This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117Avenue (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 9 September 2013 (→Metro Line routes: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:41, 9 September 2013 by 117Avenue (talk | contribs) (→Metro Line routes: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Canada: Alberta Template‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Trains: Rapid transit Template‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This template was considered for deletion on 2013 August 15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
New line means new route
When the NAIT line opens, the Edmonton LRT will no longer be a single line. How will the route diagram be altered?
The diagram can be widened to accommodate more stations, like this:
{| {{Railway line header}}
{{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT<big>|#0093D0}}
{{BS-table}}
{{BS3-2|MWHSTR|MWHSTR|MWHSTR||]||O2=HALFVIADUCTr1|O3=uHALFVIADUCTl1}}
{{BS3-2|uexKBFa|STR|uABZrf|]|CN Spur End|(future)|O2=uSTRrg}}
{{BS3-2|uexBHF|uENDEe|uSTR|]||(future)}}
{{BS3-2|uexBHF||uBHF|]|]|(future)}}
{{BS3-2|uexTUNNELa||uTUNNELa||}}
{{BS3-2|utexSTRlf|uetABZlr|utSTRrf||}}
{{BS1-2|utBHF||]||12min}}
|}
|}
Or the two routes could each have their own diagrams, like this:
{| {{Railway line header}}
{{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT Route 201<big>|#0093D0}}
{{BS-table}}
{{BS2|MWHSTR|MWHSTR||]|O1=HALFVIADUCTr1|O2=uHALFVIADUCTl1}}
{{BS2|STR|uABZrf||CN Spur End|O1=uSTRrg}}
{{BS2|uENDEe|uBHF||]}}
{{BS2||uTUNNELa||}}
{{BS2|utexCONTr|uteABZlg||] (future)}}
{{BS2||utBHF|12min|]}}
|}
|}
and
{| {{Railway line header}}
{{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT Route 202<big>|#0093D0}}
{{BS-table}}
{{BS2|uexKBFa|||] (future)}}
{{BS2|uexBHF|||] (future)}}
{{BS2|uexBHF|||] (future)}}
{{BS2|uexTUNNELa|||}}
{{BS2|uxtABZrg|utCONTl||]}}
{{BS2|utBHF|||]}}
{{BS2|utCONTf||}}
|}
|}
My vote is for the two separate diagrams, because as more extensions are built, the diagram will get more complicated. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps multiple diagrams will be needed one day, but I don't think there's any immediate danger of the ETS getting complicated enough for there to be enough possibility of confusion to outweigh the benefits of showing the high degree of integration between the existing and new infrastructure. David Arthur (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The diagram was been altered July 3, 2009, to the widened option with the announcement of the MacEwan station receiving funding. 117Avenue (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Valley Line
- Here's the full system. → Useddenim (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Valley Line does not need to be added to the route, (a) because there are no station articles to link to yet, and (b) the Valley Line will be street cars, a totally different system than the Capital and Metro Lines. Also, the colours are wrong for a route diagram. 117Avenue (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that all (or any) locations on an RDT must link to anything.
- There are many multi-modal RDTs. (Although Template:ETS Rail network may be a better name than Template:ETS LRT future).
- The line colours look wrong because the Valley and Northwest lines are as yet unbuilt. If 117Avenue thinks that the Northwest LRT line should be light-rail blue, then what colour should be used for the Valley streetcar line?
- Useddenim (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think a template that doesn't link to anything is superior than an image. 117Avenue (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Metro Line routes
Template:BS-map I suggest added the future version with the Valley line to stations on the metro line, as it is the only one with good detail on it. Also rename the current route the ETS Capital Line LRT route, as it is the Capital Line route diagram. As soon as possible try to make a new template for the ETS Metro LIne LRT route. It should be added a soon as can be done to stations on the Metro Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't totally follow what you are trying to say, your grammar isn't that great. If you are suggesting adding the Valley Line to this template, I disagree. I'll explain further to my comments above, it is very much too early to add a line that has no construction plans, I feel that to not misguide the reader, and keep this diagram simple, we shouldn't be adding stations that aren't under construction yet. Useddenim has suggested converting this template into one similar to Budapest or Vancouver, where the different lines are shown with different colours, this I support. However, we will need to work out a way to show the blue and red lines using the same track and stations. If you are suggesting creating separate templates for the Capital and Metro Lines, similar to Template:Valley Line (ETS), I don't see the necessity. This template can easily display the two routes, and they wouldn't be any more than a list of stations, which the Line articles and navboxes already have. 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ditto. Useddenim (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ditto, but I was hoping you would have an idea on how "to show the blue and red lines using the same track". 117Avenue (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was “Ditto”ing your comment to Gingeroscar. See the example to the right for a couple of ways of doing it. Useddenim (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Or perhaps the technique used at Template:Tel Aviv suburban railway map - see the stretch between Tel Aviv University and Lod; compare it with this. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but at a glance I can't tell which lines run together and which are independent in your examples. Useddenim (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- That multiple line thing is confusing. ETS has only one set of tracks and stations. The way I interpret what Template:ETS LRT future illustrates is that the primary existing route in Blue is overlaid by the new route in Red, where the tracks are shared. Churchill simply avoids any conflict. I have not used line names since it is the graphic representation we are discussing here. I think you've already got it right there - if we really need to use colour. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but at a glance I can't tell which lines run together and which are independent in your examples. Useddenim (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Or perhaps the technique used at Template:Tel Aviv suburban railway map - see the stretch between Tel Aviv University and Lod; compare it with this. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was “Ditto”ing your comment to Gingeroscar. See the example to the right for a couple of ways of doing it. Useddenim (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ditto, but I was hoping you would have an idea on how "to show the blue and red lines using the same track". 117Avenue (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:BS-map Redrose64, are you suggesting this? The problem with that is that they look like two parallel tracks, not two routes using the same tracks. Useddenim, could you please make a practical example? I've stripped down this template, to the right, you can see how close the stations are, and how little room there is to show two colours. Your example is either not to scale, or are you suggesting adding straight portions between stations? 117Avenue (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. 
- So, before we even conclude the debate about colour coding the lines, 117Avenue decides to unilaterally
breakchange the template (which he opposed to keeping in the first place) to monochrome? In any case, here's a full-colour segment to illustrate what it would look like. Useddenim (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)- I assume you mean Template:ETS LRT future, and not this live one. That template had several errors. It only showed some of the roads that the LRT goes over or under, it only showed some of the heavy rail crossings, it placed Quarters wrong, it had an extra station after Mill Woods, several station names were wrong, and it did not have a clear colouring scheme. For the latter I decided to go with the light/heavy rail scheme over the blue/red/green for several reasons. It was showing heavy rail, the legend indicated it used the light/heavy rail scheme, the Capital Line was using the light rail colour, and we haven't reached a consensus to use a different scheme yet. Even though I heavily edited the page, I still think it doesn't replace this one as a navbox. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- So, before we even conclude the debate about colour coding the lines, 117Avenue decides to unilaterally
- Template-Class Canada-related pages
- NA-importance Canada-related pages
- Template-Class Alberta pages
- NA-importance Alberta pages
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- Template-Class rail transport pages
- NA-importance rail transport pages
- Template-Class Rapid transit pages
- NA-importance Rapid transit pages
- WikiProject Rapid transit articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages