Talk:Henley branch line

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire 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.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains 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 articles

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 Low-importance).

This article lacks references.

Fair use rationale for Image:Henley060601.JPG

Image:Henley060601.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Gauge - 'last line'?

From the History section:

...the last line in GWR ownership at that time to be done...

As the Broad Gauge was not done away with (on the main line) until 1892, what is this 'last line' business? EdJogg (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This came from the source cited. What it means (I think) is that the branch was the last purely Broad Gauge line to be narrowed. The only other lines that were Broad only were those belonging to the Cornwall Railway, which did not at that time belong to the GWR. Most of the GW main lines were mixed gauge by this time.

--Hymers2 (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, we're still not much better off. I think the 'clarify' tag is appropriate here, as hopefully it will inspire someone to do some research elsewhere to confirm this. EdJogg (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I might even try myself. Hymers2 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this claim as it is inaccurate. By March 1876 the GWR had taken over the South Devon and Bristol & Exeter railways which both contained many miles of broad gauge track. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a comprehensive list of conversions in MacDermot, vol. II, Appendix I. On 31 December 1875 (the day before the GWR and Bristol & Exeter amalgamated), the GWR had only 8 miles 16 chains of purely broad-gauge route left. Those were converted as follows:

24-25 March 1876 Twyford-Henley 4 mi 47 ch - converted to standard gauge
10 August 1878 Uffington-Faringdon 3 mi 49 ch - converted to standard gauge

Total 8 mi 16 ch. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was consensus against move — æk ^Talk 16:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henley Branch Line → Regatta Line — Seems to be the official name, not just new branding Simply south (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose -- It's a branch line. It goes to Henley. I think the existing article title is hard to beat for accuracy and brevity, describing what it is and where it is. Also, must consider the historical aspect -- hasn't it 'always' been called the Henley Branch?. "The Regatta Line" is quite recent (the last three of the line's 153-year history), and is basically a marketing exercise, isn't it? Any problem with just having Regatta Line as a redirect? (Certainly much less work.) - EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many other branch lines have had their names changed with reference to local features e.g. Mayflower Line, Poacher Line, Bittern Line (which is in Norfolk, no relation to Southampton), Avocet Line, Atlantic Coast Line etc. Simply south (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, so you can find them: the Manningtree to Harwich Branch Line, the Grantham to Skegness Line (article renamed by Simply South, 2008), Norwich to Cromer, Exeter to Exmouth, and Par to Newquay, respectively. I'm not proposing a mass-renaming, as all-bar-one of the articles appear to have been created with the marketing name from day one, but I think that wherever the marketing name was linked from another article, it would be necessary to qualify it with the more conventional route name so that the reader did not have to follow the link in order to know what was being talked about.

Compare: "Rolling stock 'x' was used on the Regatta Line (the branch line to Henley)" with "Rolling stock 'x' was used on the Henley Branch Line (also known as the Regatta Line)". In the latter case the text in brackets can be safely removed without affecting the understanding of the sentence, leading to more succinct prose -- a distinct requirement for Featured Articles.

