Jump to content

Talk:West Coast Main Line diagram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments, errors, etc

[edit]

Copied from WT:UKT

A few thoughts:
  • Bakerloo line shares track with Watford DC, it's not a separate line and it certainly doesn't go into a tunnel north of Queen's Park.
  • Should Northampton be shown? I'd have thought Northampton Loop Line would be better.
  • There's a fair amount of inconsistency with CONTs showing either "to X" or "Y Line".
  • Probably needs a HUB around Glasgow Central.
-mattbuck (Talk) 06:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, great, some constructive criticism. I wasn't sure about the Bakerloo line as the draft WCML south is has a missing icon. I believe the Northampton issue was previously discussed and it was decided to keep is as some WCML services serve the town. It doesn't really detract from the diagram having it there. As for the inconsistency with CONTs, feel free to change - I only used what was there. My preference is for linking to named lines where possible, even at the expense of redlinks. As for Glasgow Central, I can certainly add a hub. The diagram needs a lot more polishing, as a look at Jowett will tell. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why include the Northampton Loop but not Birmingham Loop? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion here please. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warrington

Jowett, p57 has Warrington Central on the southern of the two lines. Thus it would seem that Saltley Jn to Padgate Jn direct is the closed line, a reversal of that shown. Can anyone confirm? Mjroots (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's the direct CLC line between Sankey Junction and Padgate Jc which is closed. Warrington Cen is on a loop to the south of the direct CLC line. See File:Acton Grange, Walton & Warrington RJD 147.jpg - these are the orange lines in the upper half. The east-west goods line through Warrington Arpley passes below the WCML at Warrington BQ, not above. There were formerly low-level platforms here. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Warrington redrawn. @Mattbuck:, re your changes at Queen's Park, the Bakerloo Line article clearly shows that the section between North Shed and the Watford DC Lines is NR territory, not LU. Please consider reverting. @Redrose64: and Mehar Xull Feel free to amend the diagram. It's not territory I'm overly familiar with. The idea of this draft is that we can thrash out all the problems before it gets moved to mainspace and linked from the WCML article. Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the technical NR/LU boundary, I'd probably leave as is on the grounds that, even if NR maintain it, no main line trains run on it. I leave it up to your judgment, but having just a change from red to blue with no obvious change point (eg junction or shed) seemed weird.
Also, the map seems to have developed a very large empty space on the left. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll leave it then. As for the large space to the left, that is something we'll need an expert to work on. This {{routemap}} is new to me and I'm still learning it. Gut feeling is that we could remove backslashes to reduce the blank space, but every row would need the same amount removing to achieve this. In the grand scheme of things, it's minor. Let's get the diagram correct first then worry about minor technicalities. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bushey / Watford

