Template talk:Midland Main Line RDT

message: 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)
thread_title:  Route 

message: Hi all - have been invited by L.J.Skinnerwot|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)
thread_title: Suggestion for the way forward with this Template

message: Should these, as far as Kentish Town be added to the template? Simply south 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if they were never on the MML, no.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 23:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what line where the Bed-Pan services on then, before Thameslink ? Thameslink isn't really a line, just a service by FCC over a series of other lines (primarily BML and MML via other lines built by other railways) Pickle 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only station I would possibly added to the MML template that is also covered by "local" Thameslink services is St Albans. In the days of the BR Intercity, some HST called at this station. --Stewart 07:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They are inarguably physically located on the Midland Main Line. They were opened by the Midland Railway Company. Thameslink is but a service that runs over part of the Midland Main Line. If this is a diagram of the line rather than of a particular TOC's stopping patterns, then they should be on there. --82.45.163.4 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But are they or were they ever on the midland main line proper?  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Unlike, say, the Watford DC Line, there is no physical separation between the two services, and in fact fast Thameslink trains alternate between the two pairs of tracks. --82.45.163.4 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Physical separation is not the issue.  Were these stations in existence before nationalisation?  Were they built by the Midland Railway.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have mostly all been there since ca. 1868, when the line was first built. Pretending they don't exist because the trains don't terminate at St Pancras is bonkers. --82.45.163.4 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree.  Any stations built with the Midland Main Line by the Midland Railway should be included.  Those built later which happen to use the same trackbeds should not.  This template is on the article about the Midland Main Line, not to be confused with Midland Mainline, the company.  I do not know a lot about the MML south of Luton, but if you know better than me, by all means be bold and edit!  You will have no complaints from me.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 00:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only station that isn't original is Luton Airport Parkway, which currently is on the template. --82.45.163.4 09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As suggested, we need two templates.  A Midland Main Line one and a Midland Mainline one.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A simple question - is this a template for the modern Midland Main Line, or is it for the main line built by the Midland Railway. --Stewart 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False dichotomy. There shouldn't be any difference between the two. --82.45.163.4 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There on a discussion on this very page about it, and we decided there should be a split.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thameslink stations 

message: Pink is explicitly for closed lines and stations. It seems to be being used here to indicate secondary routes and stations, making it hard to follow. Can someone who knows which are closed and which are secondary fix this please? --82.45.163.4 15:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be confused. As it stands the template has ful red for lines and stations that are open and light red for closed portions of track and stations. Eg: Swinton to Normanton, Chesterfield to Rotherham, Corby... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The London area branches are pink when they're still open, and the line through Corby is still open for freight, and the situation at Dore needs to made clearer, and there's probably others I've missed. --82.45.163.4 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not misuses of pink but oversight really, you can amend the template yourself if you find something wrong. the location for Dore & Totley staiton was discussed and although the one platform serves trains to and from Manchester, the station is on the Midland Main Line. The template is about the line, not the franchised services, work needs to be done on the portion North of Cusworth since Doncaster isn't and never has been on the MML. Thanks for pointing out the errors, I'll see if I have time looking into it, in the meantime how about having a go yourself? Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed the NLL link but i don't know about the rest. BTW what an accolade "misuse of pink", that should be on one of those barnstars of userboxes!!! LOL! Pickle 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the mistake you've edited in 82.45.163.4 concerning Dore & Totley. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What mistake? The new version was meant to show the situation without the current vague description. --82.45.163.4 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd positioned two stations instead of the one. Dore & Totley in this context is on the MML and closed, a clear comment is present. As pointed out above, this was previously discussed and this solution chosen so as not go off topic. The status of Dore & Totley on the Dore & Chinley railway is of little incidence to the MML and as such it is shown closed yet with a lbel indicating a single platform remains in service for thos services (despite the diagram relating to the line not the post BR franchises). Regards, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's perfectly normal to show one station as a dot on each line. If it's left as one dot the position of the junction is wrong, since the north curve leaves the MML north of Dore's MML platforms. Maybe my version was too elaborate, but the current situation isn't great either. --82.45.163.4 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: On a TOC's route map (e.g. for Midland Mainline or NXEC), pink means 'Limited Service', whereas on a Line diagram it means 'Closed' or 'Proposed' or 'Unbuilt/Under Construction' Anywikiuser (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of pink 

message: In its current state, this template does seem to have rather a lot of detail about the northern part of the line (e.g. closed stations, freight by-passes, etc., while very little about the southern part.  For instance, other than Luton and Luton Airport Parkway, all the stations south of Bedford are missed out completely!  As this template is supposed to describe the actual physical line (i.e. that what was built by the Midland Railway), rather than the operations of the recently-deceased TOC (Midland Mainline), shouldn't places like Harlington, Flitwick, Leagrave etc. be included?  --RFBailey 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are covered by Thameslink but i suppose that is only a service except in central London. Simply south 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the southern stations: how does it look now?  --RFBailey 21:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good. I will make some additional minor changes and i am agreeing with you now that we should include them. I also did the for Template:ECML article a while back. Simply south 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North/south divide?

