Talk : West Coast Main Line/Archive 1

for Windermere

Lancaster

Preston

for Blackpool North

Euxton Junction

Bolton

Wigan North Western

Warrington Bank Quay

Liverpool Lime Street

Liverpool South Parkway

Runcorn

Weaver Junction

Manchester Piccadilly

Stockport

Holyhead for Dublin Port

Wales

England

Chester

Cheadle Hulme Junction

Crewe North Junction

North Wales Coast Line

Macclesfield

Stoke-on-Trent

Stone Junction

Norton Bridge Junction

Stafford South Junction

Colwich Junction

Wolverhampton

Cross-City Line

Birmingham New Street

Tamworth

Cross Country Route

Birmingham International

Nuneaton

Coventry

Rugby Trent Valley Junction

Hillmorton Junction

Northampton

Hanslope Junction

Stafford to Manchester Line

Watford Junction

London Euston

All routes shown.
A detailed diagram of the core route can be
found at West Coast Main Line diagram.

The RDT here is of all of the routes of WCML train services; operated by Virgin. The branches to Northampton, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Holyhead and Edinburgh are all separate lines. The Northampton Loop Line, Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line, Stafford to Manchester Line, Crewe to Liverpool Line, North Wales Coast Line, and Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs Line are all the individual lines of the respective places. The WCML does not take up any of these branches, but the services from the line do split off and go to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham etc. Why are the other branches shown if only the services go there? The detailed diagram has the true route of the line, so why is this not the true route and has so many others? In the Quail Track Maps Book 1 and 4 ("Scotland & Isle of Man" and "Midlands & North West") have the line shown on the detailed diagram as being the "West Coast Main Line" throughout. The other lines have names and Engineers Line References completely different. For example the Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs Line is listed as the "Down Midcalder" and the "Cobbinshaw Line" with the ELR of "ECA". The Stafford to Manchester Line has various names and ELRs, some for example being "CMD" and "MCH". Admittedly, the ECML itself has various ELRs, all being "LEC", "CGJ" and "WCM". These stand for, and I quote from the books "London Euston - Crewe 159Mp (part WCML)", "Crewe (159Mp) - Carlisle (Gretna Jn) (part WCML)" and "West Coast Main line (Carlisle - Glasgow Central)". I suggest that the diagram be turned into one that I shall create, or one that someone else can create. Nathan A RF (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe you raise some valid points, but your post is such a long rambling run-on paragraph that I can’t figure out exactly what you’re asking and proposing. I suggest you rewrite your comments more clearly and understandably. Useddenim (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Change the RDT to only have Glasgow to Warrington to Crewe to Nuneaton to London. Nathan A RF (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The WCML as described in the lede includes London, Coventry, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and also North Wales, so to have a route diagram that you describe would be inconsistent, hence Oppose. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Those are all branches of the West Coast Main Line (except London) and the true route of the line is on the detailed version. There are Virgin WCML services that go to Manchester, Liverpool etc., not the actual route itself. Nathan A RF (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a change to the scope of the article, that would be a separate discussion, but it would not make sense to have a different definition in the diagram from that used in the rest of the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I have sent an email to Network Rail to get some documentation concerning the route so we shall see. I would propose on changing the article too, but I know that it would not be accepted now. One piece at a time. Nathan A RF (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The present definition of the WCML in the article seems perfectly adequate to me; i.e. the network of intercity main lines radiating from London Euston, with the London to Glasgow route at it's core, and a number of diverging branches and loops. Given that the traffic to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc are major components of the traffic on the WCML, it would appear pretty ludicrous not to include those branches in the description or definition. This subject has been discussed before further up the talk page. G-13114 (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The RDT should show the route rather than the service pattern. The introductory section does not contain a Network Rail definition of the line and, in the absence of a solid reference, I find the assertion "The WCML is not a single railway; rather it can be thought of as a network of routes" dubious. According to NR (page 4), the WCML is Euston to Carstairs via Trent Valley and Crewe. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That was already discussed at length further up the talk page some years ago. It was decided not to use the NR definition. Here's a definition closer to the article one [6]. This government document [7] would also indicate that the lines to Birmingham, Manchester, etc are considered as branches of the WCML. G-13114 (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If those branches have separate articles, I'm not convinced they should be included. FWIW, Commons has a more restrictive approach. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Surely they have separate articles to cover them in greater depth of history and local services than would be possible with one article. Are we to not include the Trent Valley Line on that logic? G-13114 (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@G-13114:, the Trent Valley Line is the exception on the route, as it was not the first piece of line to open on the whole route. Furthermore, the branches off of the line do have separate articles and are only served by trains diverging from the WCML and then returning onto it. If the branches wish to remain on the diagram, then I must ask why the separate line articles are not at all even mentioned, or why the detailed diagram still has none of them included either? They all have articles referring to them as loops or services from the WCML, not the actual route itself. If one were to say West Coast Main Line, one would naturally think of London to Glasgow direct. That is what many people I have known and myself have believed also. Answer me this, why don't the branches have relevant articles; all the stations aren't included; and why is the detailed diagram the simple route, and does not have any of the branches you speak of on it? Nathan A RF (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the only reason I could associate the other cities and branches with the WCML is because the iconic Class 390s do not run anywhere else other than the WCML, as is the case on the ECML. The Harrogate Line from Leeds to Doncaster is mistakenly referred to as the ECML because Class 91 trains run from London to Leeds. That has been corrected and the branch to Leeds has been removed from the ECML RDT. Nathan A RF (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a better map of the WCML by NR: see page 14. Some branches are included: notably Liverpool and Chester. Imho, our RDT should look like this one with continuation arrows to indicate stations served via other routes. The WCML ends at Carstairs; this much seems clear. The concern I have over departing from a NR definition is that we stray into the territory of "wiki invention". Lamberhurst (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It is by no means clear that the WCML ends at Carstairs. Although some documents consider the section south of Carstairs separately, there are certainly documents which agree that the WCML carries on to Glasgow, for example https://www.networkrail.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30064799414 says: "The route from Glasgow to Carstairs and onto Carlisle makes up the northern portion of the West Coast Main Line (WCML). " — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to read the lengthy discussions on this topic further up the talk page, or the references I posted on my last comment? It was decided back in about 2006, that the NR definition was not the one that would be used in the article, indeed it doesn't really define the WCML at all, it defines something called Route 18 for engineering purposes. There are historic and other definitions which are just as valid. The notion that the WCML ends at Carstairs is about as ludicrous as I can imagine. G-13114 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that the WCML does run straight from Glasgow to London, and does not end at Carstairs. But I stand by the fact that the main core of the route is Glasgow to London and all of the "branches" served by trains running from London to Glasgow are not part of the WCML itself. They all have separate articles (and I have no idea why the Trent Valley Line does have it's own article to be frank, as it was one of the first parts to open, but is now part of the principle route of the WCML). Nathan A RF (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would doubt that the London-Glasgow route is the core WCML, the real question is whether that is too narrow a definition of what the WCML is, is it a singular route or is it an interconnected grouping of routes around that core. Examples of lines with multiple routes and loops (by no means exhaustive) would include the Hope Valley Line, the Huddersfield Line the Midland Main Line for example. I think the reason the Trent Valley Line has its own article, is because it started out as an independent company. The same reason the London and Birmingham Railway and the Grand Junction Railway have their own articles. G-13114 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: The same document to which you refer states (on page 3): "Haymarket East Junction leads from the main Edinburgh to Glasgow line to Carstairs and beyond and is the main feeder line for the WCML", i.e. not part of the WCML as such but leading to it; this is confirmed by the section's separate treatment on page 7 and by the fact that we have a separate article for the Carstairs line. @G-13114: The discussion in 2006 was based on the documentation then available and seems to be focused on NR's route 18 specification rather than the NR definition given in more recent documents. This discussion, held between users who are no longer active here, does not prevent us from reaching a different conclusion ten years later. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Loops

