Jump to content

Talk:City Loop

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

untitled

[edit]

Should this page be moved to City Loop? It's already a redirect to here. Hypernovean 12:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's good as it is. City Loop is a general term; it should really be a disambig, but no one's created the related pages yet. Ambivalenthysteria 13:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've now decided that the ", Melbourne" suffix (or any place name really) on this page and all the others that have it is too useful to cull. Hypernovean 06:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Power outage

[edit]

I recall in the news some years ago a power outage in the Loop caused train passengers to be stranded in darkness for considerable time (an hour or more?), and/or having to walk along the train line in the darkness to the nearest station. There were reports of train drivers not having any torches to assist passengers in such an event. I don't think this should be listed in the article, but maybe a bit of interesting trivia nonetheless. Perhaps someone has some more info on this. ozzmosis 18:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photography ban

[edit]

"The reason for the ban was due to the use of mobile telephones to take pictures of (mostly female) passengers - usually for sexual purposes." - I'm wondering how one could take a photo "for sexual purposes" on a railway platform. And if that indeed was the reason, why has photography only been banned at the three underground stations? Are perverts more prolific when they're underground? invincible 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't make much sense to me either. I've removed the offending sentence. Maybe someone can put it back when it is verifiable. --ozzmosis 19:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'For sexual purposes' doesn't make sense either. People aren't going to stand on the concourse looking down womens tops on the escalators withe their cameras. Maybe the open air stairs are more likely but wasn't the photography ban for security reasons so people that would want to 'you know' to our underground tunnels can't without being told by Connex 'Sorry sir, you can't take pictures here' I agree with the confusing aspect of this. Lakeyboy 04:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failure

[edit]

I know people writing to the press like to repeat that Melbourne's PT network is a failure, but this edit isn't exactly neutral. I mean, most people would agree that we're better off with the City Loop and reduction in service levels are probably more likely to be caused by increased car ownership than improved infrastructure. What does the City Loop have to do with V/Line services anyway? There's also a subtle edit changing the reason for the failure to expand the loop from a lack of demand to a reference to government attitudes - while that might be right today, policies and governments do change, especially in the 20-30 years that the section mentions. Since I'm meant to be writing a report that's due tomorrow, I'll leave it to someone else to fix the article up. invincible 13:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section because it consisted mainly of unencyclopedic criticism. The few facts mentioned may have a place somewhere else in the article (number of travellers, or trains through the city loop per day). Someone may want to reinsert those if they think it is really worthwhile. --ozzmosis 16:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of construction

[edit]

How much did this cost to build? Josh Parris#: 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City Loop Line Guide

[edit]

Hi all. I've started working on a line guide for the city loop in my user area/sandbox, whatever you want to call it. I've seen a few of this style of line guide around the place and thought I'd whip one up and put it up for review. Let know what you think. If there are no serious objections within a couple of weeks or so I might put it in the article. Although I must admit the exising diagram looks pretty good. -- Rick69p 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Reception underground

[edit]

I think it might be worthwhile stating that there is now a AM/FM radio re-broadcast system was installed in the cityloop to override normal AM/FM transmission in the event of an emergency

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/security-boost-on-city-loop/story-e6frf7kx-1111112387300 http://www.safeguardingaustralia.org.au/index.php?view=print&getp=284 http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/CA25713E0002EF43/WebObj/PEBUAppA/$File/PEBUAppA.pdf http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/CA256D800027B102/Lookup/protectingourcoummunitynewinitiativestocombatterriorism/$file/Protecting%20our%20Community%20New%20Initiatives%20to%20Combat%20Terrorism.pdf

I can't seem to find any articles confirming the installation of the re-broadcast system and the date. The only article I found was the Herald Sun article talking about the planned installation, and a whole bunch of government articles showing the system in the budget. I can however confirm that there is actual FM reception underground for the major FM stations only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerox (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel Portals

[edit]

