Talk:New South Wales XPT
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination.
Discussions
|
Introduction
There is some bad grammar, useless information and some that is just wrong in this section. As both my efforts to improve have been reversed by Bidgee I will highlight:
1) "eXpress Passenger Train", should read Express Passenger Train, the average reader will be able to understand X is for Express.
2) (HST), abbreviation not needed as not referred to in text
3) The XPT train cars operate... should read XPTs operate... or XPT sets operate....
4) list services to Brisbane and Melbourne, but not Dubbo, Grafton & Casino
5) ...operate passenger rail services up the east coast of Australia from Melbourne (connecting with Tasmania ferries) to Brisbane... Implies services operate from Melbourne to Brisbane. All services originate from Sydney and this should be stated. To travel Melbourne - Brisbane involves a nine hour wait in Sydney.
6) connects with Tasmanian ferries. Terminal is at least 2km away and irrelevant
7) Brisbane connections. Again relevancy, fairly obvious that services for North and West Queensland will depart from the state capital
8) XPT's implies ownership should read XPTs
9) ...QLD and VIC services are subsidised by the Victorian and QLD governments.... Service funding not relevant to page on rolling stock, is covered on CountryLink page.
10) ...QLD and VIC services are not subsidised by the Victorian and QLD governments respectively. Wrong, the Queensland government subsidise the Queensland services, the Victorian government, the Victorian Services
11) State names should appear in full.
12) Abbreviations for Queensland and Victoria are Qld and Vic, not QLD and VIC
Existing Text: The XPT (short for "eXpress Passenger Train") is the main long-distance passenger train used in regional New South Wales, Australia, and on key eastern-seaboard routes including the interstate Sydney–Melbourne and Sydney–Brisbane services. It has been in service from 1982, and is based on the InterCity 125 High Speed Train (HST) designed by British Rail.
The XPT train cars operate passenger rail services up the east coast of Australia from Melbourne (connecting with Tasmania ferries) to Brisbane (with connections north and west on Queensland Rail) and west to Dubbo in the central west of NSW. XPT's are operated by the NSW country rail operator CountryLink however QLD and VIC services are subsidised by the Victorian and QLD governments respectively.
Proposed Text: The XPT (short for Express Passenger Train) is the main long-distance passenger train used by CountryLink on country rail services in New South Wales from Sydney to Dubbo, Grafton and Casino as well as interstate destinations, Brisbane and Melbourne. The XPT is based on the British Rail designed High Speed Train and entered service in 1982. Mo7838 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
eXpress vs Express
eXpress is grammatically incorrect. The spelling of the word is Express. The use of X as an abbreviation for Express is quite common. For example NXEC is the abbreviation for National Express East Coast, not National eXpress East Coast.Mo7838 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is your view. NXEC is called by its full title, XTP isn't. There are a few other articles where the company is known by its abbreviation and the formation of the name is done in the way of the abbreviation, not the grammar. Bidgee (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm here to provide a third opinion as one of you requested here. I was looking on the company website, and they don't spell out what it stands for, much less capitalization. Are you both in agreement of what the acronym stands for (e.g., express passenger train)? If I'm reading this correctly, the concern is solely about the capitalization. On that point, I would tend to agree that it should be "Express" rather than "eXpress", but I'm going to look for some precedent and get back to you. Go Phightins! 15:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The free dictionary says "Express Passenger Train" rather than "eXpress Passenger Train"...Bidgee, do you have any source to back up your view that it should be eXp... rather than Exp...? Go Phightins! 15:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Free dictionary is hardly a reliable source, most documents relating to the XPT are offline but ATSB and Engineers Australia use the "grammatically incorrect" spelling. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do agree that the Free Dictionary isn't much of a source, but it's all I found in my quick Google Search. I'm packing it up for tonight, but I'll check back some time, probably Wednesday as tomorrow is Christmas, to see if I can find anything else. Merry Christmas to both of you! Go Phightins! 04:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Free dictionary is hardly a reliable source, most documents relating to the XPT are offline but ATSB and Engineers Australia use the "grammatically incorrect" spelling. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The free dictionary says "Express Passenger Train" rather than "eXpress Passenger Train"...Bidgee, do you have any source to back up your view that it should be eXp... rather than Exp...? Go Phightins! 15:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm here to provide a third opinion as one of you requested here. I was looking on the company website, and they don't spell out what it stands for, much less capitalization. Are you both in agreement of what the acronym stands for (e.g., express passenger train)? If I'm reading this correctly, the concern is solely about the capitalization. On that point, I would tend to agree that it should be "Express" rather than "eXpress", but I'm going to look for some precedent and get back to you. Go Phightins! 15:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Another view
The official Countrylink web site uses "express passenger train" so this is probably the best option for the article. See http://www.countrylink.info/travelling_with_us/our_fleet/xpt Downsize43 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- While it is the official site, it isn't the best option since it isn't going to use the correct usage as it is selling a product, not a factual site on its history. Bidgee (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Take a look at page 161 of this rather official document: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/high_speed/files/HSR_Phase1_Report_Appendices.pdf Downsize43 (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Rename
- The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved at 11:44, 29 June 2013 by User:Mo7838, logged by Anthony Appleyard (talk) at 05:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- CountryLink XPT → New South Wales XPT – With the impending demise of CountryLink in favour of NSW TrainLink this article may need renaming.
