![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There seems to be some disagreement about the nature of the IKF. Let me nail my colours to the mast. The Integrated Kent Franchise is an amalgamation of the old South Eastern Franchise and the CTRL Domestic Services. For the purposes of accuracy on the succession box, I believe it is fair to treat the CTRL-DS as a franchise itself that simply did not run any trains. Is this fair, or am I talking out of somewhere unpleasant? Hammersfan 31/10/07, 13.19 GMT
Is there a particular reason why these are in mixed-case? It seems more logical to me that they should be capitalized, being as they are abbreviations of other words rather than words themselves, e.g. CIG being C for Corridor and IG being the SR telegraph code for Brighton (Or Something™), and REP being R for Restaurant and EP representing EP brakes, etc. 85.92.190.81 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've created a draft for a redesigned main page of the project. It would involve moving the templates, categories and members lists to their own subpages. I hope that this will help the main page become clear and more concise. I would appreciate all comments, opinions and suggestions.
The draft can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Draft. Feel free to edit it.
Thanks, -- Jorvik 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been bold and implemented the new design, as there were no objections to it. -- Jorvik 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion copied from Geof Sheppard's talk page for information...
Please can you leave them, its only 5 days and there are so many about, think it would be easier to leave them Mark999 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been reviewing some of my old railway articles and am coming to think that merging the three separate articles on the three Cromer railway stations ( Cromer railway station, Cromer High railway station and Cromer Links Halt railway station) into a single article makes more sense given that only one of the three is still open and has taken on the business of all three; this would save the content-forking of the Other stations in Cromer section. Does anyone have any strong feelings for/against this? (I don't propose to do it anywhere like Gainsborough which still has two stations open, or Leicester where the closed stations have enough material that a merge would be very messy and make the articles overly long.) It seems that Cromer Links, in particular, is doomed to be a perma-stub as a stand-alone page, and even the fairly substantial Cromer High could just as well be served as a section on the current station; if anyone did feel the urge to expand either closed station, they could always be separated back out again. — iride scent 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm at present working my way through the lists of crashes on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom (in an attempt to make them more concise in their reading) and it's occurred to me that, although not technically biographies many of the articles or synopsis could pose the same issues that are raised in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as some of those directly involved could still be alive - although most facts are taken from official reports etc, so the facts are not in doubt, there is still the possibility of 'sloppy wording' that could cause miss interpretation and thus controversial, contentious or even libellous content. Perhaps we need a simular template as to the "WPBiography" template as used on biographies of living persons, any thoughts? SouthernElectric 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC) edited @ 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to raise a potentially ugly topic again, but if this project switched from {{ rail line}} to {{ s-rail}} these changes would've taken a fraction of the time. Changes like this [1] would be totally unnecessary. Now, I realize that means we don't get to inflate our edit counts any more, but I'd like to see a serious discussion of the matter. The last time (August?) this came up, the only real opposition I noted came from users who didn't want succession boxes at all... Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I happened on Luton railway station, where there has been another silent edit-war, this one between Geoking66 ( talk · contribs) [2] and Hammersfan ( talk · contribs) [3]. Now, I'm going to paste the different boxes below so we can see easily what's being fought over:
Preceding station | National Rail | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
London St Pancras |
East Midlands Trains Midland Main Line |
Bedford | ||
Luton Airport Parkway |
First Capital Connect Thameslink |
Leagrave |
Preceding station | National Rail | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Luton Airport Parkway |
First Capital Connect Thameslink |
Leagrave | ||
Preceding station | East Midlands Trains | Following station | ||
London-Nottingham |
The graphical differences should be apparent: the second shows terminus information, and locates the name of the train operating company in the header instead of the route box. I submit that a casual viewer will not notice a significant difference, except that there's more information presented.
The really important changes are internal. The second box does not, for East Midlands Trains, define the route colour locally. That's done at a central template ( Template:East Midlands Trains color). The termini, the line names, the station naming pattern-this is all done centrally. Once the initial templates are created, user modification is a snap.
