Trains: Rapid transit / in UK / in London / Maps Template‑class

Trains Portal London Transport Portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit. This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways. This template is supported by WikiProject London Transport. This template is supported by the Maps task force.

I've added the symbols to make the elevated sections clear, using the principle that 'elevated' in the case of the DLR means 'raised up on stilts'. Where the line section is just on a pre-existing bridge of brickwork and earth fill, then imho that is still a ground-level feature as you can't walk underneath it. It also makes clear that whilst the earliest format of the DLR was mostly elevated (in some form) the current network isn't as all the newer sections - except for part of the Silvertown link - are at ground level. There still need to be a few symbols created for the elevated junctions. --AlisonW (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would have to disagree, and say that route diagrams should use the principle that 'elevated' means running above ground level, ignoring the fact that you may or may not be able to walk underneath the elevated track. --Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the difference is only a few stations; Tower Gateway, Shadwell and Limehouse. --AlisonW (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uDSTR icons  (uDSTRag)  (uDSTR)  (uDSTRef)  (uDSTRagq)  (uDSTRq)  (uDSTRefq)  (uDSTRl)  (uDSTRr)  (uDSTR+l)  (uDSTR+r) have been uploaded: no excuse now for not adding the embankments (i.e. solid elevated structures you can't walk underneath). Useddenim (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should OSI be shown in this diagram? For example, is it necessary to show all of the OSI for Tower Gateway? --TBM10 (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Docklands Light Railway
Legend
Version 1
Pudding Mill Lane (re-sited) Stratford International Stratford
Version 2
Pudding Mill Lane (re-sited) Stratford International Stratford
Version 3
Stratford International Stratford Pudding Mill Lane (re-sited)
Version 4
Stratford International Stratford Pudding Mill Lane (re-sited)

moved from User talk:Useddenim

See eg. here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.54093/-0.00357 - the branch from Poplar tracks incoming from the southwest terminate at platforms 4ab, several metres before the through tracks of the Canning Town-Stratford Int'l branch at platforms 16-17. — ⟨✆∣µzdzisław∣⚒⟩ 14:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonetheless, the DLR still passes under eight tracks at Stratford. Useddenim (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Uzdzislaw, since other lines aren't shown on the DLR diagram. Jc86035 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. The tracks shown on the diagram do not intersect. Also if other tracks should be included in the diagram, it should happen in other places as well, making the diagram incredibly complex. By the way, I have just committed a complete overhaul of the diagram, to put Stratford termini on top, in line with the official TfL maps, and so that no currently served routes U-turn on the diagram (previously the Stratford-Canary Wharf/Lewisham route did). It does not show an intersection at Stratford, but can be easily edited to feature it, if that emerges as consensus. — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Coming at this fresh, I think version 4 is superior to the other versions in representing what happens on the ground at Stratford re the DLR. The only change I'd make would be to Pudding Mill Lane as it's the new station that takes the detour away from the straight line rather than the old one. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The diagram underwent an evolution complex enough that any of the four variants treated literally and exactly is not option any more, especially #1 and #2. What's currently in the diagram is reasonably close to #4 though.  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 15:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want to enter potential edit war territory over something that in the end is my personal convention, so I'll give it a go on a talk page, as I (obviously) think this convention is reasonable. So whenever I'm designing a RDT, I try to maintain the condition that all stations whose names sit in one contiguous block of non-empty labels (on one side of the diagram) are also a contiguous section of some route served by the transport system depicted. I think that this convention adds a lot of meaning to the fact that some labels touch and some are separated, and facilitate reading the diagrams, that are very often quite complicated as they are. I acknowledge that this may lead to inflating the diagram height, and sometimes I consciously drop this convention, especially if it interplays badly with the topology of the diagram.

As much as I admire the updates that were made to my recent redesign of this RDT, this condition has not unfortunately been maintained. Currently it is violated in the following cases (all on the right-hand side): Stratford Int'l to Pudding Mill Lane, Langdon Park to Star Lane, and Woolwich Ars'l to Beckton. The middle one is rather easily fixed, by moving either Poplar (preferably) or Poplar depot over to the left-hand side. The other two would require inserting gratuitous spaces (before Pudding Mill Lane and after Woolwich Ars'l, respectively) or involve some more intricate diagram-fu. However, the latter, if possible, does not settle the dispute, as the same diagram-fu could be used to just shorten the diagram (as, coincidentally, the right-hand side extends beyond the left-hand side from both ends).

