Talk:Slough–Windsor & Eton line

Royal trains
This article lacks any mention of the Royal Station or the use by Royal trains of the branch generally.Hymers2 (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, it is an omission. This article was one of the first ones I expected to tackle at WP. I now have 'the' reference book too. But there are so many articles requiring attention! Fortunately 'WP has no deadline'.
 * One day... EdJogg (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Diagram
This diagram is a work in progress put here for others to contribute and comment. The layout at the junction with the main line needs research; although the current diagram shows the MPD access off the junction I have looked on Google Earth and OS and the junction is a small triangle with no room for access to a shed, particularly another triangular junction. The correct icon (Main and south-east open, south-west closed) is not available yet. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Thoughts?Britmax (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the line diagram should indicate the existance of the goods yard but need not show detail: the station diagram seems the proper place for that. Cramming all into one place leads to a wide diagram which is difficult to maintain. It's a difficult line to show if the curve at the southern end is to be depicted. I suspect this is what has led you to go against the layout of nearly all other line diagrams in placing text on the left. Btw, the junction at the north end is incorrect - you'll need a new icon made up (as I also do for the elevated station in Windsor) - and the label for the Royal curve is ambiguous. Bazza (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Slough End : The mainline junction is correct in the article as it stands. Slough Shed was sited within the triangle junction (since housed-over) and immediately to the east in the area bordered by the branch line (W), the main line (N), Stoke Road (bridge) (E) and what is now TVU University (S). The use of a 'triangle junction' icon to access the shed was the nearest match to what was actually there. It was a fairly small shed, and the icon represents the wealth of pointwork that would have been present. While the Queen's Curve is unfortunately shown with a kink in, rather than as one side of the triangle, I thought that the existing layout showed the features and allowed appropiate labelling in the best way possible within the constraints of the routemap icons. The shed and the curve are both features that are significant enough to have their own sections, once I get around to expanding this article properly. (Too busy with steam engine articles at present!) I would strongly oppose a change to the form suggested in the diagram here.


 * Windsor End : The revised arrangement on the adjacent map is correct as it highlights the sharp curve into the station (not apparent on the current article routemap, although included on my earlier version which did not include the goods yard detail). However, I am not certain about the link to the Gas Works. My understanding is that there was a wagon turntable used to access a siding that ran through the arches to the gas works on the other side of the station approach. Unfortunately, THE reference work on the branch line does not mention the gas works siding, so I have not been able to double-check the detail.


 * General : I am not convinced about having the captions on both sides of the line. With the curve into the station there ought to be ample room on the right hand side for all the text. An alternative suggestion I made to someone was that the station should have its own little diagram showing the detail of the goods yard, etc, and that the main diagram only showed a simple 90deg curve into a terminus station, omitting all the goods yard detail.


 * EdJogg (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised Split Diagrams
I've worked up these adaptations in line with EdJogg's thoughts. The branch diagram awaits further work on Slough shed. Britmax (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On the line diagram, I'm not keen on using multiple rows for long lines of text. It's not clear what the text refers to in some cases. And the station diagram contains an unelevated straight south of the bridge which is not there in reality. Also, the station map displays with split lines in my browser (meaning that there are vertical gaps between the images). I drafted both diagrams a while ago at User:Bazza 7 but got distracted elsewhere. You are welcome to steal any or all.  Bazza (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Bazza7 re multi-line comments and splitting effect.


 * The revised working of the locoshed is...hmmm. Well, quite apart from being plain 'wrong' (I'm sure that access was not restricted as shown) the diagram currently looks rather like a very skinny weightlifter! And the notes could apply to anything.


 * If there is a real problem with including the locoshed, I guess we'll just have to leave it and the Queen's Curve notes off the diagram, though I'm not really convinced that there's anything wrong with the diagram in the article at the moment. Maybe if the diagram had a scale to show that the whole line was only 2 miles long, and that the triangle junction was no larger than 100yards across...? Of course, having some photos of the shed would help. Anyone got anything usable?


 * EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Map and Station name
The map in the article seems very disjointed (even the excessive talk about what the map should show seems more connected), perhaps it's my browser, but that cannot be blamed for the absence of "Central" from the station name.--SilasW (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is your browser. It is a mess, isn't it? I have THE book about the branch line and I don't remember reading about any sidings, especially with triangular junctions as shown! Hence the new additions are effectively unreferenced. Also, the loco shed is connected wrongly (as discussed above) and the details about the Queen's Curve have been separated.


 * As we have a separate diagram for the station on the talk page (why didn't I spot it before?), I think it makes more sense to use this with the previous version of the map (ie as two maps). What do you think?