Legend

@G-13114:, the lines you mention are lines that have multiple routes (apart from the Midland Main Line, I'm not sure). The fact is that the RDT should mirror the ECML RDT and resemble the actual route, not the services. If you want to include the loops, then why not use icons like what I have just placed? Nathan A RF (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just finished what I would propose for the RDT, which can be seen here. Nathan A RF (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion (as used on Commons) is that the WCML is Glasgow to London. Anything else is a branch - Northampton Loop, R-B-S, North Wales Coast, Weaver Junction and Liverpool, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's completely incorrect to call the Northampton loop a branch, as operationally all of the route from London to Rugby is treated as a single four track line, and the lines through Northampton effectively form the slow lines of the four track line, even though it is physically separate. Your opinion is not referenced. I've added several references which include Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc as being WCML. G-13114 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Legend

to Manchester Piccadilly

Northampton Loop Line

to Northampton

OK, let's compile all of the sources we have. My email that I sent to Network Rail was replied to with a link to the PDF document referenced to by Lamberhurst, which shows some lines that have no relation (e.g. the Abbey Line) and some cities that aren't connected (Liverpool and Manchester), not to mention the fact that the line stops at Carstairs. That source is nearly 6 years old. The second source we have is the Quail TrackMaps book, that states that the whole route, "branches" and all, are all separate lines with individual names, not to mention the ELRs which, frankly, have no relevance with line names. However, this is even older at 11 years ago. There are more sources all above that list these various "branches" also, but these are all different and by Network Rail, so can these really be trusted if Network Rail can't show consistency? And I still bring up the fact that the RDT above is simply this map here ([8]). That is the Virgin Trains route map. Notice any similarities? Yes? No? If we are going to say that all services are routes, then why bother naming lines in the first place. The WCML is Glasgow to London and that is the core route. @G-13114: still didn't answer my question above about loops, which is why I changed the diagram; no answer was given. Why can't the "branches" be shown with links to relevant articles? Will that on the right do with the places named and the link to the article on the actual line? I am extremely angry and at the moment I am trying to do other things. Please, I think it would be best if you explained your opinion, @G-13114:. And I don't even want to start on the Argyle Line and the North Clyde Line. Dear God, I don't want to go over the same points for those two "lines" too. P.S., thank you for having some sense @Mattbuck:. Nathan A RF (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and also @G-13114:, why is the detailed version only Glasgow to London? Why haven't you added all of the detail into the branches on that because if the "branches" are part of the WCML, then it is your duty to add everything in on those branches onto that detailed map. I think that needs some of your opinion also. Nathan A RF (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

On the RDT side, detail becomes problematic once you get beyond a single core route. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is why there are pages and pages for each of the lines to Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Holyhead, Birmingham etc. Nathan A RF (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan A RF: The detailed diagram sticks to the core route a) because that is the core of the WCML, b} per Mattbuck's comment above, and c) that's how I drew it using routemap, which is not the easiest to understand but was neccessary due to size constraints. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the rout of the WCML does go to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham etc., then the detailed diagram is wrong. So are the branches irrelevant in the simple diagram or relevant in the detailed one? I still argue that my example here or something similar should be the simple diagram. I state that fact that lines have separate pages.

The WCML does not go to Manchester
The Stafford to Manchester Line goes to Manchester
Virgin trains runs a London to Manchester service, which is not a line

Nathan A RF (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

You say "The WCML does not go to Manchester", but ref 4 in the article disagrees with you, for example:

In 2.29 "... the same WCML track into Manchester Piccadilly"
In 4.61 "This branch of the WCML to Manchester ..."; note branch of, not branch from.
In 5.57 "... on the WCML Stockport-Manchester corridor".

