Talk:West Coast Main Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

West Coast Main Line is currently a good article nominee. However, an editor has placed this article on hold and is awaiting minor changes to be made as outlined in his/her notes below. This will influence his/her decision in passing or failing the article as a good article. This tag will stay in place for a minimum of 2 days and a maximum of 7.

Placement date: 2007-04-05

	West Coast Main Line is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit Template:Scotland opentask

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.

[edit] Missing stations and lines/services sharing same trackway

Have re-styled it to show town and station, and indicate which stations are 'missing'. For the southern sections i have italicised none main-line stops. I suggest these be moved to a new page with a subtely different line name e.g. 'West Coast Main-Line (local)' or something a bit less clunky? Robdurbar 21:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Manchester - Bolton isn't part of the WCML surely?Slipdigby 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed there are lots of stations missing from the list on this page. Especially small local stations. There are about a dozen local stations on the WCML in the West Midlands, and in the Greater Manchester area for example which arent listed here. G-Man * 19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is happening in articles about lines in the London area, where various 'local lines' must share trackway with various 'main lines'. Laurel Bush 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

In places like Queens Park railway station, there is a very clear barrier between the very local "DC line" (see Watford Junction) and the main line. They share the cuttings and embankments, but that's about it. --Concrete Cowboy 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added about a dozen local stations on the Birmingham route which were missing before. And two on the Trent Valley line. I shall add more missing stations in the Greater Manchester and Merseyside area later. Unfortunately I have rather messed up the grid co-ordinates. G-Man * 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Equally, it can be argued that there are stations on the Carstairs-Glasgow section which should be on the list since they lie directly on the main line - these are (going northward) Shieldmuir, (then Motherwell), Uddingston and Cambuslang, although no main line services stop at any of them. But then again all the commuter stations at the Euston end (to which no Virgin services stop at either) ARE on the list. We need to be consistent. --RapidAssistant 01.25, 2nd May 2006.

Well now, don't stop there, what about the Edinburgh "branch" equally traditionally part of WCML. Oh Yes! Then there are the stations between Runcorn and Liverpool and of course those between Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester and also between Crewe and Manchester and even Crewe and Holyhead. All these are by one definition WCML. Another view would have the WCML redefined to exactly fit Netork Rail's latest carve up (of the nations rails into 26 routes) as Route 18, The West Coast Main Line. Of course Crewe to Holyhead (part of the new Route 22) has its own North Wales Coast Line article and Crewe to Manchester (part of route 20) likewise. Would it not be sensible to cover the other branches (eg via Stoke and via Runcorn) by separate articles in the same way? Indeed, to return to Galsgow-Carstairs-Edinburgh these are more specifically part of the very Scottish Route 24 services and really ought to have their own article (perhaps they do?). The Silverlink main line services are, however, under Network rail seen even more to be an integral part of the WCML operations and we will soon see Silverlink/Centro hourly through trains from Euston to Crewe (a much longer run than Virgin's Eustin to Birmingham). I think there is a significant difference. NoelWalley 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolverton railway station

According to the article Wolverton railway station you can not board or leave a main line train (as distinct from a Northampton Loop train) at Wolverton. Therefore the station seems not to be effectively a main line station. Laurel Bush 17:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

But that is equally true of all the other "commuter" stations shown in italics. It is just as much on the main line as is Cheddington railway station. Virgin trains have certainly stopped there on exceptional cases. There are certainly platforms for all four tracks - you can see them very clearly on Google Maps aerial photography here [1] I think you are confusing services (Virgin, Silverlink) with the line itself. The line doesn't split until well into Northamptonshire here [2]. --Concrete Cowboy 17:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I am not confused. I think we can agree that the trackways split at or near SP747528. This is between Wolverton and Northampton on the loop and between Wolverton and Rugby on the main route but, as services work at present, Wolverton is not a station you would use to leave or catch a northbound train using the main route (unless you wanted first to go south to MK Central and then catch a northbound train). Perhaps it should be on both lists of stations (loop and main route), to account for southbound travel starting at Wolverton, but then you still have to change to catch a main-line rather than local service. I note also that as described at present the loop looks more like a branch, splitting at Rugby, terminating at Northampton and having no southern connection with the main route. MK Central is the effective southern connection point, but perhaps both it and Wolverton should appear on both lists of stations. Laurel Bush 11:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

