Talk:Midland Main Line/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

The line was once also an important route from London to Manchester, branching north of Derby at Ambergate Junction. In LMS days it had featured named expresses such as the Palatine and the Peaks. Part of the line was closed in the 'sixties severing an important link between Manchester and the East Midlands which has never been satisfactorily replaced by any mode of transport.

Re amendment to "Main Line to Manchester" Is it necessary to include the extra note added today? I think my text makes it clear that it is not part of the Midland Main Line. My feeling also is that the list of stations from Ambergate to Chinley is not relevant. Chevin 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Map?

Is there a map of this line? For those of us not from the UK (and/or who have never even been there), the place names don't really tell us much about how long or how important the line is or used to be. 4.243.206.12 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What the?

Belper Junction? Attenborough Junction? Surely this chart is far too complicated anyway Chevin 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The detailed map does have the advantage of showing most of the diversion possibilities. The Midland is complicated enough in that North of Trent Junction there are four separate routes taken by trains (Burton, Derby, Chesterfield direct, Nottingham). There's a difference between the Midland Main Line (the railway) and Midland Mainline, the current operator of railway services over that network; I certainly think that the latter should feature a simplified route-map showing the locations served (contrast Template:Channel Tunnel Rail Link with Template:Eurostar). Sladen 14:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest you look at a discussion on the future of this template, and the possibility of creating two templates from this one at Template talk:Midland Main Line. L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 18:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Surely this article is more than 'Start Class' quality? Also it most definately is more important that 'Low'. Could we also update the 'lack f references' I have added many recently, more may be needed, but it's a start? Amgmichael (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Formatting of routebox

The top-left of the routebox overlaps some of the body text in IE7. In FF3 the text overlaps the box. I'm not wiki-1337 enough to work out where the problem actually lies.Talltim (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Current Midland Main Line

Since there are regular services to Leeds via the Wakefield line and stuff straight from St pancreas, would it not be best to give a full map including this route, rather than just the historic map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.247.97 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the dates but seems this route has been included. It was after all the original line Chevin (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Image for infobox

I note that the image of Harringworth Viaduct has been removed from the infox. It was not of course part of the "core" main line, but it is part of the present route shown in the template. Perhaps the following image could be used? Chevin (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Midland Railway's coat of arms at entrance to Derby station

dde

Yes I think this would be a better image. I removed the Harringworth image its not offically the MML.Likelife (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but thinking on this, the arms are historicall. Maybe something like a EMT running on part of the line or a MML station would be better. What do you think? Likelife (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well my suggestion was only half serious. However I cant think of something that expresses the present day line. Chevin (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Map extent concerns

I was looking at the map the other day and found a few issues..

Barnsley

Did the MML really connect to Barnsley? If so, the map doesn't match real life - afaict from Google Earth, cudworth stn is totally disused, not just disused on used track, and I have no idea which route the map thinks is running in to Barnsley... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct Barnsley was the first name of Cudworth when the North Midland Railway was built Cudworth now also does not exist.Chevin (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Corby

Is Corby actually on the MML, or merely connected? If the latter, it shouldn't be on the map. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Corby is on the old line to Manton Junction where it connects to the Syston and Peterborough Railway and used to go on through Old Dalby. It was also the freight line (while further south the MML is four tracked.) Also it still is a regular diversionary route. There is talk of running London trains from Oakham via Corby and Kettering. Incidentally, do MML trains still run to Burton? Chevin (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to say that a diversionary route is not part of the main line - the Golden Valley Line and Newport to Gloucester Line represent a diversionary route when the Severn Tunnel is closed, but that doesn't make them part of the South Wales Main Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Corby is on the Oakham to Kettering Line and no EMT stopped running to Burton-on-Trent after their so called improved timetable was put in force in 2008.Likelife (talk)
There is currently one train per day in each direction, Melton-Oakham-Corby->St P. The question is whether it was ever considered part of the Main Line, or just branches. My opinion is the latter, but others may disagree? Coolvidnetwork (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

NR Definition

Further, the RUS says that the MML is from London to Chesterfield via Derby and Nottingham - it makes no mention of bits on the map such as the Corby route or Burton-on-Trent being part of the MML - in fact Burton is explicitly listed elsewhere. Could someone please clear this matter up? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Smaller template required

The Template:Midland Main Line appears to have grown recently to the point that it has prevented this article from loading properly, so I've stopped it transcluding (now just a regular wikilink). I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Midland Main Line RDT, and there may well be a consensus to have the article transclude a simpler template as we now have for the East Coast Main Line (which then has a link for the full template).

