Talk:Airport line, Perth

Line construction dates

"Construction commenced on 3 November 2016, with the line opening in 2020". Who is the time traveler? The line has not "opened" as it's still 2017. 220.253.139.80 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Are railway and service being conflated?

Are railway and service being conflated? Does the 8.5-km railway extension called Airport railway line, and which is currently under construction, really extend all the way to Claremont station alongside parts of the Midland and Fremantle lines? Or does the Airport railway line diverge from the Midland line and terminate at a new bus-rail interchange at High Wycombe, as stated in the article, with a new train service between High Wycombe and Claremont along the Airport, Midland and Fremantle lines passing 17 stations? Betterkeks (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a question I have been grappling with myself as well. Right now, the facts are that trains to and from High Wycombe station are planned to terminate at Claremont station, and the new railway that is currently under construction between Bayswater and High Wycombe will be named the Airport line. There are several questions that I think will only be answered when Transperth comes out with new train network maps and branding on stations later this year. Such as:

• What line will trains to and from High Wycombe station be on between Bayswater and Perth stations? Either the Midland line or the Airport line.
• What line will trains to and from High Wycombe station be on between Perth and Claremont stations? Either the Airport line or the Fremantle line. If it is anything like the current situation, the Airport line will merge into the Fremantle line at Perth station, like the Midland line currently does.

These questions also apply to the Thornlie-Cockburn extension, and the Morley-Ellenbrook line. Right now it is difficult to answer these questions, and there is no perfect solution, but we of course need an interim answer until the Airport line opens.

I say we create a separate article at Forrestfield-Airport link, which will be about the planning and construction of the new line from Bayswater to High Wycombe, and keep this article (Airport railway line, Perth) about the actual line, which will be about the Transperth services on the line. For now, only list Bayswater, Redcliffe, Airport Central and High Wycombe, but state in prose that the train services will continue on to Claremont. This can be changed when Transperth branding is reveiled. Steelkamp (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: PTA says trains servicing the Airport line travel along Fremantle, Midland and Airport lines:

Once operational Airport Line trains will be integrated into the existing network, travelling between Claremont Station and Perth Station on the Fremantle Line, along the Midland Line east of the Perth CBD to Bayswater and then spur off towards High Wycombe utilising the new underground track.

Perth has been easy up until now because service and line overlapped and conflating them was no problem. But now we have services traversing multiple lines. The fact is that a railway line is not the same as a train route that is serviced by trains taking trips along the route on these railway lines.

@Steelkamp: The solution is recognising that railway line (like a road) isn’t the same thing as a train route (like a bus route); for example, Eurostar is a service travelling through the Channel Tunnel. Then the Airport line is fine to be just the 8-kilometre-long set of infrastructure on (and below) the ground between Bayswater and High Wycombe, and there can be a service (or route) between Perth and High Wycombe (travelling on Midland and Airport line) with trains continuing onto the Fremantle service (or route) ending at Cottesloe (travelling on Fremantle line). If OK to finally break with the “star”-model where all train services terminate in Perth, you could also have a service (or route) between Cottesloe and High Wycombe (travelling on Airport, Midland and Fremantle lines). Or between Mandurah and Ellenbrook along Mandurah, Thornlie, Armadale and Ellenbrook lines.

Betterkeks (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Betterkeks: I see what you mean. In that case, I say for now we keep this single article on the line between Bayswater and High Wycombe, and remove all stations from Perth to Meltham. We can reassess when the line actually opens. We can't possibly write an article on the service between Claremont and High Wycombe before then. There is just not enough information known. Steelkamp (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: You mean keep the stations between Bayswater and High Wycombe and remove stations between Bayswater and Claremont? Who knows what PTA will end up doing in terms of routes (that is, services). Betterkeks (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Bayswater railway station part of the airport line? I am leaning towards yes, because that would be the "transfer point" between the airport and midland lines, like how Perth station is the transfer point between the fremantle and midland lines. Having Redcliffe as the end of the line doesn't make sense, because there is still airport railway tracks between Redcliffe and Bayswater. Steelkamp (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: I agree. That is where the line starts. In terms of graph theory, stations are nodes and railways are lines. Betterkeks (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

References

I've had some thought

Map showing the airport line will run between High Wycombe and Claremont

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia § Railway lines and services in Perth

I've been looking at passenger rail transport articles in other cities. I reckon that the articles on Perth railway lines should be organised in a similar fashion to the MAX Light Rail articles in Portland, Oregon (which are mostly Good articles and Featured articles by the way). This would mean that Airport railway line, Perth would have the history of the Forrestfield Airport link between Bayswater and High Wycombe, Claremont station rebuild and turnback installation, and Bayswater station rebuild and turnback installation; i.e. the history of all infrastructure that was built for the Airport line. This article would also have a route description and list of all stations between High Wycombe and Claremont (see map). This would effectively have the service and railway articles in one article, instead of separate. This is similar to the MAX Green Line, which shares about half its tracks with other lines.

