Talk:Railways in Melbourne

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

Richmond Station LCD Screens[edit]

Does anyone know when the Richmond LCD screens will be turned on, and why the Spencer Street ones were undergoing problems (flickering) until recently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verysharpnewspaper (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pic of Armadale station[edit]

Correctly speaking isn't this on the Caulfield line as per the loop designation (until recently)? It could be called the Frankston line just as easily.

Move to Metlink[edit]

I don't think this article should have been moved to Metlink Melbourne, Metlink refers to the entire public transport system including trams and buses and this article contains a great deal of history predating Metlink. I recommend it be changed back to Railways in Melbourne and Metlink Melbourne redirected to Metlink. --Canley 14:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Lokicarbis 15:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Metlink is the company that runs the public transport system, whereas this article is about the railway network, the infrastructure. It's a completely separate topic. --bainer (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the above, to the unfamiliar, the infobox reads as though Metlink began in 1854, which is not true. --ozzmosis 07:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've subsequently removed most of the Metlink references. Connex is the railway operator anyway, not Metlink. [[1]] --ozzmosis 07:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove line histories[edit]

I think that most of the information under "Southeastern suburban lines", etc., should be removed to the articles for each line, and just general or summary statements left in this article. Agreed? Philip J. Rayment 13:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objection, I'll probably start doing this in the next few days. Philip J. Rayment 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily remove it all, as without some history it risks becoming an article of interest mainly to gunzels. What might be a more effective means of conveying the section would be to do it chronologically and cut out the unnecessary detail to provide for a unified history of the network, instead of a series of small line histories. Rebecca 12:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I intended to leave some history of the network as a whole, as distinct from individual line histories. Things like the start of the network, electrification, privatisation, etc. Philip J. Rayment 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea --Grahamec 02:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bit distracted on other things, but I am slowly working my way through putting these on the individual lines. Once I've finished all the lines, I'll amend this article. Philip J. Rayment 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten - by time not line. I have added details on when new trains entered service, a bit of the changing operators, and why lines got built or extended. Wongm 07:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth rail overlay[edit]

I've created a Google Earth overlay of the greater metro Melbourne railways. I would like to have a link to this added to the External Links section of this article, as I believe it greatly expands the potential impact and provides a detailed visual representation of some of the information. I'd like someone to decide if it fits or not, and if so, add it.

http://www.johnshadbolt.com/ged/#melbMetro

Thanks, JohnnoShadbolt 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be at least as relevant as 'Fully packed train during rush hour'. Added. timg231 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed policy on public transport[edit]

Please see User:Mangoe/Wikipedia_is_not_a_timetable for a proposed policy on public transport. Josh Parris#: 01:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culled it right down - if you want to know about timetables - go to the Connex website! Now it just mentions loop - vs - direct trains and such - no times. Wongm 07:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comeng Refurbishment[edit]

I don't see the logic in having the M>train name on the Comeng refurbishment summery, M>Train no longer exist, I see this as fit by Connex having the trains refurbished. Adrian90 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The M>Train refurbishments we caried out by that company when they were still around, and differed from those undertaken by Connex to their trains - they were done by different contractors, and the additions made to the trains meant the two types were not not able to run together. Wongm 06:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branches of lines[edit]

At the present time, the smaller stubs of lines from bigger ones are treated as branches off the main one. For example, the Hurstbridge line branching off the Epping, stations between the city and Clifton Hill belong to one line, not the other. The rails do happen to treat the lines in this way, to to the layperson the stations before Clifton Hill are shared by both lines. (Stony Point, Williamstown and Alamein would be exceptions - operated as shuttles)

Who thinks 'common' stations between lines should be common between line articles? I think they should be shared. Wongm 10:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 124.190.196.150 (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Rebecca (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Network Map[edit]

I don't know who is responsible for the Melbourne railway network map however it appears that Reservoir is spelled incorrectly. On the diagram it is spelled as Resevoir with an "r" missing. NewAust (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Metcard-handyhints.gif[edit]

The image Image:Metcard-handyhints.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need criticism[edit]

This page is too biased. Should we have criticisms and controversies over the rail network in Melbourne? That way, people could learn the advantages and disadvantages over the rail network.