I want to emphasize, again, that s-rail does not induce drastic formatting changes. It does not create lots of whitespace. It's derived from rail line and is designed to simply the per-article box as much as possible, while guaranteeing uniformity of appearance and easing maintenance. As I said, I'd like a fruitful discussion of this topic. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=London-Nottingham|previous=St Pancras|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
Here, it's quite clear that EMT is part of the National Rail system. Now, the s-rail version is silent on the Midland Main Line, it's clearly dealing with just the branch. That's not how I would have done it; I'd have done this:
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=Midland Main|branch=London-Nottingham|previous=St Pancras|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
This makes it clear where the line sits within the greater system. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer an above question, it can be possible to suppress the terminus information, as I've demonstrated below. The code in question hasn't been merged to the actual template yet. This is controlled through the style template, so it operates at the TOC level. Thus you can turn off termini for, say, East Midlands Trains but not c2c. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=Midland Main|branch=London-Nottingham|previous=St Pancras|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=Midland Main|previous=Luton Airport Parkway|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
As a note, there's no real obstacle to "National Rail" being a defined system, and each TOC a line. With branches you can get fine grained if necessary. Here's Kensington (Olympia) using this concept (side by side with the Underground):
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=LUL}}
{{s-line|system=LUL|line=District|next=Earl's Court|type2=High Street Kensington}}
{{s-rail|title=National Rail}}
{{s-line|system=National Rail|line=Southern|previous=Wembley Central|next=West Brompton|rows2=2}}
{{s-line|system=National Rail|line=London Overground|branch=West London|previous=Shepherd's Bush|next=West Brompton|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=National Rail|line=CrossCountry|branch=Brighton-Manchester|previous=Reading|next=East Croydon}}
{{end}}
The branches are of course optional. Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not that sure that a header starting "National Rail" actually adds anything useful for the reader. Except for some metro/suburban routes all the rest are 'national rail' so those that aren't already have a correct header. ATOC themselves list who are franchised operators (which, btw, doesn't list London Overground or London Underground) so maybe we should user s-list and make our lives easier on the maintenance front? -- AlisonW ( talk) 13:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've begun a temporary Virgin Cross Country article in my userspace at User:RFBailey/VXC. This is designed to replace the current article, now that the franchise no longer operates, and should be written from a historical perspective, covering the whole 10 years they existed. It's nowhere near ready yet, but any thoughts would be appreciated. -- RFBailey 16:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the Valley Lines be split? See Talk:Valley Lines#Split? Simply south 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please can we get rid of them!!! I really think they are horrible. Mark999 13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion about the merits of the {{ rail line}} and {{ s-rail}} templates has brought to mind the following dilemma: what exactly are these boxes for? To my mind, they should be navigational templates, showing what the adjacent stations on either side are, on a particular route. In this way, they give primarily geographical information. Also, as succession boxes, they should be placed at the end of an article.
However, there is a growing trend to use them to demonstrate calling patterns, and place them in the "Services" section commonly found nearer the top of articles. I find this trend a worrying one. Take for example the Midland Main Line. Now, between London and Leicester there are various stations, which have a combination of regular and irregular services. For instance, Bedford has two trains per hour during Monday to Saturday daytimes in each direction: one to/from Derby and one to/from Nottingham. Typically, one will call at Luton, and the other at Luton Airport Parkway, to the south, while both call at Wellingborough to the north. However, at other times (e.g. peak periods, early mornings, late at night, on Sundays, as well as irregularly during the daytime), there are also trains from Sheffield, where the previous/next stations vary (e.g. some run fast to St Pancras, some run fast from Leicester, while others call at some intermediate stations). Now, if we're going to have something like this:
Preceding station |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Flitwick |
First Capital Connect Thameslink |
Terminus | ||
Bedford St Johns |
London Midland Marston Vale Line |
Terminus | ||
Luton Airport Parkway |
East Midlands Trains London-Derby |
Wellingborough | ||
Luton |
East Midlands Trains London-Nottingham |
then this only tells part of the story. However, if we were to use the succession box to tell the full story in all its gory details, we'd have something twice the size. So it is far better just to say in the succession boxes that the next station to the south is Luton and the next station to the north is Wellingborough. We can then explain in more detail in the text of the article, in continuous prose and proper sentences, that the services actually are, summarising the situation (e.g. general patterns, exceptions, anomalies) of a particular station's services.
What are others' thoughts on this issue? -- RFBailey 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{Amtrak lines|Wolverine}}
presents similar issues: different services call at different stations throughout southern Michigan. We saw the boxes as describing the line, and noted the patterns in the article text. I think is the right approach, especially given the overall complexity of the British network.