Jowett, p120 shows something completely different to the current diagram. He has the Junction with the Rickmansworth/Croxley Green branches south of Bushey, and no direct link enabling a train to travel from Bushey to Watford High Street (was one added later?). The section of the diagram appears to need redrawing. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would omit the Bakerloo line entirely. I would also omit the Watford DC Line north of Camden Junction, since it's never been part of the WCML - and its different electrification would make the running of WCML trains over these tracks difficult. See my comments of 16:27, 15 July 2015 at Talk:Euston tube station/GA1#London & North Western Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, I'm also not sure as to the criteria for using the parallel lines. For the Watford tunnels for example, although I can understand their use as the slow and fast lines take different alignments, I'm not sure this merits the use of parallel lines, especially as in my opinion it implies a doubling of track capacity. Often for these things what I personally would prefer to see is use of the parallel lines where the route is 4 track and single lines where it is 2 track (no idea what you do when it's 3 track of course) as I think that gives a better representation of the significance of different sections on the route. Mehar Xull (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
although having checked the Network rail route map for west coast it does seem to include Watford DC lines, but then it doesn't go all the way to Glasgow so I'm not really sure I know anymore... Mehar Xull (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've also got the Watford DC Line separating off at the western end of Primrose Hill Tunnels - they can't, because there are no junctions between Primrose Hill Tunnels and Kensal Green Tunnels. The Watford DC separates off at Camden Junction, which is about a quarter-mile east of Primrose Hill Tunnels, and they pass through South Hampstead Tunnels, which are to the north of Primrose Hill Tunnels, although roughly parallel. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the Bakerloo line links with the Watford DC lines, it should be include. Re the PH and SH tunnels, if I move the split south of the tunnels, and then show them as two separate parallel tunnels, would that be correct? It can be done using overlays. Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: why include routes that were never part of the WCML? If they are to be included, a stronger case can be made for the inclusion of the line via Birmingham and Wolverhampton, since unlike the Watford DC, that does carry scheduled London-Scotland services (e.g. the 07:43 Euston-Glasgow) - and until the opening of the Trent Valley line, it was an integral part of the WCML itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64 - I can remove the Watford DC lines, but that still leaves the problem of Bushey & Watford needing to be redrawn. As for the via B'ham and W'ton line, it depends on how complicated it would be. The East Coast Main Line diagram doesn't include the Leamside Line, which was the original ECML, although it is annotated as such. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favour of overcomplicating the diagram, so would favour omission of the Birmingham/Wolverhampton route; the Northampton loop; and the Watford DC - but we can include the junctions for that, just not the intermediate stations.
As for the Bushey area, all that happens is that the Watford DC swings to the west, having been parallel to the WCML to the south-east of Bushey - there is no junction. At Colne Junction, the DC Line then curves north again, through Watford High Street, and terminates in platforms 1-4 at Watford Junction; there is a connection so that DC trains can also run into plat 6. But between that point and Camden Junction, there is no physical connection between the WCML and the Watford DC without some reversals in the Willesden Junction area. BTW didn't . --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've given this very careful thought. Removal of the Watford DC lines creates too many problems, eg: South Hampstead, Willesden Junction. The line seems to be strongly linked by its interaction with the WCML and really needs to stay. The lede can accommodate its inclusion. Removal of the Northampton Loop Line is relatively easy to achieve without too much disruption. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would include the DC line stations where it is on the same trackbed or otherwise relevant (South Hampstead, Willesden, Kenton) but we could use LUECKEs for the (Stonebridge Park?) area where it's a way away from the main line. That said, those areas are comparatively small, so it may not be worth it. I would at least though make Watford High Street further away from the main line, as it's at a fairly significant remove.
Other thoughts - Nuneaton and Carnforth end up with bigger station icons than places such as Stafford or Euston, and I'd say the same for Tamworth and Lichfield TV - both would be better off as the HST equivalent of the big bridge icon. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck: - I've yet to redraw Watford to Bushey (refer Jowett p120). When I do so, Watford High Street will be ½ or 1 column further left than at present. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've redrawn the Bushey/Watford section. It is correct as far as I can work it out. I found it too difficult to move Watford High Street over, so left it as is. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse. You've got some non-existent junctions in there, you've got the DC continuing parallel with the WCML (it deviates to the west through Watford High Street reaching a maximum of about 880 yards), you've got the junction for Croxley/Rickmansworth on the south of Bushey (it's at Colne Junction, on the deviation between Bushey and Watford High Street). I'd fix it but I can't handle this new syntax. Some diagrams that may help: File:Watford railways.png shows how the Watford DC (orange) deviates significantly from the WCML (black); File:Watford and Rickmansworth Railway.png shows the Croxley/Rickmansworth branches in relation to the Watford DC line - the triangle has Colne Junction at right, Watford High Street Junction at top, and Croxley Green Junction at bottom left - on this one, Bushey station is roughly where the arrowhead is. It's drawn somewhat better at Template:Watford DC Line RDT, and the Colne Junction triangle is also shown at Template:Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: - Jowett p120 (I take it you have a copy) clearly shows Bushey Jcn to be south of Bushey Stn. This means that it is impossible to go directly from Rickmansworth/Croxley Green to Bushey. Also, there is no direct line shown from Bushey to Watford High St, although this is clearly possible now. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Jowett, but Maproom (talk · contribs) does. What date is Jowett? Is your intention to depict the line as it presently is, or at some date in the past?
Prior to the opening of the Watford DC Line, the junction for the Croxley/Rickmansworth branch may have been just south of Bushey station, but looking at old OS maps for the area, I see no evidence for this. The OS 1:10,560 1899 edition shows that the branch only ran from Watford Junction - there was no curve at or near Bushey, nor did the Watford DC exist. The OS 1:2,500 map dated 1914 shows the Watford DC and the curve allowing trains to run from London to Croxley/Rickmansworth without reversal at Watford Junction - and it also six platforms at Bushey, four on the main line and two on the DC, the same as the present layout; it also shows a junction west of Bushey, where the branch and the DC parted company. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: - What do you make of the 1940 O.S. map? Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the WCML and Watford DC as a single route south of Bushey - we can't tell just how many tracks there were, except that there were at least two (the OS used one line style for single track, another for "multiple" track, irrespective of whether there were two, three, four or more). But that's typical for the OS one-inch maps, where the scale is not large enough to show more than a general impression; and that is why many stations (Bushey included) are shown as simple red discs. At Bushey station there is one line coming in from the south, two to the north - so there appears to be a junction (but it could be a divergence of unconnected parallel tracks) - but whether that is at the station itself, to the south or to the north is unclear, again due to the map scale. The line that curves west from Bushey then splits again, a little above the capital "W" of "Wiggen" - that is Colne Junction. Here, one line continues to curve south-west, past a black rectangle - that is Croxley EMU Depot. The other line from Colne Junction curves around by about 120° before passing through Watford High Street station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A good start, guys! Maybe consider using collapsible sections for the particularly complicated areas around Carlisle and along the Watford DC lines? And would you like me to make a start on prettying things up, or would it be better until the overall geometry of the lines is settled? Useddenim (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to add Chalk Farm / Primrose Hill. It should be just south of the Primrose Hill tunnels and the junction with the NLL, and contain platforms on all three lines. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up some CONTs