A smaller (precis) template needs either (or both of):

  • A volunteer to do the whole job
  • Someone who is familiar with the MML to specify which stations, branches, etc. are needed

Please discuss. Tim PF (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll happily do the map if someone can tell me quite what it's a map of. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I could go back to the relevant table of the Network Rail timetable (table 53) and cut everything that's not a direct part of the MML (St Pancras-Leicester-Sheffield-Leeds) down to an arrow pointing "elsewhere". I could also cut the Erewash Valley and other lines that have their own article. How does that sound? Britmax (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thing is, then you're doing a map for the TOC, not for the line itself. I think we can all agree that the MML includes St Pancras to Nottingham and Sheffield, the question is what bits beyond that should we use. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Er...no, I don't know where the TOC runs and the information is of no interest to me. I'm talking about the diagram in the national timetable, in which the main services run as far as Sheffield and some run on to Leeds. With relatively small variations this has been true since 1974, and possibly longer,when the timetable was published by British Rail as a telephone directory sized book rather than available online. You have identified the problem though; how much of the "floating" section north of Sheffield should we include? I think red line to Wakefield and Leeds through Swinton is enough and we can lose some of the detail around Rotherham to a couple of lueckes. Comments? Britmax (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be talking on cross-purposes about this, and I just want to take a step back to the root problem. The existing template is too big to transclude into the main article, which means that the permanent solution must be one of:

  1. Slim the existing template down so that it will transclude into the main article, and hope that the combination doesn't grow over the limit again.
  2. Create a smaller precis diagram for the article with a link to the full template (either trancluded or part of the article).

In addition to the above choice, there is also the question of the limits for a route diagram, which ideally should correspond to the article (which is about the line, not any TOC).

Personally, I prefer to have a small precis route diagram on the article, as it was taking an age to load, and I wouldn't want the detail in the existing large template to be lost. If that is not the consensus, then we have to radically trim down the existing template. Tim PF (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The two options you give are what I thought was intended but it could be argued that some of the detail on the current diagram does not belong there. I will remove some of the more peripheral lines using a copy of the diagram on my talk page and bring it here for comment. Personally I would rather have one smaller diagram that will transclude than two. Britmax (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

2010 Route plan - Leicester-Burton line

I've looked through reference 20 and can find no reference to any

Upgrade of the Leicester - Burton freight route for potential passenger use (2012)

which is mentioned in the article. Details would be appreciated! (I think ref. 20 has been misunderstood, actually).

86.181.177.63 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

HST picture

The HST picture that claims to be at Dore in this article is identical to the one in the Clay Cross railway station article claiming to have been taken on the site of that station. Which is right? Britmax (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Was altered here. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Britmax (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Map error

 – Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Accidents

The link in this section to the "Penistone Accidents" page is superfluous. Penistone was not served by the Midland Railway - the main line through Penistone was owned by the Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, later the Great Central, with the Lancashire and Yorkshire company owning the secondary route from there to Huddersfield. Nor is Penistone on the route currently defined by Network rail as the "Midland Main Line".602 Squadron (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Removed --Redrose64 (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Midland Main 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 01:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of text

In the Operator section for East Midlands Trains, I think the following text should be removed, as the first sentence is not relevant to East Midlands Trains, and the second sentence is subjective comment.

  • The former operator, Midland Mainline also ran limited services to Matlock, Burton-on-Trent and Barnsley.
  • Many regular passengers on this route prefer the ride quality of the HST as they do not have any under-floor engines which cause the vibrations in the passenger coaches of the Class 222. HST rolling stock is longer, wider and generally brighter than the Class 222.

Andrewrabbott (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Before and after picture of Bridges

This should go, it is either a composite image of 2 different bridges or at best, the views are take from different sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.68.244 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Midland Main Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midland_Main_Line/Archive_1&oldid=1142486526"