This template 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 articles
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-East_Coast_Main_Line?-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z-East_Coast_Main_Line?"],"text":"East Coast Main Line?","linkableTitle":"East Coast Main Line?"}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-East_Coast_Main_Line?-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z-East_Coast_Main_Line?"],"text":"East Coast Main Line?","linkableTitle":"East Coast Main Line?"}-->
Why do we label the mainline as "Newcastle and Berwick Railway"? That seems a little obscure, unless ECML was not in the parlance by 1968. --Tagishsimon(talk)18:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z-East_Coast_Main_Line?","replies":["c-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:13:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","c-Pencefn-2008-10-16T20:39:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z"]}}-->
It surely was the ECML when the branch was closed; and, as the diagram includes present-day infrastructure, the East Coast Main Line definitely should be mentioned. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T19:13:00.000Z","author":"Kevin Steinhardt","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:13:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:16:00.000Z-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thanks. --Tagishsimon(talk)19:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T19:16:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:16:00.000Z-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:13:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
This was produced as a Historic Template that reflected the line at construction by the Newcastle and Berwick Railway. --Stewart(talk | edits)20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T20:39:00.000Z","author":"Pencefn","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Pencefn-2008-10-16T20:39:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T18:48:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Stewart"}}-->
I'm not sure I agree that this row is redundant. It's not abundantly plain on first glance which is the Alnwick branch line, out of the various squiggly lines. Without a priori knowledge, one is reduced to eliminating all of the labeled other lines before identifying the unlabeled Alnwick branch line. --Tagishsimon(talk)19:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T19:19:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:19:00.000Z-Redundant_row?","replies":["c-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:26:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
Fair enough; I'll fix the route diagram. However, I should point out to you that all other RDTs do not include this sort of labeling, as they usually are centered around the central column. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T19:26:00.000Z","author":"Kevin Steinhardt","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:26:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:19:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:31:00.000Z-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:26:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thanks. And yes, I acknowledge that it is the diminutive size of the Alnwick branch line which makes it the exception to the rule. --Tagishsimon(talk)19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T19:31:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:31:00.000Z-Kevin_Steinhardt-2008-10-16T19:26:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
The connection to the ECML is at Alnmouth railway station. I like the reorientation of the line and agree that it obviates the need for a redundant label. But I'm thinking the lowest node should be a combined station/turnout? Does that give you a label problem in terms of saying "Alnmouth railway station" and "ECML"? Problems problems ... I'm too far away from railway icons at the moment to know what the prevailing standards are. --Tagishsimon(talk)19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T19:35:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T19:35:00.000Z-Alnmouth_station","replies":[]}}-->
Historic line info - Newcastle and Berwick Line - removed.
The changes made to this template today do not improve it. It has simplified so much to be useless. If you look at my changes, I tidied up the Cornhill Branch connection from what it was before today.
...and over 50 other templates that follow the same basic concepts as those which have been removed from this template..
All these have the Historic Line detail, junction stations, use {{RoutemapRoute}} arrows to indicate the connecting line; show the connecting Historic railway companies.
--Stewart(talk | edits)20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T20:32:00.000Z","author":"Pencefn","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Pencefn-2008-10-16T20:32:00.000Z-Template","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T20:52:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-16T20:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Stewart"}}-->
That's a valid opinion and one that should be hashed out here.
But the concern that I have with your earlier revision - [1] and with many of the templates you've listed, is that the layout is abysmal.
No obvious (to me) rhyme or reason as to the indentation of the labels
Okay, maybe you're trying to convey a relationship between the position of the line & the position of the label. It doesn't work (for me). Meanwhile User:Kevin Steinhardt was, as far as I can establish, trying to get it to look a bit more orthodox - not least by making the subject line vertical, and changing the obscure " Newcastle and Berwick Railway" to more relevant "ECML". --Tagishsimon(talk)20:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T20:52:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T20:52:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-16T20:32:00.000Z","replies":["c-Pencefn-2008-10-16T22:06:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T20:52:00.000Z","c-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:20:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T20:52:00.000Z"]}}-->
Do not understand what you mean by "stupid L shape". The company info box is text in a white box, the main header is the railway company colour (green for G&SWR; blue for CR). It may by that the width of this box, if being narrower than the template is causing the issue you do not like. If you have the template coding ability, the way forward is to force the company infobox to the full width of the route diagram. There may be a way of adjusting the template syntax. This is worth putting on that template talk page.
Historically, ECML is not right, it should really be the original line - Newcastle and Berwick, or possibly the company that owned the line when the branch was built - NER. The Alnwick Branch was part of the NER, so this could be a possible link. It does not help that the article for the Newcastle and Berwick has yet to be created. ECML loses the link to the original historic railway company, and remember that the ECML is an amalgamation of lines built by quite a few railway companies. Awdry does not refer to company "ECML", it does however refer to numerous pregrouping lines of which the N&B was one, before amalgamtion made it part of the NER, who with GNR and NBR ran the line between Edinburgh and London as the ECML. The ECML article makes reference to the NER, but provides no information about the N&B, or the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway which was the amalgamation of the N&B and the Newcastle and Darlington Junction Railway & Great North of England Railway.
Indentation of labels - Stations are "normal size" text using the left justifed coloum; all connecting lines have been right justified in "smaller text", using {{RoutemapRoute}} arrows (earlier templates use a double dash). Virtually all the Scottish Historic line templates follow this convention.
