Talk:Bankstown Line (Sydney Trains)

Stations table

After being accused of being a vandal, I thought I'd raise this here. I think that the large station table on this and other Cityrail pages is too big and directory like for an encyclopaedia page. Would anyone read it? It seems a rehash of information that could easily be found on the official Cityrail website. Thoughts (with civility please)? Endarrt 01:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Northern railway line, Sydney which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wynyard or St James

The article states "Electric passenger services originally operated along the Bankstown Line to St James station, until the 1956 opening of Circular Quay station and the completion of the City Circle."

I believe this to be incorrect as the line operated to Wynyard and not St James until 1956. It did not start to operate to St James first from Central and vice versa until 1979 when the Eastern Suburbs line opened and the Illawarra line trains went there instead of going to St James. I have not been able to find a reference to back this up but I am sure I am correct.Fleet Lists (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:North Shore, Northern & Western Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Splitting proposal for Bankstown Line and Liverpool & Inner West Line

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A majority of users discussing the proposal support creating separate articles for the two services. Proponents of the split emphasize the fundamental differences between the Bankstown Line and Liverpool & Inner West Line, particularly the distinct routes and branding post-2024. This separation is seen as beneficial for improving readability and accurately reflecting the unique histories of each service. Additionally, the physical infrastructure is already detailed in the article on the Bankstown railway line. However, concerns remain about the precedent this split might set for future service changes across other lines. GarbageKarate (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Just want to gather other editors' thoughts on whether or not Bankstown Line and Liverpool & Inner West Line (currently a redirect back to Bankstown Line) should be two separate articles for readability purposes and considering that the new line is fundamentally a different service to the old one. If split, all information about the Liverpool & Inner West (post-2024 information) would be split from this article (pre-2024 information). Otherwise, if consensus is to keep it all in one place, then the article should be moved to the new name. Fork99 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi sorry to be pedantic fork but too early?

  For example you edited the article to refer to the "now closed Dulwich Hill station"

  Technically the station isn't closed there's still 2 more services it closes in half an hour but the edit has already been made 115.64.90.76 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, I didn't make those edits to change the present tense/past tense of the station statuses, I believe it might have been @RealTsetsTransport. I've been reverting premature changes by other editors to these articles. Fork99 (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry I came over a bit harsh and should have checked who did it Thanks for doing it even though you didn't need to by the time it was done the line would have closed anyway. 115.64.90.76 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose a split; support move. In my view this article should relate specifically to the Sydney Trains T3 service, and should be moved to "Liverpool & Inner West Line" as the new name of the T3. All of the old Bankstown-related content should be stripped out of the article as it is no longer relevant to the new format of the T3 which runs via the Main Suburban and Main Southern railway lines instead. The physical Bankstown railway line already has a separate article which covers off on that line's history. There is no need to duplicate that content here. I suggest keeping this article lean and focused on the Sydney Trains T3 service as it runs today. Tomiĉo (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Tomiĉo: I'm confused on what you mean by the old Bankstown-related content should be stripped out of the article but you oppose a split? Are you suggesting a complete removal of the content instead of a copy and paste split? Fork99 (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC) (struck due to reply below - Fork99 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC))

  Oh I think I understand what you mean @Tomiĉo, are you suggesting that all Bankstown Line service information should be at the physical railway line article at Bankstown railway line? If in that case, maybe the service info at the physical railway article should be moved to Bankstown Line and the split goes ahead?

