Talk:North West Metro

message: Due to today's announcement by the NSW Government, a major rewrite of this article is required. It's only a start, hopefully others can provide additional information. But at this stage the only reference material I've been able to use this the press release dated 18/03/08 .
I've also removed content that refered to the previous heavy rail option using existing Cityrail rolling stock. Surfing bird (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Rewrite is required

message: Does anyone know what the numbers 2001/2 and 2005/6 refer to next to the station list? And where the Eastwood reference came from? (See here for more details.)JRG (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stations

message: I've inserted a section break here, but we still are yet to work out the actual importance of this facility in terms of the whole project. BB needs to read WP:NPOV and be wary of giving undue weight to something that is relatively non-important in the whole scheme of things. In terms of the information published on this compared to the whole project, it's a very minor thing at this point in time. It does not need two large paragraphs— what's in the ventilation and egress facility is not important, for example, and can be left out; the guesswork, as true as it may be, about the midpoint, is also not important. The fact that is it is being built is important, but deserves no more than a couple of sentences, otherwise this article will become a POV fork about a non-notable egress facility written by a local resident as their soapbox on housing prices lowering because of the presence of the line in their area, and not about a metro line. Let's leave the one small paragraph and leave it at that.  JRG (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Non-noteable"? "Non-important"? The Metro absolutely cannot be operated without this exact facility. If you had read the reference I cited instead of prattling on about "housing prices" you would have seen the importance TIDC attaches to this facility. The Metro can do without a station or two, or three or four, but definitely not this facility. Of particular relevance is its location, at the midpoint of the tunnel between the unusually widely separated Epping and Cherrybrook stations. For the Metro to exist at all then at least Epping and Cherrybrook will be built (a rail line, to be a "line", must have at least the first two stations, which are nominated as Epping and Cherrybrook, 6km apart). Consequently, the designers say Epping and Cherrybrook must have this facility between them for safety reasons. It must be as near to the midpoint as possible to equalize ventilation pressures, push-pull airflow and to optimize evacuation in case of emergency. This is not guesswork, it is stated in the document cited. The document establishes the length of the tunnel as driving the necessity to build the facility. Clearly, according to the sources: no facility, no Metro. Re: motivation... You are guessing at my motives. There is nothing in my addition to the article or any of the earlier versions that mentions housing prices. Zip. I do not know where you got that idea from, unless it is by inference... which you have repeatedly stated is a sin around here. I could be interested in the habitat of the crested pigeon for all you know. I might be an air-conditioning buff. I might like trains. Pure unadulterated supposition on your part as to my motives. In any case, motivation is immaterial as long as neutrality is observed. Re: Size... The amount of machinery goes to the size of the facility. In fact these sites are larger in surface footprint than some stations, as stations in built-up areas with parking already present (e.g. Macquarie Centre, Nth. Ryde) have, on the surface, only a couple of entrance ways, Metro-style. This place will carry its own staff facilities, plus construction and operational road access, surrounded by a high fence for security (as it, and its millions of dollars worth of equipment, will be mostly unattended). The original author may have thought this facility was unimportant, but that is his opinion. Why is its importance not subject to re-evaluation by other authors?--Bushfire Bill (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Entry has been updated to reflect only facts as presented in TIDC/SydneyLink documents.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks OK to me now. I've removed the heading from that section of the text, however, as single paragraphs shouldn't have their own headings. Is this the only ventilation station to be built on the line - any others should also be mentioned in that para? --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have juxtaposed the paragraph on the facility with the one that used to be above it for reasons of contextual flow.