For example, like: "Some problems of the rail network is that the trains are crowded". Joe9320-1000000 articles more to be edited, One dream. (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Railways in Melbourne[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Railways in Melbourne's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "official":

  • From Epping railway line, Melbourne: "STATE BUDGET TO COMMIT $562.3 MILLION FOR SOUTH MORANG RAIL EXTENSION". Media Release: Premier of Victoria, Australia. www.premier.vic.gov.au. May 1 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • From Rail transport in Western Australia: "Railways in Western Australia". www.pta.wa.gov.au. Retrieved 2008-06-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

In the article opening it says Melbourne's suburban railway network consists of 16 electrified lines, the central City Loop subway, and 200 stations, with a total length of 830 km of electrified lines, but then under Operations>Infrastructure we get The Melbourne suburban rail network consists of 16 electrified lines, the central City Loop subway, and 200 stations, with a total length of 372 km of electrified lines (emphasis mine). Obviously both can't be correct, but I don't know enough about the system to state which is right. Daduzi talk 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map out of date[edit]

The map on the top of the page has the South Morang line finishing at Epping - which was correct for when it was made, but is no longer accurate since last month. Lochok (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

The History section is extensive and contains only one source. I'm certain the quality of information is high but it really needs some support with reliable sources. Flat Out (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have added references to the introduction, first railways history section. Will continue as best I can to add more.ruperttrepur (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completed all references and validated dates and claims using myriad of references. Phew that was a lot of work! ruperttrepur (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Railways in Melbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Railways in Melbourne/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Railway Viaduct - Flinders Street to Spencer Street Stations==

Under the heading, "Expansion into the Suburbs" (para. 4) A sentence starts, "Between 1889 a two-line viaduct ..."

Under the heading, "Eastern suburban lines" (para. 4) A sentence ends, "... the Spencer Street - Flinders Street viaduct opened in 1892."

I suggest that the latter date be included in the former statement.

Can any editor state when the viaduct was electrified? I presume it was about 1919 in conjunction with electrification of the Broadmeadows line to Essendon, as stated under the heading, "Northern suburban lines".

SekotsSemaj 08:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 08:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Railways in Melbourne. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map updated[edit]

I just changed the infobox map to an up to date version that I made. It should be correct as of this month and I will try to keep it up to date as changes occur (e.g. Caroline Springs Station opening next year). Please let me know if I've missed anything. Takerlamar (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Railways in Melbourne. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New interactive map[edit]

I've created a new map using OSM data on the maplink template showing all the suburban rail lines. I saw a similar map on the Transperth Trains page and thought it'd be cool to recreate it for Melbourne. It allows viewers to zoom in and out. Let me know if there are any issues, I hope I've gotten the metro tunnel to display correctly (I had to change some OSM labelling to get it to work so it may take a little time to update for everyone). I added it to the infrastructure section, but it might make sense elsewhere, if so please move or relabel. I was trying to create a similar map for the trams but I can't get it to work, though it should be possible to create one for v/line.

The only issue is that is doesn't display the recent extension to Mernda, this is a problem in the OSM route data/layer. I don't know how to fix it, so if anyone does know please help! Gracchus250 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's an problem with the map where the link to make it full screen and interactive isn't working -- thankfully this bug has been reported and will hopefully be resolved soon: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T221439 Gracchus250 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracchus250: The interactive map looks great. However, per some interesting discussions with Fauzi where we’ve tried to delineate between this article, which discusses all the rail infrastructure within the metropolitan area, and the Metro Trains Melbourne article, which is solely focused on the electric passenger network, I wonder if it might be best placed only in the latter article. Alternatively, if you were feeling adventurous, it might be possible to add the freight lines to this version of the map. I seem to recall the PTV dataset includes them. Your thoughts? Triptothecottage (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment! There is a 'suburban services' section in this article, so perhaps the map better belongs there than in the 'infrastructure' section? The map uses Open Street Map data, which as far as I can tell doesn't include freight lines as separate relations that I can use unfortunately. It does include v/line, however, and I'm working on a map with just v/line and one with both metro and v/line. I still think it's useful having an interactive map of some sort on this page because it's the primary page for railways in Melbourne and the interactive map provides some context for the history section and metro services, though you're right about better delineation for the two pages. Gracchus250 (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premium and host stations[edit]

