Talk:Robin Hood Line

NB; When Mansfield Station written: Restored original Midland Railway serving the Mansfield and Pinxton Railway

Map
Needs a map to explain the complicated history Peter Shearan 14:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There is a map on page 158 of Leleux, R. A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Vol IX: The East Midlands (2nd Ed. 1984), which shows the historical lines between Sutton in Ashfield in the north and Annesley in the south, plus the two short connections built by BR in 1972 in order to divert the sole remaining route (Mansfield to Pye Bridge) away from the centre of Kirkby. It would be nice to see an update to this map to reflect the changes made to implement phase 2 of the current Robin Hood Line. 188.29.165.70 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've found another map that's even clearer as it has dates when the various lines opened. It's on page 206 of Anderson, P. Howard Forgotten Railways, Vol II: The East Midlands (2nd ed. 1985). Pages 164 and 167 also answer my question (below) about Kirkby South Junction. It was indeed the point where in 1897 the GNR connected its line from Shirebrook to what was at the time the MS&L's southward extension from Beighton to Annesley (built in 1892, and which was to become the GCR's main line) in order to share the latter's tunnel (called Annesley tunnel in the book) in order to complete it's Leen Valley extension without the expense of digging its own tunnel! In 1916 the Mansfield Railway created its own junction with what was by then the GCR's main line, immediately to the northwest of the GNR's junction. 188.29.165.70 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the tunnels under Robin Hood's Hill, the MR came first to the Leen Valley and built a short tunnel. Next was the GNR with it's Leen Valley extension - a branch line northward from Colwick terminating at Annesley. Then the MS&L approached from the north, built the deeper, longer tunnel and formed a head on connection with the GNR rails at Annesley, providing it with a route to the south. Next, the GNR extended it's Leen Valley line northwards from a junction, named Kirkby South Junction, just north of the MS&L tunnel. Before the GNR reached Shirebrook the MS&L decided it needed its own main line to London and, changing its name to GCR, started building southwards from the junction at Annesley. Finally, the Mansfield Railway built a line connecting the LD&ECR at Ollerton to the GCR main line at Kirkby South Junction. Though it was never actually part of the GCR, the Mansfield Railway was intimately linked with it, and was finally absorbed into the LNER on Grouping. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Route between Kirkby and Newstead
The following paragraph in the History section troubles me:

"When plans for the Robin Hood Line were drawn up, it was decided to stay with the GNR route through Kirkby-in-Ashfield (to avoid having to buy back land), then swing southeast via Kirkby South Junction onto the former Great Central Railway main line from Manchester to London. After briefly following the GCR, the line would then climb to re-join the Midland route to Nottingham to allow reconnection at Newstead."

First of all, "it was decided" can't be true as the proposal was ultimately rejected! Secondly, some explanation of what is meant by "Kirkby South Junction" would help significantly. I've Googled the term and it appears that it used to be the point where the former-GNR Leen Valley route diverged from the former-GCR main line near the northwestern portal of the common tunnel they used to pierce the Robin Hood's hills. However, by the 1990s this junction was long gone and is therefore meaningless in this article. Thirdly, why would anyone "decide" to use the deeper, longer, more difficult tunnel than the much shorter, shallower MR tunnel, which actually provides (to the southeast, at least) the required alignment to reconnect with the MR route north of Newstead? I realise that by keeping to the GNR route through Kirkby there would be a difference in elevation between the two ends of the new construction, but without any citation to read or evidence to the contrary the MR tunnel would seem like the obvious first choice to me. However, the original MR alignment north of this tunnel was too far to the east to connect with the existing (ex-GNR) route through Kirkby. The connection, as built, does seem to follow the route of the old GCR main line for a short distance, though at a higher elevation, the deep cutting having been filled in. Can anyone shed any light and reword the paragraph to make it make more sense? For starters I suggest replacing the word "decided" with "proposed" but I'm not happy change the sentence without being able to provide a citation for the whole thing. 188.29.165.70 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to add that the following sentence troubles me too:


 * "The current Robin Hood Line never previously existed as it does now: it was formed from two formerly separate railways."


 * It's an oversimplification. On the one hand, a route between Nottingham and Worksop that substantially followed the same route as the current Robin Hood Line did exist. I'm talking about the MR route, of course. On the other hand, the current Robin Hood Line isn't actually formed from two formerly separate railways. That kind of suggests that the stubs of two entirely separate former routes were joined together to make a new through route and that just isn't the case. It would be more accurate to say that a former through route was severed and a small section diverted and that the through route has since been reinstated (though the diversion hasn't been reversed) by means of a short length of new railway that partly follows the route of another disused line. Which "two formerly separate railways" does the original editor mean? The Robin Hood Line is mostly ex-MR. The diversion through Kirkby is ex-GNR, with additional track put in place by BR in 1972 where it didn't exist before. Finally, the link between Kirkby and Newstead was added by Railtrack in the early 1990s to replace track missing from the MR route north of Newstead as far as Grives Lane, from which point it keeps to the south and west of the old MR alignment towards Kirkby, following the course of the old GCR (though at a higher elevation) for a short distance before decending to meet the route between Pye Bridge and Kirkby at a new junction. What I don't know is the name of the new junction or whether the new Railtrack alignment meets the ex-GNR alignment or the 1972 BR alignment south of Kirby. The old ex-MR alignment through Kirkby was, as I've indicated, further to the east. That's how I see the situation, pieced together from the Today's Railways article I've cited, the book by Robin Leleux, an old OS map of the area and the current Google map of the area. Can anyone fill in the gaps? 188.29.165.70 (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comparing Anderson's map (see above) with a present day Google map of the area, it looks as though the new Railtrack section of the Robin Hood Line follows very closely the route that the GNR took between Kirkby and Kirkby South Junction, though on a rising gradient. Southeast of the location of Kirkby South Junction and considerably higher, it then follows the route of the filled in GCR main line cutting, before swinging slightly south close to but significantly above the old GCR tunnel portal in order to pick up the alignment of the old MR route before entering the MR tunnel at the higher elevation. The trouble is this is WP:OR. 188.29.165.70 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the first five paragraphs of the History section and it's all backed up by a reference to the Today's Railways article. I've left the Refimprove tag though, as a second source for some of the assertions would be useful and the remaining paragraphs still need some work. 188.29.165.70 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed extension to Warsop, Edwinstowe and Ollerton
The 2009 proposal has not been forgotten. It was in the news as recently as December 2014. See references and 188.29.165.70 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of photographs
Are the two b&w photographs really relevant? They are nice and, as a fan of bridges, I especially like the one showing Bulwell viaduct, but they are dated 1963, which pre-dates the subject of this article by some 30 years and therefore I feel they are somewhat gratuitous. Comments? 188.29.165.70 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In more than seven months nobody spoke against, so I removed the gratuitous photos. One or two replacements that show the Robin Hood Line in operation are welcome. 188.29.164.157 (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)