Talk:London, Tilbury and Southend line

Some questions
Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * When was it transferred to the Eastern Region?

Split
As we did recently with Thameslink, I think that this article should be split into an article about the LTS line and one about the LTS railway. Thryduulf 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is already an article about c2c. That is plenty. MRSC 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * c2c is only the current post-privatisation TOC, which is different to the railway company that constructed the line, which is different to the line that has been operated by the LTSR, the LMS, British Rail and c2c. Again comparing Thameslink, we have an article about the line, the company the constructed and ran the line, the first post-privatisation TOC and the most recent TOC -

Thryduulf 12:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats all well and good but how many articles do we really need about this short line? The third article would be redundant. There just isn't that much new information to put in it. Much better to have 2 strong articles than 3 diluted or repeated ones. Don't split articles for the sake of it. MRSC 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is good to that this article shows the history of the line and its prsent. Why does it need to be split? (rhetorical) Simply south 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just arrived at this article, and agree with Thrydulf's comments here. The Railway ceased to exist from 1912 as a separate entity from 1912 when absorbed by the Midland. It might well have been referred to as the LTS section", but that is an entirely different thing. It certainly was not one of the railways becoming part of the Big Four in 1923. Talk of there being the c2c line is not the equivalent - as Thrydulf says, that is only a train operating company and not the line itself. Thameslink is an entirely modern construct, of course. IMO, this article should have a separate section for the period between 1854 and 1912 - the only time the line has actually been called the LTSR. Oh, and the line at its heyday wasn't particularly short: it owned or partly-owned over 87 miles of track; much longer than many whose Wiki articles are quite self-contained. This one tries to include much that isn't strictly part of its history Peter Shearan (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Article split March 2019--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Branches
Would Barking to Grays and Upminster to Pitsea via Grays count as seperate lines? Simply south 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO normally yes, but LTS is a relatively contained system so no need to become over complex. Pickle 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Map : Do we need to show LUL/DLR lines
This is an old debate, but I guess we need to go through it all over again. Do we need to show other lines?? We have a symbol "SBHF" to indicate an interchange with another line, so is drawing out the eastern end of the district line really necessary. On other maps, parallel routes like this have been removed, and woebetide anyone that dares to add it back. I can think of reasons why it ought to be retained (it was a part of the LTS in a former life), but lets have a debate as would like to improve the layout and move it onto the BS5 format in order to better show the Tilbury Loop. Canterberry 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For this article yes they should be kept as the District and DLR lines where originally part of the LTS line, and this article covers the history relatively well. Else where they have been included alongside somewhat irrelevantly. Pickle 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The DLR could possibly go, but the District Line is highly relevant given the history and current operations (as explained in the text). MRSC • Talk 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Map
I thought it was rather big fr the article, so i have moved it to its own separate place at Template:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway.

Separately, should the Romford to Upminster Line be added, and if so, how will the ex-link from the main line to the branch line be shown? Simply south 19:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Romford-Upminster Line should NOT be added. The reason is that there is no physical connection at Upminster between the tracks. The line from Romford runs into a bay platform and the track is then severed. At best a link to the article could be included, but I would strongly advise against adding the track. Canterberry 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It did once (See Romford to Upminster Line), BS5 might allow you to show it but it would require you to kink out the line at Upminsiter or something. Pickle 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am struggling with this one. On the one hand I do accept that showing the Romford to Upminster Line would be the right thing to do. On the other, it would upset the linearity of the map. I am loath to "kink" the line, as I think that keeping the core route of any map straight seems to have been accepted by most as the "right thing to do" ... and I am a supporter. I shall play around with it a bit and post some possible ways of adding the Romford line on this talk page ... we can then debate this further.  Canterberry 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the ex-link in i think is the right place. I've also sorted the bend further up. Simply south 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound unimportant, but shouldn't the London terminus be at the top of the route diagram? Kevin Steinhardt 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't really a set way on any map which terminus goes where. For example, look at East Coast Main Line's and South Western Main Line's maps\diagrams. Simply south 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think maps should align with the points on a compass if possible.Canterberry 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * However, if that were so for this article, we would create one very long page horizontally, not vertically as the line(s) run generally from west to east. Simply south 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats logical, but obviously silly. The idea of London being at the top of the page has some merit, but for a station like Euston, would not make any sense.  For the LT&S, I think the orientation is fine, as if the diagram is rotated 90 degrees clockwise, then it would be geographically correct. I suppose that if Fenchurch St were at the top, then you would need to rotate the diagram 90 degrees anti-clockwise.  I suppose you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. If someone has the time to re-draw it, then I would be a pedant and revert it, but equally, I see it as a futile exercise, when I think the diagram is pretty good as it stands (I helped!!).Canterberry 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Simplified Map
The diagram has got very complicated and cluttered, and it is tricky to tell where the stations are at first sight. Would it be better to show a small simplified version with a link to the current detailed one, like what has been done for the Great Central Main Line? There is a simplified diagram already existing at Template:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (Simple). Anywikiuser (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the map denotes the branch to Barking Riverside as "proposed" whereas it is currently under construction with service due to start in 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.93.63 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is simply wrong
I commented above about the incorrect slant this article illustrates, agreeing with Thryduulf in his comments. The article is not about the LTSR, apart from the six lines under the heading "Construction". The very next sentence says "In 1912 the railway was bought by the Midland Railway ..." and that is where it should end. After that date it ceased to exist as the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, and simply became the London, Tilbury and Southend Section of the Midland Railway (MR). The title of the article is therefore incorrect. Talk of c2c clouds the issue - a point already made.

