Jump to content

Talk:Hawkhurst branch line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHawkhurst branch line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 12, 2010Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 10, 2011.

Services

[edit]

Would it be worth including a section in the article on the services? The 1922 timetable showed six down trains and seven up trains daily (except Sundays) [Bradshaw's Guide, July 1922]. Mjroots (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down
Week Days Only
Tonbridge Jn (dep) 8:14 10:55 1:28 4:03 5:41 7:10
Paddock Wood (arr) 8:29 11:03 1:37 4:12 5:58 7:19
Paddock Wood (dep) 8:33 11:08 1:50 4:28 5:59 7:32
Horsmonden 8:42 11:17 1:59 4:37 6:07 7:41
Goudhurst 8:48 11:21 2:03 4:41 6:11 7:46
Cranbrook 8:55 11:30 2:12 4:50 6:20 7:55
Hawkhurst (arr) 9:00 11:35 2:17 4:55 6:25 8:00
Up
Week Days Only
Hawkhurst (dep) 7:49 9:14 11:44 3:39 4:57 6:32 8:05
Cranbrook 7:54 9:19 11:49 3:44 5:02 6:37 8:10
Goudhurst 8:01 9:26 11:58 3:51 5:09 6:44 8:27
Horsmonden 8:06 9:31 12:04 3:56 5:14 6:49 8:22
Paddock Wood (arr) 8:16 9:41 12:14 4:06 5:24 6:59 8:32
Paddock Wood (dep) 8:29 9:44 12:16 4:27 5:29 7:02 8:43
Tonbridge Jn (arr) 8:38 9:53 12:25 4:37 5:38 7:24 8:52
I think it would be useful to include them - would it be possible to put the tables to one side of the text, making them slightly smaller if necessary? Also, if the timetable itself needs to be referenced, would you have the page number from Bradshaw? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that putting the tables to one side is within my capabilities, but I should be able to make the two into one table. Referencing will not be a problem, although the book I have is a reprint, not the original. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Days Only
Tonbridge Jn (dep) 8:14 10:55 1:28 4:03 5:41 7:10 Hawkhurst (dep) 7:49 9:14 11:44 3:39 4:57 6:32 8:05
Paddock Wood (arr) 8:29 11:03 1:37 4:12 5:58 7:19 Cranbrook 7:54 9:19 11:49 3:44 5:02 6:37 8:10
Paddock Wood (dep) 8:33 11:08 1:50 4:28 5:59 7:32 Goudhurst 8:01 9:26 11:58 3:51 5:09 6:44 8:27
Horsmonden 8:42 11:17 1:59 4:37 6:07 7:41 Horsmonden 8:06 9:31 12:04 3:56 5:14 6:49 8:22
Goudhurst 8:48 11:21 2:03 4:41 6:11 7:46 Paddock Wood (arr) 8:16 9:41 12:14 4:06 5:24 6:59 8:32
Cranbrook 8:55 11:30 2:12 4:50 6:20 7:55 Paddock Wood (dep) 8:29 9:44 12:16 4:27 5:29 7:02 8:43
Hawkhurst (arr) 9:00 11:35 2:17 4:55 6:25 8:00 Tonbridge Jn (arr) 8:38 9:53 12:25 4:37 5:38 7:24 8:52

Images

[edit]

Some ideas for images which could be added to this article:

  • The restored Hawkhurst signal box. ( Done)
  • The Horsmonden totem on the garage wall.  Done, added to Commons, probaly better in the station article
  • A hop-picker's ticket.
  • The seal of the Cranbrook & Paddock Wood Railway. ( Done)
  • Some pre-1920 images from Harding, esp. the photo of H.F. Stephens at Hope Mill and the October inauguration.
  • Other out-of-copyright postcards depicting stations/services on the line. (Partly  Done) Horsmonden and Goudhurst (stolen from the station articles)
  • The map of the proposed Cranbrook-Rolvenden extension from the Col. Stephens museum.

