Talk:East Coast Main Line/Archive 1

Route
The page for Great North Eastern Railways states that the East Coast Main Line runs all the way to Inverness, while this article states it terminates at Edinburgh. Can anyone clarify the situation? --Colin Angus Mackay 23:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the line terminates at Aberdeen, not Inverness or Edinburgh - see my comments on Talk:Great North Eastern Railway. I think these articles overlook the fact that the ECML franchise covers train services which run beyond the actual railway line called the East Coast Main Line. It's probably worth stressing the difference. AdorableRuffian 23:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Page 95 of the Network Rail Strategic Routes document (12MB, PDF) says the following about the East Coast Main Line:


 * "Physical description The East Coast Main Line (ECML) is the high-speed link carrying Britain’s fastest domestic train service between London, Yorkshire, the North East and Edinburgh, linking into Scotland’s prime routes to Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness. It also handles cross-country, commuter and local passenger services and carries considerable freight traffic. The route is therefore important to the economic health of many regions of Great Britain.
 * "The principal components of the route are: - the main line from Kings Cross to Leeds and Edinburgh, with a branch from Moorgate and a loop via Hertford North... - the single-track branch from Drem to North Berwick, with a linespeed of 50mph."


 * Are people happy that we should use Network Rail's definition and agree that Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness are not on the ECML? Dupont Circle 18:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay - Updated. --Colin Angus Mackay 22:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but this does raise the question of what the Edinburgh to Aberdeen line should be called if it's no longer considered part of the ECML. Does it have an official name? In the Network Rail document, it's lumped into "East of Scotland" alongside a number of other lines. AdorableRuffian 14:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Engineers Line Reference (ELR) for the line between Aberdeen and Edinburgh is ECN - East Coast North.

I agree that the name ECML should not apply for the line North of Edinburgh, the mileage changes at the former Kinnaber junction to West Coast mileages measured from Carlisle.

ECML north of Edinburgh
I propose that the following section is removed.

''It is recognised by rail magazines in their general use of the "ECML" label that the line continues, mostly right on the east coast, to Kirkcaldy, Dundee, Arbroath, and Aberdeen. North of Edinburgh it includes the world-famous red cantilever Forth Bridge, and at Dundee the curved Tay Bridge both crossing wide river estuaries.''

The fact is that the line north of Edinburgh is not ECML. The 2006 Networkrail business plan is absolutely unambiguous, so the content of rail magazines is irrelevant and it helps no one to compound their error by including it in this article. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3107_Route%208%20ECML.pdf leaky_caldron 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see that this above is a 'fact'. East Coast Main Line Services have been running since the 1880s, when the Aberdeen southward trains were operated by North British who secured their position at substantial expense by building the Tay and Forth bridges. Aberdeen-London continuity was and remains vital and has been retained by LNER, British railways, British Rail, GNER, National Express and East Coast Mainline to date (26/12/12). The significance of Kinnaber Junction, where North British joined Caledonian is now purely historical following the 1960s rationalisations. The retention of the through services from Inverness and Aberdeen is a vital part of the whole East Coast operation, providing reliability in times of overhead line failure by the utilisation of diesel traction running under the wires.