Mackensen
(talk)
01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Preceding station |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Terminus |
South West Trains Reading-Waterloo | |||
South West Trains Reading-Brighton | ||||
First Great Western North Downs Line | ||||
First Great Western Great Western Main Line | ||||
First Great Western Reading-Plymouth Line | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry |
-- Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Amgmichael ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The Reading box looks like a considerable improvement. In answer to EdJogg and Stewart/Pencefn: there are still (a few) trains via Olympia (I used to catch them sometimes not that long ago), so that should definitely stay. One gripe: how do we remove the "(Surrey)" from after Guildford? ---- RFBailey ( talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Preceding station |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Terminus |
South West Trains Reading-Waterloo | |||
South West Trains Reading-Brighton | ||||
First Great Western North Downs Line | ||||
First Great Western Great Western Main Line | ||||
First Great Western Reading-Plymouth Line | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry |
New version. -- Simply south ( talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To change station links, add: | blah=[[blah (blah) railway station|blah]] (obviously without the add: and the <nowiki></nowiki>) to Template:National Rail stations. -- Simply south ( talk) 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This section starts with the question: what exactly are these boxes for but seems to have got sidetracked into some specific detail. Let's return to that question – as I hinted above, it is key to solving the S-Rail dilema.
I am still of the opinion that a succession box is largely redundant if there is a good navigation template. If this is arranged in station order by lines then problem solved, and a reader can see a much wider area than just one station either side.
The problem that I see with the route vs. operator arguement is highlighted by CrossCountry, and many of the stations that I try to keep tidy are served by that operator. It often has very different stopping patterns to the local operator. Take Birmingham New Street railway station for instance, where Virgin used to run non-stop to Burton-on-Trent while Central stopped at Water Oreton and Wilncote. It would have been odd to show the next station for Virgin as they did not stop there. Of course, now Arriva operates both services, so only one line is needed, yes? Hmm, does anyone who understands the area feel up to correcting New Street and the Cardiff-Nottingham Line article too?
S-Rail is promoted as making changes easier. Good navigation boxes can do the same, and don't run on for several screens! Geof Sheppard ( talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed that Cardiff Central to Newcastle Line, recently created by User:Welshleprechaun, for deletion. After all, it's not a physical line as such, it describes a service that operates once a day over other lines, that already have articles about them. Also, I don't want this to set a precedent for the creation of other, equally insignficant articles about once-a-day services all over the place--this would be ridiculous! -- RFBailey 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am sorry, for going off topic, I just felt that it needed to be said! I feel that the article should be deleted really. It is/it is now pat of CrossCountry Dewarw ( talk) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I wondered about the airports when I created the route map template from the existing route map in the article, so I left them in as I was not sure of the reason that had led to them being added. Gloucestershire Airport is an odd one to include as it does not have any scheduled or chartered services. I was inclined to remove it but decided against at present. Bristol and Cardiff Airports are beyond the end of the routes cover (doesn't Cardiff have a closer station that is advertised for Cardiff Airport), whilst Birmingham airport has its own station on another route. -- Stewart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Found the relevant stations:
For this two of the stated airports have stations on other lines; two have bus connections from the stations noted and the fifth is midway between two without a public transport link (unless someone can find out otherwise). Consequently, I think the question should be asked again - How valid are these symbols?
Now I have had another look at the route map, how valid are some of the station around Birmingham (for example University, Barnt Green) at which the long distance trains do not stop. Same goes for around Bristol and (as previously mentioned) South Wales. And why had the Severn Beach Line been singled out for linking/junction when none of the connecting mainlines were not added.
Having created the template from existing work, I think there is a lot that needs to be done to it apart for the narrowing I had already made a start on. -- Stewart (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think former companies, lets use tocs for now, should be added to templates such as:
and
etc...? -- Simply south ( talk) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it okay/a good idea to add those links that are rail-bus/rail-ferry links (as in you can buy through tickets with your rail ticket) after all many are rail sponsored and it is explaining the services which are available at any given location? PlusBus I feel should be mentiond in the main text if it is available. What do you think? Amgmichael ( talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on British Rail Mark 3 has been edited many times by a user who insists that the class of travel during the introduction of TS and TSO vehicles was Standard Class. They claim that Second Class is ambiguious.
As I see it, Second Class was in use on BR for many years longer than Standard Class ever was, and no Mark 1, 2 or 3 vehicles were ever build as Standard Class, only becoming that, after the name change. I cannot remember if Mark 4s were ever Second. Many other articles refer to vehicles as being Second Class, such as British Rail Class 304 and British Rail coach designations even refers to both Standard and Second.
