Talk:Stourbridge Town Branch 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
B This article has been rated as B-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.
Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.

This article is within the scope of the West Midlands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the West Midlands. In so doing it works and collaborates with the two related projects UK Geography WikiProject and UK Subdivisions WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Info The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Stourbridge Town Branch Line.

Contents

[edit] Connections on route diagram

I think the connections should be shown on the route diagram - firstly a lot of these diagrams show connections and continuations, and secondly it shows (in this case) that a direct service from the branch towards Kidderminster is not possible. It would be possible to explain this in prose, but the map makes it instantly obvious. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It's excessive detail. Does the precise alignment of the trackwork really matter to anyone who doesn't already have access to such information? WP:NOT ISBN 0954986601. You need to change at Junction, hence the "for" tag. 2. It's confusing. The article is about the branch, the map should depict the branch. Anything beyond gets in the way. 3. WP:ALSONOT a quick reference guide. It would be great if every piece of information in the encyclopaedia was "instantly obvious". There's just no compelling reason for the specific track layout to be made "instantly obvious" to our readers. KISS. Keep usability in mind. 81.104.175.145 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The connection at least should be shown for consistency - check out most similar layouts. If you don't agree with this, try discussing it at WP:RDT – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tivedshambo; based on what I have seen on other pages that use the template, the consensus does seem to be to show immediate connections. At the very least, I would settle on something like this revision, so one can at least see that it diverges. In response to 81.104.175.145's comment that "[t]he article is about the branch, the map should depict the branch," I would consider forks and connections to be an important part of the route.--Max Talk (+) 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've raised this at WP:RDT as the anonymous user(s) seems intent on reverting without discussion. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the route map to the original layout by Tivedshambo. This detail is import to show the line in context with its connection line, especially since other important detail (original goods depot, over/under-bridges) are shown). If you look at the work being done as part of WP:TIS - specifically Paisley Canal Line this is the combination of a currently and historical detail - it shows the various junctions in context. This is similar to that of the Stourbridge line. Other Scottish Routes are split between Historic lines and currently open lines. If you follow this then there will be an article for the current operation with a very simple route map and an historic article covering the line from construction with a detailed route map showing the connections in context (for examples see Cathcart Circle Lines, Cathcart District Railway and Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway to see how this works in practice) --Stewart 21:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
An even better revision from User:Max Schwarz. --Stewart 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.--Max Talk (+) 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where does the spout of the teapot go?

The track layout looks a little like a very tall, thin teapot or coffee pot. This is not a criticism, but it is a useful simile since the 'spout' (between Brook Road and Junction Road) is not labelled on the map. Where does that line go?

Secondly, which section of track is only available for empty stock movements? It would be helpful if this section were denoted using the light red line colouring, or else the 'in tunnel' format.

EdJogg 00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Simply south 00:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. EdJogg 08:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Further to this, the connection is the opposite direction, i.e. the connection is from Birmingham into Platform 1, not from Platform 2 onto the branch line, as is shown here. Changes can be made, I assume? Worley-d 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Changes can be made, of course. Are you talking about the 'empty stock connection'? In which case you are asking for it to 'go the other way', with the 'main line' continuing to use 'platform 2'? -- EdJogg 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just corrected the direction. Simply south 16:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That looks so much neater! - EdJogg 19:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stourbridge Basin

An editor has put a wikilink to Stourbridge Basin is there any likelihood of an article being created? --Stewart (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find more information than "it's in Stourbridge and in a basin", it'd be a welcome stub. A bit of Googling turned up "Amblecote" as an alternative name for the site, which might be useful. 90.203.45.244 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a precedent, at Withymoor Goods Yard, though I doubt whether there's a claim for notability for all goods yards. Incidentally, I've reverted the removal of the ECS connection, as per previous discussion above and here. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Route Map

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have adjusted the route diagram to be purely that. Stations and connection. All other items, other routes, bridges, closed lines are not part of the route so have been removed. I do not like this but it is the logical conclusion of the edits made by those who do not like a closed (to passenger services) link between the branch and the main line.

So what do you want a simple route, or a diagram that assists the article (i.e. bridges, closed line, ECS link). --Stewart (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but if this is all that's going to remain, then it may as well be taken out altogether. In my opinion, the important fact to convey is that the branch line stands alone, apart from a ECS connection. The connection is not merely "point-work", but the release to allow stock on or off the branch.
Stourbridge Town Branch Line
exKDSa
Stourbridge Basin
exBRÜCKE2
Foster Street
xKBFa
Stourbridge Town
SBRÜCKE
Parkfield Road
STR
SBRÜCKE
Junction Road
ABZrg HLUECKE
 to Birmingham Snow Hill 
BRÜCKE2
Brook Road
BHF
Stourbridge Junction
LUECKE
 to Worcester via Kidderminster 
I can see 5 alternatives to the route map:
  1. Remove it altogether.
  2. Leave it as two stations only [1]
  3. Show it purely as routes, though this loses the stand-alone aspect (see right)
  4. Show the branch without any pointwork, which implies incorrectly that it is complete disjoint from the mainline [2]
  5. Show the connection as well [3].
Personally I prefer option 5, for the reasons discussed above, and also in line with the previous discussion, but I'll leave this unaltered until further discussion takes place. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tivedshambo and go for option 5. My edit was intended to provoke a response and a resolution to the continous changes, especially with the link. I propose that when we resolve this the route map is put into a template and then an Admin is requested to protect it. --Stewart (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Station pointwork is not relevant - end of discussion. It's "stand-alone" aspect is not necessarily important enough to be included in the map. You see, while you keep insisting on adding more and more irrelevant and ephemeral detail to the map, you seem to be overlooking all that text in the background - that's called an "article", it's where all the stuff that isn't explained in infoboxes, maps and pictures goes. The map shows a dotted route beyond SJ in both directions - which is pretty much exactly the same as we do on any other route where there might not be direct trains (see the varying examples around Birmingham New Street for example - not all paths through the station are served by direct trains). There is one station at Stourbridge Junction, not two. If you feel the specific trackwork of the station to be important, put it in the article body - that's what it's there for. Nobody has yet disproved the assertion that Wikipedia is not a Quail map. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no independent consensus for including the pointwork on the map, and a shedload of consensus against it. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
User:90.203.45.214 - Have it your own way. Even though it goes against the discussion above. I have now put the route map into a template and this should be an end to it. You seem to ignore that fact that a picture or diagram can represent a thousand word. - and please (as indicated on the your talk page) create a user account. --Stewart (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above goes against WP:NOT, and is a very narrow view. The Paisley example given is not a valid analogue. I am not ignoring the thousand-word issue. You are forgetting their purpose. We use infoboxes and line diagrams to summarise the contents of articles, not replace them. The answer to your last request is no. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up and am going to have nothing further to do with this article - your argument is totally inconsistent. If this is a route map then it is only two stations - nothing else. --Stewart (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what is inconsistent about including former features and the former extent of the line and at the same time excluding piddling detail such as the precise layout of the points at a station. It's well known that all or nothing is a flawed argument wherever you raise it. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be to retain connection as option 5. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed bold formatting, since it is patently clear that this is not the case. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Route Map (again)

