Talk:West Coast Main Line/Archive 1

Wolverton railway station
According to the article Wolverton railway station you can not board or leave a main line train (as distinct from a Northampton Loop train) at Wolverton. Therefore the station seems not to be effectively a main line station. Laurel Bush 17:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC).


 * But that is equally true of all the other "commuter" stations shown in italics. It is just as much on the main line as is Cheddington railway station. Virgin trains have certainly stopped there on exceptional cases. There are certainly platforms for all four tracks - you can see them very clearly on Google Maps aerial photography here   I think you are confusing services (Virgin, Silverlink) with the line itself. The line doesn't split until well into Northamptonshire here . --Concrete Cowboy 17:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I am not confused. I think we can agree that the trackways split at or near. This is between Wolverton and Northampton on the loop and between Wolverton and Rugby on the main route but, as services work at present, Wolverton is not a station you would use to leave or catch a northbound train using the main route (unless you wanted first to go south to MK Central and then catch a northbound train). Perhaps it should be on both lists of stations (loop and main route), to account for southbound travel starting at Wolverton, but then you still have to change to catch a main-line rather than local service. I note also that as described at present the loop looks more like a branch, splitting at Rugby, terminating at Northampton and having no southern connection with the main route. MK Central is the effective southern connection point, but perhaps both it and Wolverton should appear on both lists of stations. Laurel Bush 11:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC).


 * I didn't say you were (personally) confused, I said you were confusing two distinct points. If the article were West Coast Main Line Intercity Service, you would be absolutely right that Wolverton shouldn't be on it - and neither should Bletchley, Leighton B, Tring, Cheddington etc.  But this is not that article. Wolverton is not physically on the Northampton Loop.  This article is about track route, not what uses it.  The route divides about 10 miles north of Wolverton.  You can't fake the geography.
 * As for the point about "change at MK Central for inter-city services", the same is equally true of Bletchley and points south, if someone desperately wanted to ride a Pendolino into London. From Bletchley at least, there are certainly occasions when doing so would shorten the journey time by 20 minutes. --Concrete Cowboy 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about the route but not the service, why is 'Wolverton' in italics? And I note you have not addressed my point about the loop looking a present more like a branch from Rugby ending at Northampton. Laurel Bush 10:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC).
 * As stated in the table intro, all local service stops on the line are in italics, intercity stops are in regular. This applies to the whole route, so I don't see what makes Wolverton any different.  The italics/regular style is a good way to show importance.  Removing them all to make it a table of Intercity stops is another option but too drastic a change to make without a separate discussion.
 * But I do see what you mean about the apparent branch. Rugby is not on the loop either and should be removed.  Or Wolverton should be shown on both tables too.  I don't have a problem with either, so feel free to do which ever you prefer, provided you treat Rugby and Wolverton equally as far as the route goes (though obviously not equal in importance) and certainly keep both on the main line.  --Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Stafford, Crewe and Preston are all listed as both main route and loop or branch stations. All are intercity stops. And MK Central is similarly an intercity junction. Laurel Bush 10:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

Network Rail Route 18 (WCML) - Branches and Junctions
I have added a table to the WCML article showing the junctions, branches and interchanges on Route 18. Its reasonably complete but needs checking, links and tidying. I have used Jnct in the name rather than Junction where the junction is not a station. I think the table could help to focus minds on the potential problem of how to deal with 'strategic routes'. In many cases they are not routes in the sense that the WCML is. Route 20 for example is a conglomeration of all the railway lines serving the Lancashire conurbations. I don't think the 'strategic routes' should be ignored but the must not be allowed to distort the real railway. It is nonsense to say that the WCML ends at Carstairs, or that it goes to Cheadle Hulme but not Manchester, or to Allerton but not Liverpool. The Birmingham service is a major element of WCML traffic out of London and should in my view remain in this article. NoelWalley 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

West Coast Main Line - Progress Report May 2006 on the DoT web site, many announcements
Lots of new material to mine for those with the time and inclination. See this page on www.dft.gov.uk. Note that it is a 3MB PDF download. --Concrete Cowboy 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing stations and lines/services sharing same trackway
I have started a more detailed route description. If anyone wants to improve it, add more information or add links to all the stations articles feel free. The WCML is probably too complicated to try a side bar for station articles (like the MML and ECML). Our Phellap 00:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Have re-styled it to show town and station, and indicate which stations are 'missing'. For the southern sections i have italicised none main-line stops. I suggest these be moved to a new page with a subtely different line name e.g. 'West Coast Main-Line (local)' or something a bit less clunky? Robdurbar 21:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Manchester - Bolton isn't part of the WCML surely?Slipdigby 16:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed there are lots of stations missing from the list on this page. Especially small local stations. There are about a dozen local stations on the WCML in the West Midlands, and in the Greater Manchester area for example which arent listed here. G-Man * 19:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what is happening in articles about lines in the London area, where various 'local lines' must share trackway with various 'main lines'. Laurel Bush 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC).