(please draw your own conclusions!) -- EdJogg (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the case of community rail projects? Also it is not just rebranding, the official name according the Network Rail seems to refer to this as the Regatta Line. Simply south (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this suggests proof that Regatta Line is a valid name for this route; however, the WP article naming convention is to use the name by which it most commonly known and/or would be of most use when linking from other articles (hence "Henley Branch Line" rather than "branch line to Henley"). This should apply to the entire history of the article subject, not just 'since the internet' (which can adversely skew the results). -- EdJogg (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i got that wrong and didn't get a chance to correct it. Poacher Line according to Network Rail is correct for the line i moved in 2008 but the current name for this article is wrong anyway as according to NR it is Henley-on-Thames Branch Line. See here. Simply south (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Any idea what it was called in GWR days? -- EdJogg (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A railway line. :) Simply south (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Brand names come and go but it'll always be the 'Henley Branch Line' regardless. Besides, the latter sounds more encyclopaedic, and Wikipedia's purpose isn't to promote the line. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose - historical usage (only ~4years as new name vs many decades as other). Also any evidence that people are actually using the new name?. Other name is a perfectly valid redirect as well.
- The name of the line seems fairly common. Simply south (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Since the article is essentially historical it would be confusing to rename it for a title which it has only possessed as a marketing exercise for the last 2/3 years. The fashion for these will doubtless change, or they'll think of a different one - after all the Regatta only exists for 5 days each year. According to Paul Karau's book The Henley-on-Thames Branch the line was authorised by Parliament as the Henley branch on 22/7/1846, but construction did not begin until 1854. A contemporary local poster reproduced in the book is headed "Henley Railway", but all the books I have refer simply to the Henley Branch once it was built. After 1894 the GWR insisted on "Henley-on-Thames" to avoid confusion with their other Henley, "Henley-in-Arden" to which a branch was opened in that year. Hymers2 (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was again consensus against move. — bd2412 T 18:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henley Branch Line → Regatta Line – It is its official name and an established common name. Historically this line has been called the Henley-on-Thames Branch Line but this is a bit of a mouthful. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 09:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for it being "official"? The term "Regatta Line" is not used on FGW's pocket timetable for the route, nor on Network Rail's Working Timetable (Section PA07). According to

Yonge, John; Padgett, David (2010) [1989]. Bridge, Mike (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 3: Western (5th ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 3A. ISBN 978-0-9549866-6-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

the engineers' line reference is HEN (Henley-on-Thames Branch: Twyford - Henley); and the S&T line name is 'Henley Single'. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this name does not appear to be particularly widely used, and is basically a marketing title. It's arguable that the name should be a descriptive "Henley branch line" but that's another matter. — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. On the evidence above, the claims that Regatta Line is either the official or common name are both incorrect, and the official name doesn't count for much anyway. Andrewa (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regatta line

Is this name actually even still in current use?. Google cannot find any references to it on FGW's web site, other than on a two year old timetable leaflet. I'm tempted to consign it to a sentence in the history, rather than its current prominence. Any thoughts or objections?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is still in use. I have found (although some of the links are a bit old) Oxfordshire County Council, Visit the River Thames, Visit the Chilterns, Branch Line Britain (not sure how trustworthy this website is and the visit dates back to 2007) and Oxford Mail (2009). There are still some more recent links, particularly West Berks CAMRA and a website called Railway Codes. Based on what I could find I would say leave the article as it is or say something like "It is sometimes referred to as the Regatta Line and was branded as such by FGW and Oxfordshire County Council in 2006."

Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 19:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordshire CC. That bunch of money-grabbing cowboys don't even know how to mend the holes in my street. I wouldn't trust them to know anything about railway lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They tried mending the holes a few weeks ago ... ignored some, made others worse, made a half-arsed job of the rest. None were fixed properly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris j wood and Simply south: I've found "Named railway lines" at National Rail Enquiries - it doesn't show Regatta Line. Nor does it show Great Western Main Line - but it does show Berks & Hants. Curiously, some names are used for more than one physical line (e.g. City Line) and some physical lines have two or more names (e.g. Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth / Pwllheli is both Cambrian Coast and Cambrian Railways). --Redrose64 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think leave the article as it is. I am no longer persuing the RMs. Btw, as far as I know, the Cambrian Line is only the one to Aberystwyth and the Cambrian Coast is the physical line from Machynlleth to Pwllheli. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henley Branch Line → Henley branch line – Per WP:NCCAPS. Online book and news searches show 100% lowercase "branch line" (with the exception of one book that credits Wikipedia and presumably got the caps from here). Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. When sources are not consistent we use lower case (and the general-audience sources favor lower case for this, anyway). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but sources are 100% consistent for lowercase here. The only reason we're doing this RM discussion is that the rail fans demanded we do. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.