Talk:Blenheim and Woodstock branch line

Map
The branch joins the main line facing Banbury. It should face Oxford. Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nobody objected, so have amended Template:Blenheim and Woodstock Branch Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An Alternative Source
The Woodstock Branch by Richard Lingered, Oxford Publishing Co, Oxford 1973 gives a very detailed history of the line including many photographs in its 60 pages. This makes it clear that many services ran though to Oxford though in the end, to encourage closure?, they only ran to Kidlington. More significantly, some of the dates given in this source differ from those given in the references from Searle. I'll add these with a full reference but leave the original, assuming this is appropriate? Cantab72 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found in
 * that the final timetable had eight trains per weekday in each direction on the branch, of which two trains ran through from Oxford, the other six starting at Kidlington, and one ran through to Oxford, the other seven terminating at Kidlington ; that "both branches" (the other being the Abingdon branch) "had some through running to and from Oxford, the number being small each day and varied over the years" ; and that Blenheim & Woodstock trains used a bay platform at Kidlington . -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Lingered (for ref see main article), the line was not privately built but built and owned by the Woodstock Railway Company, which the Duke contributed to, until they sold out to the GWR. This needs correcting in the article and in that for the Blenheim and Woodstock railway station. Cantab72 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * MacDermot says nothing about private ownership; the name he uses is Woodstock Railway; he also says the GWR purchased the Woodstock Railway for £15,000 in 1897. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The chair of the Woodstock Railway Company was the Duke of Marlborough (the 8th Duke in 1890) (online History of Woodstock) but how much of his own money went in is unclear as they were rather short of money until the 9th Duke married an American railway heiress. I'll update the Duke count but leave the rest until I have some other sources. Cantab72 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For most railways prior to nationalisation, the cost of construction was usually met by taking out 25% in bank loans, with 75% raised by share issue. Major shareholders might be elected directors; and a particularly influential director might become chairman. A lot of shares were taken up by rich landowners, who in the 19th century were often peers of the realm, so having a duke as chairman wouldn't be unusual. Some landowners who bought shares were generous in donating some of the required land from their own estates; if a railway ran entirely within the estate of a single landowner, then that railway may well have been built as a private venture; the Duke of Sutherland's Railway is an excellent example. I suspect that the Woodstock Railway wasn't built entirely across Marlborough land, if there was a public share issue then it wouldn't qualify as privately built. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For most railways prior to nationalisation, the cost of construction was usually met by taking out 25% in bank loans, with 75% raised by share issue. Major shareholders might be elected directors; and a particularly influential director might become chairman. A lot of shares were taken up by rich landowners, who in the 19th century were often peers of the realm, so having a duke as chairman wouldn't be unusual. Some landowners who bought shares were generous in donating some of the required land from their own estates; if a railway ran entirely within the estate of a single landowner, then that railway may well have been built as a private venture; the Duke of Sutherland's Railway is an excellent example. I suspect that the Woodstock Railway wasn't built entirely across Marlborough land, if there was a public share issue then it wouldn't qualify as privately built. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thornbury Branch Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Diagram
The diagram is upside-down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.240.31 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not, it's got the start at the top and the end at the bottom. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)