My opinion is that the correct designation should be used for the correct time period. To call the Standard accomadation on the British Rail Class 390 Second Class would be wrong, much the same as to call the British Rail Mark 3 Standard at time of introduction is incorrect. 81.159.77.176 ( talk) 22:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is clear from WT:RAIL#London above that we all recognise London Overground is a part of the TfL / London mass transit. As the Overground has been fully incorporated into TfL's management of London transport, and there are no joint / shared services with other organisations then it would seem to me appropriate and correct to organise and mark route boxes for the Overground services (North, West, Watford DC, and Goblin) in the same way as we have always done for the Underground services. Similarly, since November 11th, it is also incorrect to is 2-into-1 connectors between Overground services and those still provided by 'national rail' TOCs. I would suggest that route maps are about the *services* that are available on those routes, and not about the *ownership* of the physical line (otherwise we would also include far more service and private sidings / connections too) and the use of s-line greatly assists in both the maintenance and ease of use (by the reader) of the information we present about each station. Further, whilst other (main) lines are clearly for mixed use, whilst there may be some freight traffic on sections of the London Overground it must now be defined as a 'suburban / metro service' rather than a general route (indeed whereas most other lines will have different stopping/express operations, the London Overground is an 'all the stations, all the time' operation. -- AlisonW ( talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There is petition to re open the Great Central Main Line the link is here [4].
Mark999 Mark999 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have this problem (and i hope this displays correctly)? Also, does this depend on the browser? Also, is it best if i raised this on WT:RDT?
Simply south ( talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably failing to follow the "Bold" guideline, but as a relatively inexperienced editor I don't want to rush into deletion of text that is factually correct, just ephemeral and not very interesting.
Some of the Styal line stations have paragraphs referring to very specific closures, for example the Burnage page contains :-
"The station at Burnage was closed from 29 January to 25 March 2007 whilst reconstruction of the platforms took place. A rail replacement bus service was provided to nearby East Didsbury railway station running at frequent intervals to connect with trains."
Does this kind of information really have a place in Wikipedia? Navrongo ( talk) 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There seems to be some disagreement about the nature of the IKF. Let me nail my colours to the mast. The Integrated Kent Franchise is an amalgamation of the old South Eastern Franchise and the CTRL Domestic Services. For the purposes of accuracy on the succession box, I believe it is fair to treat the CTRL-DS as a franchise itself that simply did not run any trains. Is this fair, or am I talking out of somewhere unpleasant? Hammersfan 31/10/07, 13.19 GMT
Is there a particular reason why these are in mixed-case? It seems more logical to me that they should be capitalized, being as they are abbreviations of other words rather than words themselves, e.g. CIG being C for Corridor and IG being the SR telegraph code for Brighton (Or Something™), and REP being R for Restaurant and EP representing EP brakes, etc. 85.92.190.81 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've created a draft for a redesigned main page of the project. It would involve moving the templates, categories and members lists to their own subpages. I hope that this will help the main page become clear and more concise. I would appreciate all comments, opinions and suggestions.
The draft can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Draft. Feel free to edit it.
Thanks, -- Jorvik 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been bold and implemented the new design, as there were no objections to it. -- Jorvik 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion copied from Geof Sheppard's talk page for information...