 * In places like Queens Park railway station, there is a very clear barrier between the very local "DC line" (see Watford Junction) and the main line. They share the cuttings and embankments, but that's about it. --Concrete Cowboy 18:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added about a dozen local stations on the Birmingham route which were missing before. And two on the Trent Valley line. I shall add more missing stations in the Greater Manchester and Merseyside area later. Unfortunately I have rather messed up the grid co-ordinates. G-Man  * 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Equally, it can be argued that there are stations on the Carstairs-Glasgow section which should be on the list since they lie directly on the main line - these are (going northward) Shieldmuir, (then Motherwell), Uddingston and Cambuslang, although no main line services stop at any of them. But then again all the commuter stations at the Euston end (to which no Virgin services stop at either) ARE on the list. We need to be consistent. --RapidAssistant 01.25, 2nd May 2006.


 * Well now, don't stop there, what about the Edinburgh "branch" equally traditionally part of WCML. Oh Yes! Then there are the stations between Runcorn and Liverpool and of course those between Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester and also between Crewe and Manchester and even Crewe and Holyhead. All these are by one definition WCML. Another view would have the WCML redefined to exactly fit Netork Rail's latest carve up (of the nations rails into 26 routes) as Route 18, The West Coast Main Line. Of course Crewe to Holyhead (part of the new Route 22) has its own North Wales Coast Line article and Crewe to Manchester (part of route 20) likewise. Would it not be sensible to cover the other branches (eg via Stoke and via Runcorn) by separate articles in the same way? Indeed, to return to Galsgow-Carstairs-Edinburgh these are more specifically part of the very Scottish Route 24 services and really ought to have their own article (perhaps they do?). The Silverlink main line services are, however, under Network rail seen even more to be an integral part of the WCML operations and we will soon see Silverlink/Centro hourly through trains from Euston to Crewe (a much longer run than Virgin's Eustin to Birmingham). I think there is a significant difference. NoelWalley 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WCML ends at Carstairs Junction?
According to Network Rail's strategic plan, the WCML ("Route 18") ends at Carstairs Junction! at that point it divides into "Route 26" to Glasgow Central and "Route 24" to Edinburgh Waverley.

The same plan has the official names and numbers for all the routes, so train buffs can have many a happy hour correcting all the the stations on Wikipedia. --Concrete Cowboy 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Laurel Bush 17:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC).
 * Though I believe that it would be "user friendly" to continue to show the extensions to Glasgow and Edinburgh as included in the WCML. --Concrete Cowboy 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that we retained the "classic" definition of the WCML as running betweeen Glasgow Central and London Euston, since this is what most people recognise that the term refers to. --RapidAssistant 01.25, 2nd May 2006.


 * I think RapidAssistant's clock must be running slow somewhere since his posts dated May 2nd have only just arrived. I also agree, the WCML includes Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham - and so does Network Rail when it is writing about the mainline services and it also includes in WCML the Silverlink main line services but not in the same way the Glasgow-Carstairs-Edingburgh services. I think we have it about right as it is. NoelWalley 07:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is always fascinating, to a life-time railway buff such as myself, to see the complications arising when the title of the services between destinations becomes mixed up with the geographical routes over which those services run. It has always been the custom in any railway magazine for the latter to be the prime idea, so that whatever services run over a particular section of the track, all the information about it (including closed stations and those not served by main line trains) can be included. In many cases, the express services (and therefore those that the operating company wishes to dignify with a name) can miss out a great many of the intermediate stops, which the local trains then use. Timetable are no help: they usually include connecting services, which, although under the general heading are not part of the main route. Silverlink is a case in point: see the article, which shows that, although it runs the Northampton trains over the WCML, had its name changed from North London Railways as being "inappropriate".


 * This complication is rife in Wikipedia: articles are written about XXX Line for example, which is the PR title given to a service. May I refer you to the article West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive where, under the heading Rail (Metro Train) - Routes there are eleven Lines shown there. I spent a great deal of time trying to put over my point: each of those Lines had originally been written as if they followed a specific route on their own, whereas many of them followed the same route for at least part of their journey. I am not at all sure what, if anything, can be done to correct this misapprehension: another set of comments above keeps trying to say that this-line and that-line should be part of the WCML, when it often patently isn't - if only from a purely logical point of view: they are not main lines nor are they often served by the main line trains.


