Talk:Crouch Valley line

Map and references added. Canterberry 19:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The map doesn't show the connection to Bradwell nuclear power station mentioned in the text. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge in of Network Rail route EA 1060

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Crouch Valley Line. -- Ratarsed 08:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a straight forward duplication of content (I.e. that Network Rail route is the Crouch Valley Line). However, a previous merge was unceremoniously undone, so opening it up for discussion until 2007-07-09:

• Merge as nominator -- Ratarsed 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Against - I disagree. Some people might find it easier to search for Network Rail routes rather than local/colloquial names, which the Crouch Valley Line is. I would prefer to see a disambiguation page, or a cross-reference page, so that people can find the article either from the local name (which they might not know), or from the official name given to it by Network Rail. To be honest, we should steer well clear of "local" names, and stick rigidly to the official names given to lines. Canterberry 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

Okay, I support the merge. To be honest, I always did ... I just wanted to stir up a storm about these Network Rail articles, and get them merged and removed (re-directed if you will). Canterberry 17:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -
  • Originally posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.
  • Its one question to ask about "line" naming conventions but i think what you are getting is the age old and (as far as i know) as yet unresolved debate about "lines" and "services". All of the network rail network, the physical track, which is to some people what they mean when they say "line" is given a network rail number, thus names like "EA 1060" are perfectly valid. A critic would be that it sounds horrifically complicated, not user friendly. On the other hand, other people identify "services", a train that goes from A to B. At the simplistic level this coincides with the other definition, but more often than not it see the train service sharing part or even all of its journey with another train service (often with another Wikipedia article). One example of (i think) a good co-existence is Portsmouth Direct Line and Network Rail route SW 110. I'm aware of no consensus (yet) about what how this should be handled, and it gets even more complex the closer to urban areas one gets or along the big main lines.
  • In this specific case the data from "EA 1060" could be merged into the line page, if it was made clear that "EA 1060" is the physical track and does not extend to Wickford railway station, only Wickford junction. This page, when talking about services need to be clear that the services extend beyond the physical line. As above in the past we've been able to separate this successfully with the Pompey direct line, but equally a merge could be performed.
  • Pickle 13:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Convention is to leave a redirect at the site of the old article, so searching by the Network Rail code (if it's known) would still redirect to the single article on the line. Either way, it would be best to have a single convention and stick to it across all line articles, which in turn needs to bear in mind the Wiipedia naming conventions, specifically WP:COMMONNAME; In addition, and to illustrate the point with an extreme case, it would be difficult to say that "East Coast Main Line" is a less well known (and therefore not the common name) than the network rail route designation. With this example, "Crouch Valley Line" is also an official name given and used in marketing (at the very least historically). -- Ratarsed 12:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support for merge. We should be avoiding unnecessary duplication of information, and we should be using historical/colloquial names as appropriate -- the names that most users will be familiar with, or expecting to find. The railway line will still go between the two places, along the same route, long after Network Rail is fully nationalised/privatised and changes its name to "National Railways of Britain", and re-classifies all the routes just because they were classified differently by someone else before.

  What information could you put an a page about Network Rail route EA 1060 that would not be appropriate in Crouch Valley Line, apart from the 'History of N~ R~ Route EA 1060', which is surely only of interest to Network Rail accountants? History of the line's construction, distances, gradient profiles, pictures, signalling upgrades, should all be part of the railway line's article; timetabling and service information don't belong in WP. So what's left?

  Network Rail route EA 1060 is an obvious candidate as a 'redirect from alternative name'.

  EdJogg 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at Network Rail route EA 1060 and Network Rail route SW 110 and note that both have the WikiProject UK Railways tag on the talk page. It there is a consensus (as seems to be emerging) that these pages are superfluous and for "Network Rail accountants", then please can we get all of them merged into articles like this. It is frustrating that that pages like these are getting the "apparent" support of the Project Group by being tagged, but are clearly not supported when they get challenged. There needs to be more consistency by the project, cos from where I sit, there is a clear lack of direction and guidance on this matter, and it is wasting peoples time and effort. Canterberry 16:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree -- we need some consensus on the matter. Although I would say that the presence of a project banner only indicates that it falls within the area of interest of the project concerned, not that it is being actively maintained in any way. (At least, that's how I view them!) EdJogg 16:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OBJECTION

The so-called "merge" of information from page Network Rail route EA 1060 has NOT been done. All that has happened is that a re-direct has been placed on that page, but the information has NOT been copied over. I demand that Ratarsed explain their actions. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canterberry (talk • contribs).

There was no information to merge -- all the information (such as points on the route, chainage and route numbering) was already present in the article. -- Ratarsed 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

INCORRECT! The distances were different to those in the current articel and there was kilometerage data present (now missing). Your actions in this matter are quite disgracefull, the article has not been merged, and information differences between the pages has not been properly reconciled. Canterberry 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reference to the data on Network Rail route EA 1060 has not been copied across. Canterberry 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means add the distance in kilometres yourself, but there was no source for the distances in km on the old article, hence I didn't bring it across.

Regarding the route number reference, See reference 2?

Please also consider that I'm not trying to discard information, I am just trying to apply a merge per WP:MERGE -- Ratarsed 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As the first author of the "Network Rail route XY 9999" series, can I just add the following remarks?

• The series was clearly not well received, which was why I stopped contributing it.
• I am not / was not at all opposed to the "merging" of the information they contained into other, appropriate articles.
• I'm very disappointed, all the same, that the so-called merger has in practice amounted in most cases to no more than the simple replacement of the original article by a redirect, with no attempt to transfer the information it contained to the target of the redirection.
• I'm very grateful to those who did, nevertheless, take the trouble to see that the original information was preserved in the "post-merger" articles.

PS: The "source for the distances in km" was no more than simple arithmetical conversion from the distance in miles and chains! -- Picapica (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crouch Valley Line. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090217155005/http://burnham.org.uk:80/crouchvalleyline.htm to http://www.burnham.org.uk/crouchvalleyline.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Operation of nuclear flask trains on the line

I have amended this section to remove references to operations having ceased, as no references or citations have been provided, and there are still nuclear flask trains showing in the Working Timetable. If anyone can confirm that nuclear flask trains have indeed ceased, by all means re-edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SawBarlow (talk • contribs) 09:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)