Please can you leave them, its only 5 days and there are so many about, think it would be easier to leave them Mark999 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been reviewing some of my old railway articles and am coming to think that merging the three separate articles on the three Cromer railway stations ( Cromer railway station, Cromer High railway station and Cromer Links Halt railway station) into a single article makes more sense given that only one of the three is still open and has taken on the business of all three; this would save the content-forking of the Other stations in Cromer section. Does anyone have any strong feelings for/against this? (I don't propose to do it anywhere like Gainsborough which still has two stations open, or Leicester where the closed stations have enough material that a merge would be very messy and make the articles overly long.) It seems that Cromer Links, in particular, is doomed to be a perma-stub as a stand-alone page, and even the fairly substantial Cromer High could just as well be served as a section on the current station; if anyone did feel the urge to expand either closed station, they could always be separated back out again. — iride scent 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm at present working my way through the lists of crashes on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom (in an attempt to make them more concise in their reading) and it's occurred to me that, although not technically biographies many of the articles or synopsis could pose the same issues that are raised in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as some of those directly involved could still be alive - although most facts are taken from official reports etc, so the facts are not in doubt, there is still the possibility of 'sloppy wording' that could cause miss interpretation and thus controversial, contentious or even libellous content. Perhaps we need a simular template as to the "WPBiography" template as used on biographies of living persons, any thoughts? SouthernElectric 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC) edited @ 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to raise a potentially ugly topic again, but if this project switched from {{ rail line}} to {{ s-rail}} these changes would've taken a fraction of the time. Changes like this [1] would be totally unnecessary. Now, I realize that means we don't get to inflate our edit counts any more, but I'd like to see a serious discussion of the matter. The last time (August?) this came up, the only real opposition I noted came from users who didn't want succession boxes at all... Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I happened on Luton railway station, where there has been another silent edit-war, this one between Geoking66 ( talk · contribs) [2] and Hammersfan ( talk · contribs) [3]. Now, I'm going to paste the different boxes below so we can see easily what's being fought over:
Preceding station | National Rail | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
London St Pancras |
East Midlands Trains Midland Main Line |
Bedford | ||
Luton Airport Parkway |
First Capital Connect Thameslink |
Leagrave |
Preceding station | National Rail | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Luton Airport Parkway |
First Capital Connect Thameslink |
Leagrave | ||
Preceding station | East Midlands Trains | Following station | ||
London-Nottingham |
The graphical differences should be apparent: the second shows terminus information, and locates the name of the train operating company in the header instead of the route box. I submit that a casual viewer will not notice a significant difference, except that there's more information presented.
The really important changes are internal. The second box does not, for East Midlands Trains, define the route colour locally. That's done at a central template ( Template:East Midlands Trains color). The termini, the line names, the station naming pattern-this is all done centrally. Once the initial templates are created, user modification is a snap.
I want to emphasize, again, that s-rail does not induce drastic formatting changes. It does not create lots of whitespace. It's derived from rail line and is designed to simply the per-article box as much as possible, while guaranteeing uniformity of appearance and easing maintenance. As I said, I'd like a fruitful discussion of this topic. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=London-Nottingham|previous=St Pancras|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
Here, it's quite clear that EMT is part of the National Rail system. Now, the s-rail version is silent on the Midland Main Line, it's clearly dealing with just the branch. That's not how I would have done it; I'd have done this:
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=Midland Main|branch=London-Nottingham|previous=St Pancras|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
This makes it clear where the line sits within the greater system. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer an above question, it can be possible to suppress the terminus information, as I've demonstrated below. The code in question hasn't been merged to the actual template yet. This is controlled through the style template, so it operates at the TOC level. Thus you can turn off termini for, say, East Midlands Trains but not c2c. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=Midland Main|branch=London-Nottingham|previous=St Pancras|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=East Midlands Trains}}
{{s-line|system=East Midlands Trains|line=Midland Main|previous=Luton Airport Parkway|next=Bedford}}
{{end}}
As a note, there's no real obstacle to "National Rail" being a defined system, and each TOC a line. With branches you can get fine grained if necessary. Here's Kensington (Olympia) using this concept (side by side with the Underground):
{{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=LUL}}
{{s-line|system=LUL|line=District|next=Earl's Court|type2=High Street Kensington}}
{{s-rail|title=National Rail}}
{{s-line|system=National Rail|line=Southern|previous=Wembley Central|next=West Brompton|rows2=2}}
{{s-line|system=National Rail|line=London Overground|branch=West London|previous=Shepherd's Bush|next=West Brompton|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=National Rail|line=CrossCountry|branch=Brighton-Manchester|previous=Reading|next=East Croydon}}
{{end}}
The branches are of course optional. Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not that sure that a header starting "National Rail" actually adds anything useful for the reader. Except for some metro/suburban routes all the rest are 'national rail' so those that aren't already have a correct header. ATOC themselves list who are franchised operators (which, btw, doesn't list London Overground or London Underground) so maybe we should user s-list and make our lives easier on the maintenance front? -- AlisonW ( talk) 13:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've begun a temporary Virgin Cross Country article in my userspace at User:RFBailey/VXC. This is designed to replace the current article, now that the franchise no longer operates, and should be written from a historical perspective, covering the whole 10 years they existed. It's nowhere near ready yet, but any thoughts would be appreciated. -- RFBailey 16:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the Valley Lines be split? See Talk:Valley Lines#Split? Simply south 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please can we get rid of them!!! I really think they are horrible. Mark999 13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion about the merits of the {{ rail line}} and {{ s-rail}} templates has brought to mind the following dilemma: what exactly are these boxes for? To my mind, they should be navigational templates, showing what the adjacent stations on either side are, on a particular route. In this way, they give primarily geographical information. Also, as succession boxes, they should be placed at the end of an article.