This same principle can be used for Morley–Ellenbrook railway line and the Thornlie railway line, which would be split from the Armadale railway line. Steelkamp (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: The nomenclature in MAX Light Rail (which says "for MAX, a 'line' refers to the physical railroad track and stations a train serves between its designated termini, i.e. a train 'route' or 'service'" agrees with New York City Subway nomenclature (which says "lines and services on the New York City Subway are often confused with each other. Lines are physical train tracks, while services are the routes that use the tracks"). I would find adopting that nomenclature for the Perth articles very good because it clears it all up once and for all, but it would also be a change because the Airport LINE is just the physical infrastructure and we really want to talk about the Airport SERVICE because that is really what travelling patrons care about. So the primary focus should be on the service between High Wycombe and Claremont, and the secondary focus on the physical infrastructure build for it, such as (1) the line between Bayswater and High Wycombe, (2) the turnback in Claremont, and (3) any minor works in stations along the Fremantle and Midland lines to accomodate the new Airport service (or route, similar to bus route). Would we therefore need to rename the articles accordingly, for example Airport railway line become Airport railway service? Betterkeks (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Confusingly, Transperth uses the word "Line" to describe their services, as shown on the image to the right (zoom in really far and look at the right side). i.e the Airport Line is the service between Claremont and High Wycombe, as well as the track between Bayswater and High Wycombe. This means the article shouldn't be renamed to "Airport railway service, Perth". If anything, it should be renamed to "Airport Line, Perth". Steelkamp (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am now in the process of trying to make the article make sense talking about both the service and physical infrastructure. Steelkamp (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: I see it. So more like London Underground, which says things like "these lines have the exclusive use of a pair of tracks, except for the Uxbridge branch of the Piccadilly line, which shares track with the District line between Acton Town and Hanger Lane Junction and with the Metropolitan line between Rayners Lane and Uxbridge".

Conflating the service between Claremont and High Wycombe with the physical infrastructure between Bayswater and High Wycombe is very confusing, and maybe Transperth will stop doing that in future when the sense of achievement from building that infrastructure has waned, but right now it is what it is. We cannot contradict Transperth nomenclature – but neither are we obligated to perpetuate confusion (particularly when it confuses our readers), especially since not everyone that reads these articles is from Perth. And maybe even pointed out that it is opposite to nomenclature used in multiple other cities throughout the world, to help people familiar with the systems in those parts of the world from becoming confused.

Can we agree that the primary focus is the service (called "Airport Line") between Claremont and High Wycombe that is used by travelling patrons, with the secondary focus on physical infrastructure used and/or built for it perhaps relegated into a "history" section? If in 20 years additional tracks are laid between Bayswater and Claremont for the exclusive use by Midland and Fremantle services/lines/trains, with Airport using the existing Midland and Fremantle infrastructure (for example), would travelling patrons notice, or care? Betterkeks (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we agree that the primary focus is the service (called "Airport Line") between Claremont and High Wycombe that is used by travelling patrons, with the secondary focus on physical infrastructure used and/or built for it perhaps relegated into a "history" section? Yes, I think we can agree on this.

I think the way to avoid confusion is to carefully word the article. E.g. right now the lead says The Airport railway line is a future commuter rail service on the Transperth network, showing that the line is a service. Further work still needs to be done on avoiding confusion in the article. Steelkamp (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: The name of the service is Airport Line. Should the article be renamed from Airport railway line, Perth to Airport Line, Perth? Betterkeks (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be titled that. There may be some resistance from other members of WP:WA, going by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia/Archive 12#Station article titles (a similar proposal, but for stations). Steelkamp (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Surely when the line opens, the article would adopt the same basic name as finally selected by Transperth. I assume it will not be the working title being used during the construction/testing phase. If the new name is a generic one, the qualification of Perth would be a suffix. Even if a unique name, the suffix is likely desirable, especially as an aid for non-local WP readers. Am I realistic in thinking that the terminating of the route at Claremont is merely a ploy to reduce services terminating in Midland and Fremantle, and also create a new route that attempts to justify the enormous construction cost of this airport branch in the context of likely patronage levels over the next few decades? DMBanks1 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: the name adopted by Transperth is Airport Line, which means the article should be renamed Airport Line, Perth. The working title is the Forrestfield–Airport Link.