Can it be explained, perhaps in a "Description" section, where each of the tunnel portals are located on the loop? I mean, if you look hard enough at Bing or Google aerials, you can make them out, but perhaps it'd be nice if we could get a detailed description of where the underground tracks meet with the surface tracks. It appears that you can make out two tunnels in Jolimont Yard, one just east of Federation Square and one to the southeast near where Brunton meets Jolimont Road. The northwestern tunnels look to open just north of Southern Cross and then just south of North Melbourne. Someone with more knowledge could describe it better. I'm also confused as to what constitues "groups" as described on the page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are wikilinks, but the 'groups' are groupings of lines for operational reasons. All trains operating through North Melbourne Station are in Northern Group; through Jolimont Station are Jolimont Group; through Burnley Station are Burnley Group; and through South Yarra Station are Caulfield Group. For the rest, look at Vicsig when it comes back up, they have lineguides that show how the system is connected. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What of the portals to the tunnels? Does anyone think it might be interesting to place a description of where they are, or maybe when someone gets time to make a map? It's my understanding that while there are four individual tunnels, some of the tunnels share portals. A little bit of detail might not hurt, as the current descriptions of the routes can get confusing. First, you have lines, and then you have groups of lines, then you have the four tunnels, and then they have different portals. It'd be awesome to see someone make a diagram with arrows showing which directions the lines go and such. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The tunnels have dedicated portals, some of them have multiple portals, but each tunnel is descrete without connections to the others. No harm in a map, but if you wanted it at track level it could get complicated. This might help explain it: [1]. ColonialGrid (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, as it does show the direction of travel through-out the day. I'm still interested to see if someone could find or make a diagram of where the portals are for each of the tunnels. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This map shows the general layout, but isn't labelled. Google maps pin drops:
You may also find this thread interesting. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City Loop. 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) 10:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City Loop. 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) 08:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rework Progress so far

[edit]

Current Progress

  • Rewrite History- No yet
  • Future -Not started yet
  • Service Patterns- Clifton Hill, Dandenong and Burnley still need grammar checking & Nothern Group not started yet
  • Infrastructure not started yet

Planned road map

1.Finish seperating service patterns to their respective groups

2.Seperate Future expansion into sections

3.Write Infrastructure section

4.Rewrite History section

5.Rewrite Lead section

6.Grammar checking and fixing

7.GA-Submission NotOrrio (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to note

[edit]
  • I will be going out for a bit tommorrow so I should be able to take plenty of photos for this article
  • I suggest that you dont edit this article feel free to suggestions in the talk page which I may take action opon, the exception to this is fixing grammar and punctuation on sections ive put a clean up tag on

NotOrrio (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direction of travel table

[edit]

I think the summary table should be returned to "Services and direction of travel"

Platform number 1 2 3 4
Lines Clifton Hill group
 Hurstbridge  &  Mernda  lines 		Caulfield group
 Cranbourne  &  Pakenham  lines 		Northern group
 Craigieburn ,  Sunbury  &  Upfield  lines 		Burnley group
 Alamein ,  Belgrave ,  Glen Waverley  &  Lilydale  lines
Weekday mornings Clockwise Anti-clockwise Clockwise Anti-clockwise
Weekday afternoons Anti-clockwise Clockwise
Weekends Clockwise
Notes In 2025, Cranbourne & Pakenham services will cease operation in the City Loop In 2025, Sunbury services will cease operation in the City Loop Alamein only during weekday peak

It makes it clear and easy to see how services run through the loop. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could even be made as a template so it can also be included on the Flagstaff, Melbourne Central & Parliament pages ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect classification

[edit]