However, there is a growing trend to use them to demonstrate calling patterns, and place them in the "Services" section commonly found nearer the top of articles. I find this trend a worrying one. Take for example the Midland Main Line. Now, between London and Leicester there are various stations, which have a combination of regular and irregular services. For instance, Bedford has two trains per hour during Monday to Saturday daytimes in each direction: one to/from Derby and one to/from Nottingham. Typically, one will call at Luton, and the other at Luton Airport Parkway, to the south, while both call at Wellingborough to the north. However, at other times (e.g. peak periods, early mornings, late at night, on Sundays, as well as irregularly during the daytime), there are also trains from Sheffield, where the previous/next stations vary (e.g. some run fast to St Pancras, some run fast from Leicester, while others call at some intermediate stations). Now, if we're going to have something like this:
Preceding station |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Flitwick |
First Capital Connect Thameslink |
Terminus | ||
Bedford St Johns |
London Midland Marston Vale Line |
Terminus | ||
Luton Airport Parkway |
East Midlands Trains London-Derby |
Wellingborough | ||
Luton |
East Midlands Trains London-Nottingham |
then this only tells part of the story. However, if we were to use the succession box to tell the full story in all its gory details, we'd have something twice the size. So it is far better just to say in the succession boxes that the next station to the south is Luton and the next station to the north is Wellingborough. We can then explain in more detail in the text of the article, in continuous prose and proper sentences, that the services actually are, summarising the situation (e.g. general patterns, exceptions, anomalies) of a particular station's services.
What are others' thoughts on this issue? -- RFBailey 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
{{Amtrak lines|Wolverine}}
presents similar issues: different services call at different stations throughout southern Michigan. We saw the boxes as describing the line, and noted the patterns in the article text. I think is the right approach, especially given the overall complexity of the British network.
Mackensen
(talk)
01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Preceding station |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Terminus |
South West Trains Reading-Waterloo | |||
South West Trains Reading-Brighton | ||||
First Great Western North Downs Line | ||||
First Great Western Great Western Main Line | ||||
First Great Western Reading-Plymouth Line | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry |
-- Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Amgmichael ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The Reading box looks like a considerable improvement. In answer to EdJogg and Stewart/Pencefn: there are still (a few) trains via Olympia (I used to catch them sometimes not that long ago), so that should definitely stay. One gripe: how do we remove the "(Surrey)" from after Guildford? ---- RFBailey ( talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Preceding station |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Terminus |
South West Trains Reading-Waterloo | |||
South West Trains Reading-Brighton | ||||
First Great Western North Downs Line | ||||
First Great Western Great Western Main Line | ||||
First Great Western Reading-Plymouth Line | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry | ||||
CrossCountry |
New version. -- Simply south ( talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To change station links, add: | blah=[[blah (blah) railway station|blah]] (obviously without the add: and the <nowiki></nowiki>) to Template:National Rail stations. -- Simply south ( talk) 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This section starts with the question: what exactly are these boxes for but seems to have got sidetracked into some specific detail. Let's return to that question – as I hinted above, it is key to solving the S-Rail dilema.
I am still of the opinion that a succession box is largely redundant if there is a good navigation template. If this is arranged in station order by lines then problem solved, and a reader can see a much wider area than just one station either side.
The problem that I see with the route vs. operator arguement is highlighted by CrossCountry, and many of the stations that I try to keep tidy are served by that operator. It often has very different stopping patterns to the local operator. Take Birmingham New Street railway station for instance, where Virgin used to run non-stop to Burton-on-Trent while Central stopped at Water Oreton and Wilncote. It would have been odd to show the next station for Virgin as they did not stop there. Of course, now Arriva operates both services, so only one line is needed, yes? Hmm, does anyone who understands the area feel up to correcting New Street and the Cardiff-Nottingham Line article too?