Anyway, I would love to hear some opinions on the convention itself and if it could/should be (re-)implemented in this RDT.  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 21:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uzdzislaw: Not really related, but should the former London and Blackwall Railway stations even be on the diagram? I think it should be all of them or none of them, since currently only West India Docks station is shown. Jc86035 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uzdzislaw: Having done some of the work to rearrange the previous diagram (with reasons given in the edit summary), I had noticed at the time that the blocking of labels you refer to might be upset, and had intended to restore some of it before time ran out. I still intend to do this. Addressing your specific points: looking on Google's rendition of the network, Poplar seems to belong more with the right-hand side than the left; swapping Blackwall to River Lea with Abbey Road to Star Lane will restore a contiguous block of related labels on the right; a gap between Woolwich and Royal Victoria will be beneficial, even if it lengthens the diagram (which is not a concern to me: clarity should override conciseness). On that latter point, your recent condensing of two junctions was a retrograde step in my opinion and has removed some elegance from the design. Finally, West India Docks extinct station should be removed: it is not, nor has ever been, associated with the DLR, being terminated, as its article states in 1934. I will continue editing later this weekend, but will respect and attempt to retain anything anyone else collaborates on in the meantime. Bazza (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case I'm looking forward to seeing your further edits, Bazza 7. I'll just say that I don't share the sentiment of Poplar belonging to the right-hand side—or, for that matter, anything inherently belonging anywhere in particular based on geographical considerations: all we do here is topological only anyway. Also, swapping the Blackwall–River Lea and Abbey Road–Star Lane blocks isn't going to strictly fix the issue in my understanding of it, as then there will be a contiguous block of non-empty labels containing stations from Langdon Park to East India, and there is no service covering such stretch. (Unless you kick Poplar depot to the left, but this conversely belongs to the right-hand side more than Poplar itself, as the neighbouring stations of All Saints and Langdon Park are labelled on the right-hand side already.)

Re condensing the junctions: I'm somewhat conflicted myself about this edit, it is indeed less elegant, and I did that partially because I've realized that there are ready icons that allow this... Which only shows that even if some tools are available, it doesn't mean you need to use them.

Re gap before Royal Victoria: I've realized later that it can be introduced without lengthening the diagram by shifting the whole line one column to the left (smoothly by means of "uw" icons) and then having Beckton depot and Beckton on the same level (with Beckton depot labelled on the left-hand side). But this may also be less elegant, so as we are having this discussion now I will not yet rush and implement this.

Bow Church & Devons Road
Legend
Proposal 1
Bow Church ( Bow Road) Devons Road
Proposal 2
Bow Church ( Bow Road) Devons Road

BTW how about this idea for Bow Church and Devons Road? Unless the tunnel between them has a name, there is presently an unfortunate and useless gap between their labels. But again, pushing Devons Road to the bottom of the row makes it feel slightly crammed.

Finally re extinct stations: frankly I have no attachment to West India Docks and for modern-day viewers this station (and probably most of the London and Blackwall Railway ones) is even more irrelevant than the re-sited Pudding Mill Lane. The only reason for which I put it there, was a somewhat Pavlovian reaction along the lines of "huh, it was in the wrong place and got removed, but it can be marked in the right place at no cost to the complexity of the diagram, so why not".

Thank you for your input folks!  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 10:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uzdzislaw: I think the tunnel could be shortened but we would need   (uINTCCe) to make it look nice (i.e. having the HST in the middle), and this might make the tunnel too short. (I don't want to use uBHFCCe!~lINT because I am probably reuploading the *CC icons (and renaming them) at some point so that the tunnel portal goes slightly over the station circle.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would utSTRaf!~lINT be a more acceptable temporary workaround? (Doesn't look very good though...) — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 14:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We all seem to have been thinking along the same lines for Bow Church and Devons Road, so I have implemented a solution which retains the tunnel, albeit quite short, whilst allowing the spacer line to be removed and the stations to remain alined with their labels. The same edit has also: removed a line from the West India Quay bypass, using the station's label for the note on direction; moved Poplar's label to its original position on the left (having now understood Uzdzislaw's point!); moved Poplar depot where it belongs, with the group on the right; reinstated some elegance at Canning Town and Mudchute; introduced a spacer between Woolwich and Royal Victoria (again, as per Uzdzislaw's point); some other small tweaks. I have been defeated (as least so far) by: Pudding Mill Lane (which is a valid configuration to show a fairly major alteration) and its gap to Bow Church; the space above Woolwich (although the space could be filled with a duplicate label for the river); the same between Devons Road and Langdon Park; the considerable space between Westferry and Poplar's labels, although this could be partly addressed by moving Delta Junction's label above Polar's. I think Beckton and its depot are fine. I briefly experimented with the docks, replacing simple water icons with uDOCK*; I don't know what others' opinions are? Bazza (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So if I arrived at the diagram as it stands now, without being party to the recent edits and discussions, I wouldn't say there really is a need to do anything to it, with an exception of inserting an extra line between all the Stratfords and Pudding Mill Lane (as currently this block violates the condition described above, and yes, at a cost of lengthening the whole diagram). That is, great job!