Thanks @PK2: for the recent additions of stations that are host and premium. I think this info is important, but would it make more sense as a new column on the page List of Melbourne railway stations? The section on this page could include your explanation of the host/premium station and the context about the stalled expansion plan for premium stations, and linking to the station list for a full list of which stations are premium or not. I also don't think it make sense to include the list of stations that will no longer be upgraded to premium. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PK2 (talk · contribs) has actually merged the entire contents of premium station and host station into this article. I think the merger is a good idea but a merge discussion would have been appropriate before doing so. I'm going to strip the section right back for now as it's completely out of date and also probably not appropriate for a detailed treatment here as you say. A short explanation on the list page would make a lot of sense. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PK2: I have attributed the merger in a dummy edit. I strongly suggest you read WP:MERGE before making similar edits in future. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, that makes more sense that it was merged. Gracchus250 (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Station Platform Colour Change?[edit]

Hi all,

I saw a picture of the new Moreland railway station yesterday and saw that the train platform signage has changed yet again. It seems there is a redesign that has an horizontal colour strip to represent the train group the station or line is in (Northern, Caulfield etc). Are we going to uniformly do so for the Metropolitan station names in Melbourne or keep the current blue colourway?

Here is the signage in question via a post on Facebook in the 'Urban Sprawl Memes for Hoddle Grid Teens' page. [2]

APNOneTwo (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HCMT update needed[edit]

Could someone please update Railways in Melbourne#Current fleet to update the information on the HCMT trains? Sorry, I’m currently really busy on another project. Thanks, Fork99 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article title change[edit]

An editor changed the article title from "Railways in Melbourne" to "Rail transport in Melbourne" arguing this aligns better with the dominant form of article titles on this concept in other countries and sub-country jurisdictions. I understand the reasoning, but am not entirely convinced, so would like to see what other editors think. First, the other Australian capitals like Sydney use "Railways in Sydney" so consistency is required there and this change affects those articles (consistency here is more important in my opinion than consistency with international articles). Second, this article is not about all rail transport in Melbourne, otherwise it would have to be half dedicated to the tram network. There is a separate article "Trams in Melbourne", and this article is the other side of that, about the suburban rail network, its infrastructure and history. An article combining both would be too long. It is also separate from the "Metro Trains Melbourne" article because that is about the current network operator, and this has tended to change in Melbourne every decade or so. For this reason I think the name change potentially makes the title misleading. There already exists a "Rail transport in Victoria" article that summarises the various networks and infrastructure in the state, this article is specifically about the heavy rail system in Melbourne. It is a unique format I guess but I think it has come about because of the particular history and structure of the heavy rail networks in Australian cities. I am curious what others think. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that maybe the title should be changed to "Melbourne rail network" or something similar to better reflect that it's primarily about the city's heavy rail system and its history, rather than a summary of different railways in Melbourne. This is also how it is referred to at the start of the article and in other articles. Gracchus250 (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route length Chart and gauge chart[edit]

Under Infrastructure is a table showing how many kms of track there is. Underneath the table it mentions new track built since 2012 (when the table seems to be accurate to). This should either be factored into the data in the table, or if the data already is, the statement should be removed. Also it may be worth and addition to the table stating how much track is broad gauge and how much is standard gauge in the government owned network (I am assuming the table only refers to state owned track). 4rkange1 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the table using 2019 data in BITRE, which is usually the main source for these figures. They have actually mostly gone down despite the network expansions and I cannot say why as there is little information about how this data is calculated. If you find metropolitan data on gauges then please add it but I'm not aware of recent figures on that, usually that information is presented at a state level rather than metropolitan. Remember too that metropolitan Melbourne is an arbitrary line on a map so there's limited usefulness of metro level data anyway. All the track in Melb/Victoria is state-owned, so there's nothing else to include. Gracchus250 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is a seperate metropolitan section needed[edit]