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the only standalone facility mentioned in any documents I can find. The rest, if any, would be part of station infrastructure and thus buried in the detail, as the attempt has been to bury this facility...in the detail. There is a certain infrastructure overhead involved in this facility, over and above functional, as it is a greenfields site. It needs to be powered and isolated with a security fence, plus of course access room for actual construction of the building, all of which will add to its surface footprint. Due to the nature, size and function of the equipment housed within the associated blockhouse building - transformers, ventilation, possible fire fighting, egress stairways etc. - the building must be up to 8 metres high, but can come down to six: around about 2 stories high. It will most likely penetrate at least 4 metres into the ground. The size of the pit required is slightly larger than the 20x10 metre footprint of the surface construction. This can be seen from aerial photos, taken at the time, of similar buildings at Lady Game Drive and Delhi Road during construction. The inclusion of a hydrant booster valve (which allows multiple coupling of fire hoses, or the coupling of an additional water pump to boost pressure to a single hose) indicates that fighting fires in the tunnels (and perhaps the bushland) is an anticipated function. It is not mentioned whether there will also be a large water tank for independent fire fighting supply, as there is at Lady Game Drive. There are also creeks running through the Reserve which will need diversion and flood proofing. Construction will take at least 18 months. It is clear that this facility must be built or else the Metro will not get to the first station, Cherrybrook, much less to the rest of the line from Castle Hill out to Rouse Hill. It is therefore a vital piece of infrastructure, as important, if not more so in some cases than any individual station. The Metro can be built without a station or two, but not without this facility. So it's important to the politicians as well as the engineers. OK, so the documents cleverly do not say where it is going (well they define the point but decline to specifically nominate it), but I can assure you with absolute confidence, this is the intended spot. The lack of certainty is not conservative engineers being careful, but a deliberate attempt to bury the issue in ambiguity. Plans are being drawn up to be presented only after final approval. Some of the same people are working on this as worked on Lady Game Drive and they have learnt the lesson of being too open with the public. There was supposed to have been a report by TIDC (similar to the document cited in the article) made back to the Planning Dept. about the changed route, but after 8 months since 3,000 residents' submissions were made, it has not materialised. According to local activists, many submissions objected to this site for the facility, so the lack of a report on the objections is suspicious. Also alternative routes were proposed. These have been clearly rejected, but the first anyone knew of the "no change" policy was from the newspapers, not the (non-existent) formal report they should have received. But let's not go all over that again.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You've come full circle Michelle. You spend four days challenging me because you allege I make up detail that isn't there on the TIDC web site. Then you suggest I direct people go to the TIDC web site to find the detail you say doesn't exist. Gotta love that. Alternatively, you say residents should talk to TIDC. You assume I'm a local resident and that if I sweet-talked TIDC, anybody can. They are only your assumptions. I appreciate your helping a newbie just arrived at Wikipedia, writing a first article. The discipline has been useful and has helped me understand the environment here. But you should consider your assumptions as to motivation. They may be wrong.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I never challenged the detail, but challenged your WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (which others have as well), it is clear to me you're a single purpose account pushing this whole Beecroft issue with original research of conversations to comment on TIDC documents. When the whole railway starts getting constructed they'll be a whole lot of big technical issues and residential areas affected like this one. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point of view is not neutral. It does not have to be as long as my writing is neutral. The process over the past week has ensured the expression of my point of view is neutral. I don't like this "Thought Police" attitude of yours. My thoughts and my attitudes are my own. Your job is to guard against my introducing them unduly into my text. We have reached a compromise on the text. Let's leave it at that. 
As to conversations: I know for a fact your interpretation of the TIDC document is wrong. I have spoken to the authors about the same thing that has fooled you. The reason I spoke to them was that I noted the potential ambiguity between two passages of text. The resolution was substantially what a plain reading of the text allows: the site is known, as defined by the formula given ("midpoint"). The exact placement can be within a hundred metres or so either way. 
At the time there was doubt over the route under Beecroft, which had been recently changed from a partially surface route along the Northern Line. It may have taken a different path, away from most of Beecroft/Cheltenham altogether. the word "midpoint" was dependent upon the route. The route issue has now been resolved: the route stays as it was outlined in historical TIDC and current SydneyLink maps. Now that the route has been established, the place for the facility - plus or minus a hundred metres -  is determined by simple observation of the midpoint between two stations as located on any TIDC or SydneyLink map. An explanation as to why the midpont is crucial (also cited) clinches the location. 
However, I held off writing the passage until the route was established. What could be fairer than that? Anyone knowing the route can establish the midpoint from the passages I cited. It is on the map. 