Am I realistic in thinking that the terminating of the route at Claremont is merely a ploy to reduce services terminating in Midland and Fremantle, and also create a new route that attempts to justify the enormous construction cost of this airport branch in the context of likely patronage levels over the next few decades? I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Steelkamp (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: I appreciate when the international terminal moved to the other side of the runway in 1986, it created a challenge for a public transport solution. That being said, the absolute cost of constructing the rail link chosen would not have satisfied a cost-benefit analysis in many jurisdictions. The passenger levels at the terminal are just not high enough and High Wycombe is never going to become a high density residential area. As an example of how a suburban location can quickly transform into high density by a new railway line see https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2097394,-123.1180266,3a,75y,50.69h,99.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxEKBU2k1w6BZIKVrjK2Sbg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 and https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.209713,-123.1183455,3a,75y,53.85h,117.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swfRcpDNk75_HpwwnzJqaLA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Consequently, when the Perth airport line becomes operational, passenger numbers on the Bayswater to High Wycombe section will be disproportionately low in the context of the capital and operational costs of the branch. By including many of the existing passenger numbers from the Bayswater to Claremont section, the reported cost per passenger carried on the new route is thus improved. If one imagines Midland to Fremantle as a single route, the adding of additional service to a middle section of the route is likely to reduce service frequency on the extremes. DMBanks1 (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Steelkamp: I expect that some Perth university student has, or is in the process of, writing a university thesis on this project. As an observer from afar, I would encourage a local WP contributor to search out such material and use it as a basis for expanding the article. Like most contributors, I have no background in transportation policy and planning, so have found such theses a rich source of useful content. DMBanks1 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2021

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 03:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Airport railway line, Perth → Airport railway line (Perth) – Per WP:QUALIFIER, we should use comma disambiguation for place names only. As a railway line isn't a place name, we should use parenthetical disambiguation. YttriumShrew (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The local convention for Australia seems to be for commas such as Airport railway line, Brisbane and for stations, see Category:Railway stations in Perth, Western Australia. Per WP:PLACEDAB "Specific pre-existing national conventions may take precedence though." but its not clear if these would likely apply here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: This is not a specific convention, it just seems to be an unwritten coincidence. WP:NCAURD says to use parentheses for Australian roads, so it would seem reasonable to do the same for railways. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a coincidence as I said below, but an unwritten convention (established by consensus) for Commonwealth geographical names. Despite what it says in WP:NCAURD, most Australian (and other Commonwealth) city streets do, in fact, use comma disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. For articles about Commonwealth countries (except Canada), we use comma disambiguation for most things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, established naming convention for Australian railway lines is to use comma disambiguation. Joondam (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2021 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Joondalup railway line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

System map renders poorly on mobile devices

The system map renders poorly on mobile devices. Any objections to reverting to the prior map that rendered better? Betterkeks (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about the map under the route section or the diagram in the infobox? If you are talking about the latter, then I fully support removing that. The diagram appears to not be collapsed automatically on mobile, which causes the problem with the map as well. Steelkamp (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Previously discussed move

@Tbf69: I request that you move this page back to Airport line, Perth. There has previously been a discussion on moving this page to bracket disambiguation at Talk:Airport line, Perth#Requested move 23 November 2021 which was closed as not moved. If you want to move the article to Airport line (Perth), you need to initiate another RM. Steelkamp (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, when moving pages, it should be done properly, with related templates like Template:Public Transport Authority of Western Australia railway stations also being updated to the new page name, as per WP:MV#POST. Calistemon (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. In the old days WP:BOLD was looked upon as a positive, more recently RM protocols and discussions are regularly overlooked by newer users. In this case there is no apparent acknowledgement of the earlier RM event, or adequate cognisance of the precedent in Australian railway article titles or any explanation outside of the edit summary. JarrahTree 10:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it back. Turns out I could just press "revert" rather than having to go to WP:RM/TR. Steelkamp (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)