Talk:Stourbridge Town branch line

message: I think the connections should be shown on the route diagram - firstly a lot of these diagrams show connections and continuations, and secondly it shows (in this case) that a direct service from the branch towards Kidderminster is not possible. It would be possible to explain this in prose, but the map makes it instantly obvious. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. It's excessive detail.  Does the precise alignment of the trackwork really matter to anyone who doesn't already have access to such information?  WP:NOT .  You need to change at Junction, hence the "for" tag.  2. It's confusing.  The article is about the branch, the map should depict the branch.  Anything beyond gets in the way.  3. WP:ALSONOT a quick reference guide.  It would be great if every piece of information in the encyclopaedia was "instantly obvious".  There's just no compelling reason for the specific track layout to be made "instantly obvious" to our readers.  KISS.  Keep usability in mind.  81.104.175.145 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The connection at least should be shown for consistency - check out most similar layouts. If you don't agree with this, try discussing it at WP:RDT – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tivedshambo; based on what I have seen on other pages that use the template, the consensus does seem to be to show immediate connections.  At the very least, I would settle on something like this revision, so one can at least see that it diverges.  In response to 81.104.175.145's comment that "[t]he article is about the branch, the map should depict the branch," I would consider forks and connections to be an important part of the route.--Max  Talk [ (+)] 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've raised this at WP:RDT as the anonymous user(s) seems intent on reverting without discussion. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have reverted the route map to the original layout by Tivedshambo. This detail is import to show the line in context with its connection line, especially since other important detail (original goods depot, over/under-bridges) are shown). If you look at the work being done as part of WP:TIS - specifically Paisley Canal Line this is the combination of a currently and historical detail - it shows the various junctions in context. This is similar to that of the Stourbridge line. Other Scottish Routes are split between Historic lines and currently open lines. If you follow this then there will be an article for the current operation with a very simple route map and an historic article covering the line from construction with a detailed route map showing the connections in context (for examples see Cathcart Circle Lines, Cathcart District Railway and Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway to see how this works in practice) --Stewart 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An even better revision from User:Max Schwarz. --Stewart 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.--Max  Talk [ (+)] 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections on route diagram 

message: The track layout looks a little like a very tall, thin teapot or coffee pot. This is not a criticism, but it is a useful simile since the 'spout' (between Brook Road and Junction Road) is not labelled on the map.  Where does that line go?
Secondly, which section of track is only available for empty stock movements? It would be helpful if this section were denoted using the light red line colouring, or else the 'in tunnel' format.
EdJogg 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Simply south 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. EdJogg 08:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this, the connection is the opposite direction, i.e. the connection is from Birmingham into Platform 1, not from Platform 2 onto the branch line, as is shown here. Changes can be made, I assume? Worley-d 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes can be made, of course. Are you talking about the 'empty stock connection'? In which case you are asking for it to 'go the other way', with the 'main line' continuing to use 'platform 2'? -- EdJogg 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just corrected the direction. Simply south 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That looks so much neater! - EdJogg 19:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does the spout of the teapot go? 

message: An editor has put a wikilink to Stourbridge Basin is there any likelihood of an article being created? --Stewart (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find more information than "it's in Stourbridge and in a basin", it'd be a welcome stub.  A bit of Googling turned up "Amblecote" as an alternative name for the site, which might be useful.  90.203.45.244 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a precedent, at Withymoor Goods Yard, though I doubt whether there's a claim for notability for all goods yards. Incidentally, I've reverted the removal of the ECS connection, as per previous discussion above and here. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stourbridge Basin]] 

message: ...Remains at 4tph all day Monday-Saturday (apart from between 9-10pm Monday-Friday). No increase to 5tph occurs, nor would it be possible. Worley-d (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Service pattern

message: I think that there is a citation of sorts in the National Rail Timetable (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/eNRT/Dec09/Complete%20Timetable%20December%202009.pdf - but careful, it's a massive download). At page four it says:
"Train journey-lengths vary from the under-three-quarters-of-a-mile Stourbridge Town –
Stourbridge Junction shuttle to the 703 mile Penzance–Dundee service."
Not sure if that counts or not.
62.49.30.79 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incomparable with a metro line. However the line is not shortest in Europe ; article is now corrected Benjamin Téry (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation found on shortest service

message: Is this branch line shorter than Paris Métro Line 3bis, or the branch line between Roma San Pietro and Vatican City, which are also 1.3 km long each? — 2604:2000:F9E1:E200:E16D:58CD:8DE4:EF3F (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Incomparable with a metro line. However the line is not shortest in Europe ; article is now corrected Benjamin Téry (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with similarly short European railways