The Glasgow commuter lines section of this template is extremely poor from the point of view of visibility. The text for "North Clyde Line", for example, is barely legible, and so is that for "Ayrshire Coast Line". Several of the others aren't much better. IMO the colour-coding makes it harder to read, not easier, so defeats the object. Loganberry (Talk) 01:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you find it now? Thanks/wangi 14:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I had already dealt with the problem of visibility by removing the coloured backgrounds and replacing them with the coloured squares. Therefore I reverted the template to keep it consistent with the others (e.g. Template:Railway lines in Wales) Our Phellap 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not simply revert my hard work here. The previous code was very untidy and hard to read/understand due to a heap of "nbsp"s and such like - looks like it had been coded up in an HTML editor. My edit (or rather rewrite) cleaned this up and seperated lines with commas, removed the redundant "Line" in each entry and layed it out such that it automatically flowed to the size of the viewers screen. The WP:MOS advises against using colours, except in special cases. What's the special case here, what does it add? And if it adds anything, why just Glasgow when all routes in Scotland have a colour code? Thanks/wangi 11:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why you have reverted the Template:Railway lines in Scotland. It is using the standard format as used by all the other templates for the rest of the UK. The colour coding of the Glasgow suburban lines is to match the colour of the line used on Strathclyde Passenger Transport's map, much as the Valley Lines colours are used for the Template:Railway lines in Wales. Our Phellap 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see a standard format as a reason to stick with one - the previous template has randomly sized colour boxes that look pretty naff to be honest. How about this (I've not put in the right colours):

The other templates could be edited to match this. Thanks/wangi 01:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the different lines are too close together now making it look crowded and difficult to read. The different colour boxes were not "random sizes" - they were all the same. Your template is a lot less readable and not aesthetically pleasing, which was why I reverted it. Our Phellap 02:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed this line as it is already covered as the Tay Coast Line and possibly others. I am just wondering now, what seperates a main line from a rural line? Simply south 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have the (rather long) list of historical railway companies on this template? It makes the template a lot bigger. Also, it seems confusing to have railway companies on a template named railway lines. I suggest removing them from this template, and creating a separate template for "Historical Scottish Railway Companies". --Vclaw 10:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well i've copied them to Template:Historical Scottish railway companies, but not yet split them. Simply south 00:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in the debate currently ongoing at Template talk:Railway lines in South-East England over the layout, classification and geographical scope of these templates. Pickle 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

old template, minus cats Pickle 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The old one looked far nicer than the new one, in my opinion. What exactly is the difference aside from the look? The old one could 'collapse' in the sense that it could be hidden. --Dreamer84 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm no coder, but the old one was written as straight table in HTML, unlike most other navigation templates I've come across. Its something to do with the first few lines of code, and what other templates/function one is citing/activating by including them. I finally got around to, earlier today, converting all the "railway lines in great Britain" templates to a "v-d-e" type template, for some reason, presumable to do with this beginning bit, the Scotland one works differently and doesn't behave like the others. For commonality, especially on pages where there are several templates being called upon, i think it looks good if they are all collapse-able - for an example see the bottom of a page like East Coast Main Line. Graphically, i copied the colour scheme off the "main lines" template, but am welcome to other suggestions and if consensus is for a different design then by all means. Pickle 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Should they be split off? Simply south 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A noticable ommission from the Express routes. It was established as a "ScotRail Express" route long ago, using firstly the additional batch of push pull stock, and now an hourly service with 170's. It would cover the inappropriate Tay Coast line, which is just two uncovered routes lumped together better than thats current entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.129.31 (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree and it would recognise that this template covers the railway services that operate in Scotland (including the several which cross the border). --Stewart ^(talk) 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Should it really be included on this template? It's a rail service, not a rail line. GullibleKit (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So are most of the others. For example, the line used for the Edinburgh to Dunblans service is also used by the Edinburgh to Inverness via Stirling Trains. The Argyle and North Clyde services use common tracks between Partick and Dalmuir; the Argyle Line, WCML, Cal Sleeper, ECML, and Shotts service share tracks between Rutherglen and Uddingston. North Berwick services share the same tracks between Glasgow and Drem with the NXEC and Cross Country services.

In summary all these are services, some of which share tracks with other services, with only a few services have sole usage of a particular line.

Perhaps the templates should be more accurately called Scottish Railway Services. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)