Template talk:Varsity Line RDT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in UK (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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 template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Comment[edit]

Good work so far. I wondered whether you knew that you could work in an interesting link to this article Britmax (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I could try. It should also be noted in the main article. Simply south (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, i have added the moving telescope, to the left of the original route and left a note. Simply south (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Roads[edit]

Some other similar templates have roads. I don't know how major they have to be so I'm adding them here, then you can put them into the template as they are needed. I've listed all A roads and above, even though they may not be (and probably aren't) relevant. So, going East to West...

  • A1301, over between West Anglia Mainline and M11
  • A1309, over between West Anglia Mainline and M11
  • A603, just to the West (towards Bedford) side of Lord's Bridge (level crossing?)
  • A1198, just to the East (towards Cambridge) side of Old North Road (level?)
  • A1, over at Girtford (not sure which side, but I think the station was to the East (towards Cambridge))
  • Between Willington and the old Bedford St Johns:
    • A421 (over)
    • A603 (over)
    • A600 (over)
  • A6, over literally just south/west of new Bedford St Johns (Bletchley direction)
  • A6, over between Midland Mainline and Kempston and Elstow (I think, not quite sure where K&E is)
  • A421, over between Kempston & Elstow and Kempston Hardwick
  • M1 Motorway, over between Ridgmont and Husbourne Crawley
  • A5130, just to the east (towards Bedford) of Woburn Sands, level-crossing
  • A5, over between Bow Brickhill and Fenny Stratford

I've only done Cambridge to Bletchley for now. SeveroTC 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Striking ones that don't seem at all important! SeveroTC 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for these i will get on them tomorrow\today. Simply south (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewley Road[edit]

Rewley Road was literally next to the current Oxford railway station, just to he east. SeveroTC 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is good. Thank you for that and so i will correct this later. Simply south (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1 more piece of trackbed[edit]

There's also a piece of trackbed branching off westerly after Oxford Road which connects to the Cotswold Line (crossing the Cherwell Valley Line on its way). Don't know if this is relevant! SeveroTC 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be relevant. I will add it tomorrow\today. Simply south (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Further revisions[edit]

Transfered from User talk:Kevin Steinhardt#Template:Varsity Line

Kevin Steinhart has edited this template today and I cannot see how these edits are an improvement. To be fair he seems to be doing them in stages so it's hard to work out where he's going with this. Would you take a look and give me your opinion before I revert to what is partly my own work as I fear my conflict of interest on my part here. Thank You. Britmax (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(a) Steinhardt has a 'd' in it; (b) my revisions of the route diagram are easier to read; (c) my template is of a smaller size; and (d) the old template just wasn't clean and 'nice looking'. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Following the comment by Britmax I have looked at this template. I found you changes to Bedford and Bletchley lost some of the complexity of the layouts at these two towns. Sandy was incorrect as there were two stations. I could not follow any of the variations of Cambridge, so I took Jowett as my starter and redrafted the Cambridge layout. Oxford has also been modified to identify the link into the Fairford line and the two Wolvercote stations. As regards the use of template, the "mileage" column had been used throughout. The standard that I have followed (used on the Scottish templates) - Stations (column after the mileage); junctions in italics; adjacent routes final column with an arrow to indicate direction.
Part of the Metropolitian line and the Great Central was in the template, and I have added a bit more from Verney Junction and to Ashendon Junction - but am not sure if any of the Met or GC should be shown except for the immediate connection (Calvert is a bit of a anomoly - should it really be on this template at all?)
The Main Lines that are crossed I feel should be kept straight (as per WCML and MML). These areas are complex in railway terms.
Hope this explains my thoughts in revising the template. I have also added my sources, which I feel should be on all route map templates. --Stewart (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's try and plough through with this.

Bedford (Midland) was/has never been on the Varsity Line, and is therefore redundant.
Bletchley has only been rearranged. Nothing more, nothing less.
Sandy did indeed have two stations, so I'll give you that one.
How could you not follow Cambridge? It's quite a simple premise; it's quite a simple station.
Oxford and Oxford Rewley Road, in your revisions, do look better.
I spent not that long, but long enough, moving the information out of the mileage column, where mileages (and only mileages) should be.
And the standard that I follow is stations in regular type, everything else in small type, and junctions and connecting lines also in small type.

--Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A few responses:
Bedford (Midland) was/has never been on the Varsity Line, and is therefore redundant.
Given - I would not be adverse to it being removed
Bletchley has only been rearranged. Nothing more, nothing less.
I felt the current arrangement is a better layout
Sandy did indeed have two stations, so I'll give you that one.
OK
How could you not follow Cambridge? It's quite a simple premise; it's quite a simple station.
Goods Station was missing; I could not follow one of the links to the Fens Line
Oxford and Oxford Rewley Road, in your revisions, do look better.
I spent not that long, but long enough, moving the information out of the mileage column, where mileages (and only mileages) should be.
And the standard that I follow is stations in regular type, everything else in small type, and junctions and connecting lines also in small type.
Useful to find how standards are applied in other areas. I do not normally venture south of Hardian's Wall when it comes to templates. The standards used on the Scottish templates have evolved in the past year.
Any thoughts on whether to keep or delete the Met?
--Stewart (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

On the goods station at Cambridge, I forgot there was one. On the Fen Line, well, I don't have trouble with it. And on the Met, it's quite an important and historical section there; but the entire Aylesbury branch is slightly pointless south of the Calvert landfill. Oh, and the branch via Fen Drayton has been ripped up. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Aylesbury branch removed beyond Quainton road. Bedford Midland removed and tweaks to line at Bedford and Cambridge. --Stewart (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Next up: what about these odd arrow-like objects? What's wrong with just using text? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the arrows useful in helping to distinguish the lines when looking at them. I would say keep them. Simply south (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
But having text instead makes no difference, except for the lack of blue arrows. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So, what next? Or have we given up on trying to make the template look nice? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. Sorry about the missing d: I knew there was something I meant to check before I pressed the button. As for the template the relationship of the lines is restored so I'm fine with it, Thanks for the interest, everyone, the diagram is the better for it. Britmax (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)