Template talk:Crossrail RDT

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in UK Trains Portal 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

I'm rubbish at working these route diagrams, can someone add the Old Oak Common depot and Ilford depot?- _J.Logan`^t: 09:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this railway is non-operational, and in fact the tunnels haven't even been dug yet, the middle section really needs to be xtINTACCs (which unfortunately don't exist). -mattbuck (Talk) 04:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some stations in bold and some not, eg why is Ilford in bold and Custom House is not? --TBM10 (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's because some services terminate there. (Otherwise none should be bold.) Useddenim (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case, seeing as no timetables have been set for this line yet, surely only the terminus stations should be in bold (Shenfield, Abbey Wood, Reading and Heathrow)? --TBM10 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just made the arguement for no stations to be marked in bold. Useddenim (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the rule is that only terminating stations are in bold, then can those 4 can be in bold (services will obviously terminate at each of the 4 termini)? --TBM10 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no ‘rule’. Some editors mark terminating stations in bold, but most diagrams don’t have any stations in bold. (However, in general italics are used to denote connecting/continuing lines, and small text for other features.) Useddenim (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bold in my experience has usually been used in two contexts:

1. On lines with closed stations, open station names may be bolded
2. Major calling points (BHF vs HST)

If anything ought to be bolded on this, I'd go for the central section as the major calling points. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the terminus stations and any interchange stations should be in bold here. Bold can be useful in distinguishing important stations on the line, eg Stratford is a more important station than Maryland. --TBM10 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go willy-nilly bolding station names all over the place, don't you think you should get some consensus on the idea? Keep in mind that the great majority of route diagrams DO NOT use bolded station names. Useddenim (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at [1] to show for the purpose of this diagram that two of the Elizabeth Line stations are DESIGNED to be double-ended and have been designed to be part of two stations. These are Liverpool Street-Moorgate (which is under Finsbury Circus) and Farringdon-Barbican [2]  BRIANTIST  (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of the diagram, the stations should be shown simply as "Liverpool Street" and "Farringdon", as that is how they are named in official documentation. Perhaps we could put "Moorgate" and "Barbican" in brackets, if indeed they need to be shown at all. --TBM10 (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst we all know this, if the station platforms themselves won't say "Liverpool Street - Moorgate", personal views aside, they shouldn't be shown as such. However saying there is a direct interchange with Moorgate should be fine. Same already goes for Bank - Monument. Likelife (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agreed. There is a discussion about this here - londonreconnections.com/2016/elizabethan-style-a-look-at-crossrails-core-stations  BRIANTIST  (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just worth nothing that we don't need to show Paddington (High Level) station on the map, because Elizabeth Line trains won't run there. This is distinct from Liverpool Street High Level that **WILL** see Elizabeth Line trains during peak hours. There will be services that call at Elizabeth Line platforms at the western stations that go to Paddington mainline but these WILL NOT be Elizabeth Line trains. The map is showing this. Thanks  BRIANTIST  (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this speculative re-opening be included, or does it breach WP:CRYSTAL? --TBM10 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a breach, as the site has been safeguarded for potential reopening. Useddenim (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked on the current safeguarding list at crossrail.co.uk/route/safeguarding/ and there is no mention of Silvertown in the attached PDF 1_volume_1_old_oak_common_to_abbey_wood.pdf so I'm going to remove from the map as it is misleading for the general reader to think a station may open.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've looked at www.constructionnews.co.uk/markets/sectors/airports/airport-chief-slams-tfl-over-refused-crossrail-station-plans/10006934.fullarticle and the word "Silvertown" does not appear it, so removed RaviC's addition of the station to the diagram.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no usage of the North Kent Line by Crossrail services, it needs removing from the map as it is misleading  BRIANTIST  (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the description back to "peak only service" as Elizabeth line trains will start/stop here only during peaks. "Limited peak service" suggests that there will be a service here all day, but restricted during peaks, which is incorrect.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Lea, City Mill, Waterworks Rivers into the template for completness goo.gl/maps/TnbrFNScnGC2  BRIANTIST  (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any consensus for these changes [3] where Briantist again removed the East Kent line and Silvertown? (I personally oppose the change.) Useddenim (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you would show the East Kent line ? It doesn't interconnect with the Elizabeth Line: the trains on that line can be caught from Abbey Wood, but that's the mean on the National Rail Symbol on the station. If you're going to show all the lines that are close by then you will need to add in interconnects for many locations, which would make the map confusing and unhelpful. If you can show that Silvertown has any legal status for being a station (such as current legislation or TfL consultation) then it should be on the map, otherwise it misleading to put it there. People come to Wikipedia for validated facts, not flights of fancy.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it right that Ilford and Southall have larger blob stations on the template?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Route diagram template#UK Road has "This template displays a small icon with an appropriate link for A and B roads and Motorways in Great Britain" likebut User:Bazza 7 has reverted use citing Manual of Style#Avoid entering textual information as images "Textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image. " . Which is correct? Doesn't the Route diagram template have priority here? Thanks  BRIANTIST  (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS is very clear, and gives good reasons why. I would go for accessibility (especially as the image doesn't have a usable "alt" attribute) and textual indexing over the needs of diagram template. There are occasions (such as tube line symbols) where space dictates otherwise, but in the case of roads, M25 and M25 motorway are not too different size-wise than  M25 . I have seen a good compromise for B-roads (such as  B123 ) but it's not available for other classes. I'd support using that style for other road classes should it become available. Reinstating the image was a bit premature as I'd given a good reason for reverting your edit, but I will delay reverting again in case there's more discussion. Bazza (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment copied to Wikipedia_talk:Route_diagram_template#UK_Road. Bazza (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to include a note about the M25 in the first place. It's not relevant to the article or the diagram. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the Thames serving as a geographic indicator, but this requires reader with knowledge about the M25 and its significance in London geography and transport. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why we'd include the boundary of Greater London, but the M25 I don't see as being that useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably... no. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greater London boundary is merely a line on a map (and even a geography geek like me took a while to place it precisely at the relevant point in West London, despite being under 10 miles from my house - it's the river Colne there, though moves to the M25 a little further south), whereas the M25 is a physical thing and much more commonly understood deliminator of London. I'm not sure either are that relevant, but neither are doing harm as a delimiter of where London 'proper' ends. 81.98.197.206 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:TBM10

