Talk:East Coastway Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Please work with the Images task force to add a suitable image to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imageneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this image request.
Sussex Portal
This article is within the scope of the Sussex WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Sussex in South East England.
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.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for Sussex-related articles.
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Info The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:East Coastway Line.

Contents

[edit] Removal of Distance information

I note that lucy-marie is now using the reason "not many other maps have distance on them" for removing the distances. This is very wrong. The templates have distance field in them. The fact that not many maps have distance information on them is more to do with the fact that they are still under development.Canterberry 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Simplest thing is not to include distance as it firstly clutters the template, secondly causes conflicts like this over which system to use and thirdly creates a lot of unnecessary work.--Lucy-marie 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, you have not gained support for your view, and must now cease the removal of the distances from the maps. You may be right about using metric, but you lack the support of other editors and so your actions will from now on be considered disruptive and i shall use the 3RR against you.Canterberry 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

:::You sir need to watch what you say as some of what you could be saying may be interpreted as threatening such "i shall use the 3RR against you" it is not you domain to threaten people because they say something you don't like. you should try and be constructive and can you provide you supporters for you position as well. I have to support Lucy here, as the metric system is officially used and should be primarily used here or distances should not be used at all.--Jjamesj 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And you Jjamesj need to be aware, that I report "sock-puppets". Having not been involved in any previous part of the debate, I suspect that you are Lucy-marie using another account.Canterberry 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a sock puppet you however are a bully--Jjamesj 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC).

Note - reported as a believed SPA here — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, reverted back in distnaces, its consensus, if someone wants to change it go to WP:TRAIL. Pickle 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Newhaven Branch

Shouldn't the Newhaven branch also be on the map, it's more a part of the East Coastway line than the Keymer Jn to Lewis line (that's part of the London to Eastbourne line). (SouthernElectric 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

The Newhaven Branch (aka Seaford Branch) has its own article Seaford Branch Line. The branch should probably be part of the East Coastway Line, but adding the map of the branch to the already large East Coastway map is not advised. I think the Nehaven/Seaford branch sits quite happily on its own, but we ought to make it a clear and defined stub of the East Coastway line. This is a sensible compromise IMHO. Canterberry 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not so sure, it would actually make more sense in having a small stub article with regards the Keymer Jn to Lewis line (being referenced from both the ECW & BML articles), IMO it's actually misleading as it stands (see Newhaven Town station for how it's not at all clear, look at the table). Is there any reason why the Seaford Branch Line article can't be merged with this one, perhaps using the two existing maps (Are there any reasons why two maps can't be on the same page?), as it stands the Seaford Branch article is almost orphaned. (SouthernElectric 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC))
Do whatever makes you happy. Remember WP:BOLD. Canterberry 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyone care to take a look at this suggestion as to how the two article could be merged, I've put it on my Sandbox. Comments welcome, but please remember that some Wiki links and the distances on the Seaford Branch map will need adjusting as they take their reference from London rather than Brighton. I still think that the Keymer Jn to Lewis line should probably be within the BML article. (SouthernElectric 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm not fused either way, leaving it as is is a viable option but including the line in the wider east coastway article would also work. I'm not so keen on the way its dispalyed in your sandbox at the moment - merge it properlly if we all want to merge it (ie put the routmaps together). Don't go out of your way to make a difficult routemap though, there are pleanty of small short line aritcles out there (dudding hill line, etc). Pickle 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
After the work I've done on the East Coastway line I've decided to leave the Seaford Branch as is, although I do think the distances need unifying to those on this article - ie. distance from Brighton although there is no urgency to do so. (SouthernElectric 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Confusion as to what is the East Coastway Line

As far as I'm aware the London Eastboune servicies (via Lewis) has never been known as a East Coastway service, the name "Coastway" was coined to discribe the two routes that ran along the coast, not the London south coast services. Can anyone point to a citation that backs up the current version of the article please? I get the feeling that this is another example of confusion between "Southern"(TOC), "The Southern Railway" and "BR(s)" as written the article is simple wrong IMO and for now I'm going to change the opening sentence from

"East Coastway is the name given by Southern Railway to the services operated from..."

to

"East Coastway is the name given by Southern (TOC) to the services it operates from..."

