Talk:Great Western Main Line/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cornish Main Line to new

I feel this qualifies as a seperate line. Has this been the main line of GWR? Simply south 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cornwall Railway was amalgamated with the GWR in 1889; the West Cornwall Railway was owned by the GWR from 1876 so, yes it was a main line of the GWR. However, in my mind the GWML is Paddington to Bristol, so I would be happy to see Reading - Penzance treated as a seperate route, but what is it called? Geof Sheppard 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, this is all part of the GWML so it should stay together, however, the Trent Valley line, which is part of the West Coast main line has its own page, so perhaps the Cornish main line could have its own article, although it should be made clear that this is part of the GWML, and should still also be featured on this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dannyboy3 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, keep forgetting. Dannyboy3 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is not referenced, so where is it stated that this is the correct scope for the Great Western Main Line? From a historical (or Bristol-centric) perspective, the GWML is Temple Meads to Paddington. From a modern (or London-centric) perspective, it is Paddington to Penzance, Bristol, Swansea, Cheltenham and Hereford (See: Great Western Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy, SRA 2005). Neither viewpoint matches this article. Geof Sheppard 13:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
IMHO as an outside of this area is to adopt a WCML solution (re Trent Valley, Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford, etc). Pickle 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"West of England Main Line"

The West of England Main Line runs from Waterloo to Exeter St Davids, and is not part of the GWML. Consquently, I have merged the extra details from the route diagram from that section in to the main route diagram, and changed the associated prose accordingly. Tompw (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above regarding the Cornwall Main Line is relevant here. I looked for the "official" context in the SRA RUS and it included the West of England Main Line (sorry, that's the name I have always known, long before NSE adopted it - and SWT dropped it - for the Waterloo service. However, I have now looked at the Network Rail Business Plan 2006 (Chapter 13) and find that the GWML is now Paddington to Bristol, Swansea and Worcester, plus the Virgin routes south-west from Birmingham and also the Basingstoke branch! Confused? I certainly am.
This suggests that Simply south's original proposal - to separate out the Cornwall Main Line (or more correctly, the Reading to Penzance route - yes, that is Network Rail's official name) - is probably the way forward. Whether we carry on and merge the South Wales Main Line is not really of interest to me ... although I think, on balance, that it would make sense. Geof Sheppard 07:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Only a few RUSs have been published... I think you are refering to the 2006 Business Plans, which covers all routes. The GWML is included in #13, which states the GWML "includes the route from Paddington to Cardiff via Reading, Swindon, Bristol Parkway and the Severn Tunnel and on to Swansea; and from Swindon to Bristol Temple Meads via Bath". The Reading to Penzance BP (#12) just mentions the "the 270-mile long main line section from Reading to Penzance", without refering to the GWML. So, by that definition, we shouldn't include anything south of Bristol or Reading.
However... I personally feel that Network Rail aren't the be-all and end-all here, and that there buisness plans divide things up ina way that makes for convinient documents, rather than reflecting traditional usage of names. Can someone find a reference for using GWML to include the Westbury route? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tompw (talk • contribs) 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
The 2005 GWML RUS (Google cache) includes the Reading - Penzance route, but I prefer the Network Rail version as (1) it is more recent (2) the SRA is no more (3) NR is the "owner" of the infrastructure. I think that it would be appropriate to split out the WoE routes, both for clarity and to reflect current thinking by the railway industry. Geof Sheppard 12:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but a few questions:
  1. Should the GWML article go to Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Taunton, Plymouth or Penzance (via BTM)?
  2. What should the other article(s) be called? (West of England Main Line being something different)
I suggest 1) to BTM and onwards to Swansea; and 2) Reading-Plymouth line and Bristol-Exeter line (plus Cornish Main Line) Tompw (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The National Rail timetable (and FGW's) uses London-Bristol/Swansea/Cheltenham as one group; London/Penzance as another. A similar grouping can be found in GWR timetables 80 years ago and so I would prefer this split. It also keeps the number of "route" pages to a minimum for someonw travelling the whole way on the Cornish Riviera Express! Geof Sheppard 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that similarly to the WCML, each section be split off to different articles, and (more importantly) the route diagram here trimmed to overview only. The details about which bits branch off where and how can go on the pages for each section. This brings up a separate question, which will follow shortly. Chris cheese whine 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the South Wales Main Line start just beyond Bristol\the Box Tunnel? Simply south 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The juction is just outside Swindon at a place called Wootton Bassett. Jt spratt 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Closed Stations in the route box

I believe that the route box should only have the current stations on the GWML. There should be a section within this article containing details of the closed stations on the line. What do others think? Jt spratt 13:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • As long as we're doing lines only of a reasonable length (about 100 miles or less) I see no reason not to include everything. If the page were for the entire London-Penzance route, I'd argue that we should only show the currently open stations, but at this level or below, closed stations, notable track features and the like seem relevant. AlexTiefling 15:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that closed station should be shown on the route map. Tompw (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the Severn Bridge visible from Bristol?