Re your reversion: I dunno; 109.158.26.114 (talk · contribs) seemed to make a reasonable point about the relative importance of Southall and Ilford stations (unless they are operationally significant?). Useddenim (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I looked a long time ago at passenger usage numbers of all the stations and Southall and Ilford stood out as having significantly higher numbers than the other non-interchange stations. Also I think his edit removed the interchange symbol on an interchange station... --TBM10 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK; point taken. I generally only look at absolute numbers (and use ~1M as a threshold). Useddenim (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing,thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[4] shows that the Greater London boundary is not coincidental with the M25. I've updated the diagram, and removed the road symbols (as per MOS:IM) at the same time. Bazza (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now the M25 and GL boundary appear as stations, though. --TBM10 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, how do you see that? Useddenim (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified, they now appear to have the same size text as the stations. --TBM10 (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TBM10: Y Fixed. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram suggests that the entire line, apart from the central London part, is in Zone 2. This is midleading and I've removed the zone boundaries. Bazza (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tring link removed because it's been pulled - "the scheme has been pulled because it represented “poor overall value for money to the taxpayer”. Crossrail off the tracks as plans are shelved  BRIANTIST  (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which stations will retain NR interchanges once Crossrail services are fully operational? For example, Taplow's article states that a FGW service will continue to call, so I changed the symbol on this diagram to a NR interchange. --TBM10 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the RDT show the routes in greater detail? I have a rough idea of what it would look like here user:dddthedark/sandbox2 Dddthedark^talk 22:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's a route diagram, not a frequency or schedule diagram. It need only show the route of the line, the stations on it, and interchanges with other routes.

Regarding the reversion of my change to add a label for London Liverpool Street, on the basis that, Liverpool Street is plain "Liverpool Street", with no "London" prefix:

I accept that the Elizabeth line and London Underground stations are named Liverpool Street. But surely the National Rail station is officially named London Liverpool Street isn’t it? That is, it follows the same naming convention as Paddington / London Paddington. As evidence to support the name of London Liverpool Street, that’s the name Network Rail uses in listing the London stations here:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/passengers/our-stations/

2A01:4B00:87C9:D800:7420:F5AF:518F:489D (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Street's article calls it just that, while Paddington's calls it London Paddington. Network Rail's web site does indeed to what you say, but the actual stations are named internally as Liverpool Street and London Paddington. We'll see what others think. Bazza (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on this:

If I select a ticket booking destination on say, thetrainline.com, then I am offered these stations, all with the full name of “London …”.

London Paddington

London Liverpool Street

London Euston

London Kings Cross

London Waterloo

London Victoria

London Bridge

London St Pancras International

London Marylebone

London Charing Cross

London Blackfriars

London Cannon Street

London Waterloo East

London Fenchurch Street

So, the trainline doesn’t distinguish between Paddington and Liverpool Street when it comes to including “London” in the name or not. I can’t see any justification for using the full name of London Paddington but using the abbreviated name of Liverpool Street, in any particular same context, such as this route map.

I visited London Paddington yesterday and found the pictured “London Paddington” signage, but I also found “Paddington” signage (in the National Rail station). I also visited London Liverpool Street yesterday and found the pictured “Liverpool Street” signage, but I also found “London Liverpool Street” signage. So, I don’t think the station signage can be used to determine what the full correct name of the station is. I can see why the station signage might miss off the “London” part of the name, because if you are standing on the concourse at London Liverpool Street then you probably know that you are in London, and so it is perfectly reasonable to show an abbreviated station name on signage.

So, I’m still left with the opinion that the full official station name includes “London” for all of the stations above, but that the name can be abbreviated if the context allows it, such as in station signage. 2A01:4B00:87C9:D800:8C36:CC65:F0E0:AB11 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]