Comments? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The development of this template borrowed heavily from West Coast Main Line diagram, which provided the difficult EWR/WCML junction at Bletchley. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim:, you helped me with this template before but if you have a moment, would you have a quick look at it again please? There is an error in that the spur from Bletchley towards Bedford should go under, not over, the high-level Bletchley Flyover curve from Oxford that joins the WCML just north of Bletchley. I have almost solved it, but can't fit the last piece of the jigsaw.

There are only two rows of the template involved, as far as I can see. I have marked the erroneous rows with ##################.

For a map of the junction see this OS (topo) map, Google aerial view

Thank you in advance. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7: Since you are doing such a wonderful job on the RDTs for this area , would care to tweak the west-to-south curve just south of Bletchley? Amazingly, Google aerial view still shows different greenery at 51.989204, -0.735688 but for the definitive evidence, see SP868330 on Ordnance Survey (1958). "Sheet SP 83 SE" (Map). OS Six-inch England and Wales, 1842-1952. 1:10,560. Ordnance Survey – via National Library of Scotland. Various maps show this as --+--+--+--+-- (or similar), which the legend describes as "single track or tramway". Other maps show the nearby brick-works, served by a similar notation. So I surmise that its only purpose was to move bricks to London, that it was never used for general train movements.

So three options (a) drop it completely, as per the Varsity Line RDT (b) change the colour to pale blue or (c) leave it as it is. What do you think?

@Redrose64: for a second opinion: I assume that this arrangement is far from unique. Do we have a precedent to compare and contrast? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman Yes, I saw that and was in a bit of a quandary as to if and how it should be depicted on {{Varsity Line RDT}} and {{Marston Vale Line}}. I've not done any research in rationalising the diagrams, relying mostly on preceding versions, their corresponding articles, and the maps you linked to above. Varsity line includes some information, about its reinstatement in 1942, which guided me to include it as mainline railway: search for "removed in 1864". I'm happy to revise or remove as deemed fit; (a) or (c) would be my preferences. (I also looked at depicting the west-to-north curve which preceded the flyover, but decided against as it would be hidden underneath the new route. Again, happy to be advised and act accordingly.) All the above applies to your request concerning {{Milton Keynes railway map}}. Bazza (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best resolution to this conundrum is to leave the current version as is. It is a true representation of the local reality. But I don't think that it should be propagated onto the Varsity Line RDT because it is too incidental and not notable (unlike, for example, the Swanbourne sidings, which were a lot more significant and we don't show that). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]