This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The line was once also an important route from London to Manchester, branching north of Derby at Ambergate Junction. In LMS days it had featured named expresses such as the Palatine and the Peaks. Part of the line was closed in the 'sixties severing an important link between Manchester and the East Midlands which has never been satisfactorily replaced by any mode of transport.
Is there a map of this line? For those of us not from the UK (and/or who have never even been there), the place names don't really tell us much about how long or how important the line is or used to be. 4.243.206.12 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Belper Junction? Attenborough Junction? Surely this chart is far too complicated anyway Chevin 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely this article is more than 'Start Class' quality? Also it most definately is more important that 'Low'. Could we also update the 'lack f references' I have added many recently, more may be needed, but it's a start? Amgmichael (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The top-left of the routebox overlaps some of the body text in IE7. In FF3 the text overlaps the box. I'm not wiki-1337 enough to work out where the problem actually lies.Talltim (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Since there are regular services to Leeds via the Wakefield line and stuff straight from St pancreas, would it not be best to give a full map including this route, rather than just the historic map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.247.97 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I note that the image of Harringworth Viaduct has been removed from the infox. It was not of course part of the "core" main line, but it is part of the present route shown in the template. Perhaps the following image could be used? Chevin (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
dde
I was looking at the map the other day and found a few issues..
Did the MML really connect to Barnsley? If so, the map doesn't match real life - afaict from Google Earth, cudworth stn is totally disused, not just disused on used track, and I have no idea which route the map thinks is running in to Barnsley... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Corby actually on the MML, or merely connected? If the latter, it shouldn't be on the map. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Further, the RUS says that the MML is from London to Chesterfield via Derby and Nottingham - it makes no mention of bits on the map such as the Corby route or Burton-on-Trent being part of the MML - in fact Burton is explicitly listed elsewhere. Could someone please clear this matter up? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The Template:Midland Main Line appears to have grown recently to the point that it has prevented this article from loading properly, so I've stopped it transcluding (now just a regular wikilink). I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Midland Main Line RDT, and there may well be a consensus to have the article transclude a simpler template as we now have for the East Coast Main Line (which then has a link for the full template).
A smaller (precis) template needs either (or both of):
Please discuss. Tim PF (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we may be talking on cross-purposes about this, and I just want to take a step back to the root problem. The existing template is too big to transclude into the main article, which means that the permanent solution must be one of:
In addition to the above choice, there is also the question of the limits for a route diagram, which ideally should correspond to the article (which is about the line, not any TOC).
Personally, I prefer to have a small precis route diagram on the article, as it was taking an age to load, and I wouldn't want the detail in the existing large template to be lost. If that is not the consensus, then we have to radically trim down the existing template. Tim PF (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've looked through reference 20 and can find no reference to any
Upgrade of the Leicester - Burton freight route for potential passenger use (2012)
which is mentioned in the article. Details would be appreciated! (I think ref. 20 has been misunderstood, actually).
86.181.177.63 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The HST picture that claims to be at Dore in this article is identical to the one in the Clay Cross railway station article claiming to have been taken on the site of that station. Which is right? Britmax (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The link in this section to the "Penistone Accidents" page is superfluous. Penistone was not served by the Midland Railway - the main line through Penistone was owned by the Manchester Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, later the Great Central, with the Lancashire and Yorkshire company owning the secondary route from there to Huddersfield. Nor is Penistone on the route currently defined by Network rail as the "Midland Main Line".602 Squadron (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Midland Main Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
In the Operator section for East Midlands Trains, I think the following text should be removed, as the first sentence is not relevant to East Midlands Trains, and the second sentence is subjective comment.
Andrewrabbott (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
This should go, it is either a composite image of 2 different bridges or at best, the views are take from different sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.68.244 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Midland 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)