Lamberhurst (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signal box on Geograph (CC 2.0 licenced) I'll be able to get a photo of the totem and station at Horsmonden once the weather improves as I'm only a few miles from there. Can get scans from Harding.Mjroots (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The signal box photo was already uploaded to Commons. Added to article. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great - but if you could get an closer-up shot of the "Hawkhurst" totem with the signal box in view, that would also be good. Re the scans from Harding, I've had problems in the past with Commons [1], the upshot being that a scan of the obverse side of the postcard was required to prove its date. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Alsop's guide to railway postcards, but I've got a copy on its way to me and I'm hoping that will allow us to prove the date without the need for the reverse side. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of HFS at Hope Mill station is obviously PD by now, as are others from the opening of the line and extension. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Videos

[edit]

There are a number of videos on the Hawkhurst Branch on You Tube. Are these worth including in the ELs? Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good but do they comply with WP:YOUTUBE? Lamberhurst (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The third one probably does. I'm no sure about the others. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distances of stations

[edit]

I added the distances in miles and chains, but forgot to add the source and can't seem to find it atm. However, I do possess a copy of the Sectional Appendix to the Working Timetable and Book of Rules and Regulations, issued by the South Eastern Division of British Railways Southern Region on 1 October 1960. This gives the distances as:-

  • Paddock Wood - Hormsonden 4m 451yd (4 mi 20½ ch)
  • Horsmonden - Goudhurst 2m 93yd (2m 4¼ ch)
  • Goudhurst - Cranbrook 3m 994 yd (3m 45 1⁄5 ch)
  • Cranbrook - Hawkhurst 1m 748 yd (1m 34ch)

Using the above gives us:-

  • Paddock Wood - Goudhurst 6m 544 yd (6m 24¾ ch [round up to 6m 25ch])
  • Paddock Wood - Cranbrook 9m 1538 yd (9m 70ch [as near as makes no difference])
  • Paddock Wood - Hawkhurst 11m 526 yd (11m 24ch)

I will amend the article and diagram accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, the figures were correct in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track diagrams

[edit]

I've been messing around in my sandbox creating track diagrams for the four station and two sidings on the line. Ideally, I'd like them to be normally displayed as collapsed. The diagrams would also benefit from some signals, but this will mean they will have to be created. We'll need home and distant signals for each direction. A signal with two home arms on it (one facing, one back), and at least two bracket signals. If we go for shunt signals we'll need them for each direction too. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams for Churn and Pattenden Sidings added to article now that it has been explained how to display as collapsed normally. Mjroots (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements

[edit]

Copied from User talk:Lamberhurst

I have fixed up the ref linking so that all the short notes now link to the relevant book or journal, here's a composite diff of my changes. There were four; I shall explain from to to bottom (which is not the order in which I did them).

  • Removed "February" from the {{sfn|Vallance|February 1955|p=125}}. The Harvard-style linking does not use months - it's built up from surname(s) and year.
  • Changed the 1998 to 1999 in {{sfn|Garrett|1998|p=49}} because the only book credited to Garrett has |date=1999.
  • Changed |date=2003 to |year=2003 in the {{cite book}} for Oppitz (see below).
  • Added |ref=harv to {{cite journal}} for Vallance. Whilst doing that, I also split |date=February 1955 into its components |month=February and |year=1955 which was possibly unnecessary, a note on that later.
Of these, the real puzzle was Oppitz. The way that the {{cite book}} and {{citation/core}} templates work, if there is no |year= they attempt to extract the year from |date=. In this case it was failing; a check of the HTML source showed this:
<span class="citation book" id="CITEREFOppitz2010">Oppitz, Leslie (2003). <i>Lost Railways of Kent</i>. (etc.)
look at the id attribute of the <span> tag - for some reason, it believed the book to be "Oppitz 2010"; my assumption is that it couldn't get a year either way, and fell back on the current year. It's a mystery why the same problem does not affect Course, Garrett, Harding and the others where |date= was used instead of |year=.
Regarding the splitting of |date= into |month= and |year= on Vallance - that might not have been necessary, but it's my belief that |date= should only be used if you have a full date - if you just have year and month, or year only, use the relevant fields. I have found in the past that using |date= for a non-full date can cause problems, and Oppitz above is an example of it occurring.
Some more observations on the {{cite book}} templates:
  • On the Hart one only one of |date=2000 and |year=2000 need to be specified. Since there is no full date, I suggest dropping |date=2000
  • Hart doesn't come up in any {{sfn}} templates, so really it should be under "Further reading", per MOS:APPENDIX
  • On the Scott-Morgan one, |id=ISBN 978-0-86093-616-9 is not the best way, instead use |isbn=978-0-86093-616-9
Regarding the use of {{ref}} and {{note}} for the Sectional Appendix notes - I expect that it was done that way because there is no author. However, it's possible to do it in similar style to the others, using the {{SfnRef}} template (note capital R in SfnRef).
  • Move the existing {{cite book}} to be with the others, I suggest either first or last because there is no credited author; and to it, add this field: |ref={{SfnRef|Sectional appendix|1960}} and remove the |page=p35
  • In the text, instead of {{ref|1|1}}, use {{sfn|Sectional appendix|1960|p=35}}
I think that's all. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before I start making other suggestions, book lists etc. - I'm concerned that other editors might not notice them - so why are we discussing this here rather than at Talk:Hawkhurst Branch Line? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