 * EdJogg (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Unless there's a cogent reason (eg "Lines around Clapham Junction" with its almost un-BS-able complexity) shouldn't most stations be in a line template, even if that entails leaving off Buggs & Co's coal siding?
 * 2) The difference and misspelling mentioned below show, as already pointed out for Dendy Marshall's not giving the first name for Waterloo (Waterloo Bridge), that some of these railway books are not rigorously evidence based
 * 3) Any reference to my browser was meant to be a gentle way of saying "The map is thoroughly fouled up".
 * 4) Although there are icons for embankments, they seem not to be generally used, possibly as they would be visually too complicating. Maybe exception earth-works and viaducts are worth showing, but for most lines is their use not just a way of showing off the drawer's artwork?--SilasW (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) My idea was/is to show the arrangement of the goods yard, etc, as a separate diagram to accompany the text description of same (and the awkwardness of its working) -- I no longer consider it sensible to include on the route map for the branch line. (In which case, as I've realised, the station layout map should actually be moved to the station article! -- THAT should solve the problem once-and-for-all.)
 * 2) I think "my book" (can't remember the title -- sorry) is well-referenced -- it would need to be, I would hope, to create a 200?-page book on a two-mile branch line! But I do note your point about factual inaccuracy in texts. I have been researching the early history of steam road vehicles -- traction engines in particular -- and there are sometimes surprising differences between the books consulted.
 * 3) That was very politely described, I might have used an alternative word! Same editor has now 'resolved' the display problems, although I wish he would learn to use the Preview button!
 * 4) The level of detail shown on routemaps is really dependent on the length of the line and the potential descriptive text. As this is a short line we can get away with showing more detail than the ECML, for example. The brick viaduct extends for a considerable distance, and the station is also 'elevated', so these are both notable features -- we can show them on the map, so why not (provided it doesn't get too cluttered...)?


 * I don't have time to tackle this now, but I think a little simplification is in order. I propose to reduce the terminus station to a single blob (but after a curve to replicate the geographical arrangement -- again, because we can) with the detail moved to the station article. The two sidings bother me, especially the one in 'Eaton', since the line is on an embankment there -- where would it be sited??. As for the Chalvey siding, there was one to access the power station (later the site of the rubbish transfer station, I think), but I don't know its relationship to the halt. There is a photo in existence of a boiler (?) being transferred on/off a well wagon on this siding, but I don't have a copy myself.
 * Oh for the references to hand! (My book is hidden while I'm redecorating the bedroom.)
 * EdJogg (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Chalvey and Eaton (sic) sidings?
A recent version of the diagram showed sidings (with triangular junctions!) at Chalvey (1940-44) and Eaton (sic!)"Eaton common/playing field MOD siding (planned only)".

I was not aware of such sidings (planned or otherwise) -- can anyone provide refs to confirm these?

EdJogg (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The following, not-obviously-helpful, references were added today (and removed here by me!):
 * http://www.mulehouse.demon.co.uk/stations/refs/c2.htm -- "comprehensive" list of photographs of railway stations-- this page lists Carnforth - Chelsfield -- indicating that no photos of Chalvey Halt have been published yet
 * http://www.mulehouse.demon.co.uk/stations/missing.htm -- page listing the stations that don't have any photos listed!
 * http://206.251.73.138/5087743/es/Pante%C3%B3n-Pueblo-Sta-Cruz -- no idea WHAT this one is doing here!
 * I have moved them here in case they are found useful to someone else in the future.
 * EdJogg (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I solved it. there gon.--Celestine Mandy Duckworth (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Line and termini
I looked at the maps on this page a while ago and came to the same conclusion as some above that they needed reworking. Having started, of course, I never finished properly. Nevertheless, I propose that the line map on this page is simplified, and station details are put on their respective pages. That includes the various defunct sidings along the line. I will (if I remember) take the maps at User:Bazza 7/Windsor & Eton Central station and User:Bazza 7/Windsor & Eton Central station and put them on their respective pages unless either there's a disagreement, or someone else gets there first! Bazza (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Icon "fixes"
WP has that Talk pages are records of what editors said and not subject to change by others. AlisonW made that point especially about so-called "obsolete" icons. Would those running such blind changes of icons please desist and please revert their "improvements"?--SilasW (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't change anything as regards content, I only changed the name of the icon. The problem on commons is: Some admins hold that if an icon is "in scope" it can't be deleted (even it's obsolete and already substituted by an other icon). That's why I change any occurance worldwide. a x p de  Hello!  17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Redhill to Tonbridge Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Waterloo to Reading Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)