Talk:Greenford branch line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Greenford Branch Line)

References[edit]

I do hope that the edits of 11 June are work-in-progress as the references are now retrograde. There now is a mix of title, edition and publisher. The punctuation is no longer consistent and the titles do not follow. May I suggest that citation templates be used to correct incorrect formating if one is unsure and only then when there is not a mix of media such a books and websites - where consistency and precision is impossible with the use of rigid boilerplates.

  • Conolly, W.P. (1957) Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazeteer, fifth edition, reprinted 1997, Ian Allan, ISBN 0-7110-0320-3
  • MacDermot, E.T. (1931) History of the Great Western Railway; Volume II, 1863-1921, London : Great Western Railway, 654 p.
  • Mitchell, V. and Smith, K. (2000) Branch Lines of West London, Middleton Press, ISBN 0-906520-50-8 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
  • Network Rail (2007) Current Timetables: Electronic National Rail Timetable (eNRT), www site, accessed 10 June 2007

Oxonhutch 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The "references" (if such they were) did not use the < ref > tags, and so they were not references in the true sense, and hence that is why they were moved to "Further Reading". (2) The titles use the WP Citation Templates, so I do not know what you are on about. The reason for having templates is to ensure correct formatting and consistency. You personally may not like them, but WP has decided that they are right by a democratic process. (3) If you think the previous edit was better, then revert it. Canterberry 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The use of the word "references" is not restricted to inline citations but also in the general sense of their being a corroboration of the information included in the article. There are many examples around WP and a review of Featured Articles would be a good start. The reference I added, Mitchell and Smith (2000) is germane in that it has a whole chapter dedicated to this branch and backs up the claims made in the article. It is a matter of personal opinion whether published material should be called “References”, Sources” or "Further Reading". Nonetheless, I would suggest that “Further Reading” infers that the material is merely additional to the article in question and not necessarily a source of information. Inline references are not the only method of citation and there is much material regarding this on WP in various manuals of style. In only one regard does there appear to be overwhelming consensus and that is that consistency be maintained. Right now, the article has an orphaned title with no text.

[2] Citation templates have been used but they are not necessary if one is able to format the references correctly in the first place. Used wrongly, they are a crude tool and very difficult to correct. I refer to my example above which is very much WYSIWYG and can be edited and fine tuned (perhaps even finessed) to a high degree. The problem with citation templates in this case is that they are not consistent within themselves across different media and there are subtle, but quite visible, punctuation renditions between those for books, journals, newspapers and online material. Consistency is quite easy to achieve without their use and I would suggest it is in fact easier. There is no requirement (democratic or otherwise) to use citation templates and I would suggest you research this further. This is personal opinion but I would liken them to training wheels on a child’s bicycle – very useful in the early days but a severe restriction later on; one is certainly not going to win the Tour de France with them. Taken to extreme some clever person could create a {WikiArticle Template} (remember all templates were created by simple editors). With this template one could just pour in a stream of disconnected facts and the template would write the article for you.

[3] I do think that the reference list above is better than the edits of 11 June and that is why I started this discussion for others to comment on and adjudge. I will revert only blatant vandalism as I believe it is important to move forward in a state of constant improvement.

For the record:-

"fifth edition, reprinted 1997" are not part of the title,
"London : Great Western Railway, 654 p." are the publisher and its location; the number of pages helps the potential reader judge the gravitas of the work
when referring to online material it is considered good practice both here and elsewhere to indicate that it is an online resource and (as these data are somewhat mercurial) give an indication as to when is was last successfully retrieved or accessed.

My best regards, Oxonhutch 08:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I will not engage with you on this anymore ... it has no purpose, and you seem a little irrational and slightly unhinged. Canterberry 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On the third stroke …"[edit]

It may well be that some Peace has descended on this small corner of Wikipedia so I will attempt once more to see fixed that part of the article that I feel dear about, namely accurate citations which I believe are the cornerstone of an objective encyclopaedia.

The necessary edits to the reader are not great – a missing author – an old edition – a new ISBN, but I feel they are significant in the continued development of this page down in that less fashionable end – the References.

There have been differences of approach leading to conflict, and those savvy enough will be able to trace the flow, but the above exchange details the "first stroke".

