Talk:V/Line VLocity

message: , I understand your reasoning for changing links from lines to services but I think we need some consistency here. Various discussions (see Talk:Rail transport in Victoria) have failed to come to consensus on how to tell the difference, but if we can get a local agreement here it would be good for the article. Here's my thinking: in the Operations section, where we discuss the actual tracks on which the trains run, the link should be to the line; in the Infobox and elsewhere where we discuss the services/timetables the trains fill, the link should be to the service. I'm going to do that now, but I'm happy to discuss it with you here. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lines vs services 

message: Thanks for your contributions to the article. I'd just like to politely request that in future you use the WP:CS1 templates for references in this article; per WP:CITEVAR references should respect the established style in the article, which here is CS1 after my cleanup late last year. I've also added back a little bit of information about the original contract which there was no obvious reason to remove. In future, it would be helpful if you used edit summaries to communicate the reasons for your changes to other editors. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: To be frank I don't think the Wikipedia audience cares what they're called in the fleet plan. It only becomes relevant to us if we start to make the distinction in articles, which we should not do until/unless the distinction is made in secondary sources. Practically speaking that means if Newsrail or similar publications start to use VR76, for example, instead of VL76, we should too, but until that happens the coding is of no concern to us. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point re coding, and good to have some sort of guideline. I suppose the main point I was trying to communicate is that V/Line is avoiding mixing the new sets with the old sets. Anothersignalman (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be confident a publication will cover that it good time. Until then, it need not be in our article. WP:NODEADLINE. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  VR76? 

message: I can't find a good source for this anywhere. Just this one article, which may well be basing its claim off Wikipedia. thorpewilliam (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the claim repeated at Railvolution (no idea how reliable it is, but a quick search shows the site is cited frequently within Wikipedia). The wording looks suspiciously like it came via Wikipedia also. I'd suggest that for a claim like this, we need to be pretty strict on reliability of sources - an actual engineering specification would be ideal. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

text: History of Comeng Vol. 5 says nothing about a higher design speed in its quite detailed chapter on the design of the VLocity. In fact, I was reminded of the fact that their original name was "VLocity 160". There's also a thread on railpage (not reliable per se, but frequently a good indicator of the truth) where someone speculates that the trains could reach 200km/h if the transmission were modified with gear ratios for higher speeds, which would be a major overhaul. I'm ready to call bullshit on the 210km/h claim, without prejudice to reintroduction if someone can find a decent source. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top speed of 210 km/h? 

message: Do these have air secondary suspension, with/without ride level control? 58.178.194.21 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension 

message: The article shows that a handful of units are classified as VR instead of the ordinary VL (or VS for standard-gauge) but gives no explanation for why. I see that this was brought up back in August 2019, but without resolution. Is there any way this can be addressed now? XAM2175 (T) 21:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This V/Line web site discusses the various VLocity configurations.  https://www.vline.com.au/Fares-general-info/On-board Pvda64 (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: VR designations are mentioned on the Vicsig VLocity page. -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thank you. Is there anything that qualify as a reliable source for that fact, though? XAM2175 (T) 13:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

text: @Pvda64: How does that page answer my question? XAM2175 (T) 13:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "VR" designation