Keep the pointwork in. Removing suggests that this branch is completely isolated from the National Rail network - and is more relevant than showing overbridges.--86.148.185.195 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove the pointwork. Not even remotely relevant enough to include in an overview map. Bridges are questionable, but station pointwork is definitely out. Check any other route map we have. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the pointwork. The current layout suggests there are two stations at Stourbridge Junction, and there aren't. This isn't like the Looe Valley Line where the branch train starts from what amounts to a separate station at Liskeard. Surely it's a route diagram not a track plan. Britmax (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove everything apart from the stations. No bridges, disused lines or links to other routes

as per Template:Maryhill Line; Template:Croy Line; Template:Edinburgh to Bathgate Line

OR
Keep as is.

as per what about Template:Aberdeen to Inverness Line at Keith; Template:Highland Main Line at Perth and Aviemore; Template:Argyle Line and Template:North Clyde Line at Exhibition Centre; Template:Paisley Canal Line


Anything else is a halfway house between historic / putting the line in context; and a pure route diagram. --Stewart (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Stourbridge Town Branch Line
exKDSa
Stourbridge Basin
xKBFa
Stourbridge Town
STR
ABZrg HLUECKE
 to Birmingham Snow Hill 
BHF
Stourbridge Junction
LUECKE
 to Worcester via Kidderminster 
With my experience of route diagrams, if I were doing this from scratch it would look like this:
To me, a railway diagram without its connections to the system and history is robbed of some of the information it could convey, but the bridges have to be notable (Forth Bridge or Glennfinnan Viaduct, say) or useful (the minor road on West Somerset Mineral Railway that helps locate the incline) to go in. All diagrams are compromise, it's a question of degrees. Britmax (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


Stourbridge Town Branch Line
KBFa
Stourbridge Town
ABZrg HLUECKE
 to Birmingham Snow Hill 
BHF
Stourbridge Junction
LUECKE
 to Worcester via Kidderminster 
As a representation of the current operational route and how it links into the network, I would go for the modified route map as to the right.
The article does however deal with the historical detail which is similar to the Paisley Canal Line. That article covers two purposes - current operation and historical information. The route map template reflects the majority of the historical detail (junctions, links to other links, etc), with Shields Junction being simplified and wikilinked to separate article and detailed template.
So returning to the question here - the question is for the template to the right, or the fully detailed template including the connection which is causing the controversy. The Paisley Canal example suggests the latter, and it works. The Stourbridge article details the history of the route, and the disputed connection is a significant part of this history. --Stewart (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not a "connection". It is station pointwork - a minor and insignificant infrastructural detail, even moreso than the bridges. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
All junctions are pointwork. This connection is not insignificant.
  • FACT - There is a connection between the branch and the mainline.
  • FACT - The branch line does not use the mainline platforms.
Conclusion if detail is to be provided then this small but significant piece of detail should be added. If no detail is to be provided, then the mainline should not be shown and all should be shown is the pure route of the branch line. --Stewart (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Your first statement seems to use the word "FACT", where should appear the word "OPINION". According to the ROTP (p.23), no distinction is made between the different parts of the station. And finally ... it's station pointwork, nothing more. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If find it amazing that User:90.203.45.168 can not accept the arguments made by other users. He is a lone voice and claims to be a user of around six year who choses to not to use his/her registered name (in this discussion). This is makes me wonder why and suspicious that he is a Sockpuppet. Why (s)he is not prepared to user their username - banned previously? warned of being a sockpuppet? To my mind this user loses credibility by not using his/her user name and as such the devalues the arguements being put forward. Personnally, I like the current layout since it shows the route is independent of the main network, but a connection is present. I also do not have a user account (having learnt my wiki skills on another wiki as a registered user) and am currently considering whether to register. Personnally, I think User:90.203.45.168 is setting a bad example by his behaviour and it does not provide me with any encouragement to register (or even consider contributing). --80.225.221.64 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Two points. first the IP address is not alone in feeling that the pointwork should not go in (See my comments next to my version of the diagram above) and second, you do know you've signed as an IP address yourself, don't you? Britmax (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)