Talk:Kilmarnock and Troon Railway

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kilmarnock and Troon Railway article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK / in Scotland Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Mid-importance).

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Kilmarnock and Troon Railway.

Singled

Regarding comments about the line being singled prior to electrification, this isn't quite true. I lived in Irvine since the mid 70's and frequently went to Ayr, crossing the line. It has been singled for a number of years prior to the electrification of the Ayrshire coast line in the early to mid 80's, however, pictures of the K&T railway showing Drybridge station in the late 60's show the line still being doubled. Douglasnicol 12:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Drybridge station

I've reverted the article removing the picture as it seems a little pointless and random, especially since there is already a clearer picture of the station just one click away on the Drybridge station page. Any opinions anyone? I think any images that would go on the main railway article should be maps, old timetables, etc, while pictures of stations should go on the relevant station article. - Dreamer84 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity we can't get hold of a picture like that in the Stenlake 'Lost railways' book as that was a rather nice picture from the days of when the station was operational. Douglasnicol 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another point of view; these huge slabs of text [there ought to be a lot more on this important and historic line] can be a bit daunting for the uninformed reader who wants to know more. If you think about the factual pages of newspapers, they always incorporate graphical illustrations, and the reason is simply to make the page more reader-friendly. Even serious newspapers do this; in an article on savings, for example, the headline might be "Don't tie your money up in a long-notice account" and there will be a photograph of a girl tied up in some 1930s gangster film. Completely irrelevant to the financial theme, but it just makes readability easier. Dreamer84 assumes that readers here must also go to the station article, and therefore that the images are duplicated. That isn't necessarily so; why should they? Many of the station articles tend to be very basic and superficial anyway. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]