Template talk:Railway lines in London

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in UK Trains Portal This template 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways. London Transport This template is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles

test of a mk2 version

Railway lines in London

Railway lines in London Railway lines in London Railway lines in London

Pickle 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noted the current version has issues, so had a look at {tl:Railway lines in South-East England}} and based it upon that. Other such as {{tl:British main lines}}, {{tl:Railway lines in South-West England}}, and even {{tl:Railway lines in Scotland}} have gone down this route. I'll change it over in a few days if no one minds. Pickle 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was trying a) to stop lines, being broken into two rows, but b) to get the box to compress a bit (horizontally), as there is lots of white space, but on reflection v-d-e boxes don't do this IIRC. Pickle 12:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on this line. So do we create an article, or do we delete it from the list??Miner2049er 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in including a redlinked article to complete a list. So you could either create an article or leave it be... :o) -- EdJogg 22:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the SWT end of the world so i'm not going to start one - i've enough trouble getting my head around the south.south east london area ;) Pickle 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested in the debate currently ongoing at Template talk:Railway lines in South-East England over the layout, classification and geographical scope of these templates. Pickle 16:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The abbey line dose not go into London so why is it in the template. Watford and St Albans have never been in london. Likelife (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given Crossrail is definitely being built I am adding it to the template. If anyone thinks this is too hasty, my apologies. However, what with station construction now underway at Canary Wharf and major enabling works ongoing elsewhere, I do not think this is unreasonable. --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 16:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different note, I do not understand why the distinction between primary/secondary routes is made where it is. I've looked at the comment in the code, but still feel it is illogical to put Thameslink, the South West Main Line and Brighton Main Line in the same -secondary- group as (for example) the Shepperton Branch or Tattenham Corner Line. Those first three are primarily used for what are by most definitions intercity trains.--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 16:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely it is an official misnomer. It is similar to inclusion in the lead of a UK settlement article "and is in Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics or NUTS region"... which is deprecated in WP:UKVILLAGES as it is a non-major fact which is not notable for a lead and only used by advanced researchers of that particular field, ie is totally esoteric. A line with main in it, that is long distance, set up as an intercity service and providing an intercity service is blatantly to all intuitive minds primary. To label them more appropriately I propose we choose "long-distance" and "medium/short distance". That avoids all doubt. I hope it does not offend people who love the current rail operators. It is then for the ministry and the operators, in conjuction with all layers of government to decide what speed of trains and services to offer. They can by all means carry on claiming "we can't do that speed of service, we're only on a secondary route" or "but we cannot provide a local service to your station as we are on the Primary West Coast Main Line" as I believe is routinely the case based on the current characterisation in a few instances where it is actually done to preserve the current timetable slots. Or course reclassification occurs all the time between the two types and is as you say in many cases misleading. Adam37 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I've never thought about it however, I agree that there should be a few changes. The South Western Main Line is one of the most important lines in the UK - the usage and frequency of trains proves that. I think its struggled to get a 'major' image because:

• Firstly because its top speed is 100mph;
• Secondly South West Trains is hardly viewed as a InterCity operator;
• Thirdly because its third rail electrified (until 2016);
• Fourthly Southampton, Bournemouth and Weymouth are not seen as national settlements like Manchester, Brum, Leeds, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Sheffield etc;
• Finally its history isn't as glamorous as the traditional main lines;

But it is defiantly a hugely important line and could be reasonably considered Primary though, Long Distance would be pushing it although, London - Weymouth does take longer than London - Manchester. The Chiltern and South Eastern Main Lines could also be considered. The problem with Long Distance labeling is the lines like the Cherwell Valley Line. Its not really considered a Main Line by anyone however, has 125mph FGW & Arriva CrossCountry services every 10mins. Maybe Primary Trunk Routes should only be 100mph+, Secondary should be busy 75mph+ and Rural Lines/Suburban Branches for the other routes. Likelife (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Network Rail appears to classify passenger lines as "Primary", "Secondary", "London and SE Commuter" and "Rural". See the various Network Specification documents listed at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/Network_specification_London_North_Western.aspx. Each document has a map near the back showing lines coloured by these categories (e.g. p.29 in the LNW document, or p.11 in the Sussex document). Surely we should be using official categories rather than making up our own? -- Dr Greg  talk  19:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However a more common dichotomy exists, this is the estate agents' favourite: "branch" or "main line" we all know which one we see when we see a line. Indeed it is how they developed, with major rail companies setting up the main line then the branch lines off them. The recent phenomenon of the primary/secondary class woefully under-rates the current behaviour of the Wessex Main Line and South Western Main Line for example. Thank you for revealing London and SE Commuter which we can all settle on as a fair compromise as the third category if you and others do not permit an upgrade of Wessex and SW to a new top category of Main Line. I have scant regard for their current operator but every regard for history, and that of the Chiltern and SE Main Line sponsors and train services. Perhaps a point on distance would be pushing it, as while of travel interest in some ways you are correct the railways are like roads and people need to see what are the main network routes, not what are classed for strategic purposes as economically expedient. Adam37 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Network Rail's way works for me, seems simple enough. Anyone know why the lines are in different shades of blue, red and black/grey? Likelife (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The diagrams or the words? If diagrams, then that is sometimes on type of line but normally just the user can use one of more than one type of template, this can instead be harmonised if you wish. If words then that is usually consensus as to whether one needs to write the article, in red, or to subsume content into the present article, in black. Grey is deprecated as I can't think of a use for grey letters, nor lines come to that, but could be easily be ignorant as to its use on diagrams, please consult the relevant template.

As to your (unfettered?) liking of Network Rail's modern schema, this, it transpires has not caught on so as a main/branch replacement would be 'unfit for public consumption' for it is very seldom repeated, even by companies. This moves us beyond 'esoteric' and into the realms of Whitehall-speak and deployed or levied in replies by its four browbeating WCML/ECML/GWML/GEML operators arguing that by connecting Birmingham to London by faster train, beating the time to Southampton or Northampton they are ipso facto in a new 'small elite' class 1 not class 2 (the rest), However it's not even used on their web publicity. No media reports use this money-focussed tripartite system that I have seen in thousands of place name or indeed railway station articles, not to mention the press, television or radio itself. Indeed no-one can due to services provided brand the 100mph-limited Brighton Main Line or South West Main Line as anything other than main. Our cities are generally so close, downgrading their intercity lines in this way is unjustified and woeful. It is therefore analogous to the twin categories 'borough constituency' and 'county constituency', which are only mentioned, as set out in non-distracting footnotes, in that they help to determine the amount of election expenses and returning officer. Indeed the slight financial preference of one over the other is strikingly similar. However reinforcing my point, the differentiation is now of little importance, (mostly as to who could vote and size of electorate), which it no longer does, instead other main facts about it such as average income, local politics, length of party-tenure and size of majority are far more relevant to any classification or perception. If further dispute emerges, e.g. because some lines used to be direct but now are most of the day indirect A compromise, like there, could be to group by geography. The goal has to be, please, in short, to draw attention to what things actually do and how they were originally classified where that status still holds true not what things the government has officially classed purely to justify unequal funding. Which has a blatant need to prioritise longest-distance only at its heart.

In short do not condemn a main-line, direct branch and indirect branch system which has long pertained as the system just as the government of the day tries to reclassify the entire system in departmental-only literature. To establish it as the main categorisation would make railway enthusiasts and most Liberal minded citizens wince. I can compromise as to sub-classification whereby the administrativese has not broken the system. Adam37 (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]