I've gone ahead and removed references of the city loop being a rail service, when in fact it is a piece of commuter rail infrastructure. A good example of an article that is correct is Sydneys City Circle. I've mentioned this to NotOrrio before but it was not acted upon so I've gone ahead and made these changes. HoHo3143 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also remove the "elevated" part of the first sentence? The definition of the City Loop seems to be Parliament, Melbourne Central and Flagstaff, the tunnels and their portals, whereas the Viaduct and Southern Cross/Flinders are not technically part of the loop. So what's the elevated component? There isn't even much ground level components, maybe it should just be underground. Gracchus250 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The map that has been placed in the infobox indicates that the above ground track is included (elevated and ground level). The map would need to be changed if the article was to only discuss the underground tunnelled section. HoHo3143 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed a while ago (not by me, but others) and the article lede and sections were amended to only reflect the underground section/stations as "the City Loop". If you read the lede, it does explain this, that the loop is the top three and they form a ring around with CBD with FSS and SXS and the viaduct. So it does already reflect this. This is how the government refers to it, and it reflects the original MURL project scope. See for example the way Metro phrases station announcements, or the recent works, where PTV said "The City Loop will be closed" and they meant just the tunnels and three stations. The map doesn't need to be amended, it can show more than what the article specifically refers to. If it's an issue it can explain it in a note, but the article text makes it clear in my opinion. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's a good point. Thanks for explaining it. I've gone and remove the above and on ground reference from the lead section. Are you able to add a note to the route map explaining how the map also includes parts that aren't apart of the city loop? HoHo3143 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to only keep the underground section, I would suggest changing the page name to something like Melbourne Underground Stations, and then making a new page dealing with the actual Loop Line (1981-1993). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tunnels and three stations are officially called the City Loop by the government and PTV/Metro, so that should remain the title. The article has always been primarily about the infrastructure, but it is fine for it to also detail the services that use the tunnels. The loop line you're referring to was actually not called the City Loop, the service was (slightly confusingly) called the City Circle, for more see this interesting blog post, which explains it. In my opinion I don't think the service justifies its own article, but it could be more prominently mentioned in the History section. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of that, but the use of City Circle would cause too much confusion between the Melbourne tram route and the Sydney line. I also agree that it is probably not important enough for a separate article, and was hoping to make a case for it to remain part of this article. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should definitely remain in this article, probably with expanded discussion in the History section, it could probably have its own sub-heading if there's enough sources to fill it out. On the naming, Wikipedia just has to use whatever names are used in the real world, even if they are confusing. Gracchus250 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting blog... I noticed one picture of PTV/Metro referring to it as a City Loop service [City Loop on PID]. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I can do that and I will also take a look through the rest of the article to make sure it refers to the City Loop consistently. Gracchus250 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HoHo3143 I've just noticed that the map still says 'Spencer Street', so i will need to update the map. I can do that, or we could just move the routemap up to the infobox, as it contains more information anyway? Gracchus250 (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gracchus250 maybe move the infobox into the route map. Easier than changing the diagram and also has more information. Also suggestion for the interactive map and Melbourne rail map that you have created- could you please add the pakenham east line extension to both of those maps (and probably the individual pakenham line map) HoHo3143 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with using the BSicon route map. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no worries. I will take a look at the interactive maps, they use Open Street Map data as their input rather than manually adjusted data, so it depends on when and how Open Street Map is updated. Pakenham East probably won't get inputted until specific geographical details are known, and/or it's under construction. But I did notice that SRL East has been added, so it should be possible to make a map of that already, I will check on the Airport link too as that's technically under construction. Gracchus250 (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If needed you can find location information of the new station on the big build website. HoHo3143 (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the following on Template talk:Victorian railway lines:
As mentioned in City Loop#Clifton Hill Group, the Clifton tunnel used to offer a Loop service. This would make the City Loop it's own line (Flinders St to Flinders St via the loop). While @HoHo3143 is correct in saying the current "city loop isn't a service instead it is a piece of commuter rail infrastructure", making it a former one, but as it is still in operation, it is also not a former line. I have moved it into a 3rd group.
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the planned changes to both the Cranbourne & Pakenham services in 2025, this would leave platform 2 of the underground section empty. While it hasn't been mentioned yet any plans for the future of platform 2/Caulfield tunnel, and it too far into the future to be able to exactly say what will happen to it, there may be a reintroduction of a loop service. Travel issue with current loop services:

  • Afternoon peak - no service runs from Melbourne Central to Flinders St

Travel issues when new tunnel opens in 2025 involving train connections:

  • Cross city (Frankston, Werribee & Williamstown) - no direct connection to Flagstaff, Parliament or Melbourne Central/State Library
  • Cranbourne & Pakenham - no direct connection to Flagstaff, Parliament or Southern Cross

A reintroduction of a loop service could be a useful addition. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Frankston line is going to be returned to the loop in the Caulfield tunnel in place of Cranbourne/Pakenham in 2025, I added language to the Metro Tunnel section recently to reflect this. The planned 2025 post-Metro Tunnel network can be seen from DoT here (pdf), a loop service isn't part of the plans. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that is now outdated, there is no mention of Pakenham East (planned to open 2024). Not to mention the other projects like the Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail (originally 2012 and all it's subsequent revisions), the currently underway (Melbourne Airport rail link, Western Rail Plan), not to mention the other proposals (Suburban Rail Loop, Melbourne Metro 2).
My point is, that by the time the Metro Tunnel actually opens, there may actually be a different plan to the layout of the Loop lines. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per this map in the section Reconfiguration (Diagram of stage 4 of the Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail, including the reconfigured City Loop.), there are only 3 tunnels in use after Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail stage 4 (2027-2032). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that map is just intended to show the network design post-Metro Tunnel, not all projects. It could definitely change, but there's no current indication of that. There's also been news reports on the Frankston line being returned to the loop. NDP Stage 4 is actually using all four tunnels, the Craigieburn to Frankston/Baxter cross-city route uses two tunnels (one in either direction), that's the main purpose of the city loop reconfiguration, it coverts two looping tunnels into through-tunnels. Gracchus250 (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above ground is part of the "Loop"