Even if we are to take the Midland Railway itself, its own article ends at the Grouping in 1923, quite rightly. The Midland Main Line, present day nomenclature, has its own article, quite rightly, although it is interesting to note that it ignores any talk of the bit in between - the LMSR! The LTSR section should be continued in the MR article (which it does, very briefly), using some of the information here; the LMSR (no mention at all, and especially of its suburban services such as this one), and so on.

We really cannot talk of the LTS Railway in this way. We should be talking about the construction of the line, piece by piece; its stations; its steamers (six in 1911); its rolling stock (mentioned towards the end of the article but only as a preserved loco) - it held 82 locos in 1911, and well over 500 coaching stock. It ran a very busy suburban service. My reference (The Railway Year Book 1912) contains quite enough to do that.

I should like to see this article renamed to perhaps LTS line; and a separate article for LTSR as a railway history only article. Certainly we should not try to pretend that there is still an LTSR, 96 years after its demise! Peter Shearan (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with these remarks. I came to these talk pages to ask why the wonderful, and sadly missed, Tilbury Riverside gets not a mention, with its history of connections to the P&O and C&P boats across the Atlantic and to South Africa.  I agree that this is overly dominated by the modern railway with only the most hesitant of references to the history of the line. --Brunnian (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the problem is that "London, Tilbury and Southend Railway" was the name of a company, but was and is still the name of a railway line? Surely this can be handled as disambiguation? In a railway context it can be called the "London, Tilbury and Southend" but "Railway" needs adding to make it clear out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.93.63 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Article split March 2019--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hansard 1912
Some of this might go in the history or need a little more digging. MRSC (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * During discussion of MIDLAND RAILWAY (LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY PURCHASE) BILL:
 * LTSR had provided popular cheap season tickets to encourage people to move to Southend and was taken up by ~5,000 workers
 * Takeover by MR caused concern about rising fares (no change there!) and caused creation of a season ticket holder association [this appears to be the only objection to the amalgamation]
 * MR planned to apply for powers by 1914 to electrify the whole line to Southend (possibly delayed by war)

Merger proposal
I found Essex Thameside franchise while stub sorting. It's barely even it's own article. Any opinions in merging it with this article?--I dream of horses (T) @ 10:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. 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/20060926132828/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3105_Route%206%20NLL.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3105_Route%206%20NLL.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested split Feburary 13 2020
The article should be split into two pages, one concerning the railway company located at London, Tilbury and Southend Railway and the other concerning the rail route located at London, Tilbury and Southend line. We do that right now for all the pre-grouping rail companies of the UK, except this one. 053pvr (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's very little on this page about the pre-grouping company. Any split article would have to be reinforced with new content. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have started working on a more extensive hsitory of the LTS on my sandbox page if anyone wants to help/comment. Probably be two months before its ready. I suggest we then convert the name of this page to either


 * London, Tilbury and Southend Line(s)
 * London, Tilbury and Southend rail routes
 * London, Tilbury and Southend rail network
 * London to Southend via Barking and branches

or as I am sure some one will suggest 4 separate line sections namely:


 * Fenchurch Street - Southend
 * Barking to Pitsea (Tilbury Loop)
 * Romford - Upminster
 * Upminster - Grays

Thoughts?

--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no justification for four separate articles. Can this not be "London, Tilbury and Southend Line(s)"? Lamberhurst (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me _ I will add it to the list above as well.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why the (s)? surely London, Tilbury and Southend lines would cover it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Rolling stock
Regarding this paragraph:
 * The first main line diesel to operate over the LTS line was the unique British Rail 10800 which was allocated to Plaistow engine shed. Devons Road (Bow) engine shed based Class 20 locomotives were seen on freights from 1957 and later in the year LTS drivers were being trained on Class 31 locomotives and a little later the failure prone Class 22.

I don't have that book; but I doubt that Devons Road/Plaistow/Ripple Lane drivers would have been trained for Class 22, which were Western Region diesel-hydraulics. Also, there were no Class 31 at that time: the locos which were later to become Class 31 had not yet been fitted with English Electric engines - they still had Mirrlees engines, so were still to Class 30 spec. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)