Talk:New South Wales XPT

Australia: New South Wales / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal New South Wales XPT is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Passenger trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	July 23, 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, as between Bidgee's sources and the free dictionary, I would lean towards Bidgee, and therefore my third opinion would be that eXpress Passenger Train is the spelling we should use. Go Phightins! 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,[1] User:mo7838 prefers an image from a third party.[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]