Talk:Southern Railway (UK)

Discussion on format and push for GA status
Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on this article and articles on the other "Big Four" pre-nationalisation companies here. Contributions to the discussion are welcomed. ColourSarge (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The Discussion has been archived here.-- EdJogg (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Electric traction
I know the article is still in development, but the "Traction and Rolling Stock" section makes NO mention of any electric stock (neither EMUs nor locos). I would have said this is a serious omission! EdJogg (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and the reason it has been omitted is the fact that I have had very little spare time of late to continue the overhaul of this article. It will get done, but this is a long term project that deserves to be done well, and to have time taken over it.  So bear with the editiors (I hope more will contribute!)  --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ships
The article makes no mention of the fleet of ships owned and operated by the Southern Railway. Another serious omission that should be addressed. I'll post a note at WT:SHIPS and ask for help there. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've made a start but not wikilinked most of the ships as there'll be a sea of red. Individual ships can be wikilinked when articles are created. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Air services
This needs expansion too! Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Profits
Did it make any? What was its financial performance like (return on capital, dividends, share price performance) relative to the stock market in general and the other Big Four companies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.160.165.186 (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Text-tightening exercise
Am I alone in thinking that today's text-tightening exercise has been taken to extremes? The article is now so stiff as to be unreadable and in places is plain wrong, while material facts have been discarded in the editing. David Robins (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you're not alone. I've scanned through the changes and would agree that a percentage of the changes went beyond what was strictly necessary, and there are inaccuracies now (eg most of the job titles are now lower-case, and there is an aversion for using the term CME!) On the other hand, if you compare the bulk of the changes with the various WP guidelines for writing a Good Article you will find that they are quite valid. In most cases what has been removed are the padding words that convert a strictly factual (and potentially 'dry') encyclopaedia article into more rounded prose. Unfortunately, some of this apparent padding was actually providing clarification; the loss of which is only readily apparent when diff'ing the article versions.


 * For simplicity it would be useful if these changes were checked/amended as necessary before any other modifications were attempted. Unfortunately I think it will take longer than the time I can afford to give at present.


 * As an aside: it is acceptable for rail enthusiasts to describe it as "the Southern", but should this terminology be used in a WP article? The company name was (presumably) "Southern Railway" and this is surely the correct wording. (Thoughts? The same would apply to "the Great Western" and "the London and North-Eastern", although the LMS itself tended to drop 'Railway'.)


 * EdJogg (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll work my way through it as I've noticed that the severe trimming reduces the impact of the article somewhat. Some of the points raised by this text-tightening exercise are useful, though. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Separate coaching stock page?
This is more by way of a 'FYI' than a query.

Pages already exist for Coaches of the London and North Eastern Railway and Coaches of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and Withdrawn British Rail Stock anticipates similar pages for the SR and GWR. When a page is started for SR coaching stock, this would be a good page title to start with... (even if it is later decided to rename them as Southern Railway coaching stock or similar).

EdJogg (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be a good idea, but I think the section in question is brief enough and won't grow much more if I have anything to do with it. If and when the new page is created, someone else will have to write a more detailed history of Southern coaching stock. It also begs the question of who will write the histories of pre-Grouping stock, as well, as whoever does this will have won half the battle regarding Southern coaching stock... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

General Managers
This section stated
 * Three significant events occurred under Walker's tenure as General Manager: the rebuilding of Waterloo station, completed in 1922; electrification in mid-1920s; and the appointment of Bulleid as CME in 1937.

I've changed it to
 * Two significant events occurred under Walker's tenure as General Manager: electrification in mid-1920s; and the appointment of Bulleid as CME in 1937.

The first event happened before the formation of the Southern Railway, and therfore would be more appropriate to the LSWR article. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeline in Infobox? Nationalisation.
I think maybe the link to Nationalisation should be changed to link to British Rail as that would be a more appropriate article than Nationalisation as the BR article explains about the nationalisation so a full readthrough of the article isn't really nessecary IMO. CrossHouses (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