(SouthernElectric 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

See the talk on West Coastway (IIRC), which includes several old rail magazine articles from the southern e group archive, as well as other sources ie Soutehrn railway of (1923-48), BR (various - southern region, L&SE, NSE, etc), connex, & southern (govia). Yes its not the best name to give the line, but it does work. Yes the scope is dubious - ie it tends to relate to the *service* from brighton to hastings (now some on to ashford), rather than the seaford and keymer jcn bits. BUT these maps (generally in the UK) aren't here to describe services, but lines that make up services , and it this case it works well as an effective solution to kill many birds with one stone ;) Pickle 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My comments were not regarding to the map but the rather (IMO) garbled opening text to the article, is there any evidence to suggest that the London to Eastbourne service or line (apart from that part east of Lewis, which is but a very small part) being described as part of the coastway line thus backing up the following existing text;

"East Coastway is the name given by Southern (TOC) to the services it operates from London Victoria along the south coast of Sussex and Kent to the east of Brighton, UK. Those to the West of Brighton from Victoria are named the West Coastway Line. The trains running under this name serve Brighton, Lewes, Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford. Southern Railway was formerly South Central Trains."

Surely it would be better if it read something like the following;

East Coastway is the name given by Southern (TOC) to the routes it operates along the south coast of Sussex and Kent to the east of Brighton, UK. Those to the West of Brighton are named the West Coastway Line. The trains running under the East Coastway name serve Brighton, Lewes, Eastbourne, Hastings and Ashford. Southern (TOC) was formerly South Central Trains.

(SouthernElectric 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

Ahh i had been confused by both pages being in the same sandbox when i looked. Yes you are right the introduction is piss poor. Only think i'm wavering on is the "Southern (TOC)" bit, its just dsoen't look right but does aleivate the confusion of fering to the ucrretn southern and the "classic" southern of 1923-48. The last sentance probably should mention all TOC's (ie LBSCR, Southern, BR SR, NSE, then Connex) - its a bit odd on its own. Maybee it could be stated that serivces consist of both Brighton to Hastings (and Seaford) as well as Eastbourne (and Seaford?) to London ?
Pickle 00:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "Southern (TOC)" looks messy but there really does need to be a water-tight disambiguation between "The Southern Railway", "Southern Region" [BR(s)] and "Southern" (the TOC) within the text if the historical accuracy of the article is not to suffer. BTW 'BR SR' should be "BR(s)", that was the official shorthand used by British Rail, it was even used on builders plates etc. As for your last sentence about operators, I think the wording needs to be changed on the first line (replace 'given by Southern' with "...used by Southern..." and then add a comment about the known history of the name "Coastway" whilst changing the last line to "The current operator is Southern (TOC), formerly South Central Trains." Comments? (SouthernElectric 10:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC))
We're getting somewhere, be bold and change it and then i might fiddle seeing it in context ;) Pickle 19:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds to me like we need a page that sets out all of these "titles". The former Southern Region probably needs it more than most, but I am sure that the remainder of the UK could also use something similar. It will provide much needed consistency for readers and editors alike! To be honest the whole BR/SR etc. naming/titling is a complex beast. Canterberry 07:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that it's needed, certainly post 1994 and the TOC, surely all the Pre Grouping and Big Four (plus British Railways) company's would / should have there own pages anyway? (SouthernElectric 09:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC))


[edit] East Coastway Line rewrite

Can someone proof read the following (comment here); East_Coastway_Line rewrite Please. (SouthernElectric 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC))

Well I've uploaded it to the actual article, hope it doesn't break any style guidelines or toes etc, also the route map still needs some work. (SouthernElectric 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC))
Many of the required modification to the route map, to bring it in line with the textual content, have now been done (SouthernElectric 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Distances revisited

Can someone with the route distance references please check the template, looks like they might be still in Km rather than Miles and Chains (per consensus) or at least have an incorrectly header. Thanks. (SouthernElectric 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

Stone Cross halt should appear before Stone Cross Junction (going West) rather than after. I can provide photographic evidence if need be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.224.201 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised map c/w Keymer Jnc.