 * I think I am flogging a dead horse, though: it is far too endemic!!! Peter Shearan 10:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Progress is being made in that direction with the use of Route numbers. Trouble is, even if we had a Route 18 article, nobody would ever look for it!  But you are right about logical knots - take a look at the argument at talk:Wolverton railway station, for instance.
 * So why not (on WYPTE page) add the official route number(s) as given in the Network Rail plan (see above)? You can't deny that the existing lines have reality in the public mind - they just aren't physical, but that doesn't make them less real. But equally, the tracks, cuttings and embankments are also real.  No problem, both answers are right. -Concrete Cowboy 16:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

West Coast Main Line – some thoughts:

1.	Three company’s, firstly, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, secondly the London and Birmingham Railway and thirdly the Grand Junction Railway through Crewe railway station.

2.	Then came the Northern Union through to Preston and Carlisle, and finally,

3.	The Caledonian Railway from Carlisle to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

4.	The LNWR in England and the CR in Scotland. Brakes were always a problem once brakes became compulsory. The LNWR was vacuum and the CR was air. The solution, jointly owned and dual braked passenger coaches officially called and labled: West Coast Joint Stock. The birth of a name about 125 years ago.

5.	So the West Coast Main Line quickly (by today's railway construction timescales) came into being, it is the route linking London with Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Carlisle]], Edinburgh and Glasgow and it’s the first multiple inter-city main line in the world.

6.	Its quite wrong to say it ends at Crewe or Cheadle Hulme or Allerton or Carstairs or wherever – indeed, it used to continue to Perth, Aberdeen and Inverness (and perhaps even Oban and Kyle of Lochalch)!

7.	However, sound (we hope) management principles have determined that the network is best served by having the Manchester suburban rail management take control of maintenance and signalling on the WCML from Crewe or Cheadle Hulme into Manchester. Likewise, Merseyside management from Allerton (or somewhere about there) into Liverpool. Indeed common sense appears to have dictated that Scottish management does not take over the WCML until Carstairs and then is divided between Glasgow and Edinburgh routes – hey ho! Incidentally in this article, the line to Edinburgh has not generally been seen as a branch, rather the line divides - Glasgow or Edinburgh.

8.	What’s the problem? Without the independent Watford DC Lines (with its own wiki article and list of stations), the four main line tracks would be overloaded. Without the Northampton loop, the WCML could not manage to squeeze through the Watford Gap etc. Without the Trent Valley Line, the real route through Birmingham would grind to a halt. Without the North Stafford Lines, a Manchester service every 20 minutes (next year) would be a non-starter. Crewe to Manchester, ditto.

9.	However, Watford to St Albans (the EMU equivalent of ‘one engine in steam’ single line operation) although part of Route 18’s responsibilities is certainly not WCML. But neither is Bedford to Bletchley (also Route 18) and that despite the fact that its local trains may soon run through to Milton Keynes.

10.	Yet in a curious way, the electrified Kidsgrove to Crewe, which only sees an electrically propelled train when one is being diverted at weekends or worse, is now a vital part of the WCML – although I don’t think it knows it!

11.	Crewe and Chester, Chester and Holyhead, the Irish Mail Route. It was vital to the Irish Mail, in the days before air mail that the mail went fast between Euston and Crewe and Crewe and Holyhead – its passenger complement still does, in an original sense it’s a traditional part of WCML.

Truly, I think we have the WCML just about correctly desscribed but more history is needed. As far as the White Rose bus services are concerned, I only know that the Swansea to Newcastle mail train via Crewe (which I used several times in the 1940's in both directions) no longer runs - such a pity. NoelWalley 23:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Londoncentric POV comments"
These were mine, made via a coumputer in the north of Scotland. I used 'before' and 'after' because 'south' and 'north' are somewhat nominal, true directions being often more east or west, and because the entire article is structured to describe the route from London outwards. Laurel Bush 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC).

Table formatting
I've added a map to the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford section. Unfortunately, as I first had it, it squeezed the columns so much that some text ran to two lines, and the rows didn't line up. I've added the