History
A couple of things, the Southern was formed from the LSWR, LBSCR, SER and LCDR. Both of the latter were in existence until 31 December 1922 as separate entities. The SECR was a working arrangement between the two companies. Also, the Canterbury and Whitstable railway predated the London & Southampton by almost 10 years, yet the latter gets a mention in the lede. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The London and Greenwich Railway also predates the London and Southampton, and the London and Croydon was also opened in 1838. As it stands, the article is a little "South-Western-centric".--Das48 (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How many locomotives did the Southern Railway have?
At present the article says 2390 but no source is given and it is not clear whether this is just steam locos and whether or not it includes Departmentals. In any event, I think the figure must be wrong. Dendy Marshall says they inherited 2,281 locomotives, but a quick run through 'Locomotives at Grouping 1' by H.C. Casserley gave me a total of 2,247 inherited. Add to this the the 387 locomotives built by the railway and 14 USATC shunters bought after the war and various odds and ends acquired over the years then the total must be in the region of 2670. Does anyone know of any better figures?--Das48 (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a saying "you can't trust Dendy Marshall", which is actually given in the Preface to Kidner's revision of that work, p. 7. However, you also can't, in my experience, trust Casserley & Johnston's "Locomotives at the Grouping" series. All four volumes have provable errors and omissions. Ignoring both these, we can check the books by D.L. Bradley and published by the RCTS:
 * - on 31 Dec 1922 the LSWR had 912, of which 747 were in capital stock, and 165 were in duplicate stock. Total excludes 1 in departmental stock, also N15 nos. 753-5 which were under construction.
 * - on 31 Dec 1922 the LBSCR had 535 in General List, 84 in Duplicate List, 1 in Service List, total 620
 * Bradley doesn't give 31/12/1922 totals for the SER and LCDR but my own checks through his books
 * (which is WP:OR) gives 310 SER, 119 LCDR, 302 SECR, total (the LCDR figure includes the G class which were SECR purchases). In addition are the smaller railways, again lacking 31/12/1922 totals:
 * - PDSWJR 3, L&BR 4.
 * - IoWR 7, IWCR 9, FYNR 2.
 * I make that running stock,  service (departmental) stock) at grouping. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - PDSWJR 3, L&BR 4.
 * - IoWR 7, IWCR 9, FYNR 2.
 * I make that running stock,  service (departmental) stock) at grouping. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these. It looks as if Dendy Marshall is reasonably near to the total, and in any event it is not easy to get exact figures. Rather than use your OR I have added 'in the region of' to the figure in an amended opening paragraph of the Motive Power Section, but please feel free to amend.--Das48 (talk) 09:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the absence of consistent reliable data, "in the region of" is probably best. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have checked through Casserley and Johnston: they don't give a "No. in service (1/1/23):" for every class, so adding these up has potential for error. For some of those that do have this figure, there is a discrepancy between that and the number of locos listed: for example, LBSCR classes D1 & D1x, p. 19, lists 112 locos, but shows "No. in service (1/1/23): 108" (the correct figure according to Bradley is 112). Further, some locos are listed twice: for example, four of the Brighton Terriers (SR nos. W9-W12) are listed on p. 10 under classes A1 and A1x, and also on p. 54 under the Isle of Wight Central Rly.
 * The correct figure lies somewhere between 2280 and 2300. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Numbering
A recent edit has sorted out the paragraph on locomotive numbering. These amendments are mostly correct, but one is not: "New locomotives were prefixed by the letter of the works where they were built", which is referenced to Haresnape, p. 124. This is untrue; if we analyse locomotives built down to the end of May 1931 (A900 was built May, followed by 1901 in June), we find the following: What Haresnape actually states is "For new construction, Maunsell used the prefix to denote the parent office for the design". To reinforce this, in we find that the Z class were given A-prefix numbers (not the B-prefix that their builder might suggest) because they were designed at Ashford. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * U A610-9 built at Brighton
 * U A620-639 built at Ashford ✅
 * L1 A753-9, A782-9 built by North British
 * K A791-9 built by Armstrong Whitworth
 * K A800-9 built at Brighton
 * N A823-5 built at Ashford ✅
 * N A826-875 commenced by Woolwich Arsenal, completed at Ashford
 * N1 A876-880 built at Ashford ✅
 * K1 A890 built at Ashford ✅
 * U1 A891-900 built at Eastleigh
 * Z A950-7 built at Brighton
 * L&B E188 built by Manning Wardle
 * H15 E321-4, E330-4 built at Eastleigh ✅
 * N15 (Maunsell) E448-457 built at Eastleigh ✅
 * H15 E473-8 built at Eastleigh ✅
 * N15 (Urie) E753-5 built at Eastleigh ✅
 * N15 (Maunsell) E763-792 built by North British
 * N15 (Maunsell) E793-806 built at Eastleigh ✅
 * S15 (Maunsell) E823-837 built at Eastleigh ✅
 * Lord Nelson E850-865 built at Eastleigh ✅
 * V E900-9 built at Eastleigh ✅

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Engine 30917 "Ardingly".jpg


 * Regardless of the outcome I've replaced the image with the image of a person rather than a steam locomotive. But of source feel free to improve.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How profitable was the SR?
The railway was a for-profit business. And yet there's nothing in the article about the finances of the railway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.208.54 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)