Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Initial thoughts

Initial thoughts. Need to add:

Symbol use
Level of detail
...

Comments, improvements and general butchery welcomed. Chris cheese whine 18:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been working on the lines in the north eastern region, and have done the Tees Valley Line, Esk Valley Line and Durham Coast Line templates, and have put quite a lot of research into the past stations that have been on the lines, with various sources.

So, seeing this discussion I've decided to say my bit. I based these templates on the Birmingham Cross-City Line template, which I think offers the best style for them.

Stations in normal text.
Freight depots in smaller text.
(closed <date>)/(track lifted <date>) in small, in brackets at end of line.
Joining/Crossing Lines in small text.
Motorways, Tunnels, rivers, and other information in small text.
Closed stations in small.

I think this way would look best for the standard, what does everyone else think? --Simmo676 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound good for a start. Any thoughts on the inclusion or otherwise of maintenance facilities? Chris cheese whine 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance facilities I'd guess would use the freight depot symbol for lack of a better symbol, unless we can manage to create new ones, but it makes sense to include them separately, unless they're directly at a station, where it may be more beneficial to make a note alongside the station icon. --Simmo676 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on experience to date I think my recent modification to the northern end of WCML is rather cluttered. From the sample page I have added the the colour field (example colour only!!) and removed the colspn field (as it is not necessary) and the code leer as I do not see what is adding. --Stewart 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leer = "empty". In the original, it was required with multiple columns to specify a blank space, however the templates have since been modified to make leer the default when no value is supplied. Chris cheese whine 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note there is an extensive directory of symbols which can be found at Wikimedia Commons. --Stewart 21:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The directory at the commons give more scope for complex arrangements such as tunnels (thus possibility of using this for tube lines) and s-bahns (eg Tyne and Wear metro, esp cross over with Durham Coast line) Pickle 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simmo676's ideas are good, as far as standard design goes, but I think its also important for the templates not to be too wide, so we should only use three coloumns as necessary. Small text will also stop the templates getting too wide. Dannyboy3 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with the styles listed, however I find that - if a lot of non-stations are listed - it is dificult to see which ones are actually open. I have been careful to make sure that junctions, tunnels, etc. are in the first notes field, and bold the names of open stations in the name field, e.g. Riviera Line. Geof Sheppard 13:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big main lines

I propose that on the major (and long!) main lines (WCML, ECML, MML, CTRL, etc) we offer a simple version of WP:TRAIL at the top of the page (ie where intercity trains stop and branch off only, not every old station, local stop, closed mineral line, etc) and then offer latter on on the page the full WP:TRAIL template with all details. I have to admit I'm not keen on the templates used the WCML and ECML pages that are also included in each individual station's page. Thoughts people ??? Pickle 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds a good idea. The WCML etc templates would be very long at the beginning of the article including every station, where the short version offers most of the information that would be wanted. The longer version of the template I believe is also important. Whether this would go on the same page or on its own page (given it could make the page really long) would depend how it fits the page. And the WCML/ECML templates on each stations page don't look that great, and the small boxes listing next/previous station cover that sort of information. --Simmo676 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pickle and Simmo676. So this is what I think should be done for the major main lines;

Improve the diagram on their article page, but keep them short, and only showing the most important information.
Make detailed diagrams for these routes which would go on a separate page (however, I'm not sure where these should go)
Remove the WCML/ECML templates from station pages, for the reasons Simmo676 suggests. Dannyboy3 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these route maps do not sit well on station pages; they describe routes so should be used on route pages. If you want a more compact listing of stations in a group of routes, try something like the {{Cornwall railway stations}} template. Geof Sheppard 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stations

Can editors please note that you don't have to use the BHF/BF icon for all stations, as i understand it they are only for big stations (eg London termini, etc), all other stations should probably be using HST icon. Pickle 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the Tees Valley Line and others done, I took the figure of 300,000 people using a station (in the 2004/05 statistics) as the lower limit to be a BHF, and any smaller to be HST's. This figure mightn't be great for other lines, so a sort of relative "importance" to other stations on the line might be a way to go? --Simmo676 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about stations served by more than one TOC (or more than one distinct service of a TOC) being a BHF, and other stations HST. Stations that have more than two platforms in use should probably also be BHF. Dannyboy3 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the West of England branch lines, I used HST for request stops and stations with a limited service, better served stations being BHF. Geof Sheppard 13:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coloured Titles

We should also have a standard title bar colour, as many Scottish lines seem to be different colours, so here are my suggestions;

Keep all currently operational lines red, regardless of colour on maps etc.
Underground, metro, (eg Midland Metro) etc that should be using blue lines should also have blue template title bars.
Closed lines could have pink titles to match their line colour.
Heritage lines could also have a different colour titlt, I would suggest brown or dark green.

With this setup it would be clear what the route is just from the template. Any thoughts? Dannyboy3 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts on colours:-

The titles of Scottish Open Lines follow the colours from the Template:Railway lines in Scotland. This is how the previous route lists had been produced. It is also the colours used for the previous/next station boxes.
No view on the Metro colours - blue lines give a good difference
The titles of Scottish Historic Lines follow the colours of the pre-grouping companies as per the discussion in WPTIS:Talk. As with the open lines this is the colour also used in the previous/next station boxes.
Not sure about heritage lines

I would be inclided to leave the Scottish lines following the existing setup. --Stewart 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mersyside and welsh valley lines have a similar idea - i'm quiet happy to leave the editors of these areas to it. We could then use the same colour idea for the tube lines, but need to get the WP:TFL people on board.

I also would running heritage lines to be different from closed lines

Pickle 20:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates and distances

We could include coordinates (and thus microformats) - see coordinates in railway line templates; and mileages - see {{Chase Line}} Andy Mabbett 00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]