  There's been quite a lot of discussion in the past on whether a "Line" or "line" refers to a physical track or the actual service, but in Sydney, the convention is that each Sydney Trains service gets a separate service-focused article, and the physical tracks gets another separate article (except Olympic Park and Carlingford since those lines were/are quite short). Fork99 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that convention, and I support its use for current services. However, I don't think it is necessary (or really in the spirit of WP:N) to have a separate article for a historical service which formed a component of a broader network. The Bankstown railway line article already speaks succinctly to the historical services that operated on the line. I don't think there is a need for much more than that, and if there is, I think it can be accommodated within that article rather than being standalone. Tomiĉo (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Tomiĉo: Ok, I get your argument and it makes sense. I'm going to let this discussion go ahead for at least 7 days to see if there's any other opinions on this. Fork99 (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, they are clearly separate services. The Bankstown Line article should reflect the service as it was until 29 September, the Liverpool & Inner West Line the service via Regents Park that commenced on 30 September. As it stands there is a fair bit of content forking with the Bankstown railway line article. The two 'Line' articles should primarily focus on the services and the 'railway line' article on the physical railway line. Mounstreip (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support – not the best person to comment on this, but I support simply based on the completely different route and history that Livo + Inner West Line takes over the former Bankstown Line. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - unless other significant past service changes get their own pages. I assume this won't happen though so I don't think the pages should be split. It becomes a slippery slope, since other lines (i.e. T1, T2 & T8) have all had major changes and it's not unusual for line branding to evolve. Also, what about former lines run by past operators (i.e. purple Cityrail inner west line, orange Carlingford & Sandown lines, magenta Eastern Suburbs shuttle)? It's too vague what to include and what not, I think a paragraph or two in the history or separate section 'as the Bankstown line' would be fine instead. Hlmrjk (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting the Northern Line was part of the T1 article between 2013 and 2019, and was only split off to a separate article when T9 was formed. In that example, more than 50% of T1 (Western, North Shore) remained the same, and the Northern Line was only incorporated in T1 for merely six years. The Northern Line was only a relatively small proportion of the T1 scope and history, so T1 didn't need a new article without the Northern Line. Whereas for T3, the original service via Bankstown line is the main component of the article in terms of scope and history, but that has since ceased. Therefore, this article (T3 Bankstown) should be marked as "ceased operation" with a new T3 Liverpool and Inner West article.

On a separate note, the purple Cityrail inner west line can be further elaborated in the Liverpool & Inner West line article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand your points but I still believe this split would become a slippery slope for past services. In terms of the T3 line, a good 40-45% of the original stations are still branded as part of the line (Lidcombe to Liverpool). In saying that I think it's clear I'm in the minority so I can't contest the final decision, after which I support any editors wishing to create new wiki pages for past Sydney rail services. It's always good to see Sydney rail knowledge expanded on Wikipedia anyways. Hlmrjk (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Marcnut1996: I think the approach taken with the Northern Line article actually suggests that there should not be a residual Bankstown Line article, and that it should just be replaced with a redirect. Yes, the Northern Line was (re-)created as its own article when the service was reincarnated in 2019. However, the Northern Line article was originally created in 2005, in the early years of Wikipedia. This article existed up until 2013, when it was made a redirect to the North Shore, Northern & Western Line article to reflect the service changes that occurred when CityRail became Sydney Trains.

Arguably, the situation in 2013 is a direct parallel for what is occurring here. In 2013 the Northern Line was a decades-long established train service in Sydney, in exactly the same way that the Bankstown Line was up until this year. However, when the Northern Line was rolled into the combined North Shore, Northern & Western Line, it was just redirected. There was not a standalone article discussing the history of the service left behind. I think the same approach should be taken here now that the Bankstown Line has been rolled into the Liverpool & Inner West Line. Tomiĉo (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: Even though I opened this, can someone else please determine consensus and close once at least 7 days have passed, since it's clear that currently, there are mixed opinions. Fork99 (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: I've amended the station modules for the infobox of stations to have both the T3 as Liverpool & Inner West and one for the Bankstown line. I've made it so it links to the "Bankstown line" page. GarbageKarate (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support split - The T3 Bankstown is fundamentally different to T3 Liverpool & Inner West. If strictly speaking, the T3 Bankstown line was replaced by both T3 Liverpool & Inner West, T6 and upcoming Metro, rather than a simple change of name. Remember this article is about service, not the physical line (which is already covered under Bankstown railway line). The service has already ceased. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I've had a bit of a think over the past few days, and I think based upon what was done with the T1/T9 as well as the new T6 services means that the new T3 should warrant its own article name and any information relating to the now ceased T3 Bankstown can be covered in the Bankstown line article. GarbageKarate (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 10 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move request clashes with discussions as per above about splitting the article. GarbageKarate (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Bankstown Line → Liverpool & Inner West Line – As per discussions previously, the article title should be renamed to Liverpool & Inner West Line with Bankstown Line redirecting to Liverpool & Inner West Line. GarbageKarate (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: There is an ongoing split discussion in the above section. Fork99 (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support the move as per my comments in the earlier discussion above. The service has been renamed, and the article should be renamed to reflect that. Tomiĉo (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is already a live split discussion in the section above. Suggest waiting for that to run its course. If the spilt motion is successful, as appears the likely outcome (currently 5 for, 2 against), this discussion will be irrelevant. Mounstreip (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Per last comment - waiting for the outcome of the split discussion in progress is probably best. Raladic (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

