Talk:Marshlink line

Serivces

Is it a stopper from Hasting to Ashford *AND* a fast from Brighton to Ashford, or something else ??? Pickle 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marshlink Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060427143415/http://www.southernrailway.com:80/news.php?id=23&u=news.php to http://www.southernrailway.com/news.php?id=23&u=news.php

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

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I will review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lays the facts out, and establishes the general timeline. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No words to watch, WP:MOS seems to be all in line. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The external link "Southern trains route information" is dead. Please correct/adjust. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Since I put the article up to GA review, Govia Thameslink Southern has been all over the news about strikes, closures and general disruption (which I personally witnessed first-hand when I was stuck in Brighton last year with 3 kids and no train back to Ashford International) and I don't think the link is going to come back any time in the short-term future, so I've removed it for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Ah ok...too bad the information has completely disappeared. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Copyviotool gives this article an "all-clear". Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I'll say - this railway lines seems to have at least 9 lives and then some! IT's been scheduled for cancellation *so* many times. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   As the article hints at, the line has the potential to be a fast link between the current Home Secretary's constituency and Westminster, so I'd say its future is looking brighter than ever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable! Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All of the images have the proper permissions. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I am puzzled by the image of the File:Dismantled railway in Gravel Quarry near Lydd (geograph 2461856).jpg. I know that the included information says that it's of the

   "Remains of the 1937 realignment of the line from Lydd to New Romney, closed since 1967" but the reader/viewer can't see where the remains are in this photograph. I am not casting aspersions against the photo but to the casual reader this photograph just appears to show a field around a gravel quarry pond... I am not sure why this image is in the article. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   In Geograph, we have the following alternatives : [1], [2], [3]. The third one might be the most suitable, as it shows a stile going over a fence for no obvious reason whatsoever. Any preferences? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Either 1 or 3 would be fine - 1 because it shows the lines in the earth left from the traintracks and 3 because it shows that now-nonsensical stile. 3 has some type of signage on the far side - is that a walking path directional arrow or a remnant of RR signage? Not being familiar with UK road etc signs I'm not sure but it did catch my eye when I was zooming in on the photo. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Okay, as Cilla once said, I'm going with 3. The sign on the other side is probably "public footpath". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Looks good - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Am doing some more deep read/proofreading readthroughs to see if I missed anything, but pending the image/s above's so far it's all looking pretty good. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Cool, thanks. When you're done here, I don't suppose you can do me a favour and pick up Liverpool Street station's GA review; the reviewer has disappeared and it's been "under review" for about 2 months now. I did ask on WT:GAN but there were no takers :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   @Ritchie333: I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup#Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1 if I can step in and finish or if I need to start another Review...not sure what the procedure is in these types of cases. Will let you know when any of the more-experienced knowers of GA Review arcania get back to me. Shearonink (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   When a GA review is started but not finished, people sometimes leave a note at WT:GAN, see for example Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Incomplete review. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   User:Redrose64 - As the nominator said above, they already did that. So, does the apparently-abandoned Review get closed as a Fail? And the nominator then nominates it again?...What is the procedure in these types of cases? I'll take it on, I don't care about the date of the nomination on Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA2 but it will have to be done correctly as I am participating in the most recent GA Cup. Calling User:BlueMoonset, User:3family6, User:Figureskatingfan,User:Jaguar, and User:MrWooHoo. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

   Shearonink, you'd have to get a ruling from the GA Cup judges; so far as I know they don't typically give credit if someone takes over an existing review. That said, since Esquivalience has abandoned the review, if no one takes over the review directly, I'd typically put the nomination back into the reviewing pool, something I'd be happy to do here, since Ritchie333 has been waiting quite a while. Once it's back in the pool, you're free to pick it up as a new review. (The old review is not failed, and the nomination can retain its seniority.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   @BlueMoonset: So I can go ahead and just take over the Review? Just start working on what's there and finish up? Huh, I didn't know I could do that... I'll check with the GA Cup Judges and see what they have to say re: scoring. I actually don't care about the GA Cup points, I just would like to get the GA Review finished up for the article and for the nominator. From a quick glance it seems to me that the article doesn't have any major issues and the previous Review went through most of the GA Criteria, it doesn't seem fair to me to make the nominator & the article wait all the way through a whole new GA Review so, that being said, I'll just take it over.

   And since this whole discussion has veered somewhat off the rails for the the page it's on, how about we put any further discussion elsewhere - my user talk is fine or there is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup#Talk:Liverpool Street station/GA1 and maybe link to this discussion back here if wanted. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 17:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Marshlink Line → Marshlink line – Generally not capped Line in sources, so downcase per WP:TITLEFORMAT and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nom – see notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Marshlink Line for why we are discussing here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support as that appears to be what reliable sources use Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support—it's the sources. Tony (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Edit dispute - images, "Route" and "Services"

Hi everyone,

Following an edit dispute with another IP user, I've decided that the best solution would be to ask the question here. The dispute concerns three recent revisions; more specifically the wording of the paragraphs and (to an extent) the location of images.