I didn't say you were (personally) confused, I said you were confusing two distinct points. If the article were West Coast Main Line Intercity Service, you would be absolutely right that Wolverton shouldn't be on it - and neither should Bletchley, Leighton B, Tring, Cheddington etc. But this is not that article. Wolverton is not physically on the Northampton Loop. This article is about track route, not what uses it. The route divides about 10 miles north of Wolverton. You can't fake the geography.

As for the point about "change at MK Central for inter-city services", the same is equally true of Bletchley and points south, if someone desperately wanted to ride a Pendolino into London. From Bletchley at least, there are certainly occasions when doing so would shorten the journey time by 20 minutes. --Concrete Cowboy 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about the route but not the service, why is 'Wolverton' in italics? And I note you have not addressed my point about the loop looking a present more like a branch from Rugby ending at Northampton. Laurel Bush 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

As stated in the table intro, all local service stops on the line are in italics, intercity stops are in regular. This applies to the whole route, so I don't see what makes Wolverton any different. The italics/regular style is a good way to show importance. Removing them all to make it a table of Intercity stops is another option but too drastic a change to make without a separate discussion.

But I do see what you mean about the apparent branch. Rugby is not on the loop either and should be removed. Or Wolverton should be shown on both tables too. I don't have a problem with either, so feel free to do which ever you prefer, provided you treat Rugby and Wolverton equally as far as the route goes (though obviously not equal in importance) and certainly keep both on the main line. --Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Stafford, Crewe and Preston are all listed as both main route and loop or branch stations. All are intercity stops. And MK Central is similarly an intercity junction. Laurel Bush 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] WCML ends at Carstairs Junction?

According to Network Rail's strategic plan, the WCML ("Route 18") ends at Carstairs Junction! at that point it divides into "Route 26" to Glasgow Central and "Route 24" to Edinburgh Waverley.

The same plan has the official names and numbers for all the routes, so train buffs can have many a happy hour correcting all the the stations on Wikipedia. --Concrete Cowboy 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Laurel Bush 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

Though I believe that it would be "user friendly" to continue to show the extensions to Glasgow and Edinburgh as included in the WCML. --Concrete Cowboy 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that we retained the "classic" definition of the WCML as running betweeen Glasgow Central and London Euston, since this is what most people recognise that the term refers to. --RapidAssistant 01.25, 2nd May 2006.

I think RapidAssistant's clock must be running slow somewhere since his posts dated May 2nd have only just arrived. I also agree, the WCML includes Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham - and so does Network Rail when it is writing about the mainline services and it also includes in WCML the Silverlink main line services but not in the same way the Glasgow-Carstairs-Edingburgh services. I think we have it about right as it is. NoelWalley 07:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is always fascinating, to a life-time railway buff such as myself, to see the complications arising when the title of the services between destinations becomes mixed up with the geographical routes over which those services run. It has always been the custom in any railway magazine for the latter to be the prime idea, so that whatever services run over a particular section of the track, all the information about it (including closed stations and those not served by main line trains) can be included. In many cases, the express services (and therefore those that the operating company wishes to dignify with a name) can miss out a great many of the intermediate stops, which the local trains then use. Timetable are no help: they usually include connecting services, which, although under the general heading are not part of the main route. Silverlink is a case in point: see the article, which shows that, although it runs the Northampton trains over the WCML, had its name changed from North London Railways as being "inappropriate".

This complication is rife in Wikipedia: articles are written about XXX Line for example, which is the PR title given to a service. May I refer you to the article West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive where, under the heading Rail (Metro Train) - Routes there are eleven Lines shown there. I spent a great deal of time trying to put over my point: each of those Lines had originally been written as if they followed a specific route on their own, whereas many of them followed the same route for at least part of their journey. I am not at all sure what, if anything, can be done to correct this misapprehension: another set of comments above keeps trying to say that this-line and that-line should be part of the WCML, when it often patently isn't - if only from a purely logical point of view: they are not main lines nor are they often served by the main line trains.