If we are to be pedantic, the suburban lines north from King's Cross are neither Eastern, Coastal nor Main. The suburban 'Great Northern Electrics' are a vital component of King's Cross shorthaul operations, but the East Coast services are those from London to north of Grantham, under a franchise which includes trains to Inverness and Aberdeen. OK, to Network Rail infrastructure managers, the whole railway is ECML though the Caledonian Road tunnels, but to the passenger, East Coast is an InterCity service. (Davescottk14, David Scott 26th December 2012)
 * disagree while Networkrail are not irrelevant I do not see why solely their operational definition should be mentioned. On a technical aspect - what makes the North Berwick line or the Hertford Loop a main mainline? But more importantly I advocate that the meaning the railway magazines associate with "ECML" is reasonably common as well.--Klaus with K 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * what makes the North Berwick line or the Hertford Loop a main mainline? Because that's the official definition as per the organisation responsible for managing the rail network which is also why it is inappropirate to call the line north of Edinburgh part of ECML. Printing it in a magazine doesn't make it authoritative - it could be just journalistic laziness and not therefore encyclopedic leaky_caldron 15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly is not journalistic laziness (I could write more). The current official definition is one thing, common usage is another, and I think both should be mentioned.--Klaus with K 15:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * why quote something that is wrong? The correct designation is clearly ECN (East Coast North). If you insist that these other route segments are part of some unofficial description of ECML lets have some evidence, otherwise it sounds like WP:OR. Lets have a bit of WP:V instead leaky_caldron 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With a quick google search "East Coast Main Line Aberdeen" I find this document http://www.virgintrainsmediaroom.com/media/adobepdf/1%20WCML%20C.pdf for support.
 * Excerpt from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo000111/text/00111w02.htm
 * "17. Sir Robert Smith:   To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has in respect of the upgrading of the east coast main line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. [103268]" and following.
 * I find that current official use of ECML narrows it down to London-Edinburgh, London-Aberdeen can be found not only in railway periodicals, but in wider usage. Hence the It is recognised by rail magazines in their general use of the "ECML" is even is worded too narrowly.--Klaus with K 19:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Using the label ECML it is often understood that the entire East Coast Main Line continues beyond Edinburgh to [...]? For instance I find a Chamber of Commerce paper that explicitely talks about ECML segments north and south of Edinburgh.--Klaus with K 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the MP question can certainly be discounted as lack of precise knowledge. I don't understand why it is necessary to compound other people's errors in the precise description of the thing. I could just about understand "ECML is often incorrectly understood to define the entire east coast line beyond Edinburgh to [...]" but the fact reamains that the (sole) authoritative source is clear and specific so let's not fudge the article leaky_caldron 20:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree in taking the NR definition as the sole gospel. Yes, it is today's majority use, but the other meaning did exist (even before NR existed) and does exist, too. So it should be mentioned as well. I see WP:V satisfied. As to this MP question you brush aside, watching political debate I say it is not lack of knowledge but deliberate use of the wider meaning.
 * What about Different from the above definition [ECML=London-Edinburgh plus sundry items] the ECML is sometimes understood to continue....--Klaus with K 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the MP stuff is entirely your POV of course. Both BR and Railtrack almost certainly also defined ECML as NR do now - it's quite historical really.

Nevertheless, as no one else seems interested in this, lets see if we can agree on a wording based on your proposal above. How about, As well as the Network Rail definition ECML is sometimes regarded as extending beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen, including stations such as Kirkcaldy, Dundee and Arbroath


 * Now we are into fine-tuning the wording ;-)
 * Different to the Network Rail definition ECML is sometimes regarded as extending beyond Edinburgh to Aberdeen, [...]
 * Both would do. --Klaus with K 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to come into this late. We need to consider the user of the page, who may have a little knowledge but is seeking a lot more (from us!)


 * Network Rail's definition will be structured to include a group of services, for investnent planning and discussion with its customers, the TOC's. But they will not have tried to define East Coast Main Line for non-professional readers. We need to state what "most informed people" would understand by the ECML. The exclusion of "north of Edinburgh" has already been dealt with; I think we need to emphasise the subordinate status of the branches, though: it would be tragic if our typical reader went away from this page believing that, say, Essex Road station is "on the East Coast Main Line".


 * I think we need to have clear in our minds the distinction between "ECML = a piece of ground 40 ft wide and 393 miles long with some rails on it" and "ECML = a group of train services operated by GNER, FCC et al", and of course predecessor companies. (Perhaps the latter needs its own page -- it could be quite interesting. And of course on an "ECML train services" page, Fort William would be included.)


 * Afterbrunel 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Map
Is there a map of the line, either one reflecting the official description, or one reflecting the commonly accepted (but not universal) description including points further north in Scotland? 4.243.206.12 22:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't the map align with the text?? The text asserts that the ECML extends to Aberdeen, yet the map does show any stations beyond Edinburgh, but shows all the local stations in North London (e.g. Barnet, New Southgate) that are of no importance to the ECML, as no main line trains have ever stopped at these stations (and never will). I think the map is rubbish. Canterberry 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Stations like Barnet belong on local-scale maps describing local services that stop, or have stopped, at such small stations. A large-scale map like the ECML one should simply indicate the correct relationship between the places at which inter-city services stop. AlexTiefling 10:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You may wish to consider the previous discussion at Template talk:East Coast Main Line. The issue at hand was the ECML map template's inclusion in a number of other articles, as well as this one (e.g. staions along the route).  The consensus was to keep the map template to 'InterCity' stations only and create a new template just for this article, which had more detail and listed all the stations.  That seemed to me to be a sensible compromise.  DrFrench 18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, strongly, that the "local" stations are of no importance to the ECML. The commuter traffic from the stations south of Peterborough are absolutely crucial to the economic well being of the South East and are fully defined in the Network Rail strategic routes documents for the ECML leaky_caldron 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Film
Nice section deveoping.