--David Biddulph (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Network Rail consider this as a line to Manchester but the Stafford to Manchester Line actually goes to Manchester. Network Rail consider this line as part of the WCML as Manchester is big town. For an example, many people consider the Dartford Crossing as the M25, which is not correct. The crossing is actually the A282. The name M25 for the crossing has stuck because it is more recognisable, but not correct. It may be recognisable but it is not correct. As is the "branches" of the WCML. If anyone insists of these branches, they must be added to the detailed diagram as that is correct. Nathan A RF (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment, but the New York City subway articles differentiate between between lines (the physical trackage) and services (the timetabled trains which travel along one or more lines). Useddenim (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The diagram should illustrate what, and only what, the article describes. Bazza (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It does that already. G-13114 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We have a separate article on the InterCity West Coast franchise, which is currently quite short. This route diagram would be an excellent addition there, as would some of the information about, for example, Holyhead services. With a bit of rebalancing, this article could easily focus on the stretch of track called the West Coast Main Line, and InterCity West Coast on the broader West Coast services including all the branches. Smurrayinchester 12:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Applause. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem, as has been pointed out above, is the definition of the WCML, many definitions include the Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool etc routes as branches of the WCML rather than separate entities. Certainly, those lines are all historically and operationally intertwined. The branches to Holyhead and Blackpool however aren't usually considered parts of the WCML, even thought they have (or have had in the past) some through services to Euston. It's also a bit dubious whether the Carstairs-Edinburgh branch is included as the WCML, so that could be looked into. So the Intercity West Coast article covers a different thing. That said, i'm not too unhappy about the the London-Glasgow core having it's own RDT, as long as it's in conjunction with the wider one. G-13114 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I still feel that only the core route should really be shown as all the branches to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham etc all have their own separate pages. And Holyhead!? That is not on the West Coast Main Line. The RDT on the main page has just become a map of virgin train services and not the WCML! Please could the RDT such as the one here be added? I suggest that the one already on the page be titled "West Coast Main Line services" or something similar, since Holyhead is definitely not on the WCML and is served (and I know this) by a virgin service from London Euston! That does not make it part of the WCML, just as Leeds is not part of the ECML! Nathan A RF (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

West Coast Main Line

Legend

Glasgow Central

Argyle Line

Ayrshire Coast Line, Inverclyde Line

& Paisley Canal Line

Cathcart Circle Lines

& Glasgow South Western Line

Argyle Line

Whifflet Line

Cambuslang

Cathcart Circle Lines

Argyle Line

Argyle Line

Motherwell

Shieldmuir

Argyle Line

Wishaw

Carluke

Argyle Line

Carstairs

Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs Line

Glasgow South Western Line

Carlisle

Settle-Carlisle Line

& Tyne Valley Line

Cumbrian Coast Line

Penrith

Windermere Branch Line

& Blackpool to Liverpool Line

Furness Line

Leeds to Morecambe Line

Leeds to Morecambe Line

& Morecambe Branch Line

Lancaster

Blackpool Branch Lines

Preston

to Ribble Steam Railway

Ormskirk Branch Line

East Lancashire Line

Leyland

Manchester to Preston Line

Euxton Balshaw Lane

(slow only)

Kirkby Branch Line

& Manchester to Southport Line

Wigan North Western

Manchester to Southport Line

Liverpool to Wigan Line

Chester to Manchester Line

& Liverpool to Manchester Lines

Liverpool to Manchester Lines

Warrington Bank Quay

Chester to Manchester Line

& Ellesmere Port to Warrington Line

Crewe to Liverpool Line

Acton Bridge

Mid-Cheshire Line

Hartford

Winsford

North Wales Coast Line

Crewe to Manchester Line

Welsh Marches Line

Crewe to Derby Line

Stafford to Manchester Line

Norton Bridge

(bus replacement)

Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line

Stafford to Rugby via Nuneaton

also known as Trent Valley Line

Stone to Colwich Line

Rugeley Trent Valley

Chase Line

Cross-City Line

Tamworth

Cross Country Route

Polesworth

Atherstone

Birmingham to Peterborough Line

Nuneaton

Birmingham to Peterborough Line

Coventry to Nuneaton Line

Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line

Northampton Loop Line

Wolverton

Nathan A RF (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Marston Vale Line

Abbey Line

Watford DC Line

to North London Line

West London Line

Queen's Park

(slow only)

to North London Line

Watford DC Line

London Euston

A detailed diagram can be
found at West Coast Main Line diagram

I proposed a few years ago that the only WP:RS is Network Rail and their definition is Route 18; I argued to add anything outside this is WP:OR (and maybe WP:SYN). The consensus was against me so good luck with that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Geographical fact: Holyhead is on the west coast - Euston isn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with whoever started this (can't see a sig anywhere), the WCML is the core bit, and excludes Birmingham, Liverpool, and my god, Holyhead? Seriously? If the only criteria for inclusion is that trains go there, why aren't we putting Penzance and Kyle of Localsh on this map too? The current map is, as the originator states, simply a map of VWC services, not a map of the railway. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I know, why is the fuss with all of the "large cities" being connected? They're not! Holyhead is on the West Coast, but not on the WCML! Should I add the RDT here to the main page or replace the other RDT on the main page? Nathan A RF (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We already had exactly this argument last year, I don't see what's changed since then. Unless something has miraculously changed in the definition of the WCML in the last six months, then this is wasting time. G-13114 (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Heading south on the from Scotland on the WCML Manchester is accessible via Wigan and Bolton and Liverpool via St Helens. Though only branches going north from London are shown on the map.^[3]^[4] --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

References

I edited down West Coast Main Line#Track to follow through consistently on the description of the spine as mainly quadruple, with named exceptions. The previous version had nothing about the Birmingham/Stafford loop (or North Wales for that matter) but it did give the Manchester and Liverpool spurs. It didn't mention Carstairs south junction.

So two options: (a) leave it as pure a description of the spine, but its purity won't survive long or (b) add another paragraph on the main spurs, but with the very serious risk of it becoming a text version of Template:West Coast Main Line in all its variety.

Bear in mind that we also have a very large West Coast Main Line#The route in detail, to which readers may be referred.

Suggestions? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just added "The WCML is noted for the diversity of branches served from the spine, notably those to/from the West Midlands and North Wales, Greater Manchester, and Liverpool. These are [[#The route in detail|detailed below]]."

Is that enough? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have written a short section at Hanslope#Hanslope Junction but it is singularly lacking in supporting evidence. An ordinary Google search hasn't produced anything useful. Does anyone have any material eg from enthusiast magazines that could be added. It seems to be an important location.^[1] and if "SPADs are happening all the time", the eventual incident will require us to have some decent material. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

^ 'Hanslop junction is deadly ... spads happen all the time'

This junction is a point where trains can change tracks - from one of the quadruple tracks to another. A crossover. Not a branch junction as most would think a junction is. It is also a known bottleneck reducing speeds of trains. There has been a proposal to build a proper flying junction south of Roade where the WCML splits, to improve speed and capacity. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:579:5D88:324F:17FB (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

In the into: "several sections of the WCML form part of the suburban railway systems in London, Coventry, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, with many more smaller commuter stations, as well as providing links to more rural towns."