I think I am flogging a dead horse, though: it is far too endemic!!! Peter Shearan 10:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Progress is being made in that direction with the use of Route numbers. Trouble is, even if we had a Route 18 article, nobody would ever look for it! But you are right about logical knots - take a look at the argument at talk:Wolverton railway station, for instance.

So why not (on WYPTE page) add the official route number(s) as given in the Network Rail plan (see above)? You can't deny that the existing lines have reality in the public mind - they just aren't physical, but that doesn't make them less real. But equally, the tracks, cuttings and embankments are also real. No problem, both answers are right. -Concrete Cowboy 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

West Coast Main Line – some thoughts:

1. Three company’s, firstly, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, secondly the London and Birmingham Railway and thirdly the Grand Junction Railway through Crewe railway station.

2. Then came the Northern Union through to Preston and Carlisle, and finally,

3. The Caledonian Railway from Carlisle to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

4. The LNWR in England and the CR in Scotland. Brakes were always a problem once brakes became compulsory. The LNWR was vacuum and the CR was air. The solution, jointly owned and dual braked passenger coaches officially called and labled: West Coast Joint Stock. The birth of a name about 125 years ago.

5. So the West Coast Main Line quickly (by today's railway construction timescales) came into being, it is the route linking London with Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Carlisle]], Edinburgh and Glasgow and it’s the first multiple inter-city main line in the world.

6. Its quite wrong to say it ends at Crewe or Cheadle Hulme or Allerton or Carstairs or wherever – indeed, it used to continue to Perth, Aberdeen and Inverness (and perhaps even Oban and Kyle of Lochalch)!

7. However, sound (we hope) management principles have determined that the network is best served by having the Manchester suburban rail management take control of maintenance and signalling on the WCML from Crewe or Cheadle Hulme into Manchester. Likewise, Merseyside management from Allerton (or somewhere about there) into Liverpool. Indeed common sense appears to have dictated that Scottish management does not take over the WCML until Carstairs and then is divided between Glasgow and Edinburgh routes – hey ho! Incidentally in this article, the line to Edinburgh has not generally been seen as a branch, rather the line divides - Glasgow or Edinburgh.

8. What’s the problem? Without the independent Watford DC Lines (with its own wiki article and list of stations), the four main line tracks would be overloaded. Without the Northampton loop, the WCML could not manage to squeeze through the Watford Gap etc. Without the Trent Valley Line, the real route through Birmingham would grind to a halt. Without the North Stafford Lines, a Manchester service every 20 minutes (next year) would be a non-starter. Crewe to Manchester, ditto.

9. However, Watford to St Albans (the EMU equivalent of ‘one engine in steam’ single line operation) although part of Route 18’s responsibilities is certainly not WCML. But neither is Bedford to Bletchley (also Route 18) and that despite the fact that its local trains may soon run through to Milton Keynes.

10. Yet in a curious way, the electrified Kidsgrove to Crewe, which only sees an electrically propelled train when one is being diverted at weekends or worse, is now a vital part of the WCML – although I don’t think it knows it!

11. Crewe and Chester, Chester and Holyhead, the Irish Mail Route. It was vital to the Irish Mail, in the days before air mail that the mail went fast between Euston and Crewe and Crewe and Holyhead – its passenger complement still does, in an original sense it’s a traditional part of WCML.