tag after the map, but it's not an ideal solution as it leaves a lot of white space. Can anyone come up with a better solution please? &mdash; Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) &mdash; 21:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Route Map
Firstly let me say that it is a great map, ideal. It would be splendid if you could extend it northwards to Scotland and southwards to London, thus covering the whole WCML area. As it stands, it is a bit incongruous. If you are able to extend it then I would suggest you put it ahead of "the route in detail" section. NoelWalley 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, if I were to extend the map showing the same amount of detail, it would become hopelessly large and unusable. It would also take months of work. (I can only access the CAD drawing software on my office PC, which means doing it during lunchtimes only. It took a couple of weeks just to produce the map as it stands at the moment.) At the moment I'm concentrating only on maps of lines around Birmingham (see User:Tivedshambo/Gallery for other maps I've done). I may produce a summary map of the WCML and other inter-city routes sometime, but this is well down my list of priorities. I should point out that I produced this map primarily for the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line article, and only added it to the WCML page as it happened to show the route. &mdash; Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) &mdash; 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite understand, I have never used CAD and wouldn't know where to start and appreciate that it is time consuming. The original WCML route was of course the L & B and the GJR through Birmingham superceded by the Trent Valley as the major through route. It was also the last branch or loop to get its own Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line article, which is partly the reason why all the stations are listed between Rugby and Stafford but not on the Manchester, Liverpool and North Wales lines etc. It would be nice to have a map of the whole WCML and sorry I can't help. On its own I feel the map distracts and might be best linked to rather than displayed full page. NoelWalley 16:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move/remove the map as you see fit. &mdash; Tivedshambo (talk to me/look at me/ignore me) &mdash; 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be very nice to know what other folk think! What do you all think? NoelWalley 17:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Like everything else on Wikipedia, I believe that we should accept what we can in the hope that it will provoke someone else to add a little more to the stone soup. Tivedshambo has really set the standard with this contribution!  It would be a fabulous improvement if he could do the whole line.  It might even challenge the boring tables that looked fine until today! --Concrete Cowboy 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

West Midlands Table
Now that we have a very welcome Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford branch article, I feel it is only consistent existing practice in relation to the Manchester branch, and the Liverpool branch, and the North Wales branch, and the Manchester-Preston Branch to list only the intercity stops in the table. I have accordingly deleted the West Midlands local stations. If you chose to revert my action please explain why, as I have done, and also extend the tables of all the recognised WCML branches to include the local stations. NoelWalley 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you. &mdash; Tivedshambo (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Milton Keynes Central
Gossip item, possible article change in 2009!: On 4 December 2006, work began at Milton Keynes Central to prepare for a third north-bound mainline track/platform for inter-city services and a service connection from the Marston Vale Line, with completion scheduled for December 2008. --Concrete Cowboy 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Grayrigg derailment
I have just reverted a well meaning entry concerning this disaster. It should not be in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The recent accident in question has already resulted in the addition of a section concerning WCML accidents (to which I have contributed a significant previous list). The accident is already fully reported (in my view contrary to wikipedia policy) and additionally with much speculation. I do hope that can be sufficient. NoelWalley 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Short term closures, for whatever reason, are not approriate for encyclopedic works. However I would comment that the accident itself is a significant event in the history of the WCML, and therefore should be referred to within the article.– Tivedshambo (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon (GMT time); thanks all. I should have remembered WP:NOT - I'm normally very good with policy. My apologies for this lapse.


 * Kind regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the code for the route diagram?
Big red map top of article RHS. I've been looking at these for other articles, can't get the code to let me draw 3 lines in parallel. Would just look at the code of this one (which does) except I can't see it in the article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.73.37.81 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See template:West Coast Main Line and WP:TRAIL. By the way, in future, please remember to sign your comments using ~, and place new messages at the bottom. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just need to use instead of , that'll give you 3 columns instead of 2.    jo h n w a l t o n    (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL Pickle 17:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Busiest claim
What source says the WCML is the UK busiest line? Simply south 10:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

as indicated in the edit history Network Rail which is authoritative see page 3 of[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs)

