Template talk:South West Main Line

message: Right at the start 9 Elms is the wrong side of Vauxhall. This template is used in  present-day articles and in the L&SWR article, either two versions (now and historic) or clear opening/start dates are needed.--SilasW (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Careful revision needed 

message: Convince me. Qu Rd Bat is not used by trains running on the main line, it has no platforms on the main line tracks. Maybe mainline trains can get to the Windsor-side platforms but given the heavy use of the northside tracks I doubt it and that in any disruption QRB would be used, curtailment at CJ seems more likely. Earlsfield is different: it has 3 platforms for its 4 tracks, Engineering &c can give the station a one-way service, and trains running on the main red-on-the-map line stop there, though they are not trains of the Toot-And-Out-Of-My-Way main services to Soton or Salisbury, The same holds for many other stations on the map - would you xpBHFify Raynes Pk, New Malden....? And then in logic cut off the branches that Mainline service ("end to end") trains did not run on?--SilasW (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlsfield as xpBHF 

message: Some interesting arguments there. I as the one who changed Earlsfield did so thinking that on one level it's the same as QRB in that to all intents and purposes the main line trains pass without stopping. But you could say the same not only of the inner small stations but of the local stations between Woking and Basingstoke (they do not have platforms on the two fast tracks in the centre although my mother did tell me that, for example, Farnborough (Main) did at one stage have them). On one level you could xpBHF every station east of Basingstoke except Clapham Junction, Surbiton, Woking itself and maybe Wimbledon which sees direct trains for the tennis and engineering works.
And on another level, of course, not.
All this is thinking out loud to provoke discussion and not written in stone (Toot-And-Out-Of-My-Way main services? very evocative description!) Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the maps to show the line and its connections rather than train services which already tend to be shown in overwhelming detail in overwhelmingly large brightly coloured boxes (links to current timetables would be better and always current)? A map purely of the XX Main Line services could easily be just an uninformative straight line with a few stations. What would you do about stations used "occasionally", eg for your tennis or engineering or by the first train of the day? Whither Surbition? Some trains roar through it. For some maps track details such as flying junctions, even though clumsily shown by the icons, are needed, for some plain Ts suffice. How much history should be included? For the SWML I think the original abandoned L & Southampton stations should not be shown, but belong to an L&SWR map. An complex map spreading off its subject, but in my opinion (of course) justifiably so is NLL. I'm for showing almost everything and if that's really too much (SWML around CJ) having a note linking to a detailed map.--SilasW (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Light blue touchpaper and retire to safe distance

message: The "important" stations, whose choice is a matter of taste, are already well flagged by blob size. Is there a real logic to hyperflagging them by bold lettering?  A proliferation of types of lettering tends to give a complex line even less cohesion.--SilasW (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; what's with the (redundant) bold type? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought the same, but looking I find that it helps you find your way around a very long diagram. They're well spaced: personally I'd have done Wareham as well (it's an important railhead, the terminus of quite a few services and well spaced between Poole and Wareham). Britmax (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well here we go. To reiterate: "The 'important' stations, whose choice is a matter of taste" now leads to boldfacing at intervals determined by aesthetic criteria. If used at all
(against which you see I protest) it should be reserved for major stations, a class which excludes some later additions. WP is a free for all but before someone sticks in a finger or a bot to sweep through all rail line templates we need a little discussion and a consensus (non-binding, of course).--SilasW (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold station names 

message: Some line maps show many details because of complexity of their lines and their connections, I think that to show the full official names of London stations is an unnecessary elaboration. Does more than 1 passenger in 500,000 ask exactly for a ticket to "London Waterloo"? It seems not too long ago that official names entered WP consciousness. The official name is shown by and in the link (if carefully set to avoid redirects). In these maps much very shortened wording has to be written as the button for a link in order to prevent the map being exceedingly wide. Even in text, where width is not a major consideration, names of places including stations usually appear in a simple form.--SilasW (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys; it's London Waterloo. You wouldn't call it Piccadilly; now, would you? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Waterloo?  

message: That was a horror of mine caught just in time--SilasW (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inattention reverted 21/12/2008 

message: I took the hook off Southampton Western Docks but left Brookwood Necropolis and Micheldever Oil Terminal hooked as their lines run back very close to the main line stations.--SilasW (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooks left and removed 

message: 1) The Sutton Loop seems to be one of those "lines" with an ethereal existence. They may not be official names but a TOC's publicity or timetable service descriptions, in which case should they have articles, except just say that and to lead on to officially named lines of track?  "Sutton Loop" has taken on a vibrant life within WP, though sometimes (depending I suppose which on station the editor stands) it is called the "Wimbledon Loop". What is a "Loop"? Some are content for it to be a less important track that leaves a main line which it rejoins. Other, perhaps to indulge in more complex map-making, include the main line closing the loop and even with its run to distant terminal stations.
"Sutton Loop" could say merely "name used for the loop made by the lines of A to B Railway. B to C Railway and the Main Line between A and C"  
The extreme case seems to be "Sutton and Mole Valley Lines" (a TOC's name) where the WP article includes a line not used by that TOC to be included, and its current map seems to show every line from a southwesterly direction running into central London. 
  
2) Are services on the Sutton Loop exclusively Thameslink? In any case the map links two TOCs at "Sutton Loop".--SilasW (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the point and I think this has been raised in the somewhat awfully catch-all Sutton and Mole Valley Lines.  I agree with your point but believe it's not been answered due to the convenience of avoiding long discourses about various lines (which cannot be listed any longer separately) but represent straightforward routes dubiously no longer served by the train operating company (TOC).  Specifically direct services to Horsham with two direct lines to London are the preserve of Southern by lack of wit or whim of SWT and similarly, Ashford International railway station is no longer domain of the extremely helpful to passengers South Eastern Main Line via Redhill.  Instead served by a short-haul named Redhill to Tonbridge Line which was never laid out to be so short-haul, as any map reveals with almost a dead straight railway line to Guildford from Ashford International.  In that case a lack of wit or whim on the part of Southern.  In effect though it is the Department for Transport who have let those great routes down. Adam37 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sutton Loop 

message: The map and route are impressively long in terms of stations.  As justifiably mentioned in the article, it has the most stops of any service, 43, in the UK.  However, its diagram is a little too long with some room for lines being shared which are mere annotation. Adam37 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: ...should be shown as an interchange, similarly to Wimbledon. --TBM10 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Other connections between purely surface lines are not, and Clapham Junction has no underground station. Does the Overground make a difference? Britmax (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Overground might not like to admit it, but it's national rail. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clapham Junction...