What about the film made to illustrate Auden's poem 'Night Mail'? That could (should) have been ther WCML I suppose? TobyJ 12:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

location
Where is New england North? 12:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Peterborough Canterberry 17:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Location signs
A few miles north of York are three signs, about 7 miles apart: "Edinburgh 200 miles" "Half-way between London and Edinburgh" and "London 200 miles". These have been in place for many years. Given the diversions that have taken place, particularly Selby, but also Penmanshiel, has anyone ever calculated how accurate these are today? -- Tivedshambo (t alk) 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The ECML mileage KX to Edinburgh Waverley always used to be quoted as 393 miles. Table A of the Sectional Appendices gives (in miles andchains -- 80 chains in a mile)

KX 0.00 York = 188.40 = 0.00 Newcastle via KEB 80.16 = 0.00 Regional Boundary 69.67 = 54.50 Edinburgh Waverley = 0.00

188.40 + 80.16 + 69.67 + 54.50 = 393.13

So the throughout mileage is 393 miles and 13 chains. If you could quote the exact mileage and chainage of the signs we could double check. Afterbrunel 15:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Yes
 * 2. Factually accurate?: No
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Yes
 * 5. Article stability? Yes
 * 6. Images?: Small amount

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. —  Te ll y a ddi ct  09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think the reviewer was being very generous. This article is quite appalling IMHO. It has not a single citation or reference, which is what I thought was one of the core ideas of a good article. As for the images ... I think we can do a lot, lot better.

Kings Cross Accident
Why is this mentioned with regards to the ECML? The fire only affected Kings Cross/St Pancras Tube Station, it was hardly an ECML accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.80.216 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 May 2007


 * Good point. Consider it removed.  DrFrench 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Text in general
I'll correct my typo later ,sorry.

The reference to Peterborough station major remodelling surprised me; has anyone got chapter and verse on this? Also re-opening of freight diversionary routes. Does this mean Leamside? What else?

Can anyone provide more specific details of Chris Wolmar's book, i.e. publisher, date and ISBN? The reference looks a bit lame at present.

Afterbrunel 10:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

High-speed railway?
I have restored the the claim that the ECML is a high-speed railway to the introduction. The article High-speed rail suggests that there is no agreed defintion of what constitutes a high-speed railway, but that 124mph or faster counts. The ECML is 125mph max speed, with certain parts capable of allowing 140mph running. Many ECML services are oprated by High Speed Trains, so in a UK context, it certainly counts as a High-speed railway. DrFrench (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, although I shall not revert your edit for now. I know some of the trains running on it are called HST, but 200km/h pales if compared to 320km/h on stretches in France or the soon-to-be 350km/h in Spain. It also falls short of HS1 levels which sets a UK benchmark of 300km/h or 186mph. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the UK definition matches the EU one (high-speed = over 200km/hr). Secondly, no 140mph is allowed on the ECML (British Rail did some experiments, and found that drivers could not reliably see lineside signals at speeds over 200km/hr). Thirdly, the InterCity 125s maybe called "High Speed Trains", but that is just a marketing thing. The line does not count as a high-speed line within the UK definition of the term. Tom pw (talk) (review) 12:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 140mph is not allowed under normal operating conditions (although the faciilty to test IC225 in excess of 125mph is still listed in the current Sectional Appendix). 125mph is the current maximum for trains carrying passengers.

Even in a relative UK context, if it ever was a UK high speed rail line, with the introduction of Javelin it now certainly isn't. But I would say the description can be included with qualification, as the definition is not widely accepted. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The javelins are never scheduled in service to run faster than 90% of their 140 mph top speed which is practically equal to the ECML speed of 125mph. As such trains on the ECML are running at a speed which for thee UK is the highest speed a domestic train is planned to travel at, so surely it is a high speed railway, even if the trains such as the javelin which are capable of faster exist but don't use that high speed. 79.79.175.135 (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The International Union of Railways (UIC) and EC Directive 96/58 define high-speed rail as systems of rolling stock and infrastructure which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h (155 mph) on new tracks, or 200 km/h (125 mph) on existing tracks. The ECML has trains that run at 200 km/h on existing tracks, so it is a high-speed line. -- Alarics (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * From the international standard, UIC does not recognize ECML as a high-speed rail. See the official list from here. This is the same way that the UIC does not recognize Northeast Regional in the US which runs on existing tracks at max speeds of 125 mph as high-speed rail.
 * From UK standard, the separation of "higher" and "high" speed rail has been used in the parliament. Higher speed track is for up to 125 mph. See the definitions here. So in UK context it is still a higher-speed rail, not high-speed rail.
 * From trade publications, I have seen some that use explicit term of higher-speed rail. See an example here.
 * So I think we should change the classification from high-speed rail to higher-speed rail. Z22 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It has been more than a month and there is no dispute about it not being a high-speed rail line. So, I'm going to remove HSR status from the article. Z22 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