Map

 * I'm sorry is there something wrong with the current version of the WP:TRAIL template we're using ? Pickle 02:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pickle UK - please make sure we don't bite! Bulleid Pacific, I think you've made a mistake here: we've already got the tempate on this talk page! If you've got a question about how templates work, or where we place them, just hop over to my talk page and drop a message.  anthony [ cfc ] 23:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't remember doing this. Well, consider it scrubbed.  (I honestly don't know how this had happened, even though it takes more effort to do than not to do!)  No worries.--Bulleid Pacific 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it sounded like i was biting Bulleid Pacific, i didn't mean it to sound like that, i was *trying* to be helpful. panic not, and apologies if anyone was offended. Pickle 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not offended. --Bulleid Pacific 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article
This article has been nominated as a Good Article Canditate. However, after simply reading though the first section and doing a little copy-editing, it is clear that the history section has a long way to go before being accepted. The rest of the article however, is well written. But is half the article really required to explain the route in detail? And above all there are all of two references. For this reason I have put GA on hold rather than fail it. JameiLei 12:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Good Article rating and the lack of referencing, but I'm not quite so sure about the history. The West Coast Main Line, is in some senses a marketing invention that only goes back to Nationalisation and British Railways. The line was built as a series of lines in England, that by Grouping had become the LNWR, and was then marketed as the Premier Line. The section in Scotland was the Caledonian Railway's main line to Glasgow and Edinburgh. It was one of three competing lines that went through Carlisle; also competing with what is now called the East Coast Main Line. Therefore, I think it would be wrong to construct a history for this line that, for example states that it was built as a main line from London to Glasgow with branches to Birmingham and Manchester, etc, etc. The current history section makes it clear that the line was built as a series of lines from city to city. This I consider accurately reflects it's history; but it is almost completely {unreferenced}, as JameiLei points out above. As a modern invention the article has a lot of information, even more than the LNWR, which is a pity; however, the major history of construction should be appearing in the LNWR article not this one. Arguably, this line's history in some ways starts with the LMS; and its mid life upgrade was the 1970s electrification programme, which was followed by the more recent upgrades.Pyrotec 13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had another read of the history section - is the paragraph about brakes really necessary? Also the first paragraph needs to make sense for the layman - at the moment it bombards readers with previous train companies. JameiLei 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth keeping the para about vacuum / air brakes as it introduced West Coast Joint Stock; but I would split it into two, and make the LMS part a separate paragraph. Perhaps the last paragraph could be kept, but also paraphrased and inserted before the first paragraph as a way of introduction into the current first paragraph. P.S. Don't make the mistake of calling them train companies, they were not train companies: they built and owned the track, the stations, the signal boxes and the passenger trains and the goods trains. Pyrotec 19:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't confuse them with the current Train Operating Companies who merely operate the trains today. It think Train Companies is fine. Although it does mention too many companies. I think a general description of how it is an amalgamation of several companies' tracks (mention the 3 main ones maybe) is sufficient. JameiLei 22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This article's on hold period has expired long ago. The reference concern above remains unaddressed. GA nom failed this time around. Good luck with the article and thanks for your hard work. IvoShandor 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WCML excludes Wembley, includes Marston Vale Line, excludes Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester - official
According to Network Rail's strategic plan, the WCML ("Route 18") excludes Wembley: it is only on the Watford DC Line (though Football Specials stop there). It includes the spur to Bedford from Bletchley, it excludes the Coventry/Birmingham/Wolverhampton spur (that's in the West Midlands Network) and likewise Liverpool and Manchester (both in the North-west Urban Network). I've just made the first two of these changes. I suspect that the other changes need some discussion? --Concrete Cowboy 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but this article is about the West Coast Main Line, not Network Rail Route 18. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

West Coast Main Line ends at Carstairs Junction - official
I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to reflect the current official position, not some made-up romantic notion of how it used to be in the glory days of steam? The current version offends against WP:OR. According to Network Rail, Route 18 (which they call the WCML) ends at Carstairs Junction. The routes from there to Glasgow and Edinburgh are quite different ones (26 and 24 repectively). See http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/4451.aspx for the routes overview and http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/R18%20-%20WCML.pdf for route 18. The relevant text reads Today’s route The principal elements of the route are described below with the relevant Strategic Route Section shown in brackets:
 * the WCML from London Euston to Carstairs via Trent Valley and Crewe for approximately 600km (18.01 – 18.06) with diverging routes at Rugby for Birmingham, Colwich Junction/Norton Bridge to Cheadle Hulme (Manchester) (18.08) and at Weaver Junction to Allerton (Liverpool) (18.07);
 * the Camden Junction to Watford Junction DC electric lines (18.11);
 * the branch from Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey (18.10) which was designated as a ‘Community Rail’ pilot by the SRA;
 * the branch from Bletchley to Bedford excl. (18.12); (the passenger service run on this branch line has been designated as a community rail service by the DfT);
 * the Kidsgrove to Crewe line (18.09); and
 * various freight-only lines (18.13).

Is there a convincing reason not to correct the article and routemap to reflect current reality (with the route to Glasgow being mentioned only in the historical section with perhaps an (unciteable?) mention that it is included in popluar perceptions of the route? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current article certainly offends against WP:OR on grounds of verifiability - its virtually unreferenced; but it is also required a present a consensus viewpoint and have a neutural point of view. Your point of view appears to fail the test of neutrality and is based in part on selective quoting from the networkrail document. Your idea of adding (unciteable?) popluar perceptions (sic) appears to be calling for a Trivia section, which is also against official policy.Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking the historical angle first, if you look at Caledonian Railway Main Line the WCML did not go to Glasgow. Back in the glory days of the Race to the North, the WCML went north, with a branch on the Garnkirk and Glasgow Railway to Buchanan Street railway station. It was only in the 1870's that the Polloc and Govan Railway and the Clydesdale Junction Railway provided the link into Glasgow Central railway station.


