Talk:East Coast Main Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 East Coast Main Line was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 30, 2007
This article is within the scope of the Transport in Scotland WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of transportation in Scotland. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Trains Portal
DYK 2008-01-02
This article 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
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
High Importance: high within UK Railways WikiProject.

This page is within the scope of the Hertfordshire WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hertfordshire. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.


Info The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:ECML article.

Contents

[edit] Route

The page for Great North Eastern Railways states that the East Coast Main Line runs all the way to Inverness, while this article states it terminates at Edinburgh. Can anyone clarify the situation? --Colin Angus Mackay 23:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure the line terminates at Aberdeen, not Inverness or Edinburgh - see my comments on Talk:Great North Eastern Railway. I think these articles overlook the fact that the ECML franchise covers train services which run beyond the actual railway line called the East Coast Main Line. It's probably worth stressing the difference. AdorableRuffian 23:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Page 95 of the Network Rail Strategic Routes document (12MB, PDF) says the following about the East Coast Main Line:
"Physical description
The East Coast Main Line (ECML) is the high-speed link carrying Britain’s fastest domestic train service between London, Yorkshire, the North East and Edinburgh, linking into Scotland’s prime routes to Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. It also handles cross-country, commuter and local passenger services and carries considerable freight traffic. The route is therefore important to the economic health of many regions of Great Britain.
"The principal components of the route are:
- the main line from Kings Cross to Leeds and Edinburgh, with a branch from Moorgate and a loop via Hertford North...
- the single-track branch from Drem to North Berwick, with a linespeed of 50mph."
Are people happy that we should use Network Rail's definition and agree that Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness are not on the ECML? Dupont Circle 18:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay - Updated. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but this does raise the question of what the Edinburgh to Aberdeen line should be called if it's no longer considered part of the ECML. Does it have an official name? In the Network Rail document, it's lumped into "East of Scotland" alongside a number of other lines. AdorableRuffian 14:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The Engineers Line Reference (ELR) for the line between Aberdeen and Edinburgh is ECN - East Coast North.

I agree that the name ECML should not apply for the line North of Edinburgh, the mileage changes at the former Kinnaber junction to West Coast mileages measured from Carlisle.

[edit] ECML north of Edinburgh

I propose that the following section is removed.

It is recognised by rail magazines in their general use of the "ECML" label that the line continues, mostly right on the east coast, to Kirkcaldy, Dundee, Arbroath, and Aberdeen. North of Edinburgh it includes the world-famous red cantilever Forth Bridge, and at Dundee the curved Tay Bridge both crossing wide river estuaries.

The fact is that the line north of Edinburgh is not ECML. The 2006 Networkrail business plan is absolutely unambiguous, so the content of rail magazines is irrelevant and it helps no one to compound their error by including it in this article.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3107_Route%208%20ECML.pdf leaky_caldron 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

disagree while Networkrail are not irrelevant I do not see why solely their operational definition should be mentioned. On a technical aspect - what makes the North Berwick line or the Hertford Loop a main mainline? But more importantly I advocate that the meaning the railway magazines associate with "ECML" is reasonably common as well.--Klaus with K 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
what makes the North Berwick line or the Hertford Loop a main mainline? Because that's the official definition as per the organisation responsible for managing the rail network which is also why it is inappropirate to call the line north of Edinburgh part of ECML. Printing it in a magazine doesn't make it authoritative - it could be just journalistic laziness and not therefore encyclopedic leaky_caldron 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is not journalistic laziness (I could write more). The current official definition is one thing, common usage is another, and I think both should be mentioned.--Klaus with K 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
why quote something that is wrong? The correct designation is clearly ECN (East Coast North). If you insist that these other route segments are part of some unofficial description of ECML lets have some evidence, otherwise it sounds like WP:OR. Lets have a bit of WP:V instead leaky_caldron 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
With a quick google search "East Coast Main Line Aberdeen" I find this document http://www.virgintrainsmediaroom.com/media/adobepdf/1%20WCML%20C.pdf for support.
Excerpt from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000111/text/00111w02.htm
"17. Sir Robert Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has in respect of the upgrading of the east coast main line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. [103268]" and following.
I find that current official use of ECML narrows it down to London-Edinburgh, London-Aberdeen can be found not only in railway periodicals, but in wider usage. Hence the It is recognised by rail magazines in their general use of the "ECML" is even is worded too narrowly.--Klaus with K 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
What about Using the label ECML it is often understood that the entire East Coast Main Line continues beyond Edinburgh to [...]? For instance I find a Chamber of Commerce paper that explicitely talks about ECML segments north and south of Edinburgh.--Klaus with K 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
the MP question can certainly be discounted as lack of precise knowledge. I don't understand why it is necessary to compound other people's errors in the precise description of the thing. I could just about understand "ECML is often incorrectly understood to define the entire east coast line beyond Edinburgh to [...]" but the fact reamains that the (sole) authoritative source is clear and specific so let's not fudge the article leaky_caldron 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree in taking the NR definition as the sole gospel. Yes, it is today's majority use, but the other meaning did exist (even before NR existed) and does exist, too. So it should be mentioned as well. I see WP:V satisfied. As to this MP question you brush aside, watching political debate I say it is not lack of knowledge but deliberate use of the wider meaning.
What about Different from the above definition [ECML=London-Edinburgh plus sundry items] the ECML is sometimes understood to continue....--Klaus with K 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
the MP stuff is entirely your POV of course. Both BR and Railtrack almost certainly also defined ECML as NR do now - it's quite historical really.