Truly, I think we have the WCML just about correctly desscribed but more history is needed. As far as the White Rose bus services are concerned, I only know that the Swansea to Newcastle mail train via Crewe (which I used several times in the 1940's in both directions) no longer runs - such a pity. NoelWalley 23:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WCML excludes Wembley, includes Marston Vale Line, excludes Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester - official

According to Network Rail's strategic plan, the WCML ("Route 18") excludes Wembley: it is only on the Watford DC Line (though Football Specials stop there). It includes the spur to Bedford from Bletchley, it excludes the Coventry/Birmingham/Wolverhampton spur (that's in the West Midlands Network) and likewise Liverpool and Manchester (both in the North-west Urban Network). I've just made the first two of these changes. I suspect that the other changes need some discussion? --Concrete Cowboy 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Network Rail Route 18 (WCML) - Branches and Junctions

I have added a table to the WCML article showing the junctions, branches and interchanges on Route 18. Its reasonably complete but needs checking, links and tidying. I have used Jnct in the name rather than Junction where the junction is not a station. I think the table could help to focus minds on the potential problem of how to deal with 'strategic routes'. In many cases they are not routes in the sense that the WCML is. Route 20 for example is a conglomeration of all the railway lines serving the Lancashire conurbations. I don't think the 'strategic routes' should be ignored but the must not be allowed to distort the real railway. It is nonsense to say that the WCML ends at Carstairs, or that it goes to Cheadle Hulme but not Manchester, or to Allerton but not Liverpool. The Birmingham service is a major element of WCML traffic out of London and should in my view remain in this article. NoelWalley 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Coast Main Line - Progress Report May 2006 on the DoT web site, many announcements

Lots of new material to mine for those with the time and inclination. See this page on www.dft.gov.uk. Note that it is a 3MB PDF download. --Concrete Cowboy 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Londoncentric POV comments"

These were mine, made via a coumputer in the north of Scotland. I used 'before' and 'after' because 'south' and 'north' are somewhat nominal, true directions being often more east or west, and because the entire article is structured to describe the route from London outwards. Laurel Bush 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Table formatting

I've added a map to the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford section. Unfortunately, as I first had it, it squeezed the columns so much that some text ran to two lines, and the rows didn't line up. I've added the {{clear}} tag after the map, but it's not an ideal solution as it leaves a lot of white space. Can anyone come up with a better solution please? — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Route Map

Firstly let me say that it is a great map, ideal. It would be splendid if you could extend it northwards to Scotland and southwards to London, thus covering the whole WCML area. As it stands, it is a bit incongruous. If you are able to extend it then I would suggest you put it ahead of "the route in detail" section. NoelWalley 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if I were to extend the map showing the same amount of detail, it would become hopelessly large and unusable. It would also take months of work. (I can only access the CAD drawing software on my office PC, which means doing it during lunchtimes only. It took a couple of weeks just to produce the map as it stands at the moment.) At the moment I'm concentrating only on maps of lines around Birmingham (see User:Tivedshambo/Gallery#Railway maps for other maps I've done). I may produce a summary map of the WCML and other inter-city routes sometime, but this is well down my list of priorities. I should point out that I produced this map primarily for the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line article, and only added it to the WCML page as it happened to show the route. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite understand, I have never used CAD and wouldn't know where to start and appreciate that it is time consuming. The original WCML route was of course the L & B and the GJR through Birmingham superceded by the Trent Valley as the major through route. It was also the last branch or loop to get its own Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line article, which is partly the reason why all the stations are listed between Rugby and Stafford but not on the Manchester, Liverpool and North Wales lines etc. It would be nice to have a map of the whole WCML and sorry I can't help. On its own I feel the map distracts and might be best linked to rather than displayed full page. NoelWalley 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to move/remove the map as you see fit. — Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) — 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be very nice to know what other folk think! What do you all think? NoelWalley 17:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Like everything else on Wikipedia, I believe that we should accept what we can in the hope that it will provoke someone else to add a little more to the stone soup. Tivedshambo has really set the standard with this contribution! It would be a fabulous improvement if he could do the whole line. It might even challenge the boring tables that looked fine until today! --Concrete Cowboy 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Midlands Table

Now that we have a very welcome Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford branch article, I feel it is only consistent existing practice in relation to the Manchester branch, and the Liverpool branch, and the North Wales branch, and the Manchester-Preston Branch to list only the intercity stops in the table. I have accordingly deleted the West Midlands local stations. If you chose to revert my action please explain why, as I have done, and also extend the tables of all the recognised WCML branches to include the local stations. NoelWalley 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. — Tivedshambo (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Keynes Central