Future of article post-2024

Thanks for the earlier discussion about the future of this article. With the decision having been taken to create the Liverpool & Inner West Line article separate from this one, rather than moving this article, I wanted to discuss what to do to with this Bankstown Line article going forward. I think that there are substantial issues with the article as it stands which need to be addressed. Most of these issues stem from the fact that the article faces something of an identify crisis in what it is meant to be about.

What the article should not be about

It is probably easiest to start with what the article should not be about. It should not be about:

• a current Sydney Trains service, as there are now separate articles for the T2 Leppington & Inner West Line, T3 Liverpool & Inner West Line and T6 Lidcombe & Bankstown Line
• a physical railway line, as there are separate articles for the Bankstown railway line, Main Southern railway line, Main Suburban railway line, City Circle railway line and Illawarra railway line
• the conversion to Sydney Metro, as there are separate articles for the Sydney Metro City & Southwest construction project, and the M1 North West & Bankstown Line service which will serve Sydenham–Bankstown.

Nevertheless, much of the article as written is devoted to detailing one or other parts of the above subject matter. This makes it unfocused and confusing to the reader.

The article duplicates the physical railway line article

The most glaring example is how much of the article is written as if it is about the physical Bankstown railway line itself. After the first two sentences, the lead section is written from the perspective of the physical Bankstown railway line rather than the train service. This pattern continues in the ‘History’ section, which contains three full paragraphs under the sub-header ‘Railway line history’ which relate entirely to the history of the physical railway line, not the train service. All of this history is already covered in the Bankstown railway line article.

The article duplicates other articles

The ‘Closure’ sub-section in the ‘History’ section goes into great detail about the circumstances leading up to 30 September 2024, most of which have limited direct bearing to the train service that was running up until that date. Most of this content relates to debates around the ultimate form to be taken by the T6 Lidcombe & Bankstown Line, and logically that information should sit under that article. Most of the rest relates to the implementation of the Sydney Metro City & Southwest, and is adequately covered in that article.

What the article could be about

After excluding the above things that the article should not be about, I see two potential subjects for the article:

• the historical T3 Bankstown Line (specifically as operated by Sydney Trains between 2013–2024)
• before that, any historical train services which operated to or from Bankstown.

After discounting the sections of the article that I have criticised as being duplicative and unfocused, the minority of the article which remains relates to these subjects. These remaining sections are the ‘Commuter line history’ sub-section in the ‘History’ section, which primarily relates to the first point, and the ‘Commuter line route’ section at the end of the article, which primarily relates to the second point.

However, in both of these sections the bodies of text are entirely uncited, and they appear to be mostly formed of original research which limits their encyclopedic value. Apart from this, the only other content in the article is the infobox, table of stations and 2022 patronage data.

How the article should be changed

Firstly, I believe that all of the unfocused and duplicative sections, being the lead section beyond the first two sentences, and the first and last sub-sections of the ‘History’ section, should be struck out. I think it is more appropriate that the reader be directed to the relevant articles for information contained in those sections rather than rehashing them here.

Secondly, I think we need to critically consider what to do with the remaining two sections that relate to train services in the recent and more distant past. Given their uncited state, I don’t think they can stay as is. Furthermore, given their questionable notability and variable scope through history, I suspect it may be difficult to redraft them in a way which aligns with the Manual of Style.

Having reached these conclusions, I am minded to replace the article with a disambiguation page pointing to the most relevant of the related articles which I identified earlier. I understand this could be interpreted as going against the spirit of the result of the earlier discussion. However, I believe that the article as it is currently isn’t up to scratch, and we need to address that. If other editors can see opportunities to bring the article up to scratch without resorting to a disambiguation page, I would be happy to hear it. Tomiĉo (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)