Nevertheless, as no one else seems interested in this, lets see if we can agree on a wording based on your proposal above. How about, As well as the Network Rail definition ECML is sometimes regarded as extending beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen, including stations such as Kirkcaldy, Dundee and Arbroath

Now we are into fine-tuning the wording ;-)
Different to the Network Rail definition ECML is sometimes regarded as extending beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen, [...]
Both would do. --Klaus with K 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry to come into this late. We need to consider the user of the page, who may have a little knowledge but is seeking a lot more (from us!)
Network Rail's definition will be structured to include a group of services, for investnent planning and discussion with its customers, the TOC's. But they will not have tried to define East Coast Main Line for non-professional readers. We need to state what "most informed people" would understand by the ECML. The exclusion of "north of Edinburgh" has already been dealt with; I think we need to emphasise the subordinate status of the branches, though: it would be tragic if our typical reader went away from this page believing that, say, Essex Road station is "on the East Coast Main Line".
I think we need to have clear in our minds the distinction between "ECML = a piece of ground 40 ft wide and 393 miles long with some rails on it" and "ECML = a group of train services operated by GNER, FCC et al", and of course predecessor companies. (Perhaps the latter needs its own page -- it could be quite interesting. And of course on an "ECML train services" page, Fort William would be included.)
Afterbrunel 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Is there a map of the line, either one reflecting the official description, or one reflecting the commonly accepted (but not universal) description including points further north in Scotland? 4.243.206.12 22:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't the map align with the text?? The text asserts that the ECML extends to Aberdeen, yet the map does show any stations beyond Edinburgh, but shows all the local stations in North London (e.g. Barnet, New Southgate) that are of no importance to the ECML, as no main line trains have ever stopped at these stations (and never will). I think the map is rubbish. Canterberry 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Stations like Barnet belong on local-scale maps describing local services that stop, or have stopped, at such small stations. A large-scale map like the ECML one should simply indicate the correct relationship between the places at which inter-city services stop. AlexTiefling 10:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to consider the previous discussion at Template talk:East Coast Main Line. The issue at hand was the ECML map template's inclusion in a number of other articles, as well as this one (e.g. staions along the route). The consensus was to keep the map template to 'InterCity' stations only and create a new template just for this article, which had more detail and listed all the stations. That seemed to me to be a sensible compromise. DrFrench 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, strongly, that the "local" stations are of no importance to the ECML. The commuter traffic from the stations south of Peterborough are absolutely crucial to the economic well being of the South East and are fully defined in the Network Rail strategic routes documents for the ECML leaky_caldron 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film

Nice section deveoping.

What about the film made to illustrate Auden's poem 'Night Mail'? That could (should) have been ther WCML I suppose? TobyJ 12:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] location

Where is New england North? 12:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Peterborough Canterberry 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location signs

A few miles north of York are three signs, about 7 miles apart: "Edinburgh 200 miles" "Half-way between London and Edinburgh" and "London 200 miles". These have been in place for many years. Given the diversions that have taken place, particularly Selby, but also Penmanshiel, has anyone ever calculated how accurate these are today? -- Tivedshambo (t alk) 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The ECML mileage KX to Edinburgh Waverley always used to be quoted as 393 miles. Table A of the Sectional Appendices gives (in miles andchains -- 80 chains in a mile)

KX 0.00 York = 188.40 = 0.00 Newcastle via KEB 80.16 = 0.00 Regional Boundary 69.67 = 54.50 Edinburgh Waverley = 0.00

188.40 + 80.16 + 69.67 + 54.50 = 393.13

So the throughout mileage is 393 miles and 13 chains. If you could quote the exact mileage and chainage of the signs we could double check. Afterbrunel 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes
2. Factually accurate?: No
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: Small amount

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Tellyaddict 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the reviewer was being very generous. This article is quite appalling IMHO. It has not a single citation or reference, which is what I thought was one of the core ideas of a good article. As for the images ... I think we can do a lot, lot better.

[edit] Kings Cross Accident

Why is this mentioned with regards to the ECML? The fire only affected Kings Cross/St Pancras Tube Station, it was hardly an ECML accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.80.216 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 May 2007

Good point. Consider it removed. DrFrench 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text in general

I'll correct my typo later ,sorry.

The reference to Peterborough station major remodelling surprised me; has anyone got chapter and verse on this? Also re-opening of freight diversionary routes. Does this mean Leamside? What else?

Can anyone provide more specific details of Chris Wolmar's book, i.e. publisher, date and ISBN? The reference looks a bit lame at present.

Afterbrunel 10:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High-speed railway?

I have restored the the claim that the ECML is a high-speed railway to the introduction. The article High-speed rail suggests that there is no agreed defintion of what constitutes a high-speed railway, but that 124mph or faster counts. The ECML is 125mph max speed, with certain parts capable of allowing 140mph running. Many ECML services are oprated by High Speed Trains, so in a UK context, it certainly counts as a High-speed railway. DrFrench (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, although I shall not revert your edit for now. I know some of the trains running on it are called HST, but 200km/h pales if compared to 320km/h on stretches in France or the soon-to-be 350km/h in Spain. It also falls short of HS1 levels which sets a UK benchmark of 300km/h or 186mph. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the UK definition matches the EU one (high-speed = over 200km/hr). Secondly, no 140mph is allowed on the ECML (British Rail did some experiments, and found that drievrs could not reliably see lineside signals at speeds over 200km/hr). Thirdly, the InterCity 125s maybe caleld "High Sped Trains", but that just a mareting thing. The line does not count as a high-speed line within the UK definition of the term. Tompw (talk) (review) 12:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)