Since most of the article is about metropolitan rail in melbourne i don't see a reason to keep a seperate section on metropolitan rai. I suggest removing the section and move it's content to other appropriate sections if required new sections may also be made. NotOrrio (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which section are you referring to? (copy the section from the contents eg: 5.3.1.1 Non-electrified lines) -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan Services
Operations
Fleet
-Current Fleet
-Decommissioned Fleet
Lines
-Electrified Lines
-Non electrified lines
-Stony Point line and metropolitan V/Line services
-Service patterns
-Fares and tickets
-Host stations and premium stations NotOrrio (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved a few of the section to better places in the "Infrastructure" section. Just need to look at the following:
  • "Schematic map" may not be needed here as it is included in Template:Melbourne railway lines at the top of the page.
  • I'd keep "Operations" section here, but possibly reword it to "Operators" and rewrite that section (keep the timeline and table).
  • "Lines" and "Service patterns" sections should be merged.
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had to reverse your changes because fares and rolling stock shouldn't be under "Infrastructure" as they are not physical infrastructure but are operational. You can restore your addition of heritage railways, but they are already discussed at length on the Rail transport in Victoria page so it might be better not to duplicate it.
It'd be good to discuss and gain consensus on the structure before reorganising it. If we're going to get rid of the separate metropolitan services section I would suggest we adopt similar structures to Paris Metro and the New York Subway. They have "History" followed by a "Network/Lines and Routes" section that includes the lines, services, etc.
I would suggest something like this as a starting point:
History
Network
>Lines
>Ticketing
>Operator
>Patronage
Future expansion
Stations
Rolling stock
Infrastructure (if this is even necessary, probably just signalling and tracks left?)
Regional services, etc (the same as currently from here) Gracchus250 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Metropolitan Services" works as the next section are "Regional services" and "Freight services" (and possibly "Heritage services").
I do agree with "Fares and tickets" not being "Infrastructure" but I not 100% sure it should be in "Metropolitan Services" either (at least how that section is currently structed).
Heritage/preservation is mentioned in "Legislation" but not covered here. I would have it just focus on those in the metro area, and the Victorian page focus on the regional area. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we do remove "Metropolitan Services", I feel the order could be:
  1. History
  2. Future expansion (nicely follows on from history)
  3. Network
    1. Operators
    2. ?? (not sure what name, should cover routes/lines/services)
    3. Stations
    4. Rollingstock (maybe add a reference to pre electrification rollingstock)
    5. Ticketing
    6. Patronage
  4. (Other) infrastructure
    1. Safeworking
    2. Train control (is this part of Safeworking?)
    3. Terminology
  5. Regional services
  6. Freight services
  7. Heritage services and Preservation
  8. Legislation, governance and access
-- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or even put "(Other) infrastructure" after "Heritage services and Preservation" to keep the flow of metro, regional, freight, heritage services. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need a picture of a Myki[edit]

Need a picture of the front of a Myki card for the Fares and tickets section. I have placed a Metcard picture for the time being. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of electrification/railways in Melbourne[edit]

Should we have a page for "Timeline of electrification" or "Timeline of railways in Melbourne"? I was thinking of a hybrid of these Norwegian timelines, Timeline of railway electrification in Norway, Chronology of Norwegian railway lines. Listing when the various lines both opened, when they were electrified, and when they were closed.
If this sounds good, I'll work on a mockup of what I'm proposing. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne's commuter rail network[edit]

Should the Melbourne's commuter rail network be updated to include Metro Tunnel, Melbourne Airport Rail & Pakenham East extension? -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can see how this will look here. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes[edit]

I'm not sure the recent infobox changes are useful, there is probably excessive detail regarding the operators. But even if that is included, the different sections for steam/electric/diesel is unnecessary, it just duplicates the same info. Only the current propulsion systems and number of lines are relevant. I also think the old overview/operation/technical format was better, it is based on the London Underground and other established articles. And the system routemap should be returned to the infobox rather than floating. Gracchus250 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on better filling out the steam, electric and diesel eras to better represent how the Melbourne network has evolved. The old public transit infobox was a little lacking on some bits of info.
"Only the current propulsion systems and number of lines are relevant" - The Trams in Melbourne page infobox covers the past propulsion systems, and I feel there should be some consistency between the two articles. This is why I added them here, they should make more sense when I fell them better.
I agree the electric era section is the most relevant, that is why I had the steam and diesel as default to collapse.
I need to look at other possible infoboxes to try and find a better one for the need of this page (stations instead of stops, etc). I've also have an issue with the route map now not collapsing in this infobox, so I removed it temporarily. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to the correct one in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/By country series task force. I have also moved the map back into it, but it won't collapse by default. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Railways_in_Melbourne&oldid=1209951119"