I would disagree with the layout of the diagram being abysmal. The Company info template formatting does need more work. Forcing the width to the full width of the diagram is the way forward.
--Stewart(talk | edits)22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-16T22:06:00.000Z","author":"Pencefn","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Pencefn-2008-10-16T22:06:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T20:52:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-17T08:36:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-16T22:06:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Stewart"}}-->
Forcing the width to the full width of the diagram is, I agree, the way forward for this element. I do not have the time right now.
Indentation. Sorry, but whatever the rationale was, the indentation in this example makes the whole thing look like a dog's breakfast. It just doesn't work. It /might/ work if you have an abundance of features such that one can see the logic behind the indentation. But here we have five labels only two of which justify; th remaining three are at apparently random indentations which no clue as to why.
As to ECML ... the understanding is that by 1968, the mainline was known as the ECML. To go back to a pre-grouping railway title is just to be deliberately obscure and does not, for me, cut it. --Tagishsimon(talk)08:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-17T08:36:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-17T08:36:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-16T22:06:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
Company/Line Info Box - I will have a think about this, a solution may be to move it out of the coloured area into the area between the coloured area and the first line of the diagram. I will have a play and see if I can come up with a solution.
Indentations - There may be an argument although the general way is left justify for stations, and right justify for connections, if there are only a few entries the layout should be considered. Remember it is not random, it is right justified. Historic Railway Companies like Scottish Central Railway have a considerable number of connections which benefit from being right justified and not being hidden amongst the stations.
ECML - The decision has to be made if this is an article about the historic formation throughout its whole life, or just as it stood upon closure. The general principle followed on the Scottish route diagrams for Historic companies is the description of the connecting line is that which existed at the time of construction. My general feeling is that if a route diagram refers to another line, that a matching link should also be provided on route diagram for that line. In this case the ECML route diagram is not the appropriate diagram to show a disued Historic Branch, whilst the N&B diagram (when produced) is. As an exmaple have a look at the Caledonian Railway Main Line and is associated diagrams. These are part of the WCML, but the detail provided highlights the historical detail that is not provided, or relevant to the West Coast Main Line article. I would hope as some time to produce an article for the Newcastle and Berwick Railway which have all the relevant detail, probably at the same time as the NBR mail line between Edinburgh and Berwick.
Although I have provided input to a few English and Welsh lines, the limit of my systematic involvement is no further south of the Newcastle and Carlisle line, and the Cambrian Railways. These are the principles which have emerged whilst I have been work on this.
--Stewart(talk | edits)11:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-17T11:20:00.000Z","author":"Pencefn","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:20:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2008-10-16T20:52:00.000Z","replies":["c-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:47:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:20:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Stewart"}}-->
Company / Line info template fixed. Will now put back into this template. --Stewart(talk | edits)11:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-17T11:47:00.000Z","author":"Pencefn","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:47:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:20:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-17T15:00:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:47:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Stewart"}}-->
Thanks. That looks a whole lot better. I appreciate the argument about naming as at construction versus naming as at closure of the line ... my vote would be for "at closure", but I can see YMMV.
On indentation ... I've not looked again at the other lines you cited, but note that the Alnwick one looks to me a lot better composed with consistent justification. --Tagishsimon(talk)15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-10-17T15:00:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2008-10-17T15:00:00.000Z-Pencefn-2008-10-17T11:47:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
Is it appropriate to add a new row, for the missing railway bridge across the single-carriageway A1068 road here: 55°24′24″N1°41′33″W / 55.40653°N 1.69262°W / 55.40653; -1.69262, in the same way as we do for the A1? --Tagishsimon(talk)20:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-09-14T20:24:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2016-09-14T20:24:00.000Z-New_row?","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2016-09-14T20:39:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2016-09-14T20:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
And, come to that, as we have the extant minor-road bridge over the railway at the Alnmouth end, should we have the extant minor bridge over the railway at the Alnwick end here: 55°24′31″N1°41′49″W / 55.40855°N 1.69683°W / 55.40855; -1.69683. Given the brevity of the line, I'd urge we have space for these two. --Tagishsimon(talk)20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-09-14T20:39:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2016-09-14T20:39:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2016-09-14T20:24:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2016-09-24T18:47:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2016-09-14T20:39:00.000Z"]}}-->
@Nathan A RF: ... this is your sort of thing. What do you reckon? --Tagishsimon(talk)18:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-09-24T18:47:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2016-09-24T18:47:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2016-09-14T20:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Nathan_A_RF-2016-09-25T19:10:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2016-09-24T18:47:00.000Z"]}}-->
Go for it, do whatever Nathan A RF (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-09-25T19:10:00.000Z","author":"Nathan A RF","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Nathan_A_RF-2016-09-25T19:10:00.000Z-Tagishsimon-2016-09-24T18:47:00.000Z","replies":["c-Tagishsimon-2016-09-25T19:21:00.000Z-Nathan_A_RF-2016-09-25T19:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
Thanks. Whatever done. --Tagishsimon(talk)19:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-09-25T19:21:00.000Z","author":"Tagishsimon","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Tagishsimon-2016-09-25T19:21:00.000Z-Nathan_A_RF-2016-09-25T19:10:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