[edit]

I've done some work cleaning up the "to X" rows, but have the following issues:

-mattbuck (Talk) 15:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove mention of South Hampstead Tunnel? See my comment of 13:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
London Railway Atlas (3rd Ed) p25 just calls them all the Primrose Hill Tunnels. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mine's a first edition, it's p. 21 in that. But Trackmaps 4 "Midlands & North West", map 1R, has the four WCML tracks going through Primrose Hill Tunnels (two double-track bores), and the Watford DC going through South Hampstead Tunnels (two single-track bores). Two different names are also used by Baker "Rail Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland", seventh edition onwards, p. 21. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final polishing

[edit]

How close are we to moving this into mainspace? I know the lede need a bit of expansion to cover the Watford DC lines issue. CONTs still need sorting out to link to lines rather than stations where possible. The Bushey/Watford area may still need redrawing, what is there at present is not set in stone. Presumably there is a Middleton Press book that covers the area which should resolve this one.

Possible attribution problem - I drew this diagram from the three drafts that were compiled using BSmap, but only by using it as a guide. The diagram was drawn in Routemap from scratch by me. Do we need to attribute the three originals, or can they be G6's?

On the plus side, all bluelinked stations on the diagram have been checked and do link to the correct article. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues I have:
-mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Watford Junction
Watford High Street
Bushey

This is something like what I'm trying to describe, the two arrows off to the left are the   (exCONTgq) Croxley Green and   (exCONTf) Rickmansworth branches. The triangle   (xABZqlxr) has Colne Junction at right, Watford High Street Junction at top, and Croxley Green Junction at left. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: - why not edit the diagram then? You should be able to work it out. There are no overlays to complicate things, although you'll need to add in an extra row. Use preview to ensure the columns all line up. each \ moves the column half to the right. Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The new syntax is unintuitive and a PITA. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it's the only way to do large diagrams such as this. I'm still against converting all diagrams from BSmap to Routemap for this reason. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As if it's the fault of everyone paying effort into the Routemap module. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sameboat: - not everyone finds it easy to work with routemap, me included. As you will see, I've redrawn Bushey / Watford, but how the hell do you shove that row immediately above Bushey over to the left? The CONT arrow next to Bushey probably needs to be a column further left too. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're about there, although any additions of rivers/canals and dates will be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots:, I'm not denying that Kilburn & Maida Vale existed, but according to London Railway Atlas p25, it's just the old name of Kilburn High Road. And I think the goods station is part of the same complex so shouldn't need its own icon. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattbuck: According to Jowett p125, Kilburn and Maida Vale is on the WCML, Kilburn High Road is on the Watford DC lines. Kilburn and Maida Vale Goods is shown as separate, with Saxby and Farmer's works between the two. Mjroots (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted it! Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What does Butt say about it? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, haven't got it. @Redrose64:, do you have it? Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Butt (p. 131) has three entries for one station: these show that it opened as Kilburn in December 1851; renamed Kilburn and Maida Vale 1 June 1879; closed 1 January 1917; reopened 10 July 1922; renamed Kilburn High Road 1 August 1923. Note that Butt does not indicate which line(s) the station had platforms on. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to move this into mainspace if there are no objections. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History merge

[edit]

I've just come across this, having noticed that the three drafts we created a few years back now redirect to this article. It looks good, and it seems that Wikipedia no longer suffers from the template problems that it used to. However I think it was wrong to recreate this from scratch - it should have been expanded from one of the original drafts. Looking at the history, Draft:WCML South was the original, and the north and central sections were split off as it got too big.

As a result, I think a history merge is required for attribution purposes. It's probably not possible to do all three, but the south section at least should be there.

I may have one or two comments to make about the layout itself (e.g. the varying level of detail in different places), but that will have to wait till I'm less busy IRL. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willesden Junction

[edit]

Willesden Junction seems to imply that DC services stop twice: at both High and Low Level. Should this station look more like the relevant part of {{Watford DC Line RDT}} or the diagonal hub at Glasgow Central? I'll have a go at the change if necessary but I'm not familiar with the area so I thought I'd give the experts a chance first. Thanks, Certes (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RDT expert help wanted at Milton Keynes railway map, please

[edit]

I have just corrected the error in this (WCML) diagram, so that the spur from Bletchley towards Bedford now correctly goes under, not over, the high-level Bletchley Flyover curve from Oxford that joins the WCML just north of Bletchley. That was quite easy. I am now trying to correct the same error at {{Milton Keynes railway map}} but getting nowhere. If anyone speaks RDTish, would they have a look please? The error is between the Bletchley TMD row and the Bletchley row, as tagged with hidden comments. See also OS map Thank you in advance. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to close this out, some kind editors cleared up this one. It now matches reality. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Coast_Main_Line_diagram&oldid=1206605045"