"Sights visible from the line include the Severn Bridge."

It doesn't say you need a telescope, but as this article (now) stops at Bristol (orshould that be terminates ? :o) ), we might need to say as much...

...or is it possible to see the bridge from a train at Bristol??

EdJogg 10:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that there are too many buildings in the way at Bristol, but you can certainly see the first (M48) Severn Bridge from Stonehouse, Gloucestershire. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wootton Bassett (not) on the Route Map

Wootton Bassett is obviously a key place, as it is mentioned numerous times in the article, yet it is not shown on the route map. The town's article mentions the importance of the junction and the fact that there used to be a station, so it would seem appropriate to include a closed station at the appropriate point. I don't have my maps with me, so can anyone oblige?

EdJogg 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wootton Bassett is now on the route diagram. Dannyboy3 11:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Twyford

The information relating to developments at Twyford is largely speculative. While it is true that planning permission is being sought (I have seen the application) for a new bridge with lifts, the information about barriers and lengthened platforms has no evidence for it. In any case the relief line platforms are already long enough for 8 coach trains and were used by them up until c. 1998. I don't see why Twyford is singled out for such detail in this particular article - this sort of information should surely be in the article on Twyford station.--Hymers2 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

2009 Electrification

I've added a section on electrification that was announced today, hope I got all the info right in a readable format and my point about high speed rail is appropriate (nothing in the news about it being a missed opportunity). I put in a reference to a DfT document but can't get it to appear at the foot of the article - can someone add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.249.140 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Exact definition of line

Hi everyone, can you please help come up with a consistent naming scheme for the railway lines in the Bristol/Western region, specifically the sections between Bristol, Plymouth and Reading. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Request_for_clarification. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that few of these names have any official validity, yet some people assert with great certainty that their opinion is the only acceptable one. The GWR and the Southern Railway would no doubt have had different opinions on which line was the "West of England Main Line". Network Rail make use of the term, but that has no greater validity, and another infrastructure owner might have a different idea in ten years time. All this is made worse by Train Operators' branding (like The Tarka Line" etc) which is intended to make their passenger train service sound user-friendly. Your request may or may not produce results but five minutes later someone else will edit a page and ignore it. Afterbrunel (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Associated routes link broken

The introduction of the article has a link to Great_Western_Main_Line#Associated_routes which doesn't go anywhere. John a s (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Dead link removed from introduction.John a s (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

High-speed rail as in current services?

From the international standard, UIC does not recognize this line in the current form as a high-speed rail. See the official list from here. This is the same way that the UIC does not recognize Northeast Regional in the US which also runs on existing tracks at max speeds of 125 miles per hour (201 km/h) as high-speed rail.

From UK standard, the separation of "higher" and "high" speed rail has been used in the parliament. Higher speed track is for up to 125 miles per hour (201 km/h). See the definitions here. So in the UK context it is still a higher-speed rail, not high-speed rail.

From trade publications, I have seen some that use explicit term of higher-speed rail. See an example here.

So I am changing the classification in the article from high-speed rail to higher-speed rail. Please discuss if you disagree. Z22 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Through service to Liverpool Street

