Template talk:Varsity Line RDT

Comment

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

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. Severo^TC 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Striking ones that don't seem at all important! Severo^TC 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

Rewley Road was literally next to the current Oxford railway station, just to he east. Severo^TC 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

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! Severo^TC 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

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)

Disused track around Bletchley

When the Oxford-Bletchley line closed, all the complex around Bletchley came out of routine use, apart from the Bletchley-Bedford line. (The Flyover has been used very intermittently in the 90s and 00s for binliner trains - but this is after the Varsity Line as such ceased operation, which is what the host article is about). So would someone who has better RDT drawing skills than I do please change to pink and move the stop marker accordingly? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Varsity Line and East West Rail RDTs

moved from User talk:Useddenim

1. I tried hard to find an ENDE symbol the right way up. If it exists, please let me know. (I can't believe it doesn't, this can't be the first instance where it is needed).
2. The Newton Longville landfill site post-dates the closure of Varsity Line operations by about 25 years. So it is anachronistic to show it.
3. The Varsity Line RDT is still wrong. See Template talk:Varsity Line RDT#Disused track around Bletchley.
4. As to your edit comment at the East West Rail RDT, I have spent a great deal of time on deciphering the user-hostile documentation and icon catalogues. I wrote Template:Milton Keynes railway map and would never waste as much time again.

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

1.  (ENDExe)
2. A common problem with historic RDTs is reconciling what was there then with what is there today.
3. Where exactly is the track end?
4. A good first effort for something so complex. If you care to point out specific sections of the documentation and catalogues I will do my best to improve them. (They used to be much worse, and are still subject to mangling by ESL speakers.)

Useddenim (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

1. I could have sworn I tried that. In sheer desperation, I tried every combination of a e x and maybe even u, before and after and either side of ENDE, most of which just appeared as text, not an inappropriate icon.
2. After a lot of discussion about duplication and confusing forks, the consensus that emerged was that the Varsity Line article should be set to its status after the last scheduled passenger service in 1967 (i.e., excluding the train enthusiast specials that ran for a little while after. There was no matching discussion at the accompanying RDT but it seems [to me!] reasonable that the same rule should apply. So therefore the only active line that should be shown west of Cambridge is the Marston Vale line, Bedford-Bletchley. The high-level route over the WCML became inactive by 1970. So Bletchley High Level should not appear (not pre-1970) and Bicester Village should be shown as Bicester Town.
3. the working track ends at the fork, on the eastern approach to the flyover. (Physically, the track was taken up from just west of Swanbourne) about 20 years ago.
4. I can't point to any specific deficiency because it is all so impenetrable. I did too much of the MK RDT by try/fail/try again. The German doesn't bother me, it seems so hit and miss as to what will work and what won't. What is really needed is a proper tutorial that takes it from the basics. I suggest that the icon catalogue should actually show every valid combination. You may well feel that you can do without well-meaning amateurs but someone in the future will need to maintain it. It should not a need C programmer.

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit around Bletchley, but it needs to be more drastic than that. The only connection to the WCML still active after 31/12/69 was the direct one from Bedford. So the stop marker needs to go right up to the start of that branch to the flyover from the Y junction. In addition the other loop from the flyover around to the WCML north of the station needs to be pinked out too. If you are really keen or it helps with the above, Bletchley TMD could (should?) be added between Fenny Stratford and the fork.

IMO, all the line right into Oxford Rewley Road also needs "pinking" but I had better take that to the talk page since it is a lot of work that could be undone by WP:BRD. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Is it correct now? 21:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just what I had in mind. Thank you for your patience and expertise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Historical consistency between this template and the host article: RFC

The hat note on the host artice (Varsity Line) for this template reads

This template is about the historic Oxford - Cambridge line from 1845 to 1967. For its modern recreation, see East West Rail.

By the end of the 1960s (apart from a couple of enthusiasts' specials), the entire line from Oxford to Cambridge was out of service and mothballed with the exception of the Bletchley-Bedford Marston Vale line. Therefore the entire line, except the Marston Vale section, should be shown in pink (disused). As the template stands today, the Oxford-Bicester line (reopened 1987) and the Aylesbury-Calvert line (via Quainton Road) are shown incorrectly (IMO) as active.

I would like to propose therefore that all these subsequent reactivations be removed and the whole line (except Marston Vale) be shown in pink and that the RDT have its own hat note that says that it reflects the status as at (say) 31/12/1967. Conversely it would be similarly invalid just to jump to Template:East West Rail as at 1/1/2020 [well, one may dream], as though nothing had happened in between these dates. So I propose also that the current version of the RDT be preserved with a new name (not Varsity line?) and a hat note saying that is as at 1/1/2000 or /2015, and given collapsed in the VL and EWR articles.

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Can you recall the details about previous discussions concerning portraying historic lines in the present day, and the specifics of what is shown and how? Useddenim (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The convention is that the RDTs show the current state of affairs. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely but the problem in this case is that the Varsity Line ceased to operate in 1967. So the current state of affairs is that is an historic line, just as much as (say) the Bedford–Northampton line. The route still exists and some has track, but what is there now is not the Varsity Line. To take a simple case, should the RDT show Bicester Town Bicester London Road (as it was then) or Bicester Village as it is today? Similarly, HS2 will use a large section of the Great Central Main Line route: your logic would seem to mean that the RDT for the Great Central will have to be revised to show the track as in use? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A good example of how to handle the situation can be found at the {{LSWR Kensington and Richmond RDT}}, which is titled Kensington to Richmond, subtitled London and South Western Railway, and footnoted diagram shows modern extent of line but historic line names. Useddenim (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Given that nobody has supported my purist proposal, I can accept that solution. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Claydon LNE Junction

If anyone is feeling enthusiastic or just stir crazy, Claydon LNE Junction needs adding. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Bicester chord

The chord connecting the modern Oxford-Bicester line to the Chiltern main line is entirely new, isn't? If so, then it is inaccurate to show a chord to the GWR Bicester cut-off line, is it not? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's new. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that the RDTs for historical lines should show only the stations and infrastructure that existed during or at the end of their operation? So nothing after 1967 for the Varsity Line. See also template talk:Buckinghamshire Railway, same problem. Is it worth starting an RFC at UKRAIL? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

But I see (above) that I have raised this question before and the consensus was to be anachronistic. So I'll drop it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)