 * But we are not their now. The 1974 electrification Electric Scots project was the WCML to Glasgow. It did not stop at Carstairs. Network Rail has decided that north of Carstairs is NOT part of Route 18 (to the east or west).


 * Before anyone blindly thinks about following the Network Rail position, just think about the knock-on effects:
 * TOC (Virgin; Transpennine; NXEC; Scotrail) articles;
 * Historical, especially Caledonian Railway, railway articles
 * Stations north of Carstairs (Motherwell; Newton; Glasgow Central; etc.)


 * What do you replace WCML with say in Motherwell railway station? Who is going to write an article for the Glasgow to Motherwell line, and what are you going to call it?


 * The first bullet point - which is a description of Route 18 not the WCML above is:
 * the WCML from London Euston to Carstairs via Trent Valley and Crewe for approximately 600km (18.01 – 18.06) with diverging routes at Rugby for Birmingham, Colwich Junction/Norton Bridge to Cheadle Hulme (Manchester) (18.08) and at Weaver Junction to Allerton (Liverpool) (18.07); 
 * I read this as the Route 18 being the part of the WCML up to Carstairs, I do not read this as Route 18 is the WCML.


 * A look at the Railtrack web site at the RUS for Scotland shows only three routes in Scotland:
 * Route 24 (East of Scotland) - inc Central Scotland including Edinburgh - Glasgow; Edinburgh south and east (including the reopened line to Tweedbank); Edinburgh/Fife/Aberdeen; Stirling area
 * Route 25 (Highlands) - inc Aberdeen - Inverness
 * Route 26 (West of Scotland) - inc Glasgow Low Level Lines; Glasgow Central High Level and approaches; Glasgow/Paisley/Ayrshire; Glasgow and South Western Line; East Kilbride Line; Shotts Line


 * So if you take Carstairs to Edinburgh out of the WCML article, will a Route 24 article be created - and what will it be called?


 * I had to check my calendar that April had not just started when I first read these comments. Is anyone really serious in curtailing the WCML article at Carstairs? --Stewart (talk)  18:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A starter for references for this article:-
 * Britain's New Railway; O.S. Nock (1966); Ian Allan; ISBN (Not known)
 * Electric Euston to Glasgow; O.S. Nock(1974); Ian Allan; ISBN 0 7110 0530 3
 * --Stewart (talk)  18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The West Cost Main Line was defined in 1997 (The Oxford Companion to British Railway History: from 1603 to the 1990s) as: "The WCML is the current name for the route between London Euston and Scotland. It comprises the major part of the former London & North Western and the Caledonian Railway's main line from Euston to Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and was directly competitive with the East Coast route from King's Cross."
 * I slightly disagree with earlier points made about the Caledonian Main line - it was intended to terminate at both Edinburgh and Glasgow; the Edinburgh section opened first and the final Glasgow route was via existing track.
 * Networkrail can change the definition if the choose; and I take the point about the 1st April.
 * Wikipedia is not intended to be a railway timetable; and an editor appears to wish to rewrite the article to make it little more than a time table.
 * The current article should certainly not be "some made-up romantic notion of how it used to be in the glory days of steam?" and I'm not convinced that this expressed viewpoint is an accurate reflection of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I read this as the Route 18 being the part of the WCML up to Carstairs, I do not read this as Route 18 is the WCML. " Ok, I hadn't parsed it like that. I can accept this interpretation.  End of storm in teacup. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the Network Rail definition is based on its own view of how the infrastructure (i.e. track, signalling etc.) of the railway network is managed and maintined. It does not necessarily correspond to the routes and operations of the train operators. North Olana (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BR tilting train
MInor rewrite needed. Article says it was adopted. It wasn't. It was only a try at getting the bends.--SilasW (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is correct, you are not.Pyrotec (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the APT and the Pendolino tilted. The APT was not adopted in the time of BR, but the Pendolino was adopted; and is corrected mentioned in the History and the Network Rail sections. U'm getting the bends is a diving sickness.Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I travelled on the APT-P between Glasgow and London on one or two occaisions, and recall it leaving Glasgow Central for its trip to London regularly when commuting through Glasgow Central in the early 1980s. --Stewart (talk)  20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also travelled on the APT-P, on the first scheduled service from Glasgow to London. Don't forget that the APT-P was the prototype (three trains, e.g. six sets) and that the third stage was intended to introduce a squadron fleet (APT-S). That did not happen. The "APT" name was dropped and the the InterCity 225 (ICC225) was developed instead (see Williams (1985) for details).Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

modernisation
The modernisation programme has been completed, i heard on the news today. Could someone update this article to reflect this. I wuld do it myself, but i am not familiar with the reference linking proceedures. Gem (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