In a timetable from 1938 there were rush-hour through trains from the GW main line (multiple outer terminals, including Windsor&Eton, Greenford, West Drayton, Hayes&Harlington and Southall) through the tube to Liverpool Street. The connecting track must have been between Westbourne Park and Royal Oak (according to a map). I find that quite remarkable, and I think it should be mentioned in the article. When was this through service abandoned? What was the motive power through the tube? Steam engines? If they changed power, where did they do that - in the Bishops Road station or at Westbourne Park? --Thogo 12:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No way did they go through the tube - tube tunnels are far too small. You're probably thinking of the "Main Line and City" service, which began in 1863, soon after the opening of the Metropolitan Railway. These ran from various GWR stations (including Hayes, Maidenhead, Reading, Southall, Staines, Uxbridge and Windsor) via Paddington (Bishop's Road) and through the Metropolitan Railway tunnels to various destinations in or near the City (including Aldgate, Farringdon and Moorgate), eventually using Aldgate as the terminus. Until the end of 1906 this was worked throughout by GWR steam locomotives fitted with condensers; from the start of 1907 the GWR steam locos (which no longer needed to be condensing) were exchanged for Met. Rly electric locomotives at Paddington (Bishop's Road). The service was suspended soon after the outbreak of World War II, and never resumed. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Well yes, sorry, the Metropolitan Railway tunnel is what I meant (I'm not a subway/underground expert ^^). The inner terminal was, in 1938, Liverpool Street for all of those trains. The through service was very light, too. In the morning they had 5 inbound and 4 outbound trains, and the afternoon rush-hour saw two outbound trains only. What the timetable does not reveal is whether or not they called at Royal Oak. Have you got any information about that? The City service table itself only shows the portion between Paddington (Bishop's Road) and Liverpool Street, and the main line table doesn't include the Royal Oak stop either. --Thogo 13:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Royal Oak had no GWR services after 1 October 1934; it has been H&C only since then. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks. --Thogo 20:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. There are many different policies and interpretations argued in this discussion, however, there is more support/policy rationale for WP:NCCAPS. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 17:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Great Western Main Line → Great Western main line – Sources don't support proper name status. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Evidence in sources
  • books – almost all lowercase "main line" in 20th century and still at least half in 21st century.
  • news – about half capped; not close to the MOS:CAPS threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources".
Survey
  • Support as nom per the evidence in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm seeing "consistently capitalized", with very few exceptions, in news sources. --В²C ☎ 00:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Funny; I'm seeing quite a few with lowercase "main line": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Hits vary. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    Google is known to adjust its results based upon several factors, one of which is your geolocation. I'm guessing that Born2cycle and Dicklyon are not in the same part of the world. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure we're both in California; but there are other factors. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    And this is less of a factor if you use a browser that allows you to deny location information to Google. It may still make assumptions based on general region of the IP address, but this can be checked for by using a Web proxy in another country.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS: When in doubt (i.e., when the sources are in doubt), WP does not capitalize. Show me a trademark registration for this exact phrase, or even ™ or ® being used with it (again, the entire phrase, not just the Great Western company name), and I'll change my position. Various previous RMs have concluded to downcase this sort of stuff, and it's what the guidelines say to do anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support—I must live on a different planet from B2C. Tony (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Capitalisation here is helpful, within English grammar, and has no downside, so apply WP:IAR and continue to wonder how to fix the guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    Andrewa, a very good reason is required to justify invoking IAR ... for any purpose at en.WP. Otherwise, it's free for all and ensuing chaos. Tony (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Agree. And that very good reason is that the way the guidelines are currently written and interpreted is causing a great deal of unnecessary grief, confusion and waste of time, and leading to a great many less than optimal article names. It needs to be addressed. But Rome wasn't built in a day. This is a small part of addressing it. Andrewa (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    Nah. WP:ILIKEIT is never a good enough reason for IAR. Overcapitalisation here does not objectively improve the encyclopedia, so IAR does not apply. "Within English grammar" doesn't make sense here; this is not a grammar question of any kind. What is causing "unnecessary grief" is two or three railfans (and now anti-MoS campaigners) pursuing a course of special pleading and the specialized-style fallacy, no matter how many times it gets rejected. Tendentious resistance, RM-by-RM, against guideline compliance is not how to address a guideline you don't like. Try an RfC proposal at WP:MOSCAPS. (But see first the result of another recent RfC pursuing the "trainspotters are special so normal style doesn't apply to us" angle.)

    PS: If IAR applied not to content but to internal, editorial conflict reduction, it would be instantly WP:GAMEable, pretty much to infinity. That scenario is obvious: "I don't like X, so if I keep objecting to X, that manufactures a 'controversy', and then I can apply IAR as a controversy-reduction meta-rule to get what I want, against WP's consensus-adopted rules." IAR doesn't and couldn't possibly work that way. It's about WP:Common sense overriding a rule the rigid application of which to something unusual, and to which it wasn't intended to apply or cannot reasonably apply, would make the content worse for the readers. Clearly not the case here. There is nothing unusual about this, and it is precisely the sort of thing to which NCCAPS and MOSCAPS were intended to apply. We've already been over this hundreds if not thousands of times. If we're not going to capitalise method acting, Julian calendar, long-tailed meadowlark, and general relativity, we're not going to capitalise "line" in cases like this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