The convention for naming train types varies. For New South Wales locomotives, articles are named New South Wales 80 class locomotive etc irrespective of whether they were first operated by the New South Wales Government Railways, New South Wales Public Transport Commission or State Rail Authority of New South Wales. In Victoria article names reflect the first operator of the locomotive, eg Victorian Railways S class (diesel) and V/Line G class.
Should the article be?:
- left as CountryLink XPT
- New South Wales XPT
- State Rail Authority XPT
- Other
-- Mo7838 (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Leave as is'''or*'''New South Wales XPT'''or*'''State Rail Authority XPT'''or*'''Other''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles. - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Cab View Photograph Removed
Why is a XPT Cab View not relevant to an article on eXpress Passenger Trains and editors revert to their own photographs ? Hpeterswald (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
January 2014
A proposal has been made to use a different image to illustrate the original CountryLink livery. User:Bidgee prefers to retain the status quo with an image which is his/her own work, User:mo7838 prefers an image from a third party. While having both is an option, probably a bit of an overkill. Anyone care to try and break the deadlock? Mo7838 (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Both edits seem to suggest that the purpose of either photo option is to present the former livery of the CountryLink XPT, so I'm using that as my basis for judgement. The 2007 image in Bidgee's edit gives a better idea of the livery and in particular the CountryLink logo. It's not ideal for purpose given that the paint on the side of the locomotive appears to have been damaged by graffiti and train is partly obscured by the bridge, but it's by far the better of the two options proposed. The 2009 image in Mo7838's edit has a number of issues both in terms of overall quality and suitability for the presentation of the old livery. Presentation of the livery on the side of the locomotive - where the actual CountryLink logo itself is displayed - is disrupted by the uneven surface it's painted on, thrown into sharp relief by the perspective of the photo. The locomotive is also filthy, which while potentially a true indication of the everyday condition of the vehicles, does not help in the aim of presenting the livery, a sitaution made worse by the heavy shadow on the front of the locomotive. I don't believe that the old image is poor enough, or the new image demonstrably superior enough, for the replacement of the old in favour of the new to be justified. Zzrbiker (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just looking at this now, I agree with Zzrbiker. The 2007 image gives a better view of the livery/logo, since that was the claimed purpose of including the photo. The 2009 image does not really show≠ much apart from the front of an approaching train. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Future page move
The NSW Government appears to be referring to the new XPTs as, well XPTs. Therefore, I believe this page will need to to moved to a different title I may be looking quite far in the future, but maybe this page should be titled “XPT (1st generation)” or “NSW 2000 class XPT” by the time the 2nd model XPT rolls out of production and onto the rails for the very first time.
Is there any other way to differentiate, and should this matter for now? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- My instinct would be to wait and see what the new model actually ends up being called. I think "2000 class XPT" has a nice ring to it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. You could say it has that railway technicality. Probably best to wait for further details, then create a seperate article for each as well as the two in general (which could just be called XPT) trainsandtech (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Confusing Infoboxes
G'day, guys.
This mainly goes out to @Democfest, the guy who thought of this idea.