Not sure I like the new version, surely the Jnc. with the BML should be left off (as it was), there is no real info supplied but plenty of confusion possible, ideally there just needs to be a 'LUECKE' type icon for the ABrg icon - IOW just allow the line to dissolve, allowing those who want/need to know about Keymer Jnc to go to the BML page. I think it's gone from to little/wrong info to to much. Sorry!(SouthernElectric 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I agree. The map/article has become unwieldy. The inclusion of the Keymer Jn to Lewes line was a mistake, it added nothing. This should have been added to the BML article, or made a stub of its own (like the Seaford Branch). Those editors wishing to incorporate the Seaford/Newhaven branch into this article should take heed ... it ain't gonna work!!! We have "Stubs" for a reason, and that is to keep primary articles clear of "clutter". Stubs allow main articles to do their job, whilst informing readers of things directly related to the main article. Canterberry 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I've taken note what you say re' the Seaford branch, having raised the merger idea recently myself and now firmly changed my mind, but I do think that the Kymer line (as was originally on the map) was OK, even if the two stations on the line were also included it's not to unwieldy. I would also add that part of the Keymer line is important to the history of Lewis station and short of a line-diagram the route map is the easiest way of describing the changes made in the late 1800s without writing another 100 words - on that score, what has increased the textual content is the amount of information about the line, if the text is to large perhaps we need to start thinking about splitting the article (Brighton - Eastbourne & Eastbourne - Hastings say). I suppose I really must ask this, is this project about recording the line or to act as a rail travel guide?(SouthernElectric 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC))
I have little else to add. The article is hardly (compared to some) a rail travel guide. I think the article is reasonably true to the ideal of being an entry in an encyclopaedia. I think the map needs more work ... but that is just "grist to the mill". Canterberry 23:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had a fiddle this evening re the Keymer junction "spur"/"line" - what do you think ? Pickle 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hate to say it, but the map "still needs more work" ... call me a politician or what!! I honestly believe that the Keymer to Lewes line should be kept off this map. I think this way, bot out of some dogmatic idealism, but simply because of the limitations of the maps. The maps only have five columns to represent the railway (or other mode), and frankly, that just ain't enough in some cases to show all that there is to show. And I am sorry to say, this map has enough on it already, and adding more simply isn't going to work IMHO. I am not going to start reverting edits on the map template, as I am open to ideas on how it "might" be possible to show the Keymer to Lewes line in a clear manner. Sorry to say it, but the current map just doesn't cut the ice for me. Canterberry 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I really want to say, that I am not trying to be critical of the efforts of others. I have inputted to many maps (including this one), and I know how hard it can be. I appreciate the work being done to try and fit the Keymer-Lewes line on the map. It is a tough ask, and the work being done to show the "options" for how it might fit is applauded. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I do believe the the map was about as good as it could get before this work started. Canterberry 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I agree with Canterberry but not that the Keymer line should go, the previous version worked (within the limitations of the available icons) but now it's just crowded and confusing. I might add that I'm not just saying that because I edited the previous version but because of the route map needs to contain the Keymer line if the history of Lewis station is going to be easy for all to understand, the two station on the line are not causing any real problem but trying to join it up with the BML is. (SouthernElectric 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
hey its a consensus building (sorta democracy) encyclopedia, so if you guys think we've reached the limits of what we can do here (with the Keymer junction "spur"/"line) then lets think of an artile name for it and create a new article. Pickle 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


OK, taking on board the various opinions and having slept on it, I'm going to be bold and put up another version, feel free to revert if you really don't think it works but I would prefer to discuss it first. Hopefully it does all it needs to do without being to crowded/confusing? (SouthernElectric 11:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Wiki links and stations