[edit]

Further info on the following topics might be found in the following texts not mentioned in the article:

  • Line from Paddock Wood to Cranbrook auth. 1864 as SER branch;[1]
  • Extension to Tenterden (Weald of Kent Rly);[1]
  • Incorporation of independent co. 1877, further powers 1882;[2][1][3][4]
  • Lapsing of powers and re-authorisation by SER in 1887;[2][3][4]
  • Further SER powers 1892;[2][3]
  • Opening;[2][3][1][5]
  • Worked by SER, absorption by SER;[3][1][5]
  • Services;[1][5]
  • "A million pot plants a year were railed at Hawkhurst";[1] ( Done)
  • Closure;[3][1][5]
  • Route of the line;[6]
  • Hawkhurst loco shed.[7]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h White 1992, p. 66.
  2. ^ a b c d Dendy Marshall & Kidner 1963, p. 313.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Knight 1986, p. 61.
  4. ^ a b McCarthy, McCarthy & Cobb 2007, pp. 13–14.
  5. ^ a b c d McCarthy, McCarthy & Cobb 2007, p. 14.
  6. ^ McCarthy, McCarthy & Cobb 2007, maps 11, 22-23.
  7. ^ McCarthy, McCarthy & Cobb 2007, p. 72.

If there is nothing new, they could either be used to (a) ref unrefd text; (b) strengthen existing text by adding second ref; (c) set up a "Further reading" section per MOS:APPENDIX. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re (a) - is there any? I don't think that this article is going to fail the GAN on unreferenced text. Remember that the aim is TFA on 10/11/12 June 2011 (50th anniversary of last public service/last public train/closure). Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further source

Tenterden Terrier No.19, Summer 1979, p27-30. Proposed Cranbrook and Tenterden Railway. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

[edit]