message: surely this is similar to Thameslink line stations? Different in that, the stations were closed then re-opened but they were built when the origional Midland Main Line was built. I believe the three stations should be on the template, at worst the line should be mentiond on the template.Amgmichael (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ivanhoe Line]] 

message: This diagram seems to have just been widened from BS3 to BS7-2 making it twice the previous width and most of the width of a 1024px screen.  Was this an intended side-effect? —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch.  I think some care needs to be exercised in order that these diagrams don't swamp articles!  --RFBailey (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, on that basis, I've done a temporary revert to make the main article readable again.  I do like the changes; and they can be retrieved from the edit history. Sladen (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Update: Included the newer widened version inside <noinclude> tags so it can be worked on. —Sladen (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better if you were to work on a copy in your user space, rather than "hidden" on the "live" version.  (Create User:Sladen/Midland Main Line to do this.)  --RFBailey (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It maybe more useful to forward this suggestion onto the editor who produced the new wider format, over at User_talk:Britmax.  —Sladen (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might, on the other hand I might read it anyway!. Seriously, I've worked on the widened version: as usual, a couple of longer labels were taking the average out a bit. Let me know what you think. The BS7-2 format is useful for clearer labelling and shortening diagrams (it's great on the M&GN where the diagram is otherwise longer than the text) but maybe we could use a BS5-2 to avoid overwhelming some articles? Britmax (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widening 

message: Could someone with more skill than me have a look at the text sizes. I had a go, be couldn't work it out + I don't actually know the conventions. Talltim (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text sizes 

message: Did the MML really connect to Barnsley? If so, the map doesn't match real life - afaict from Google Earth, cudworth stn is totally disused, not just disused on used track, and I have no idea which route the map thinks is running in to Barnsley... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barnsley 

message: Is Corby actually on the MML, or merely connected? If the latter, it shouldn't be on the map. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corby 

message: The Midland Main Line article states that Historically the line extended further north to Manchester in the north-west and through Leeds in the north-east to Carlisle.  Well the Settle-Carlisle line is at least referred to in the template, whereas the former link to Manchester is not even shown in pink.
The article also mentions the historical routes into London, first via the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway (B&DJR) and Hampton-in-Arden into Euston, then by the Midland Counties Railway (MCR) and Rugby also into Euston, then via Bedford and Hitchin into King's Cross before finally going via Luton into St Pancras.  The first of these is just labelled as the modern Cross Country Route, whilst the other two are shown as closed, but with no mention that they ever went to London unless one follows the links (where there are good templates of the original lines.
Thirdly, the Midland Railway built various cut-offs or diversionary routes, such as the route from Kettering to Nottingham via Oakham and Melton Mowbray.  At Kettering, the template marks the Oakham to Kettering Line (which states that Historically the line formed a major part of the Midland Main Line between London St Pancras, Nottingham, Leeds and Scotland hosting regular named expresses such as The Waverley.), but the only label at Nottingham is for the Grantham and Lincoln lines.
Yes, I've read the comments from 2007 about the template looking as it is today (with East Midlands Trains running via Corby up to Oakham and Melton Mowbray), with historical railways elsewhere.  But, the template has quite a few historical items (such as the Great Central Railway × 4), whilst omitting those above.  Mattbuck's question about Corby was not answered (here); if there are no responses, I'm not sure if I just start making the changes myself, or give it up as a bad job. Tim PF (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester and various cut-offs 

message: This template appears to have grown recently to the point that it has prevented the :Midland Main Line article from loading properly, so I've stopped it transcluding (now just a regular wikilink). I have raised this at :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Midland Main Line RDT, and there may well be a consensus to have the article transclude a simpler template as we now have for the :East Coast Main Line (which then has a link for this full template).
Please note and join the discussion I have started at :Talk:Midland Main Line#Smaller template required, rather than here. Tim PF (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smaller template required 

message: The map as it stands suggests that there was never access from Swinton (Midland) to Leeds. This is wrong; the map should show a line running north of Swinton (Midland) then (at 'Wath Road Junction') forking left (in faint because closed) for Wath North and Darfield (etc.) and right (in bold because open) for the Swinton&Knottingley for York (and today's non-Midland route to Leeds).
(The indicated route through Swinton (Central) and then left is also incorrect; this actually ran through Wath (GC) to Barnsley).
86.183.83.192 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the map at the bottom of the infobox, i.e. Template:Midland Main Line RDT? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes 86.183.83.192 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's wrong: but I'm not sure whether to add the proper route, or just truncate it at Nunnery Main Line Junction, given some of the sections above and the large amount of detail in the Sheffield/Rotherham area, only some of which is actually the Midland Main Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map error