W10 Upgrades?
The reference quoted does not say that the entire has been upgraded to W10 standards. The reference states "Clearance of this section of the WCML is ...". I might be wrong, so I commented out the relevent section in the article rather than deleting it. Martinvl (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Try the Freight RUS of March 2007, which confirms that the WCML is all at W10 standard. David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That reference only talks about freight trains. Are the passenger-only parts of the rail network (eg the lines into and out of Euston) W10 compliant? Martinvl (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Line speed
An anon editor replaced the (apparently cited) figure of 225kph in the infobox with 201kph (125 mph) uncited. I promptly reverted - but when I looked at it detail, the original citation simply said that pendolinos can do 225k - but the article makes clear that they haven't been allowed to run at that speed due to block signalling (or lack of), and that they are limited to 201k. Which seems to support the view that line speed is 201k, even though it has trains on it that could go faster. Anyone disagree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference, prior to the recent edit, was to http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/virgin/, and that says:
 * "Virgin Trains plans to increase the speed on sections of the Trent Valley Line from 125 to 135mph. The high speed will be achieved by using the existing signalling systems rather than installing a new cab signalling system.",
 * but doesn't give timescales for such a change, nor is it clear when the article was written. David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CRYSTAL, I suggest we certainly leave the infobox at 125m/201k until something materialises. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For a start, the speed should stay as mph with kph referenced as a secondary speed :) The Route 18 document on the Network Rail website states 135mph as an "Aspiration" rather than anything concrete so I agree with the above (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2007/R18%20-%20WCML.pdf - page 15).  This will only apply to sections of the Trent Valley not the WCML as a whole though --Geezertronic (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

New map
Does anyone have any opinions on the addition of a map like one of these to the article? I know they are a little crude but it just seems wrong that there is nothing currently in the article showing where the route actually goes in a geographic sense.

Good idea. I'm not sure about the accuracy of the map though. Stoke-on-Trent is in the wrong place. Gem (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Accident section
Does anyone know why the accident section in this article is in reverse chronological order (ie most recent first)? All the other Lists of rail accidents are in regular chronological order (or worst first), and I would prefer to see this one like that too, unless there's a good reason or there are lots of others lurking in reverse chronological order.

There's also the 1948 Rail accidents in Winsford. Tim PF (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The present arrangement seems better to me as it's in order of most relevance. A derailment in 1948 is of much less interest. You have to allow for readers abandoning a section when the material ceases to be of interest and they shouldn't have to plough through ancient history to find material that is pertinent to the WCML today, after multiple changes of management. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

manchester to preston
I was under the impression that this was a fairly slow line and not electrified not part of the west coast main line as the article implies, can anyone clarify? Plugwash (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Bournemouth/Poole line used to serve Manchester, then the Crewe-Preston took over. Platforms 13-14 are extremely long because of these trains and also serves other express lines at night (Airport, Picadilly, Bolton, pass through Wigan, and Preston) This also explains why these late-night trains serve Wigan (edit-put Preston). Guess that sorts it all out for you, if you want to know anything else about this area, just go on my talk (if it's not there create it) Tez011 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2011 (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/virgin/
 * 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 10:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Stale Drafts
Hello there. I was going through a list of pages that are in the Draft namespace that aren't redirects and haven't been edited in a while and came across 3 that are of interest here: These drafts were the work of. If the watchers here could take a look and determine if they need to be redirected here (or to a subpage) that would be great. I'll drop a short notice on the project talk pages as a FYI. If these pages still show up on the stale drafts report, they might be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Draft:WCML North
 * Draft:WCML Central
 * Draft:WCML South
 * Pinging as co-author. These were originally in my user space, but I moved them to the newly-created draft workspace at a time when I was giving serious consideration to full retirement. At the time there were no rules about stale drafts being deleted - if that is the case now they can be moved back to my user space as I still intend to do something with these one day. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Optimist, but these were the three diagrams that I mentioned in the RFC re the conversion of RDTs to the new system. I object to that systems introduction where size is not an issue. The three can be converted into a single diagram using the new system, which overcomes the template size issue at a cost of needing a computer degree to understand. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging @ Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

EPS?
An anon editor amended the infobox to read "Electrification 	Mk1 and UK1 25 kV 50 Hz AC OHLE Operating speed 	125 mph (201 km/h) EPS maximum"