Some templates to convert contemporary monetary values to current values using inflation calculations have been added. These are useful; but we have the following text after template expansion: "Agreement had been reached with the SER that it would provide £50,000 (£3,370,000 as of 2010) towards construction costs once the local company had raised £25,000 (£1.69 million as of 2010) in the district.". Why does the lower figure warrant expression in millions of pounds, when the higher figure is expressed in single pounds? Both are expressed to three significant figures, which I can agree with. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted and now corrected. Whilst we're on the subject of conversion templates, what is the general opinion on the use (or overuse?) of brackets in the "route of the line" subsection. I had tried to insert the "disp=s" parameter in order to replace the brackets with a slash, but this didn't work. If the general feeling is that the slash is preferred, I can raised it on the template's talk page. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that by "this didn't work", you mean that it came up with "Template:Convert/LoffAoffDsSoffNa2" in red for four of the nine cases. For me, this happens for the two-quantity (miles & chains) ones, not for the single-quantity (foot, yard or miles) ones (see my sandbox). The {{convert}} template works through an awful lot of sub-templates, so I guess that the relevant one wasn't created. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{convert}} → {{convert/ft}}, {{convert/yd}} or {{convert/mi}}; the last → {{convert/LoffAoffDsSon}} or {{convert/and/chain}}; the last → {{convert/LoffAoffDsSoffNa2}} which does not exist. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Are these templates complicated to create? I note that all's not well with {{convert/and/chain}}. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just worked {{convert/LoffAoffDsSon}} (which is used by the miles (without chains) to kilometres conversion) through to the bitter end. There were an awful lot of conditionals. Look at the history of my sandbox - the basic plan was, wherever a template pops up, subst: it, save, and edit again. This just kept on yielding more templates. If it's really needed, it's one for the experts. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently more complicated than it first appears. I've left a message at Template talk:Convert. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the brackets are overused. It is important that we have metric conversions for all imperial measurements so that those who are not familiar with the imperial system can understand what is being shown. I'm not really convinced of the usefulness of the monetary conversions though. Apparently £1 (1877) = £67.40 (2010). On that basis a 1d pint of beer (1/240th of £1) in 1877 would now cost 67.4d = 5/7.4d = 28p roughly. The average price in a pub is around the £3 mark! Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you supping your ale? It's closer to £2.40 around here --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At home, can get it for 93p a bottle in @sd@. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have to factor in the relative increase in alcohol prices. From 1982 to 1992 the price for a pint of bitter increased from 61p to 129p, and nowadays you'd be lucky to get something for less than 250p.Lamberhurst (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, are the inflation-adjusted prices really a) accurate, and b) useful? I think that they detract from the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove them if they are considered unhelpful, but my original intention was to give the figures some real sense of value. If you look at the entry for Nottingham Victoria, the conversions give you some idea of the huge sums of money actually spent. What about putting the conversions in a note to the text? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding them as a note would be better, assuming that the conversions are accurate. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hawkhurst Branch Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this edit: I think that of the two apparent duplicate refs, the wrong one was removed, because it explicitly backs up the first part of the statement, but not the second. Bradley's text reads "Of the two survivors, No. 31258 was laid aside in January 1961, but No. 31065 remained active and on 11 June 1961 piloted C class No. 31592 on the last Hawkhurst branch passenger train." - no mention of the LCGB, nor even of a special. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's OK, it looks like I've got two GANs running at the same time. At least with this one there are other editors around to pitch in, but with the other I'm on my own. Mjroots2 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An outstanding article: well-referenced and well-illustrated. The WP:Lead is rather weak, but I'm going to discount this as the body of the article more than compensates for it.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. I think it could make FAC, if you choose to go down that path, but some work will be needed to bring the WP:Lead upto the necessary standard. I'm discount this at GAN and awarding GA-status - this article is more than worthy of it as it stands. Congratulations on getting the article up to the standard that it is. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing on to FA

[edit]

From the GAR, the first thing we need to do is improve the lede. Perhaps a copy edit or peer review would be the next stage.

I can probably add more to the article about the closure and track lifting, but I need to know when the closure notices were first issued, and which month in 1964 that track-lifting started. Once I have this info I can check back issues of the Kent & Sussex Courier at the library. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closure notices appeared in March 1961, but I've no record of the tracklifting start date. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the lede a bit, but it could probably be expanded more. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments

[edit]

A peer review has been requested elsewhere - I don't have many major points to make:

  • The blank space at the top of the article has to go - a comment in the text says that a 'br' needs to be there to prevent problems - it doesn't - I tested a preview and there are no problems (if this was the case many articles would have issues) - maybe a browser issue - please upgrade. (If the problem persists it's a bug - best place would be to report to WP:Village pump and see where they direct you to)
  • In "background" ...nominally independent Weald of Kent Railway.. needs explanation of some sort.
  • In the lead section -
    • what was the Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway incorporated into?
      •  Done In this context, the term "incorporated" means that a corporate body (ie a company) of that name was officially established, and thereby had the right to sue and be sued. For British railway companies there was usually a parliamentary Act passed for this purpose, known as the "Act of Incorporation"; the date of the Royal Assent of that Act is normally given as the date that the railway company was incorporated. Thus "incorporated in 1877" means "the company was established by Act of Parliament in 1877". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somewhere between "..Hawkhurst in 1893." and "Sunday services.." and "The line was closed.." there should be a line describing the nature of the traffic. eg was it mainly passenger or freight.
  • In the section "Remains" there are too many images - they cascade too far down the article - I'd suggest placing all 4 as a horizontal gallery below the section as a solution.
  • The timetable is undated, or the date not obvious.
  • Agree with above to avoid the inflation linked figures - perhaps this topic should be discussed on the WikiprojectUK railways page to see how it is dealt with in general. Agree with the idea of a footnote.
  • The section heading "origins" seems wrong -since it later covers "proposed extensions" - should that be "history of the route"?
    • There are vague issues with sections 1 and 2 "origins" and "operations" - (not the text) - due to overlap - I don't know how to fix this as I have a similar problem myself with an article I'm writing on. Maybe there should be a chronology (history)- up to closure, followed by a new section "assets" -describing in more detail, route, buildings and rolling stock - just a suggestion...87.102.67.84 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you could identify one or two sentences which overlap, that would be useful. I'm not sure that a chronology/operations approach would necessarily avoid overlaps, given that one is inextricably linked with the other. I'm also not sure that it would make the piece any more readable for the uninitiated reader, and I'm wary of adding in more detail which might be more usefully found on the individual station pages. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmh - I know it's not easy as a chronological report tends to split up content related by geography - as I said - I'm still struggling with this issue myself.
As a suggestion I would rename orgins "History", and move section "Decline and closure" to the end of the history section. The record of the minor accident could be de-heading-ized and inserted into the history section at the relevent place, probably the "official opening" would be moved to history after the "construction" section. Possibly merging of "origins" and "operations" into one section "history" might work - with no rewriting needed - leaving the article in two main parts - the line before and after closure.
This would make (roughly):
  • History
    • Background
    • Contructions
      • Route of line
      • Buildings and structures (see below about request for more about tunnels and bridges)
    • Official opening
    • Proposed Extensions possible below "Traffic"
    • Traffic
      • etc
      • etc
    • Decline and closure
  • line post closure
    • remains etc etc
  • references
That (fairly unimportant issue) aside it's interesting that you mention "individual station pages" - at a first reading it wasn't that apparent that those pages existed ie hyperlinks to "Goudhurst", "Hawkhurst" etc I assumed were links to the villages not to specific articles about the stations - I think this feature could be made more clear either by expanding the text ie "Goudhurst" >> "Goudhurst station" , or by having a short paragraph drawing the readers attention to the fact that a series of articles exist. Perhaps something like "Architecture of the line" (for want of a better title) - a paragraph should do - naming the relevent architect (or architectural style), as well as the general method of construction of bridges, goods sheds etc.
Also is(was) the bridge over the river Teise of note (ie big-ish) - also the tunnel(s) would be a good mention - what was the rock like - did the tunnel require lining etc? I would guess this would fit in as a subsection of the "construction" section. (Personally I wouldn't miss a chance to describe a river bridge or tunnels)87.102.67.84 (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR time - the bridge over the river at Goudhurst is not a big one. From personal recollection, having walked through the tunnel at Horsmonden c1976 (before the cutting was infilled between the south mouth and Horsmonden station) the tunnel is lined with brick. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that there would be merits in introducing the structure proposed above (which would include adding new material regarding the stations and major structures on the line). What do other contributors think? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of measurements

[edit]

The conversions are now a bit of a mish-mash, with some in brackets and some as miles/km. Can we please revert to the standard format of imperial measuremnts (metric conversion)? Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pattenden Siding

[edit]

Does anyone have a reference for the position of the siding either by reference to a milepost or distance in miles and chains from Paddock Wood? Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just after milepost 42. The reference would be {{sfn|Hart|2000|p=229}}. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added that info to the diagram and article. Mjroots (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Thornbury Branch Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hawkhurst branch 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hawkhurst_branch_line&oldid=1207592163"