Talk:Brighton Main Line

Trains: in UK / in London Low‑importance

	Trains Portal

	London Transport Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Low-importance).

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brighton High‑importance

	East Sussex portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Brighton Main Line.

Merstham Tunnel

Recent track replacement work throughm, closed the Merstham tunnel between Saturday 25th October and Monday 3rd November 2008, closing the Merstham Tunnel. Can someone place the tunnel on the map? sailor iain (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above comment, the map is missing some descriptions in the section where the line divides. The left hand line is the Redhill line and has Merstham tunnel (1m 71yds), whilst on the right hand side is the Quarry line which has TWO tunnels; Quarry tunnel (1m 385 yds), followed by Redhill tunnel - NOT a typo (649 yds). Can the map be ammended to show the line and tunnel names correctly ?

Reference: Railtrack Sectional Appendix Module KSW2: LOR SO500: SEQ 012 & 013. Ivor the driver (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk about services

a) surly the Gatwick Express is (was) part of services on the Brighton Main Line ? b) the quarry line is only a bypass line from Redhill to Croydon, avoiding the stopping stations, therefore that section is in effect four track rather than as the article implies, two track. Pickle 13:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an alternate route, if you intend to get off at Redhill and find yourself on a train routed via the Quarry Line you're never going to see Redhill station let alone get off the train! The line leaves the original main line south of Redhill and doesn't rejoin the original line untill coulsdon. (SouthernElectric 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Panic not, thats an old question i asked long ago, which was more to do with how the article looked then and other articles that were causing confusion at the time. Pickle 01:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page loading issue

The main article page is very slow to load, it also freezes the browser window whilst loading, perhaps the route diagram should be a to linked page rather than part of the main page (with a warning about page size/load time)? (SouthernElectric 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It shouldn't. Its no where near a filesize warning, and even with {{tl:Brighton Main Line}} (which I've just fidleed with the width on) its shouldn't be causing problems. The practise of displaying full details templates occurs elsewhere (Chatham Main Line and Watford DC Line spring to mind) and no problems have been reported. What system (ie version of browser, os, connection etc) are you using? Pickle 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinXP sp2 IE6 ADSL @ 2mbps or above. It's defiantly the route diagram as it also causes the same problem if loaded on it's own. (SouthernElectric 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm XP sp2, IE7 but on T1 (? uni connection). There have been issues with svg icons (which the route map uses) and old versions of IE (pre7). see the talk at wp:trail. Do you have problems with pages like Chatham Main Line or Watford DC Line ?, i do wonder as many people are working with these templates (the Aussies have built some really long ones, but with hidden optional sections) and this issue hasn't been reported. try asking over at wp:trail as there are some technically minded people (more so than me) who might be able to explain/resolve the issue. Pickle 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the problem is with IE, the Chatham page has the same problems (didn't try the Watford page), tried the same URL in both Firefox (v.2.0.0.6) and Opera (v.9.10), in FF the page loads almost immediately whilst in Opera the page takes longer but only in rendering the route map - an image place holding grid is displayed and then gets replaced as each .svg icon is rendered). Does this make the problem any clearer, the big issue here is that IE6 is still very much a dominant browser. I don't have IE7 to test the page, and please don't suggest installing it! SouthernElectric 10:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk over at WP:TRAIL (see here) by the technial people is that IE6 dosen't render SVG files correctly (which is what the route map is made up of). The was a recent upgrade/patch of somehting on the commons (where the files are hosted) to fix something (?) that has (it would seam) exacerbate this problem. offcial adivce from the really clever admin types (see here is upgrade to IE7 (which not everyone can or wants to do). Pickle 10:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So really, we should get to the bottom of what it is that makes SVG files so desirable, and if they really are (and can't be replaced with more compatible GIFs), then we could scout around because somebody somewhere has probably produced a plugin to allow IE6 to use them (SVGs) properly. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[The] offcial adivce from the really clever admin types (see here is upgrade to IE7"

Sorry to say this but, that's a cop-out remark from people who should know better, Oh well!... Is there a reference anywhere as to why WP needs to use SVGs when one of the browsers with the largest user-base can't handle them correctly? SouthernElectric 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns, but its way beyond my knowledge of why/how these things work (all i know is they do and its useful). All i do know is the image files are held on the commons and are used by several different (language) Wikipedias. we (English speakers) got the idea from a Dutch bloke who did most of the work for the German Wikipedia (crazy world!). anyway I'm also led to believe certain stuff (images) are better (not sure why) as svg - again really beyond my technical knowledge. sorry chaps I'm not the person who can give you an answer. Pickle 11:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coulsdon North

Hmmm, the route map does not show Coulsdon North, closed 1983, which should, I think, appear on the Quarry Line, just parallel with Coulsdon South. Any objections if I try and fit it in? Ravenseft (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jrstroud88

Recent edits by this user on several pages seem to be inaccurate and have had to be reverted. Am I the only one wondering if this users knows enough about the region? Olana North (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ELL

A large chunk of this line now has overground services running along it, yet there is no mention of the east london line at all in this article. Is this because this article distinguishes the doubled track along that route? If so perhaps someone could make a note of that in the article? Or it the article just out of date.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of infrastructure the Brighton Main Line is largely unaffected by the ELL, so what exactly is it that you want to say? Fu Manchuchu (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the line that the southern extension of the EEL uses runs alongside the Brighton Main Line and indeed southern services still use the same track as as the EEL. So either (depending on what the situation is) it should state that EEL services use the Brighton Main Line or that tracks of the BML were transferred to the EEL and services run along both sets of lines (or whatever the situation is - but right now this article discusses the current services using the line but omits any mention of the EEL. Surely the use of the line by TfL is note worth even aside from the fact the article discusses operators anyway?- _J.Logan`^t: 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no change to the lines (Ref: Network Rail: Sectional Appendix). If you wish to mention that London Overground now operates over the slow lines on the relatively small London portion between New Cross Gate and Norwood Jn then please feel free to add something. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wished to confirm the situation rather than add my own speculation.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London end of route diagram

The London end shows three stations on the 'top' line of the diagram. Obviously the left one is Victoria and the right one is London Bridge. What is the middle one? -- SGBailey (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The central station is London Bridge Low Level, which is a terminus station for Southern trains and a few FCC services. The right hand station is London Bridge High Level which is a through station to Canon Street, Blackfriars (& the route to Bedford), and Charing Cross. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Western Main Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Western main line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Route Map

Stations on the map near London Bridge don’t seem right. South Bermondsey is not on the Brighton Main Line, but the map shows it is. Conversely, Spa Park and Southwark Park are on the Line en route to New Cross Gate. The changeover below South Bermondsey isn’t accurate either. It shows you can get straight to New Cross Gate, but that stretch of track doesn’t exist anymore. 193.63.77.122 (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing style

I would like to do some work over the next few weeks to bring this article up to a decent "C" class standard. (I have done this recently for Hampton Court branch line, Shepperton branch line, Tattenham Corner line, Epsom Downs Branch, Ascot–Ash Vale line, Caterham line and North Downs Line.) Principally, I would like to expand history section, tighten up the remainder of the text and improve the referencing. Per WP:CITEVAR, would anyone object if I convert the reference format to use Template:sfn? Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these changes. Mertbiol (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]