Lastly, please understand that waiting until the railway is started will be too late to inform people along the route. Unless you think TIDC should be the sole arbiters of what goes in the article, then negative aspects of the construction are entitled be mentioned as well as the benficial aspects. The first thing that will be done to construct this facility will be to chop down the trees. Once they are gone (and it would only take a week to do it), the damage is done. As construction of these facilities will take 18 months, the trees will need to be chopped down before the boring machine is even set up at Epping, so that the tunnel and the excavation at the midpoint will dovetail together. There may be other areas affected by the construction, but this is the only totally virgin bushland that will be affected, given the route decided upon. Readers of articles on the Metro surely are entitled to be made aware of this before construction starts, not after it.
Someone concerned with the construction of the railway has written the original article. This was noted well above in this discussion. The article was all upside, no downside. Lightning fast transit times, nice clean stations, fancy route maps: that is definitely a non-neutral point of view designed to push the Metro as a wonderful thing. Why have you not challenged that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushfire Bill (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with citated negative information being presented in any article as long as it conforms to NPOV. Comment such as "I have spoken to the authors about the same thing that has fooled you." and reporting it is still original research. Wikipedia only reports things from reliable sources preferably newspaper articles and official reports not conversations. I still stand by my point on single purpose account. And please sign your contributions. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you were waiting for me to make another mistake, Michellecrisp, but that last snipe of yours was unworthy of you (please: no more links to rules pages! I forgot to sign it, went back to do so and encountered an edit conflict. Then the phone rang here, and the rest is history... thank God for the signbot). Show me where I referred to a conversation in my addition to the article, at any stage of its evolution. You raised concerns about the neutrality and detail of my original versions and in the spirit of co-operation I adjusted my entry to its present state. The entry appears to be neutral. What does it take to satisfy you? Wikipedia would not exist without its writers having a diverse range of interests, points of view and agendas. Invigilators like yourself (to whom Wikipedia itself seems to be of prime interest) see to it that the writing is kept as neutral as possible (and for that I thank you), but you cannot second-guess the motivations of contributors. That is none of your business. As for "single purpose account", for God's sake, I've only been here four days, most of it spent trying to make you, Nick and TRG happy. Do you expect me to have written entries on flower arranging, or perhaps optics as well in my other spare waking hours? Wikipedia may be your prime interest in life. It is not mine. If you really want to keep this page NPOV, cover up all traces of my conversations and your nitpicking by deleting the whole discussion thread. I couldn't care less if you did. Your choice. I have placed the entry I wanted to, pared down to an agreed neutrality after rigorous criticism and a steep learning curve, and that's all I ever wanted to do.--Bushfire Bill (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep comments to article improvement in line with talk page guidelines. Long comments tend to be skipped over by people.Single purpose accounts tend to be strongly associated with NPOV issues in article contributions (I've encountered this many a time in Wikipedia). This Beecroft issue seems to be occupying all of your time on Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "This Beecroft issue seems to be occupying all of your time on Wikipedia." All FOUR days? You are unbelieveable, Michellcrisp. How many topics have you written articles on since Sunday? How many did you write in your first week here? I see from your user page I am not alone in being stalked by you and that you have recently been cautioned against "inappropriate threats, warnings and accusations ... which degenerated into a talk page argument", which, according to you, is not what talk pages are supposed to be used for. And this was on March 28, the day before you started inappropriately accusing me. Fancy that! Seems you have form, Michelle. The talk page guru telling others what talk pages are for, being cited herself for improper use of a talk page! To use a form of words which is employed to describe "people who are viewed as officious or intermeddling in someone else's affairs": Get A Life--Bushfire Bill (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: The image :File:Castle Hill Station Platform Proposed.jpg 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. --11:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Castle Hill Station Platform Proposed.jpg

message: Based on the latest announcement by the NSW Government with the cancellation of the North West Metro and the reinstatement of the North West Rail Link, this article should be split into two separate articles. The North West Metro article (this article) shall remain as a historical page (much similar to West Metro and CBD Metro pages), and this article is sufficient to remain as its own. This article also carries the Anzac line information that is irrelevant to the new (old) North West Rail Link, thus should remain as a separate article. The North West railway line, Sydney article will be solely used to describe the North West Rail Link and will only contain brief mentions of the North West Metro as part of its History section. --Damaster98 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancellation of the North West Metro