Any local suburban rail around Liverpool & Manchester is on the spurs, not the spine. This is misleading. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:579:5D88:324F:17FB (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

But the WCML is not just the spine. It also includes the major spurs – they are not branch lines. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The spine and spurs have to be differentiated, as they are not the same. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:3570:EF63:A391:2699 (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The spine is NwR Route 18, the spurs/branches have their own numbers. A few years ago, I raised the question on whether this article should be strictly limited to R18 but there was a strong consensus against, many sources were produced that consider the major spurs (WM&NW, GM, L) equal parts of the network as a whole. Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A section listing the bottlenecks should be inserted. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:579:5D88:324F:17FB (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please supply a list of bottlenecks with supporting evidence and it can be added somewhere. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Section Constraints and bottlenecks added with a Network Rail ref. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition as it was plagiarism. Your addition needs to be in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

plagiarism is when passing it off as your own. I am doing no such thing. I stated it was from Network Rail with ref given. Reverted. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Read what it says at WP:plagiarism. Including a reference isn't enough if you are using the exact words from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Biddulph (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia says,

Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's writing as your own, including their language and ideas, without providing adequate credit.[1] The University of Cambridge defines plagiarism as: "submitting as one's own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement."[2]

Adequate credit for the content was given. There was no intent to deceive. Wikipedia says an in-text attributation must be in the text. There is one, it says it comes from Network Rail. It conforms to Wikipedia's direction. It is not plagiarism. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have proven the section does conform to Wikipedia's directions in detail. If no one can prove otherwise - pointing to the wikipedia article on plagiarism is not enough - it goes back in, in a few days. If someone wants to amend or re-write parts feel free to do so adding value. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason given above for removing your edits was not the most appropriate one for the circumstances, even though true (see template:quote box or template:quote for the correct way to properly attribute an extract). The more important issue is copyright. The size of your copy exceeds the reasonable amount allowed: you are not quoting it to support a more detailed explanation, you just copied it. That is breaches Network Rail's copyright and is illegal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you prove your assertions on copyright?

"exceeds the reasonable amount allowed". What is the the reasonable amount? 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F581:7D0F:ADCE:E437 (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:COPYOTHERS, which answers your questions. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

At present, the RDTs are shown fully expanded to mobile users (well, Chrome on Android N, to be specific). The effect of this is that the article is rendered useless to these readers, who might well be attempting to read while sat in a bus replacement service. They see first three screens worth of info box, then a short lead section, then at least ten screens of two RDTs and finally, if they haven't already given up, maybe some useful material. Unless anyone has convincing objection, I propose to move the RDTs to the end of the article, under See also. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

As nobody has objected, I am doing this now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rather than engage in an edit war over this again, it would be better if we could get the underlying fault fixed. and then it wouldn't be an issue. I have asked the question at template talk:Routemap#Collapse function does not appear to work on m.wikipedia. It looks like the problem may arise in a lot more than RDTs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to my query at talk:routemap says that this problem is most unlikely to be repaired, so we have to live with it.

Since the default setting for the RDT is 'collapsed', it does not normally shown in desktop view. So the only reason to insist that it be under the infobox is because wp:ILIKEIT that way. (The fact that other lines have had the RDT put back under the infobox doesn't make this one wrong,

If we are going to design the article to be hostile to mobile users, we need a very good reason and I have yet to see one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply, I didn't get a chance to go online until today. As it is the convention on every other rail line article to have the RDT at the top, typically (but not always) attached to the infobox, I can't see any justification for this article to be different. I have never heard anyone raise any objection to this practice before, and it has been the standard practice for as long as I can remember. If other people agree that this is a problem, then it needs to be addressed on every article not just on one. I do agree however that having two RDT's at the top which was previously the case was a bit excessive, however I can't agree that sticking them at the bottom where hardly anyone will see them is the right answer. G-13114 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@G-13114:, the discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Position of the RDT, especially very large main-line ones: dispute resolution needed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Since when has this commuter line been on the WCML? 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:579:5D88:324F:17FB (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It does carry the Manchester to Scotland services, and it s now electrified, so it could be considered a branch. G-13114 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