I edited the article twice on 22^nd August, by changing the wording of the paragraphs in the "Route" and "Services" sections (in my opinion they weren't very clear), adding a new main photo, moving some of the other pictures around, and moving one picture to the right-hand side because I really don't like the text layout when the image is on the left. Later that day this was re-edited by the other user - it appears that (s)he kept the first few paragraphs in the "Route" section the same as in "my" edit, and reverted the rest of my edit back to the "original", including the images. (S)he later added what was the new main photo back, and put it in the "Future" section - not sure why, since that photo has nothing to do with the future of the line, therefore it doesn't belong there. No explanation was given for these edits so I undid them. However, this was undone back by the other user, again with no explanation.

The other IP then then left a short message on my old IP's talk page, stating that my edit apparently "wasn't well-written" and that "less is more" (whatever that is supposed to mean). I replied in detail (please read my response in the link), stating why I believe that my edit is an improvement compared to both the old version and his/her edit (which is also missing one paragraph). (S)he didn't reply back - I'm not sure if (s)he consciously decided not to, or if his/her IP address has since changed so (s)he didn't get the notification, but either way, no response, which is why I'm taking this matter further and asking the question here.

Which edit makes the most sense in terms of page layout, grammar and clarity?:

1. The "original", before both of our edits;
2. "My" edit;
3. The other IP's edit (note that this version is missing the paragraph about the route between Rye Harbour and Ore Tunnel, which would have to be added back).

(I was originally going to create an RfC for this, to also get an opinion from someone who has no interest in railways - however after reading the help page, I'm not sure whether RfCs can be used for three-way questions so I don't want to risk it.)

In the meantime, I am going to revert the current edit back to "my" version. This is not because I want to "push" my edit, but in order to prevent any more back-and-forth reverts, and to redirect people to the talk page if they have any further questions. Of course if the final consensus goes against my edit, it can be edited back. 2A00:23C5:D033:4400:7943:5007:5D05:E7B0 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the version as I last saw it, which is closer to what originally passed the GA review. I personally like the picture of the rolling stock passing at Rye, because this is a very distinctive and unique feature of the line, given its scarcity as being one of the few mainstream diesel-only services in the South East. I agree that it would be helpful to have a bit more detail in the "Route" section as it's rather sparse; the catch is since this is a GA, whatever we should add must contain an inline citation to a reliable source that justifies its inclusion. Can you briefly list the bits you think should be re-added, with sources, and provided there are no objections, we should be able to put them back in. As to specifics:

• The very short single-track link between the Newtown Road bridge and Ashford International platform 1 is factually correct, but probably over-detail to the casual reader - I've travelled up and down the Marshlink more times than I've had hot dinners but I never noticed it before. Maybe, if you've got a source, stick in a footnote.
• "although the old station building and second platform still stand disused" - This is not true, they are used as private dwellings. Where is your source of information? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: thanks for getting back to me - honestly after all those weeks I thought no one would!

I understand why you have reverted the edit back to the original - in hindsight maybe I should have done the same. For the same reasons I described above, I shall leave it as is for now, until we come to a consensus here. However, for the "final" version, I still think we should work based on my edit, as I still believe that it is better-written than the original version (unless of course you believe otherwise). The majority of the changes I made have similar information anyway, just worded and structured more clearly. I removed a few minor details which I thought weren't relevant to the "Route" section (e.g. the former name of Ham Street station - if anywhere that can go to "History" instead), and added a few things that suited this section more (e.g. the number of tracks north of Appledore).

I realise that this is probably a matter of taste, but I personally disagree with your claim that the picture of trains at Rye is better-suited as the main photo for the article. The photo of the Turbostar near Winchelsea implies that the line passes mostly through rural countryside (which is true), shows that diesel Turbostars operate on the line, and the bright colours make it stand out more. Those are all the features that a main photo needs, really. Meanwhile, the photo of two Turbostars passing each other at Rye does show that the line is unelectrified, but in my opinion it doesn't show the line's true character. The picture was taken at the busiest point on the entire line by far, which is in the middle of a built-up area - contrary to the rest of this rural line. Furthermore, the line has two tracks at this point and it's not immediately obvious that the line reduces to single-track either side of the station (and even if it were, this detail is not important enough to have to be included in the main photo).

I will say, though, that the photo at Rye works perfectly with what is said in the "Routes" section - that's why I decided to move the picture down there. The text (in my edit) says that Rye station acts as a double-track passing loop for passenger services, and the photo does a good job telling the reader "this is what said passing loop looks like - two services pass each other here". Personally, I think this is how images should be laid out in general - the main photo doesn't have to be detailed, it just has to be relevant and look pretty; photos with details can then be used to complement text.