S-Rail is promoted as making changes easier. Good navigation boxes can do the same, and don't run on for several screens! Geof Sheppard ( talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed that Cardiff Central to Newcastle Line, recently created by User:Welshleprechaun, for deletion. After all, it's not a physical line as such, it describes a service that operates once a day over other lines, that already have articles about them. Also, I don't want this to set a precedent for the creation of other, equally insignficant articles about once-a-day services all over the place--this would be ridiculous! -- RFBailey 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am sorry, for going off topic, I just felt that it needed to be said! I feel that the article should be deleted really. It is/it is now pat of CrossCountry Dewarw ( talk) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I wondered about the airports when I created the route map template from the existing route map in the article, so I left them in as I was not sure of the reason that had led to them being added. Gloucestershire Airport is an odd one to include as it does not have any scheduled or chartered services. I was inclined to remove it but decided against at present. Bristol and Cardiff Airports are beyond the end of the routes cover (doesn't Cardiff have a closer station that is advertised for Cardiff Airport), whilst Birmingham airport has its own station on another route. -- Stewart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Found the relevant stations:
For this two of the stated airports have stations on other lines; two have bus connections from the stations noted and the fifth is midway between two without a public transport link (unless someone can find out otherwise). Consequently, I think the question should be asked again - How valid are these symbols?
Now I have had another look at the route map, how valid are some of the station around Birmingham (for example University, Barnt Green) at which the long distance trains do not stop. Same goes for around Bristol and (as previously mentioned) South Wales. And why had the Severn Beach Line been singled out for linking/junction when none of the connecting mainlines were not added.
Having created the template from existing work, I think there is a lot that needs to be done to it apart for the narrowing I had already made a start on. -- Stewart (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think former companies, lets use tocs for now, should be added to templates such as:
and
etc...? -- Simply south ( talk) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it okay/a good idea to add those links that are rail-bus/rail-ferry links (as in you can buy through tickets with your rail ticket) after all many are rail sponsored and it is explaining the services which are available at any given location? PlusBus I feel should be mentiond in the main text if it is available. What do you think? Amgmichael ( talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on British Rail Mark 3 has been edited many times by a user who insists that the class of travel during the introduction of TS and TSO vehicles was Standard Class. They claim that Second Class is ambiguious.
As I see it, Second Class was in use on BR for many years longer than Standard Class ever was, and no Mark 1, 2 or 3 vehicles were ever build as Standard Class, only becoming that, after the name change. I cannot remember if Mark 4s were ever Second. Many other articles refer to vehicles as being Second Class, such as British Rail Class 304 and British Rail coach designations even refers to both Standard and Second.
My opinion is that the correct designation should be used for the correct time period. To call the Standard accomadation on the British Rail Class 390 Second Class would be wrong, much the same as to call the British Rail Mark 3 Standard at time of introduction is incorrect. 81.159.77.176 ( talk) 22:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It is clear from WT:RAIL#London above that we all recognise London Overground is a part of the TfL / London mass transit. As the Overground has been fully incorporated into TfL's management of London transport, and there are no joint / shared services with other organisations then it would seem to me appropriate and correct to organise and mark route boxes for the Overground services (North, West, Watford DC, and Goblin) in the same way as we have always done for the Underground services. Similarly, since November 11th, it is also incorrect to is 2-into-1 connectors between Overground services and those still provided by 'national rail' TOCs. I would suggest that route maps are about the *services* that are available on those routes, and not about the *ownership* of the physical line (otherwise we would also include far more service and private sidings / connections too) and the use of s-line greatly assists in both the maintenance and ease of use (by the reader) of the information we present about each station. Further, whilst other (main) lines are clearly for mixed use, whilst there may be some freight traffic on sections of the London Overground it must now be defined as a 'suburban / metro service' rather than a general route (indeed whereas most other lines will have different stopping/express operations, the London Overground is an 'all the stations, all the time' operation. -- AlisonW ( talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There is petition to re open the Great Central Main Line the link is here [4].
Mark999 Mark999 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have this problem (and i hope this displays correctly)? Also, does this depend on the browser? Also, is it best if i raised this on WT:RDT?
Simply south ( talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm probably failing to follow the "Bold" guideline, but as a relatively inexperienced editor I don't want to rush into deletion of text that is factually correct, just ephemeral and not very interesting.
Some of the Styal line stations have paragraphs referring to very specific closures, for example the Burnage page contains :-
"The station at Burnage was closed from 29 January to 25 March 2007 whilst reconstruction of the platforms took place. A rail replacement bus service was provided to nearby East Didsbury railway station running at frequent intervals to connect with trains."
Does this kind of information really have a place in Wikipedia? Navrongo ( talk) 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)