Template talk:Midland Main Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article 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
Template	This page is a template and does not require a rating on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
	This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways.

[edit] Route

I have recently added the MML Old route around Sheffield. I admit I do not know if the diagram currently treats of the Midland Main Line services of the line itself (which I am inclined to favour). If the diagram and the article treat of the line then the closed stations and further outstanding features should be added. I will work on this from a sandbox under my userpage so as to not disrupt the current use of the template. If the digram is more of a 2000s service diagram then it can stay as it is. The sandbox is accessible [[Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LEEDS!!

This template is on the article Midland Main Line, and not on, nor about the current opperator, Midland Mainline. As such, I think everything north of Sheffield should not be in the template, and all the daft connections (we have three side-by-side for 1/3 of the template) should probably be removed. this looks more like what we ought to have. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on principle with LewisSkinner, however, the template settings are such that closed sections of the line can feature. As such and as precised above, Template:Midland Main Line is being reworked to show the actual MML route. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest then, a template:Midland Main Line for article Midland Main Line, which covers the actual route, plus any closed stations such as Corby railway station , Heeley Station, Wath North railway station (these may use the lighter red coulour)) and old names for stations such as Derby Midland railway station, Bedford Midland railway station , Dore and Totley station (these can say "renamed Dore Station", or simply link to the new station)).

A second template:Midland Mainline template ought to be created for article Midland Mainline (the operator) which deals with stations currently visited by that operator such as York railway station and Scarborough railway station, which are actually not part of the Midland Main Line. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst i agree on some aspects, generally a lot of the main line encompass other lines as well. Look at the Cross Country Route and the Great Western Main Line, for example. So therefore it wouldn't be feasable for the actual route to be curtailed. Seperating route and sevice looks in principal a good idea however. Simply south 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that should be prolematic. First of all, the Cross Country Route was actually built by the Midland Railway, but that is besides the point. There is no reason why two "lines" cannot share one trackbed. See as an example the route information template on Sheffield_Midland_station#External_links. All the trains north use the same trackbed as far as Meadowhall, but the Midland Main Line, Cross Country Route, South TransPennine, Penistone Line, Dearne Valley Line, Sheffield-Hull Line, Hallam Line, Wakefield Line and Sheffield-Lincoln Line are all represented here, with only the latter branching (east) before Meadowhall. One peice of track may be on more than one line, just as oe station may be on more than one line. Indeed, were it not, journeys would be very difficult! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the previous suggestion on Talk:Midland_Main_Line#What_the.3F pretty much mirrors this. One for the logical track-work (Midland Main Line, the railway) and one for the currently operated routes (Midland Mainline, the trains). Sladen 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain Scarlet: The diagram (currently up) shows track that is actually there, the faded sections are sections not used for regular passenger services (though frequently used on weekend diversions) and also on a daily basis for freight operation. Sladen 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

lewisskinner: Yes, I agree that the area north of Sheffield needs fixing up in various ways; showing the route as understood through to Bradford and checking on the general classification of the Sheffield→Doncaster→Wakefield→Leeds routeing.

The fact that we have three parallel routes for a large proportion of the template is because they actually exist—even so, this is somewhat squished. Just North of Trent Junction, you have the four separate routes to Burton/Derby/Chesterfield/Nottingham. At various times of the day these all get used by London-bound trains (the Master Cutler runs non-stop from Chesterfield→St. Pancras via the Erewash Valley. Sladen 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, my only problem (depending on how you solve this) is that the light pink coloured liens, mean closed lines rather than freight or lines not normally used, according to the key. From what i can gleam, a split sounds a good idea. WP:TRAIL doesn't just have to show physical lines, as you can see at WCML and ECML its used to show long distance passenger operators routes. Pickle 19:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for the way forward with this Template

Hi all - have been invited by L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} to join this discussion, the following are my thoughts.

Can I suggest a way forward for this template. Have a look at what we are doing with the Scottish Railways (partly under the project WikiProject Transport in Scotland). West Highland Line as an example. There is an article which considers the line today, and then there are a number of articles (or future articles) to cover the Historical Railways that form the origins of this route - Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, Glasgow, Dumbarton and Helensburgh Railway, Lanarkshire and Dunbartonshire Railway, Caledonian and Dunbartonshire Junction Railway, West Highland Railway, Mallaig Extension Railway. These Historical articles include (or will include) closed stations, extinct junctions, etc.

Now transfer this to the Midland Main Line and we would have an article looking at the route as it is today, and separate articles covering the Midland Railway with its relevant constituents, branches and extensions (including Midland Counties Railway, North Midland Railway, Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Goole Railway). These articles would have the detail route maps. I suggest that the Midland Railway may need to be sectionalised, much at the Caledonian Railway article will need to be - with branches and extensions have their own route maps.

If you go this way, we will have a template (route map) for the current Midland Main Line with no historical detail, however the article will make reference to the origins of the route, which would then link to the Historical Railway Articles which would have their own route maps providing all the relevant detail - junctions with other lines, etc. I think a good example of this type of article is the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway.

I hope this suggestion provokes a healthy discussion and a concensus is achieved. --Stewart 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)