IMHO removing unnecessary spaces is far less important than adding them where needed (and possible). Thus I wouldn't be bothered much by those in existence currently, especially these between Devons Road and Langdon park, and between King George V and Woolwich Arsenal: their existence is very much warranted by a feature on the diagram, and the only way to get rid of them is to repeat the label. I'm not sure if I'm a big fan of that.

Re Pudding Mill Lane: the previous layout (the one I have originally overhauled) had no space between it and Bow Church, but it did so by some very complicated overlaying (which I personally don't like much) that put a station in one row with branching and curves (which I like even less, and that's why I'd replace the current arrangement around Mudchute by a KRW-based one, or move everything from South Quay to the curve up one row). However, if anyone were so inclined and apt, it presumably can be reimplemented here. There is also a  (uxISLAND) which could be overlaid with two HSTs, to pretty hideous results.

Re Westferry–Poplar space: one way to do something about it is to scratch the above argument about Poplar depot belonging on the right (on the grounds of: nothing belonging anywhere inherently; it being a depot and not contributing to the logic of contiguous blocks; it belonging wherever Poplar is; etc; or finally benefits outweighing the costs), and then a row can be safely removed from both sides. (EDIT: Or, just disalign the Limehouse cut and make it meander between both sides after shifting the left-hand side down. In such case a right-hand side label would become necessary.)

Re Delta junction: I never honestly gave it a proper thought, but I always assumed it referred to the tiny single-icon wye (with one ex-coloured branch) and that thus its label cannot go anywhere else. However, if it refers to the whole large arrangement between Poplar, Westferry, and West India Quay, then having a simple label is severely misleading. In such case, I would cover its whole 2×3 area by HUBs, add a POINTER to its border from the outside, and label this. Or just delete the label.

Re dock icons: Which icons do you exactly mean? I had a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Icons_for_canal_descriptions/docks,_wharves_and_buildings and *DOCKS* icons are so bloated that they would attract too much attention, whereas other *DOCK* or *WHARF* icons may be too similar to (light) railway tracks. Generally speaking, in this diagram all docks, canals, and rivers are purely decorative, so there's no need to be hyperaccurate about their taxonomy. Furthermore, some of the icons are named after the root *WASSER* which is pretty inclusive. However, if there'd be something thicker to be used for the Thames, I'd give it a pass.

New ideas:

• Can we meaningfully talk about CPI at Canning Town? CPI usually connect two non-mixing lines (which is not the case here, as there is a junction just next to the station) and have trains heading the same way at either platform (again not the case: platform above the Jubilee line has tracks to and from Poplar, the one next to it has tracks to and from Stratford). I think it should be a single two-icon-wide interchange station (or a HUB).
• Would it be helpful or unhelpful to add a single upwards arrow to indicate one-way operation on the short section of the Lewisham–Bank route between branching off of the line to Poplar and merger with the West India Quay bypass?