Re recent edit by user_talk:80.42.214.152, rational as to why I reverted the edit;
All station names are wiki linked even if no article exists, allows the page to be created easily (without having to alter the route map), in any case there are many examples of wiki links that have no article. (SouthernElectric 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Polegate station

Hello. I have checked the OS map for Eastbourne and the surrounding area. The current site of Polegate station is to the west of the junction of the East Coastway Line and the Cuckoo Line and I have altered the map accordingly. The station was however previously located to the east of this junction to allow Cuckoo Line trains to call. See also Polegate and Polegate railway station articles. Should the route map also show the previous location of the station at this point or is the current map OK? Thanks Mertbiol 09:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the previous site is the important one here, the current location is close enough to the old station, but for historical (junction layout) reasons the old station site needs to be shown. SouthernElectric 10:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, from the looks of other maps, level crossings are not normally shown. Certainly where the East & West Coastway lines are concerned, with one of the highest numbers of level crossings in the UK the maps would show nothing else (or make the page (scroll) length far to long). SouthernElectric 11:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks SouthernElectric for your reply. I accept that level crossings in this instance should not be shown, but I can't agree with your first comment. The first duty of the map should surely be to accurately position the stations which are currently open.
I don't understand why you removed the part of the text which explained the change in the position of the station. The text as it currently stands is wrong! Please could you explain your rationale more fully. Mertbiol 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, not a current travel planning site (if it was there would be none of the closed lines shown). In saying that, if the location of the new station was (say) five miles from the old then there would be a case for showing both stations, in this case we are talking a few hundred yards difference so there really isn't any need to indicate both locations. Also, due to the limitations of the route maps, station locations are only ever going to be indicative - never exact, if a user needs an exact location they would be better to use Google Maps etc. If you still consider it a requirement to make mention of the new stations exact location (should the station, say, be wheel-chair unfriendly or the 'wrong side' of a main road) perhaps you might be able to do so - in an encyclopedic way - on the Polegate station page, were generally such current information is better placed.
Now to your second question; Having reviewed your textual changes, yes I am minded to agree that my reversion was hasty but I still stand by my reversion as the current station location is also the first station site - basically you are correct but were being (more) 'historically' confusing than it was, there really needs to be mention of the history as well. These articles are more than just lists of open or closed station in linear order. Are my rationals (Wikipedia:Consensus) any clearer? Regards, SouthernElectric 13:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello SouthernElectric. I agree with you that there is no need to show both the site of the open and closed stations. I don't understand why you think that the site of the pre1987-station should take precedence over the current station site. Surely it is better to describe the current situation on this site and to refer to the closed stations on the Polegate station page. Also I don't accept that my amended text was "'historically' confusing"; in any case it was factually more accurate than the current text.
We seem to be at loggerheads over this one. Could I suggest we WP:COOL and see what other people think? Thanks Mertbiol 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If we were (say) talking about the station being shown the wrong side of a river or even tunnel I would have no problem with moving the station location but the layout of the historic junction is affected by such a move (making it look as though trains from Hailsham could not call at Polegate). Again I'll point out that these articles are as much about the history of the line as anything else, the indicative position of the station on the map does not adversely effect the worth of the present but does adversely effect the historic information.
Further, (re textual content) read up about the history, the current location is also the first (Polegate has had three stations on two sites), you made no mention of that so you were contradicting the unchallenged information on the station page. SouthernElectric 14:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] OK, having looked into the history of the junction more, the map needs modifying anyway as the direction of the Hailsham junc. changed at some time between 1875 and 1910, it should be possible to indicate the original, second and current stations. SouthernElectric 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello SouthernElectric. Thanks for your final post. I was unware of any junction layout changes. I will let you propose a new wording and map layout and look forward to seeing your new version. Best wishes Mertbiol 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Now done, see article. SouthernElectric 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Great and thanks. I think that this is much clearer now. Mertbiol 19:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)