Gossip item, possible article change in 2009!: On 4 December 2006, work began at Milton Keynes Central to prepare for a third north-bound mainline track/platform for inter-city services and a service connection from the Marston Vale Line, with completion scheduled for December 2008.^[1]^[2] --Concrete Cowboy 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grayrigg derailment

I have just reverted a well meaning entry concerning this disaster. It should not be in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The recent accident in question has already resulted in the addition of a section concerning WCML accidents (to which I have contributed a significant previous list). The accident is already fully reported (in my view contrary to wikipedia policy) and additionally with much speculation. I do hope that can be sufficient. NoelWalley 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Short term closures, for whatever reason, are not approriate for encyclopedic works. However I would comment that the accident itself is a significant event in the history of the WCML, and therefore should be referred to within the article.– Tivedshambo (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon (GMT time); thanks all. I should have remembered WP:NOT - I'm normally very good with policy. My apologies for this lapse.

Kind regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the code for the route diagram?

Big red map top of article RHS. I've been looking at these for other articles, can't get the code to let me draw 3 lines in parallel. Would just look at the code of this one (which does) except I can't see it in the article...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.73.37.81 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See template:West Coast Main Line and WP:TRAIL. By the way, in future, please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~, and place new messages at the bottom. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Just need to use {{BS3|}} instead of {{BS2|}}, that'll give you 3 columns instead of 2. johnwalton (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL Pickle 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

This article has been nominated as a Good Article Canditate. However, after simply reading though the first section and doing a little copy-editing, it is clear that the history section has a long way to go before being accepted. The rest of the article however, is well written. But is half the article really required to explain the route in detail? And above all there are all of two references. For this reason I have put GA on hold rather than fail it. JameiLei 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Good Article rating and the lack of referencing, but I'm not quite so sure about the history. The West Coast Main Line, is in some senses a marketing invention that only goes back to Nationalisation and British Railways. The line was built as a series of lines in England, that by Grouping had become the LNWR, and was then marketed as the Premier Line. The section in Scotland was the Caledonian Railway's main line to Glasgow and Edinburgh. It was one of three competing lines that went through Carlisle; also competing with what is now called the East Coast Main Line. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to construct a history for this line that, for example states that it was built as a main line from London to Glasgow with branches to Birmingham and Manchester, etc, etc. The current history section makes it clear that the line was built as a series of lines from city to city. This I consider accurately reflects it's history; but it is almost completely {unreferenced}, as JameiLei points out above. As a modern invention the article has a lot of information, even more than the LNWR, which is a pity; however, the major history of construction should be appearing in the LNWR article not this one. Arguably, this line's history in some ways starts with the LMS; and its mid life upgrade was the 1970s electrification programme, which was followed by the more recent upgrades.Pyrotec 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had another read of the history section - is the paragraph about brakes really necessary? Also the first paragraph needs to make sense for the layman - at the moment it bombards readers with previous train companies. JameiLei 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth keeping the para about vacuum / air brakes as it introduced West Coast Joint Stock; but I would split it into two, and make the LMS part a separate paragraph. Perhaps the last paragraph could be kept, but also paraphrased and inserted before the first paragraph as a way of introduction into the current first paragraph. P.S. Don't make the mistake of calling them train companies, they were not train companies: they built and owned the track, the stations, the signal boxes and the passenger trains and the goods trains. Pyrotec 19:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't confuse them with the current Train Operating Companies who meerly operate the trains today. It think Train Companies is fine. Although it does mention too many companies. I think a general description of how it is an amalgamation of several companies' tracks (mention the 3 main ones mabye) is sufficient. JameiLei 22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

[edit] Busiest claim

What source says the WCML is the UK busiest line? Simply south 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

as indicated in the edit history Network Rail which is authoritative see page 3 of[[3]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/e/s/Talk%7EWest_Coast_Main_Line_8ade.html"

	This article is within the scope of the Transport in Scotland WikiProject, a relatively new collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of transport in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.