Is this discussion getting out of hand?  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently River Lea (re-)crosses the DLR between Pudding Mill Lane and Bow Church, thus filling one of the mildly offending gaps. I've added this to the diagram (along with removing CPI at Canning Town and putting a direction arrow at Delta junction) although in a super ugly way, as I didn't manage to find any elevated icons with more appropriate shape. Upgrades much welcome.  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gap inserted below Stratford, with a bonus of simplifying Pudding Mill Lane. (Nice solution with the River Lea, btw.) Stratford stations HUBbed for enlarge icon. Mudchute altered to KRW. Westferry moved down 1 line (on the ground it lies midway between the cut and the junction). Delta junction label removed as you suggested (it is the entire triangle [1]). Docks: I'm happy with the current use of *WASSER* icons; I tried the *DOCK* version and it looks bad. Canning Town: current version is fine, and now mirrored by Stratford. The upward direction arrow at the junction: I checked the current service timetables; no trains from Tower or Bank call at West India Quay so it's accurate. Discussions are always good, but as we seem to have agreed on just about everything, this one is probably ending soon. That was a nice diversion for a rainy weekend and, as it was my first serious use of Routemap, a good learning exercise. Good jobs all round; thanks. Bazza (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I kinda liked the narrower vINT at Stratford, but now it indeed looks better with straightened tracks; nice touch with the HUB. Turns out there are two more rivers between PML and Stratford, I've just added them. I'd say that at this point the only improvement that I could think of would be making the shape of the elevation banks around PML nicer, but that would likely require creating more new icons than I'm happy with.  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 18:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Useddenim moved the rightmost lower branch to the left to allow a depiction of the curve at Beckton. Whilst this seemed at first acceptable (hence me undoing my own undo), I feel that it (a) does not depict the full 180 degrees and is therefore questionable; (b) introduces a non-existant curve between Canning Town and Royal Victoria; (c) detracts from the diagram's clarity by placing a depot at what is, at first sight, the terminus of the branch; and (d) removes what is a quite elegant continuous vertical route from Stratford to Beckton. I have reverted the change but am happy for further discussion on its merits (or otherwise). Bazza (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was tagged on Useddenim's talk page so I'd chime in. Firstly, I obviously hold my view on the somewhat superfluous vertical spacing that sparked the previous discussion. Secondly, I like the new thick river Thames. Thirdly and on point: I don't have a very specific favourite. The RDTs are and will be mostly topologically and not geographically accurate, so the whole exercise of introducing a curve before Beckton is irrelevant, regardless of if it takes a 90° or 180° turn (and this is my main point against this change). On the other hand, from this point of view Bazza 7's points (a) and (b) are just as irrelevant too. (c) and (d) are slightly stronger but do not appeal to me that much.

However, if this change had Beckton depot in the same row as Beckton, two squares to the left of it (and one square to the left of other stations of this branch), and labelled on the left-hand side, I would be in favour of it, on the grounds of shortening the whole diagram by one row. (Also, I would put the curved section above Royal Victoria up by one row, to let the station itself sit on a straight section of track, but this is purely my personal preference.)  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 20:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CPI at Poplar
Legend
Poplar Abbey Road West Ham

I've noticed already before that, as opposed to Canning Town, there actually is a CPI at Poplar: trains from Central London to Canning Town and beyond call at platform 1 across from trains from Canary Wharf and beyond to Stratford at platform 2; their reverses call respectively at platforms 4 and 3, also opposite one another. I didn't bring this up (e.g. while arguing for removal of CPI at Canning Town) because I had no idea how to include it in the diagram without blowing it up. Now I have the idea and it's shown in the inset. It's very obviously just an idea at this point, but I'd like to have some discussion before going ahead with e.g. drawing new icons, which might be necessary here.

One obvious question is where should the "lines" cross—to the left or right of the station itself—and if the crossing should be flat or grade-separated. As usual with CPI stations, the reality of what crosses where cannot be fully represented if the lines are shown as single strokes (and not pairs thereof). In reality, both tracks from Canary Wharf fly over the Canning Town to Central London track to the west of the station itself, and to the east of it both tracks to Stratford pass under the Central London to Canning Town track (see http://cartometro.com/cartes/metro-tram-london/). I'd go with flat crossing to the right of the station, partly because then the strokes cross at an angle sufficiently close to a right one, so that the routing is clear.

Even if this shape of the lines is acceptable, some icon fixes are in order. Or, alternatively, maybe there are present ones that would work here, but I'd like to request some help looking for them. First, the CPI itself: presently the mock-up uses  (CPICqq) where the strokes are too long. The edit is obvious and one that I could certainly do, but... I have no idea how the icon should be named, although   (CPICq) would be my guess. As for the elevation borders to the left of the station, I frankly have no idea how to proceed, what icons could be helpful here, and very possibly drawing new ones nicely would be a little bit challenging for me.

Calling Useddenim for superior knowledge of the icons.  — ⟨✆​∣µzdzisław∣⚒​⟩ 17:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Silvertown (proposed) - is there a reference for this? As far as I'm aware, a site for a station was not safeguarded (unlike Thames Wharf DLR station) - furthermore, there are no plans in TfL's Business Plan for this, or in Newham's Local Plan - which shows the safeguarded Thames Wharf station. The archived webpages on the extension mention Thames Wharf, but not this "Silvertown" station

RE: Docklands Light Railway extension to Thamesmead - should this be added, given the current plans to extend via Beckton to Thamesmead? ^[1] Turini2 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]