un-cited claims in the 'Capacity problems' section
I propose to remove the un-cited claims in the 'Capacity problems' section in the next few days unless references are provided. These should be available from the the route utilisation strategy document or the 2008 business plan. If I do remove them I will paste them into this section of the talk page so the information is not lost. PeterEastern (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've found some citations and added them as appropriate. Not the best sources but they show that issues are there. NRTurner (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Diagram
The current diagram is woefully inadequate. I've drawn a new diagram at East Coast Main Line/Diagram. Do we replace the existing diagram, or insert a link to the full diagram in the infobox. As for the new diagram, the Leamside Line article states that this was the route of the ECML until 1872. So should the old route be added to the diagram in full, as has been done with the old ECML route before the Selby diversion was added. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Insert a link. The new diagram is too detailed (and indeed the current one is slightly so as well I think) for what should be an overview. Thryduulf (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the best way to achieve this would be to insert the link in the template, so that it displays at the bottom of the diagram. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The current map is just plain bad. First off, putting it in the infobox BREAKS THE DIAGRAM, secondly, the Hertford Loop Line is NOT part of the ECML. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree but this article refers to a Network Rail definition of the line which takes in the Hertford Loop Line. On the basis of that definition, edits yesterday modified the diagram and . Lamberhurst (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now updated on the basis of the latest NR "definition" which makes clear that the Hertford Loop and Northern City Line are secondary routes. Could another user with rollback rights take the RDT back to the last good version which appears to be this one? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/eastcoast/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Error

 * (quote)  In 1871, the NER combined an existing York - Selby line with a new section south of Selby to form a direct through route to an end-on junction with the GNR, at Shaftholme, just south of Askern.

The York Selby line didn't exist before 1871.

This can be easily confirmed eg http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=23009 or Tomlinson's NER under "york and doncaster branch" (see index) https://archive.org/details/northeasternrail00tomlrich

83.100.174.82 (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * or by reading the reference given by the article, which confirms the cut-off to have been new throughout (and the North East volume of the D&C Regional History series confirms). I had the reference open in front of me when I made the edit that introduced the error - what was I thinking of? .  (The VCH is however in error in thinking Selby swing bridge was built 1871 ; not until 1891; 1871-1891 the ECML used a bascule bridge built 1840 by the Hull & Selby Railway.)   Correction duly made Rjccumbria (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The early history of the line as described here needs correction - no mention of the early constituent companies that built section of the line. the subject is well covered in the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on East Coast 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716195235/http://www.northumbrian-railways.co.uk/index.php?page=goswick to http://www.northumbrian-railways.co.uk/index.php?page=goswick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on East Coast 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529152114/http://www.uctc.net/papers/114.pdf to http://www.uctc.net/papers/114.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Dolphingstone and Wallyford diversions
I have added mention of these, which were due to mining subsidence around 1999-2002. However I only have one reference, to the New Civil Engineer. If anyone can find better references, e.g issues of some of the railway magazines of that era, please feel free to add them.

I am not sure how to add a picture such as a map, but again, if someone is willing and knows how, you can go to somewhere like https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=55.9504&lon=-2.9843&layers=10&b=7 and put the slider in the middle to overlay the old OS map transparently on the new OpenStreetMap background, which shows the diversion nicely.

Tiger99 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of passenger volume
This section hasn't been updated in a long time. Unless someone can write a bot that can update these usage figures, we ought to remove this section as the information only covers a very short period of time. NemesisAT (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. It seems that no one wants this page moved. 053pvr (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

East Coast Main Line → East Coast main line – WP:CAPITALISATION. 053pvr (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). 053pvr (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note This request was contested by User:buidhe at WP:RMT. 053pvr (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose proper noun, consistently capitalized in reliable sources (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose ditto TobyJ (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a formal proper name. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is a proper name and should therefore be capitalised. Keith D (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone above. This proper name is both the official and common name, as would have been evident if the nominator had spent any time looking before nominating. Sources: Network Rail, LNER, Railway Technology, Office of Rail and Road, Volker Rail, Rail Technology Magazine, New Civil Engineer, Chronicle Live, Northern Echo, RailFreight.com, BBC News. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also section added
I have added a "see also" section. This adds consistency with WCML, MML, GWml, GCML etc GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting infrastructure tables off into their own article
I propose splitting off the two infrastructure tables - they are worth retaining, but far more detailed than the rest of this article and probably better in their own article, say Infrastructure of the East Coast Main Line. Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea. I am all for it GRALISTAIR (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Image in infobox
Any thoughts? G-13114 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not at all keen on tight close ups of trains. The article needs to be represented in the infobox by an image that says something about the East Coast Main Line. For that reason, aside from the apparently deprecated "halfway" image, I prefer No. 2 above. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also happy to go with number two. It's still a little small, but it's a fantastic shot in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Of those choices I'd also agree that no.2 is best, and a fitting image for the article MrBoyt (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)