Template talk:North London Line

Trains: in UK Template‑class

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

Template

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

Map

I think the map is a good "starter for ten" ... but I think we can improve it. There has been a lot of discussion Talk:Thameslink on whether maps should be "route maps" or "track maps". The debate is still open, but I think that the issue of the No.1 and No.2 lines between Camden and Dalston brings this into focus. Do we need to show a split? I only ask the question ... I have my views, but I do not intend to reveal them just yet. Also, should the "core route" be straight?? This issue was examined on the Watford DC Line, but this template "kinks" the main route. Is this right??? Again, I only ask the question. Overall, I give the map 7/10, and I look forward to further improvements. Well done User:DrFrench. Canterberry 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. The DLR between Canning Town and Prince Regent is shown as a parallel route, yet when this was done to the Northern City Line it was removed!! Can we PLEASE, have some consistency in this aspect of the maps. Either we do, or do not, show parallel routes. We must not have ambiguity. Canterberry 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be a route map - for it to be a track map should surely show every line! It also makes it harder to read on the double-track section. A is to B as B is to C 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WP:TRAIL for disscussion on that point. Pickle 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that route (as in service) maps are probably what the majority of readers will be searching for. One thing, according to the Google aerial photo there is only a single pair of metals through Camden Road (the south pair), the north pair having been lifted. We seem to be showing both as still in place on this disagram; have they been relaid or are we in error? --AlisonW (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letters

I feel like i'm being stupid but are most of the letters on there to indicate direction as in North, South, East and West? Simply south 14:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume as much, i didn't add them but for a horse shoe shapped line like the NLL maybee its vital Pickle 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linearity

Considering how complex the line is, I think it is good. However, it fails the linearity test quite badly, and I was wondering if anyone has any ideas on how we could make it pass this test. I think we might need to divide the map into sections, rather than have a single map. Perhaps we could split it into the western, central and eastern??Canterberry 22:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what BS colapsible is for (see history), but Hammersfan is strenusiouly objecting as it dosen't render correctly for him (although no one else is experiencing this problem) - we need to find a solution as to why it dosne't work for him (but i haven't a clue i'm afraid!). Pickle 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track layout

The diagram should give an idea of the approximate layout of paths through the line, though the precise layout of the track is not important. Route diagrams are auxiliary aids to the article itself, and should be kept simple - this generally means no fudging of track layouts to accommodate the locations of specific bay platforms, no including two lines to represent fast/slow combinations or where platforms aren't on all roads, etc. As far as I am aware, Network Rail do not consider the No.1 and No.2 lines between Camden and Dalston separately, other than for pathing of electric trains. There is a case for considering Gospel Oak a "parallel interchange" given the station falls beyond a junction, but there's no reason to include details on the diagram of specific layout that might be better addressed in the text of either this article or that of the station. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be having discussions all over the place today! On one of these I agree with you but generally I don't. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is a truism and, especially as many of the users of en:WP are not people with their first language as English but using us as either the only article on a subject or as part of learning the language then to have an accurate image is in many ways more useful than having some test which could be misunderstood. Indeed *I* prefer to see an accurate diagram anytime their could be a doubt from the description. To the details then, I disagree with you about simplifying diagrams just for the sake of it (eg Gospel Oak area or Lea Valley Lines‎ where you completely removed a section of line giving a very misleading impression of what was there. In some localities I would consider it beneficial to have an accurate track plan as it explains better than text could why certain services exist or are not possible even though a text description of a route might suggest otherwise (as an aside, I've been looking at how platforms could be represented on such, but that is another discussion.) On the NLL east of Camden Town though I agree with you that the current depiction of lines is in error, although it *is* correct to treat the two pairs of lines as used to exist as separate as they were indeed worked separately (one electric, one steam) and that is the reason for the closure of certain stations (eg Maiden Lane) as they only had platforms on one and not the other. To me, route diagrams are of as much interest as any other map and accuracy is therefore just as important. This is an encyclopaedia for adults not children ;-P --AlisonW (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of 12 Aug 2008

This line has a complex history and complex connections. I've tried to let the map show that and changed an error or two (eg the connection at Richmond, though perhaps N-to-W was once possible). Argue and change as you fancy. The multiple tracks and their interconnections that were shown between Camden and Hackney were, I thought, unlikely to be showable after the LO tracks are laid so I zapped them (somewhere WP suggests that multiple tracks be not shown unless there is open ground between them). Richmond to Gunnersbury needs icons for shared track. TURM, the tower station icon, a possible for Willesden Junction, doesn't show its detail at all clearly. South Acton closed side needs a slightly different icon. The three crossings of the MML are shown and labelled in hope of diminishing puzzlement.--SilasW (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is still a "dogs dinner" and the improvement that you claim are small. In fact I would go so far as to say that you are simply tinkering with a diagram that cannot be made any better than it is. What is needed is for the diagram to be transferred to the 7-column template, so that it can be "straightened" out, and still show all of the junctions. I know this is a lot of work, but until it is does, we will continue to have a diagram that is compromised. Olana North (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I disagree. The route diagram is fine as it is, and does not need any sort of complete overhaul. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CONTs for most LUECKEs.

I've put CONTs for most LUECKEs, but these points arise, sorry if they've been discussed and resolved elsewhere but all these lists etc of icons are too much to trawl through at the moment.

Where a line crossing the subject line goes off map and reappears elsewhere (for NLL the MML is such a case) I've used LUECKEs to mean "Encountered again in this map", even some HLUECKEs, as the new found belief in CONTS seems not to have made LUECKEqs. LUECKEs are still needed, apart from this possibly disputable case, for tricky Overlays. That's reason 1 for "most" in the section title.
Elsewhere calls me and I have not sought for the various u/t &c CONTs which may have been drawn. That's reason 2 for "most".
Originally it was said that lines entering the subject line (reading from top down) should be labelled as "From XXXXXXXX" (and conversely those leaving should be "To XXXXXX" but "from" does not fit very well with a CONT arrow point away.

--SilasW (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with embedded Hide/Show

The template has the usual Hide/Show at the top for the whole template. There is also a Hide/Show just below Stratford to show notes about current developments. At first the second Hide/Show made tracks misalign but Sameboat fixed that. Over the past few weeks another, intermittent, problem has arisen. "Show" by the interior button may cause the map to break up, sometimes it does not. Sometimes toggling the main Hide and Show sets the secondary one to work properly, sometimes that does not cure the malfunction.--SilasW (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See if this fixes User:Sameboat/sandbox2 (bs-table/wc >> bs-table ; collapsible route bs6>>bs4). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]