(my emphasis to highlight changes). These may be valid edits but without wikilinks they are useless noise. Can anyone throw any light on the subject (and reinstate if appropriate). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mk1 is short for Mark 1, an early type of structure (gantry, mast, wire fixing, etc.) for 25 kV electrification. I may be wrong, but I thought that Weaver Junction to Glasgow used Mark 3 structures. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The anon editor has added some text to explain that EPS means Enhanced Permissible Speed. Seems worthy of a short article, if anyone has the info? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

RDT containing only the WCML
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)

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 . This government document 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)

, 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)
 * 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. 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)

, 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)

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. 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. 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,. 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. Nathan A RF (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, 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)
 * 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)

New/additional RDT
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) Nathan A RF (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Track section
I edited down West Coast Main Line 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, 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 detailed below ."
 * Is that enough? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hanslope Junction
I have written a short section at Hanslope 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. 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)


 * 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)

Spine and Spurs
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)

Bottlenecks
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)

Proposal: move RDTs to end
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)

Edit war
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. 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)
 * , the discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Preston to Manchester
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)

Move "Rolling stock" to the end
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)

Route diagram
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. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (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)

Proposed removal of "branches" from main page and route diagram template
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.



Section of core route includes:
 * Trent Valley line — part of core section from Stafford and Rugby

Considered branches in route diagram template and article:
 * Glasgow–Edinburgh via Carstairs line — Carstairs to Edinburgh Waverley
 * Manchester–Preston line — Manchester Piccadilly to Preston via Bolton
 * Manchester–Southport line or Liverpool–Manchester lines — one or both of these links Wigan to Manchester on the RDT
 * Crewe–Liverpool line — Crewe to Liverpool Lime Street
 * Crewe–Manchester line — Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly via Stockport
 * North Wales Coast Line — Crewe to Holyhead via Chester
 * Crewe–Derby line — link between Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent
 * Stafford–Manchester line — Stafford to Manchester Piccadilly via Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield and Stockport
 * Stone to Colwich Line — Lichfield Trent Valley to Stoke-on-Trent
 * Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line — Stafford to Rugby via Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International and Coventry
 * Northampton loop — Milton Keynes Central to Rugby via Northampton

Please can it be made clear if these routes should stay described as a part of the WCML and depicted on the route diagram template, with suitable references for each. I suggest regardless of the outcome of the following discussion that the map of Avanti West Coast services is included on the main page to make clear the main services from stations on the WCML.

--Nathan A RF (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This topic has been discussed at length several times over the years, in 2007 and in 2017 and the proposal to define the WCML as just the trunk is always rejected. G-13114 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First and foremost thank you for linking to these discussions. However it must be said the 2007 discussion is vastly out of date. The Network Rail routes mentioned are all defunct now and the documents linked in that discussion are all dead; as per the one I linked above in the first paragraph. It can also be said that the end point of that discussion does further my main point: "One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the Network Rail definition is based on its own view of how the infrastructure (i.e. track, signalling etc.) of the railway network is managed and maintained. It does not necessarily correspond to the routes and operations of the train operators".
 * The 2017 discussion is more up to date but some things need clearing up. I would have included references to Trackmaps in this post if it weren't for the fact my books were increasingly becoming out of date, however the point is still valid if there has been little change in the updated versions. The main discussion points in that article rambled on without many references to information solidly stating that these lines are branches of the WCML. Again, the Network Rail documents referenced are all dead links now; the updated route definitions I described above. However the documents you listed yourself survive. On this reference it is clear that there are mentions to the routes being part of the WCML and indeed a map showing routes associated. However this is still suspiciously similar to the services map of Avanti West Coast leading to the thought again that Network Rail documents shouldn't be trusted for route descriptions. Nonetheless, if there was more (up to date) information like this I would be humble to make a consensus on mentioning these routes as proper branches with suitable links to their related pages, and removing other lines given they are not part of the WCML. Nathan A RF (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For such a major and drastic revision, I would suggest that you revise the article in the manner you suggest in the sandbox, then invite discussion and review from other editors. (This would be helpful, as then there would be no doubt or confusion about what you propose.) AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal made with other lines shown as interrupted thin linesAlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC) and WCML stations shown in full Nathan A RF (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do think it is slightly unnecessary to put every single minor station behind a collapsed section, given that there are 11 sections for 29 stations Nathan A RF (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The counter-argument is, ‘Why are some minor stations collapsed and others not?’ AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the stations on the other lines, only the major ones are shown there as more detail can be found on their relevant pages. That was one reason why I used the interrupted icons in the diagram and not for the main line Nathan A RF (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Think of the reader
Does anybody wp:think of the reader who is using a mobile? The rolling stock section is seriously OTT now. If we must have it, can it be moved well down because frankly not a lot of visitors will keep going from that point. Better still, split it off to a daughter article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)