Template talk:North London Line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
| Template | This page is a template and does not require a rating on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