Have you realised that there are two infoboxes, both for the Rolling Stock and Power Cars of the XPT? I think it's a bit confusing, especially for new readers. We should just merge the rolling stock one with the locomotive one. I can back this because if you look at the infobox of the Intercity 125, Intercity 225 and British Rail Class 373, which are all trains with a whole seperate power car, there isn't any second infobox. I believe we should just add one infobox. MrActiniuM (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 9 July 2026
- 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) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
New South Wales XPT → XPT (train) – I propose moving as the XPT absolutely doesn't only operate in New South Wales. Despite being it being its primary operating state, we should still include the fact it also operates along these lines. The "New South Wales" is also an unnecessary unambiguator. We can also do the alts "Eastern Australia XPT" or "Comeng XPT" MrActiniuM ☢️talk 03:00, 9 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject New South Wales, WikiProject Australian Transport, Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Trains, and WikiProject Trains/Passenger trains task force have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support as the current title is overprecise. Not sure about the alternate titles though, I doubt an average reader would know what "Comeng" is or the states and territories that make up Eastern Australia. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- The train is owned and operated by the Government of New South Wales though, and the current naming is consistent with other New South Wales passenger trains, such as New South Wales Hunter railcar and New South Wales Endeavour railcar. On the other hand, the name you have proposed is more concise. Steelkamp (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- 'Eastern Australia' is certainly not an applicable term — never used in reference to train classes — and Comeng is not the sole manufacturer. New South Wales is consistent with the naming convention. XPT (train) is alright. Will Thorpe (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. With disambiguation needed, I don’t understand why we would move to parenthetical disambiguation when the article title already uses preferable natural disambiguation. An appropriately precise form of natural disambiguation which a quick glance into Category:Rolling stock of New South Wales shows is consistently used across other rolling stock classes which have similarly been built for, owned by, and operated by New South Wales. Why make an exception for this article? New South Wales has operated interstate services with a variety of rolling stock for around a century—by the same logic, should we also rename articles of locomotives that hauled the Southern Aurora or the Brisbane Limited to remove parenthetical disambiguation which references New South Wales? Tomiĉo (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Forgive my naivety, but what is the reason for not naming the articles after the operators NSW TrainLink instead? It might fit with the "specific class of equipment used by a specific railroad company" criterion at WP:TWP/MOS and would avoid the geographically-locked overprecision. YuniToumei (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- There have been multiple historic operators prior to NSW TrainLink. Using the original operator is sometimes used on Wikipedia for different jurisdictions' rolling stock, but appears not to be the convention for New South Wales rolling stock. Fork99 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Tomiĉo and the reasons mentioned by Steelkamp. The operational area is less important than the operator (which is and always has been an entity of the NSW Government), and this follows the consistent naming convention for articles on the other types of rolling stock across the rail service operating entities of the NSW Government. Rob.au (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am not convinced there is a good reason to make this move. The nominator has not cited any policy grounds to do so. To make this move would be not be WP:CONSISTENT with other locomotive classes and multiple unit trains (eg New South Wales 81 class locomotive, New South Wales 44 class locomotive or New South Wales V set), per Steelkamp and Tomico's comments above. I think that rather than being an unnecessary disambiguation, the current title is a reflection of convention for rolling stock first commissioned and operated by entities of the New South Wales Government. I don't think it is relevant that they travel outside of the state. NSW-built freight locos travel all over the ARTC interstate network regularly now with private operators, and historically the New South Wales 900/800 class railcar regularly operated into the ACT. Unless you are proposing renaming any NSW rolling stock that regularly crossed state borders (which would be something you would need broader consensus for via an RfC), I just don't see a rationale for how this move would improve the encyclopedia. In fairness, the original title of the article was "XPT (train)" as is proposed, but that was moved to CountryLink XPT in 2008 and then finally moved to the current title following an RM in 2013 and has been the stable title ever since - and it has been operating to Queensland and Victoria that whole time. Dfadden (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, current tille is WP:CONSISTENT with all other members of Category:NSW TrainLink. Just because a type of rolling stock operates in more than one state is not reason enough to rename. It we applied that across the boad then we would be renaming New South Wales 422 class locomotive, Victorian Railways C class (diesel), Queensland Railways 2350 class, South Australian Railways 830 class, WAGR L class (diesel) and numerous others as these have all operated in multiple states and territories. Noritplere (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Right on the edge of a consensus to not move here, and considering it has no prior relistings I think giving it one makes sense. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 14:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Given that there are four clear oppose votes to one clear support vote, the discussion should have been closed as not moved; this is not a case where a supermajority of votes is needed, that is already present! As for argument quality, all arguments seem to be grounded in policy just as much as each other so there is little difference between all the responses on that measure. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)