'Could' is the operative word. It is not a part of WCML just because one service uses it to get onto the WCML spine. When NPR is built Scotland services will not use this line. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:3570:EF63:A391:2699 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A reliable external source needs to be found which says that it is or that it isn't. But at the end of the day if it can't be supported by citation it has to be deleted. Given that this is holiday season, leave it a month for someone to notice and oblige. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Virgin - needs a major update now of course GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Screens of details on the many and various types of train is certainly of interest to train enthusiasts but most people it is the point at which to stop reading the article. I propose that it be moved much further down the article. It doesn't belong in infrastructure anyway. Any objections? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason for showing two lines from Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly? -- Picapica (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't. It shows Manchester Piccadilly for what it is - a terminal station (platforms 1-12) with supplementary through lines (platforms 13-14). These diverge at Manchester Piccadilly East Junction, not Stockport. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The route map of Britain should be in two places because the article is so long. One at the top so it instant that the reader sees where the WCML is, and in the route section which is way down the article. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F8DB:2030:5E46:6A06 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I am reluctant to consider that there are indeed any branches to the "core" WCML route from London to Glasgow. Having looked at the pages of the lines depicted on the route diagram template and article as branches of the WCML, I found no real references to them being any part of the WCML — only services that run on the core WCML route. Having looked at the main article at the route, there for one is this reference to Network Rail Route 18. This seems to be outdated, as the page cannot be found now or with the Wayback Machine. Another (now possibly outdated) document I found is the Route Specifications 2017 London North Western. This groups some of the routes mentioned below in the N-section in this document. However this is not referring to a West Coast Main Line route as a whole as lines such as the Abbey Line and Marston Vale line are part of this section in the document, and there are consistent references to the "core WCML" and no references to any branches in regards to the other routes. The Scottish part of the WCML is listed in the Route Specifications 2017 Scotland, and whilst the route from Carstairs to Glasgow is named as the WCML, the route from Carstairs to Edinburgh isn't.

The up to date routes on Network Rail's website covering the West Coast main line are West Coast Mainline South, North West and Scotland. With these there is little in the way of a map that I could find of each route, however each page has a description of the main railways in said route. These are "the West Coast Main Line from London Euston to south of Crewe", "the West Coast Mainline from crewe to Carlisle" and "the West Coast Mainline [in Scotland]".

I suspect the WCML route diagram template has wrongly evolved into a services map and the article has evolved because of this. It should be clear that this is an article and railway route diagram about the WCML route, not WCML services as a whole. For example, the North Wales Coast Line is definitely not a branch of the WCML in my eyes yet this is included in the route diagram template. However, I should say some lines could be considered parts of the wider route as a whole (e.g. the Trent Valley line runs past Birmingham and is part of the core route).

I would like to edit the route diagram on the main page to include only the core route. Perhaps any "branches" that have consistent references to being a part of the WCML as a whole could be added. This should follow with edits to the page about the route as a whole, and additions to the page about services such as routes served by Avanti West Coast and similar. Just for clarification, here is a list of all lines from the main page route diagram template.

West Coast Main Line

Nathan A RF proposal

Glasgow–Edinburgh via Carstairs line

Liverpool Lime Street

Liverpool South Parkway

Runcorn

Crewe–Liverpool line

Acton Bridge

Hartford

Winsford

Manchester Piccadilly

Stockport

Crewe–Manchester line

Macclesfield

Stoke-on-Trent

Stafford–Manchester line

Rugeley Trent Valley

Birmingham New Street

Birmingham International

Coventry

Northampton loop

Northampton

Northampton loop

Wolverton

AlgaeGraphix proposal

Glasgow–Edinburgh via Carstairs line

Liverpool Lime Street

Liverpool South Parkway

Runcorn

Crewe–Liverpool line

Acton Bridge

Hartford

Winsford

Manchester Piccadilly

Stockport

Crewe–Manchester line

Macclesfield

Stoke-on-Trent

Stafford–Manchester line

Rugeley Trent Valley

Birmingham New Street

Birmingham International

Coventry

Northampton loop

Northampton

Northampton loop

Wolverton