Regardless of what photo should be used at the top, I still really dislike the idea of having some images on the left side of the text. I just think it makes the text layout look really ugly.

Regarding the short single-track bit in Ashford, I don't agree with putting that detail in a footnote. The rest of the line has a full description of how many tracks each section has, so it doesn't make sense to call this one an over-detail, even if the single track is very short. As for references to support this sentence, I've found two. One of them () is from a book published in 2017. The second one () is a YouTube video - I'm aware that as per WP:YTREF, one should be careful when using YouTube as a source, however in this case the video does the job well enough, since all one needs to do is watch the video and count the tracks and that would prove the statement true. In fact both of these sources can also be used to support other bits that are unsourced in my edit, for example that the passing loop at Rye station exists, and that there is an electrified siding parallelling the line between Ore Tunnel and Ore station.

Also, you just said that the above is factually correct - what did you use to confirm this? Can it be used as a source for the article as well?

As for the "disused" station building and platform at Winchelsea - I'll admit I may have used the wrong word here! By "disused" I meant "no longer in use by the railway", not "no longer in use at all". Simply removing the word from that sentence would fix this issue though and the rest of the sentence would remain coherent. (But in any case, I do believe that the platform (but not the building) is actually disused, considering it's terribly overgrown and isn't fenced off from the track that's still in use. Sadly I can't find a source for that though...)

2A00:23C5:D033:4400:28C2:63FE:1919:E201 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I've done a bit more expansion on this article, using sources I can find, and dropped in the reference to the short single-track section immediately south of Ashford International; however there's not really much relevant to the route to write about. It kind of passes through the middle of nowhere (which is indeed a key reason why it was a hair's breadth away from being closed altogether during the 60s and 70s) so there's not really much to write about.

Images have to go on the left hand side because of the way the infobox formatting works - if you try and right-align an image before the end of an infobox, it will drop it below the end of the box, probably in completely the wrong place and disrupt images. So we have to make do with left-align images as the least worst option.

The photo of the two trains at Rye is a busy point on the line, but I think it's also the most memorable and recognisable portion for anyone who's travelled on it. Obviously opinions will vary, but once you've passed through one or two fields through Romney Marsh with not much to look at but sheep, things might sort of look the same for people. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Rolling stock

I'm having difficulty finding good sources for the rolling stock. I'm sure they must exist, such as old books or copies of Railway Magazine, but I can't easily get to any of that. The principal source for some of this is "A brief history of the Marshlink line" which admits it may not be fully accurate and welcomes corrections. The specific claims I'd like another good source for are:

• Electrification through to Ashford was planned, but abandoned in 1939 when the war started.
• Line speed was reduced from 85 mph to 60 mph
• In 1962, "Thumper" diesel units were introduced. (which ones?)
• Instead, the company introduced Class 171"Turbostar" DMUs in 2003. I can see this via a snippet preview in Google Books, but frustratingly it doesn't give me enough information to identify the specific volume of Railway Magazine and the page number.

Redrose64 this is your area of expertise, can you help at all? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any electrification scheme for this line in the 1930s - the electrification from Brighton and Wivelsfield via Lewes (opened July 1935) had deliberately finished at Ore. It might be assumed that the electrification would have terminated at Hastings, but that had been vetoed on the grounds of congestion at that station. There was also more space at Ore for a carriage shed to be built, and indeed they were able to build one large enough for four twelve-car trains.

As for "Thumper" diesel units - classes 201 to 207 inclusive all fit that description, but classes 201 to 203 would have been too extravagant for this line, as they had six cars each. Careful examination of

• Haresnape, Brian (1986). British Rail Fleet Survey 9: Diesel Multiple Units - The Second Generation and DEMUs. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 17–19. ISBN 0-7110-1604-6.

plus various Ian Allan ABCs of the 1960s, show that DEMUs nos. 1101-1122 were built as two-car units (2-H) in 1957-58, and units 1123-33 were built as three-car units (3-H) in 1959-62. Of the 2-H units, the first eighteen (unit nos. 1101-1118) were designated as Hampshire units - these were strengthened to three cars in 1959 being reclassified 3-H; the other four (unit nos. 1119-1122) were designated as Hastings units and remained as two-car units until about 1979/80 when they too were strengthened to three cars, being reclassified 3-T. TOPS classes were 204 for 2-H and 3-T; 205 for 3-H. Units 1119-1122 were the ones used on Hastings-Ashford services. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Robertson, Kevin; Abbinnett, Hugh (2012). British Railway Pictorial: Southern Region DEMUs. Hersham: Ian Allan. pp. 28, 45. ISBN 978-0-7110-3511-9.

confirms that 2-H units 1119-22 were built for Crowhurst-Bexhill and Hastings-Ashford services, and also used on Ashford-New Romney services. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)