As a result I must recuse myself from further edits in this regard in the short term. May I please therefore ask – using templates; or free-text – that someone fixes these references …

Status as of 26 October…

Suggested replacement with direct change in bold …

I hope that others might help advance this article…

Many thanks (from the unfashionable end), Oxonhutch 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been some time now, without comment regarding these references. Failing adverse opinion, I would like to rectify them within the next few days. Oxonhutch 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Routemap[edit]

The diagram now in place is not ideal, but the best I can do without making Greenford station absurdly wide. The GW line has a connection to the Greenford Branch but no station: the first station on both GW and Underground is South Ruislip. The branch actually passes under the out(West Ruislip) bound Central Line then rises to a bay platform between the island platforms of the underground. I'll try to fiddle a way of showing this without reorting to BS5. Britmax 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connections: I believe TfL are building new platforms that will enable connections to the Piccadilly Line at Park Royal, where the Central and Piccadilly Lines cross. This is not far from Greenford and will be a significant additional access point. I'll check it. Britmax 17:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the junctions are 'wrong' to some extent. Heading towards Greenford, a single-track curve heads off towards the GWR line (eastbound) as the Greenford branch curves west. The branch then splits, with one line continuing onto the westbound GW line, and the other rising to the station. The 'triangle' junction is on the south side of the LT lines, not the north, as shown. There's nothing wrong with BS5, but I'm not sure that even that would do justice to it - perhaps a separate 'close-up' for Greenford, bearing in mind that the eastbound and westbound Central line are separated?
However, the junction at the other end is wrong too. There is a triangle junction off the mainline, which continues straight west. The current arrangement does not show the branchline very clearly at all, and suggests that the GW mainline leaves the branchline via a triangular junction!
Maybe two maps would be in order: one to show the relationship between Greenford station and Paddington, and one just showing the length of line between the two junctions? (which is more important for this article).
The article is also missing the fact that the original station was on the GW line, and hence the map should show a closed station there.
EdJogg 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think that the triangular junction under the GW line with its spur leading up into the bay platform between the LT Central Line platforms make the layout here beyond the ability of the diagrams. To show the platforms without silly width using a fixed modular system doesn't work. I'll look at my copy of RVJ Butt to try to confirm the GW platform at Greenford (not doubting you, I read somewhere that a local service ran from Paddington, and this line parallels the Central Line from North Acton, but, you know, "sourced"). Then I'll leave the rest of the diagram as it is. Britmax 08:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I refer you to the following book which details the features you mention, including the steam railmotor service between Greenford and Oak Lane Halt which was discontinued with the opening of the Central Line extension:
  • Mitchell, V. and Smith, K. (2002) Paddington to Princes Risborough, including the Uxbridge High Street, Western Main Lines series, Midhurst : Middleton Press, ISBN 1-901706-81-8
Plates 15 through 43 refer and maps 16 and 22 show past and present layouts. Oxonhutch 08:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of 15/01/2010[edit]

Map had been zapped and a pretty infobox added. It looks (at bedtime) as though the same editor touched many railway articles in the same session. An examination is needed--SilasW (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but isn't it sufficient to mark the map as not collapsed -- we never want it collapsed anyway
I've re-instated it. -- EdJogg (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox width[edit]

I promised EdJogg that I'd find out why this version had an overwide infobox, with the image caption not wrapping - the answer is that the presence of |box_width=auto in the infobox makes it as wide as is necessary in order for wrapping to be avoided. EdJogg's short-term fix was to introduce a hard line break into the caption; alternatively he could have removed the |box_width=auto which would have forced the width to 25em. Which is preferred? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if you were expecting a response from me or someone else, but having just looked at {{Infobox rail line}}, the first line of the documentation describes the box_width parameter with this note:
Width of infobox, default: 25em; Note: use auto for automatic width (nb long image captions will not wrap if |box_width=auto is specified)
Since it also says 'no' in the 'required' column, it may be simplest to just take it off 'auto'.
However, I don't see any need to remove the hard break... -- EdJogg (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for a response from you yes, but others may be interested. The parenthesis in the documentation "(nb long image captions will not wrap if |box_width=auto is specified)" was added by myself just before I started this thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ho-hum! I'm a little surprised the width is not fixed, really. I'll have to look out for these in the future because there are a number of infoboxes which are too narrow and cause the lines to wrap excessively.
This article looks OK at the moment, so I guess you'll need to use your judgement. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greenford Branch Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Service frequency[edit]

I'm surprised there's no mention of the service frequency on the line. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Ruislip-West Ruislip service[edit]

Is this relevant - or is there a better link? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something official (i.e., Network Rail WTT/NRTs), then this should be used instead. This looks very much WP:UGC or WP:SPS. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flagging it up so that WP-railway persons can chase it up further. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenford_branch_line&oldid=1202452999"