Talk:Wye Valley Railway

WVRMad
I am interested in this article and have added several things to it as 91.125.61.106, I know I made several mistakes while editing the article and have cleared most of it up. If you see mistakes left by me just correct them.

I will try to get a map of the line as soon as possible.

Wye Valley Railway Mad (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Map: ✅


 * WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook  10:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Map

 * Map: Wye Valley Railway. Can be default collapsed using . -mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Mattbuck, we now have a map, hooray!


 * Wye Valley Railway Mad (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I should point out that "Brokweir/Brookweir/Brockweir" needs a name check, and that Tintern Abbey should possibly be exARCH rather than ARCH due to its being a ruin and all. Still, call me if you need anything. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, do you want the Welsh/English border added? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think Mattbuck? It would be useful to have the border in, but I don't think it's worth re-doing the whole map for.


 * Also, I have spotted a problem with the map. Wyesham Junction is in the wrong place, see Coleford Branch map.


 * Wye Valley Railway Mad (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding the border would involve changing some bridge icons to bridge icons with borders, no big deal. See right for an example. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits as of August 09
made some major alterations to the map, including "omitting the Wye for clarity", and various modifications to make the line straight. Impersonally don't think this is a good thing - the map doesn't seem clearer to me, if anything it's less clear due to the lack of the Wye. As for the straightening, this also goes against the grain for me - I figure that the straight ahead should be the major line, and clearly the Gloucester to Newport Line is the major line, from which the WVR branches off. Since it seems unlikely we will reconcile our differences, I'd like opinions. So... which is better? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With Wye, unstraightened
 * Without Wye, straightened


 * Personally I prefer the original (with Wye) version, but if there is consensus somewhere here to go with a standard format and use the second version, I won't be that concerned about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's benefits to both. Showing which side of the line the river is (or if you prefer, which side of the river the line is) is a good idea, although it does widen the diagram rather.  However, I don't see anywhere in the article's text a description of which side of the line the river lies.  Given this is much easier to portray in image form, I suggest the old layout has significant merit.  The point on the main/branch nature of the junctions is fairly moot, I would suggest.  If I had to give an opinion I would say the Wye Valley should have priority (ie be straight) where possible because this diagram is for it, not the other route.--Peeky44 What's on your mind? 21:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a tough one. I agree with Ghymrtle saying that I do prefer the first map, I think that the Wye is a major feature on the line and, if possible it should be on the route map. However, I think the second diagram is more standardised with the rest of route diagrams, on the whole they are straight. There are several exceptions, see Template:North Downs Line or Ascot to Guildford Line for a few. I think a compromise is the answer to the problem: shift Monmouth Troy railway station and the Wye left and simply have all the lines branching off as CONTs, no details about where they cross the river. If you do that you can have a map with a straight line and the River Wye. I'm working on this map now and will show you it when I have finished, I might have to end up bending the Gloucester to Newport Line, so see what you think then.


 * WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook  08:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr Steinhardt is the editor who removed both Basingstoke and Alton from the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway article diagram under the edit summary "Route diagram maintenance" (no, really, see this diff) so I'd think twice about making major changes based on his idea of clarity.  Britmax (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Solution Map completed, it is in my sandbox if you want to edit it. I know has made some mistakes before but I think that he has a genuine point, the route map should probably be straight. Anyway, let me know what you think of it, does it correct all the problems? Just because I have done this map doesn't mean that it will be the answer. Please help and post you view on this.


 * I also wonder whether it is just worth bringing back the original version instead, this is because the Gloucester to Newport Line is squished on the edge while there is masses of room on the right. I think that this is the better map . (New map is now better - WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook   18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC))


 * WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook  09:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edited the sandbox map slightly, to prevent having an arrow pointing at the river. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If their are no objections within a week or so, I will replace the map template with the improved version.


 * WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook  18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from formatting (here we go again), can't see anything that wrong with it. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the old map. If their are any problems again, let me know.


 * WVRMAD • Talk  • Guestbook  07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustrans
At present the text says

Sustrans, which owns the track bed between Chepstow and Tintern, has announced plans to turn the route into a cycleway, reopening the tunnels at Tidenham and Tintern and constructing a bridge over the River Wye near Tintern Station.

However this was written in 2009. Can anyone update this? Were the plans approved? What has been done?

The Sustrans website says Following the route out of Chepstow, the first section of the ride is on quiet roads and takes you through some lovely woodland before arriving at Usk. No reference to former railway lines.

A lot of the text about the present-day situation, in the Wiki article is written in the present tense. It's not really good practice to do this, because something that is true today may not be true next week. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have thinned out the Sustrans section. If anyone has verifiable up to date information, I hope they will put it in. Afterbrunel (talk) 10:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing campaign - https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/restoring-the-disused-railway-line-from-chepstow-to-tintern-for-a-shared-use-path - and a 2014 report at http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/11219512.Wye_Valley_cycle_path_could_still_happen/   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wye Valley Junction.jpg