Talk:Cranleigh line

Trains: in UK Low‑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

Low

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

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

More information:
/
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph of add historical photos be added to this article.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Cranleigh Line.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cranleigh 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221183510/http://www.rhbnc.ac.uk:80/bluebell/locos/bg/ to http://www4.rhbnc.ac.uk/bluebell/locos/bg/

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong here?[edit]

"Although Yolland had sanctioned the opening of the line, he had refused the opening of Rudgwick station intermediately, because it was on a 1 in 80 gradient; he required the gradient to be eased to no steeper than 1 in 130 for safety reasons; this was done, not without some difficulty, and Rudgwick station opened in November 1864." If the line itself didn't open till 1865, surely 1864 can't be the right year for the opening of Rudgwick station? JH (talk page) 09:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Butt (1995), the stations on the line all opened on 2 October 1865 except Rudgwick, where November 1856 is shown - this must be a typo for November 1865. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll correct it accordingly. JH (talk page) 08:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]