[edit]

Unless this page is to be renamed to "Melbourne's underground stations", Flinders Street & Southern Cross (and the viaduct connecting them) should be included as they are mentioned on the following original documents published by the railways:

ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. XAM2175 (T) 10:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just found:
  • Research Data Ausrtalia - Melbourne Underground Rail Loop Authority - "Construction of the Railway Loop - In December 1978, the two elevated tracks between Flinders and Spencer Street Stations were opened to rail traffic. It was the first fully operational section of the loop project handed over for service to the Victorian Railway Board."
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The viaduct expansion was built as part of the loop project, this is already stated in the article. And without a doubt the whole five station circle is often referred to as a loop in the original project, and today it still is spoken of like this colloquially and sometimes in the media. The whole term comes from the fact that it's a big loop that trains travel around the CBD, of course. But it also was the "Melbourne Underground Rail Loop", underground is there in the title because the project built the underground stations and tunnels and connected them to the two terminus stations.
There's a few problems with your proposal:
1) The government, Metro and PTV today clearly refer to the "City Loop" as just the underground tunnels, stations and ramps. The viaduct, Flinders St and Southern Cross are officially treated separately. This is reflected in both the service PIDs and in works communications.
2) The construction history, which a large portion of this article is dedicated to, also relates primarily to the underground stations and track. There is already a separate article for the viaduct. Changing the title to "Melbourne underground stations" makes no sense as this is an article about a specific project and the resultant infrastructure, there would then be no wikipedia article about MURL. Equivalents are the Metro Tunnel and Crossrail articles.
3) This article is primarily about the infrastructure, so it doesn't make much sense to include Flinders St station, Southern Cross and the viaduct in it, as they have separate detailed articles already. There is no "City Loop line" or equivalent and the services section is already probably too detailed already, it contains a lot of duplicate information.
I think to make it about all five stations we probably need a stronger justification and a clearer rationale. And what's the point and what are we trying to achieve by doing so? If your concern is about popular usage being different then all it needs is a sentence along the lines of: "This article relates to the three underground stations and associated infrastructure, the term City Loop can also refer to the five city stations and the Flinders St viaduct... etc." Gracchus250 (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting the change in relation to the recent work I've been involved in with @HoHo3143 on updating articles on Melbourne Metro services and the physical lines they use. I had made a mockup (User:ThylacineHunter/City Loop) of an updated infobox and a table for station histories of the stations located of the tracks that form the loop. This article would be treated as a piece of physical track (as opposed to an actual service).
Although, including the Flinders St-Southern Cross section is not 100% essential. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion (after giving it a quick skim read) and agree with the fact that this is a piece of physical track/infrastructure rather than an actual service. HoHo3143 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some changes that should be made
  • Add both Flinders Street and Southern cross to the stations section
  • Change the short description to "Piece of rail infrastructure orbiting Melbourne's CBD"
Additional changes that could be made
  • Adding service information on the Frankston, Sandringham, Werribee and Williamstown lines in the city loop as they technicially serve part of it
NotOrrio (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree with this. We could also merge the article about the Flinders Street viaduct (maybe) HoHo3143 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plans to finally include the above ground section

[edit]

I will get around soon (im assuming Friday or Saturday) once I finish working on Carnegie railway station. During that time I will make the following major changes:

  • Add both Flinders Street and Southern Cross station to the stations section
  • Remove the layout section permanantly (I don't think its really needed and its difficult to find sources on it)
  • Modify the services section to include the lines that only serve the above ground section (vline not included) including expanding the existing table (this might not happen if there isnt enough space)
  • Make changes to the lead section to indicate these stations are part of the city loop

If there are additional changes needed please mention them below NotOrrio (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose changes to include Flinders Street and Southern Cross in the City Loop article. As has been discussed a few times, these stations are not included when Metro, PTV and the Government refer to the "City Loop". And while the term is often used to describe the whole circle colloquially and sometimes in the media, that is not what it means to the operators of the system. Nor is it what is meant in terms of infrastructure: the City Loop specifically means the four tunnels and three stations, and the original MURL project was to primarily to construct the underground stations and the tunnels.
To support your changes, we'd need some sourcing that indicates that Flinders Street, Southern Cross are referred to as City Loop stations by Metro and PTV in their contemporary, public communication. As far as I can tell this is not the case.
See for example this Department of Transport communication, which says: "Construction of the City Loop began in the 1970s and now comprises four tunnels, totalling 12 kilometres."
Or this communication from PTV, which says: "To safely carry out major upgrades to the City Loop, a two-week closure will take place from 9pm on Monday 2 January to last service Sunday 15 January 2023. No trains will run in the City Loop, and Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament stations will be closed."
Here PTV is clearly saying the City Loop refers to the four tunnels and three stations, as Flinders Street and Southern Cross remained open during the works. This is also how the City Loop is discussed in the Network Development Plan and the Metro Tunnel business case. This is reflected in the way Metro daily announces services as "To Flinders Street station via the City Loop" etc.
I'd also note in the media, the "City Loop" also mostly refers to just the underground stations, see this article from The Age: "The revamped timetable – to be introduced from late January – will take Frankston trains out of the City Loop and run them directly to Flinders Street and Southern Cross Station then through to Werribee, delivering a train every five minutes during peak periods." The exact same language of taking Frankston "out of the City Loop" and running it via Flinders Street and Southern Cross can be found here and here, just as examples.
As I said early, if you want to include language somewhere that explains that the term is sometimes used to refer to all five stations or services that go around the full loop, that's fine. But as far as I can tell it is simply not accurate to say the City Loop means all the CBD stations. Gracchus250 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments to the statement... "Construction of the City Loop began in the 1970s and now comprises four tunnels, totalling 12 kilometres."
  • the actual underground distance is 15.26 kilometres (portal to portal total for all 4 tunnels)
  • construction of "loop" began... - before that they were only lines to Flinders Street. Prior to 1970 there was no "loop"
According to actual Metro documents (unfortunately not able to share due to copyright) refers to:
  • Flinders Street to Southern Cross via Caulfield Loop Viaduct
  • Flinders Street to Southern Cross via Northern Loop Viaduct
  • Flinders Street to Southern Cross via Burnley Loop Viaduct
  • Flinders Street to Southern Cross via Clifton Hill Loop Viaduct / City Circle Loop Viaduct
ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These viaduct name can be seen on 1984 signal diagram. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, a track from the viaduct is assigned to a loop line? That it correct. It doesn't tell us anything about whether the viaduct, Flinders Street station and Southern Cross station are part of the City Loop. Gracchus250 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does mean 4 of the 6 lines of the viaduct are part of the loop. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does it mean that? And if you could also address the numerous sources I gave clearly showing the way PTV, Metro, the Government and the media reference the City Loop, that would be great. Gracchus250 (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the comments to the statement "Construction of the City Loop began in the 1970s and now comprises four tunnels, totalling 12 kilometres", the difference in distances proves that this source may not be 100% accurate. Media reference also have a chance of not being 100% correct. Just because something is referenced a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. The fact the the operator of this refers to it as both way (above & below ground / underground only) is a perfect example.
Metro (and V/Line) have referred to 4 of the viaducts tracks as "... Loop Viaduct", this logically implies that they are part of something referred to as a "Loop". The same names are also applied to underground sections of a "Loop". The 4 "Loops" being:
  • Caulfield Loop
  • Northern Loop
  • Burnley Loop
  • Clifton Hill Loop / City Circle Loop (names appear to be used interchangeably)
ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Metro Trains Melbourne offical document, there is a Burnley Loop Tunnel and a Burnley Loop Viaduct (the same goes for the other 4). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The loop lines use the viaduct and are labelled to reflect that, that does not make them part of the City Loop. City Loop services are different from the City Loop as a rail tunnel/piece of infrastructure. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the dispute I cannot deicde what to do. I am going to go for including just the three underground stations for now as thats the way the article is currently layed out. NotOrrio (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:City Loop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 10:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for chosing this article i will be available to address all given feedback NotOrrio (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

[edit]

Lead section / infobox

[edit]
  • Link Melbourne Central in the infobox.
  • balloon loop – may need a brief explation (perhaps a note, or a few words in brackets).
  • now Melbourne Central – has already been said.
  • The map in the infobox would be better visible rather than hidden (MOS:DONTHIDE.

