several underground lines in existance and more being seriously planned and others have been considered and abandoned, so this is a perfectly viable stand-alone topic for an article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with the merger proposal, these 'underground lines' are just sections of rail-lines and the information could be easily covered in a sub-section on the Railways in Sydney page, or the individual lines pages. Otherwise we may as well have a Surface Railways in Sydney page as well. Quaidy (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete garbage. I've put forward several valid points why we shouldn't merge these pages. At least address the question instead of positing hypotheticals. JRG (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion, not complete garbage, thanks for your kind thoughts. This is a discussion page after all. Quaidy (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To split it up "Underground lines" to their own line pages, and a quick mention in the Railways in Sydney page. "Disused tunnels" can each go to their own stations. As a lot of the unused bits were because of the Bradfield plans, perhaps the Bradfield plans (including the pasts that were done) could be their own article, or at least a section in Railways of Sydney. Wongm (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible. Quaidy (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August 2008 User:MrHarper did the merge and then on 31 August 2008 User:JRG undid it. Doesn't the consensus here seem that it should be merged, with JRG strongly opposing, and User:Nick Dowling saying this article can stand by itself? Wongm (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would agree also with it being merged, as seems to be the consensus. Only one user seems to disagree. I note that all this info sits quite nicely as a subsection on the Railways in Sydney page.Endarrt (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also disagree with the merger. Note Nick Dowling was also not in favour. That makes at least three against; that is not consensus. INTGAFW (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But haven't you commented here before? MrHarper (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the articles should be merged, on the grounds that Sydney's underground railways are interesting in their own right, and their significance is distinct from that of the other article. The underground rail network has a significance all of it's own. Brickworkworld (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix

Yes, the Matrix was definately filmed at Rozelle. I was directly involved in arranging the site. I have deleted the reference.--Commissioner Geoff (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goods Line Tunnel at Railwau Square

I'm a bit confused. The article talks about an old Goods Line tunnel between just outside Central to Powerhouse. From what I understand, the old rail tunnel currently ends at the backside of the TAFE building 38 west of Railway Square. Though the railway did run all the way up to Powerhouse and beyond at one time, it seems even back in its history the tunnel was confined to a block or two area beneath Railway Square between TAFE on the west and the entrance just off to the east of the square. From what I can tell, between TAFE/George Street and Powerhouse, the rail either ran at grade or above grade; no part of this section of the rail spur seems to have been tunneled. Am I understanding this incorrectly, or is the article incorrect? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]