    That's quite an opinion piece with very little substance IMO, but no short answer. Detailed reply at User talk:Andrewa/Great Western Main Line. Andrewa (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
    I think the point is that the evidence is clear. Sources don't usually cap this, so why would we? Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per both WP:NCCAPS and the given sources. I don't see how a capitalised version is any better, nor do I see why people who feel their time is being wasted are here; that decision is entirely their own. Laurdecl talk 12:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - capitalised consistently in RAIL, and to me this is a proper name, not merely a descriptive one. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    Sources mostly don't treat it as a proper name, and the alternative is not "merely descriptive". Is RAIL your favorite specialist magazine? Is there a reason it should trump more general sources? Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    Well specialist sources should always trump more general ones. For the sources you quoted, I ignore any non-rail ones, and those that remain mostly seem to use "main line" as part of a quote, which was presumably given to them in a press release or similar. NR documents also refer to "Main Lines" and capitalise "Line" pretty consistently. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    That's a fallacy. See WP:SSF. We write for general readers, not for specialists, so less-specialist sources tend to be closer to our style. Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    WP:SSF is an essay, it's not policy. Where such a thing is possible, we give something its actual title. We have Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to which Obamacare is merely a redirect, because it's not actually called Obamacare, no matter how much people may wish it were. The same thing holds here, no matter how much you, for reasons unknown to anyone but yourself, resent "L"s. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    It is a fallacy to assume that because we write for general readers we should use less-specialist sources. If that were true, I would be discarding all these specialist works and scouring the junk shops for A Boy's First Book of Trains or some similar tat. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - for consistency with East Coast Main Line, West Coast Main Line, etc. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Great Western main 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Maps vs. Schematics

As I have found in other locations these pages concerning British railways lack real maps. A local person probably knows by intuition where all the (smaller) towns are located but as a foreigner it is hard to actually translate the (vertical) schematics into a real world imagination of where those rails really run. Half the visitors to an encyclopedia are probably alien to a subject (which it their motivation to read about it) so local knowledge can not really be expected, I'm afraid. Otherwise very informative. Thanks. JB. --92.195.115.32 (talk) 05:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Quadrupling

The section History says

More widening infrastructure work took place between 1931 and 1932, and the extension to south Wales was quadrupled in 1941, the extension has termini at Swansea and seasonally at Pembroke Dock.

How can a stretch of quadruple track have a "seasonal" extension? The quadruple track is between Severn Tunnel Junction and Leckwith (just to the west of Cardiff Canton MPD). The only quad track west of there has been short stretches where relief loops were provided. The Severn Tunnel has never been quad (its bore is not even big enough for three tracks). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of track spacing

Great Western main line#History "...where tracks are ten feet apart instead of the usual six." This presumably means 14 ft 8.5 in (4.48 m) center to center of rail track instead of the the usual 10 ft 8.5 in (3.26 m) [center to center]. Peter Horn User talk 00:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A pair of UK standard gauge tracks is usually laid with about 6 feet between the closest rails (the precise distance varying for many reasons including curvature). When the original broad gauge was mixed in the 1860s, the outside rail (nearest the platform) was common to trains of both gauges while a third rail was laid just over 2 feet inside the rail closest to the other track (away from the platform). So in 1892 the broad gauge rail on this side was removed which resulted in the wider distance between tracks. Colloquially, this is called the "ten foot" (2ft + 6ft + 2ft) to distinguish it from the "six foot" space seen between tracks on purely standard gauge lines. Some sections have since been narrowed to "six foot" because of later alterations or realignments.
The "six foot" and "ten foot" are approximations - the 4ft 8.5in space between rails is often called the "four foot"! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation of title

I have moved the title page to 'Great Western Main Line (GWML)' so there is capitalisation of 'main' and 'line' as per other articles. I had to add the (GWML) part to the title as it wasn't accepting the new capitalisation without those brackets. Not too sure if this can be amended or not, but just wanted to put it out there. --SavageKieran (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And I have reverted the move, because it was undiscussed and unusual. There is no need for a disambiguator; and even if there were, we wouldn't use the acronym for the undisambiguated page name.
It's good that you have started a discussion, but that should have been done before moving the page. If you obtain consensus for a page move, but find that you can't actually carry it out, the guidance is at WP:RM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification.--SavageKieran (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Rolling stock table

I'm not sure that an article on a railway route needs a long list of rolling stock. The one that has appeared here includes things such as Castle class HSTs which only touch the route at Bristol Temple Meads, and Voyager and Heathrow Express untis which don't provide a service between stations on the route. I tried to trim it down to just cover stock which does provide services that can be described as being Great Western main line services (i.e. serving more than one station and not just parallel routes such as the Wessex Main Line). I also tried to reduced the long list of off-route stations to something more relevant. However my entire edit has been reversed by an anonymous user. Before I end up in an edit war, can some other people share their thoughts on what is appropriate for this sort of article? Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Western_Main_Line/Archive_1&oldid=1142567508"