1 History

[edit]
  • Links made in the lead section needed to be included in the main text, so link Flinders Street here. Ditto Southern Cross; central business district (CBD), etc.
  • Before the Loop – use the full name where the topic is first mentioned in the article’s text.
  • Unlink congested; offices; students; government officials (MOS:OL).
  • (roughly 1,700 trains a day) – duplicates the information in the sentence.
  • Ten – consider ‘10’ (see MOS:SPELL09).
  • past Flinders Street – unlink Flinders Street (the link is to a road, not the station)?
  • turn around – can train do this?
  • RMIT University - should be given in full.
  • Parts of this section lack citations.

1.1 Planning

[edit]
  • Avoid duplicate links, by using the ‘Highlight duplicate links’ feature in the list of tools on the left (see MOS:DUPLINK).
  • The caption has no full stop (this issue occurs elsewhere, see MOS:CAPFRAG for the instructions).
  • The image of the logo does not help explain the text – being purely decorative, it should be removed.
  • Link Melbourne Town Planning Commission in the caption.
  • Victorian Railways Ashworth Improvement Plan – move these links apart.
  • Jolimont station - Jolimont is a place, not a station.
  • Why bluntly?
  • City of Melbourne Underground Railway Construction Act – no quote marks are needed here.

1.2 Construction

[edit]
  • Link the stations where they first appear, e.g. Parliament links in this section.
  • +four - a typo?
  • A "double sleeper" floating track system – can this be briefly explained in a note?
  • While the final cost was $500 million, the opening of the Loop helped reverse a 30-year trend of falling suburban rail patronage - This is a run-on sentence, and should be split.
  • Consider putting the two photographs next to each, so the article has a less cluttered appearance.
  • $255,600,000 – Australian dollars here, something that needs to be clear to readers (here and elsewhere).

1.3 Opening

[edit]
  • Unlink documentary films (MOS:OL).
  • The promotional poster image, though attractive, also clutters up the article and pushes the other images down, so I would consider deleting it or moving it elsewhere.
  • opened gradually - ‘opened in stages’ sounds better imo.

1.4 Recent

[edit]
  • The works will upgrade – needs editing.
  • The upgrade was originally started – this sentence needs copy-editing, as something seems to have hone wrong.
  • Avoid ballooned (see MOS:IDIOM).
  • Recent– ‘Recent events’?

From this point onwards in the article, many of the issues are not just minor points.

2.1 Metro Tunnel

[edit]
  • The Metro Tunnel map (I cannot find the source it originates from) and much of this section is off-topic.
  • The text in this section should be reduced to no more than a couple of sentences.

2.2 Reconfiguration

[edit]
  • again included – why again?
  • The map is copyrighted, according to the source, and so cannot be used.
  • Imo much of the text here (including all of the last paragraph) is excessively detailed for this topic, and should be summarised. It is about a proposal here for the City Loop and the whole network, and it hasn't yet happened.

3 Layout

[edit]

4 Services and direction of travel

[edit]
  • Similarly, images in this section that do not help directly with understanding the text (like the first one) are decorative and should be removed.
  • The first and third paragraphs are off topic.
  • The second paragraph could be summarised to ‘ Eleven of the metropolitan lines on the Melbourne rail network serve the City Loop’.
  • Much of the text in the subsections that follow is about groups of lines that serve the loop, and should not take up so much space in this article.
  • I’m confused about Platform number in the table. The table itself seems only to repeat information in the text - either the text or the table is superfluous.

5 Stations

[edit]
  • This section duplicates information already provided, e.g. The City Loop has three underground railway stations at Parliament, Melbourne Central, and Flagstaff.
  • Again, the images are decorative.
  • The Main article templates are unnecessary.
  • I don’t think this section needs subsections – once you have removed the templates and the duplicated information, you aren't left with much text.
[edit]
  • The link to Public Transport Victoria is a general link, and so should be deleted or replaced (WP:ELNO).
  • Ditto Zen and the City Loop; Metro Trains Melbourne website.

Failing the article

[edit]

I will be quick failing the article.

Although a number of the above points can be quickly addressed, there are too many issues which will need some time and thought to sort out. The article needs to be improved so that that only relevant information is included, duplicated facts are removed, links are attended to, and the images used serve to help understand the text. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_Loop&oldid=1171812291"