Jump to content

Talk:New Guildford line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Route Map changes

[edit]

Hello. I am wondering whether the changes to the map made by Kevin Steinhardt are an improvement on the previous version. In particular the new version suggests that the line via Cobham is a secondary route and that the line via Bookham is the main line. I also find the layout of the junctions at Guildford confusing. Am I alone in thinking this? Mertbiol 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not alone, I much prefer the previous version too. It shows the route (which is the subject of the article) as a straight line, and shows the junction layout at Guildford more accurately. With these routemaps there is no harm in showing a 'geographically accurate' diagram, where the map templates will allow. The wiggly nature of the present map is also highly distracting. The previous map still required some polish, particularly with regard to the names of adjoining lines, but was generally clearer (IMHO!).
EdJogg 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. User:Kevin Steinhardt has been making a lot of changes to maps recently, and not all of them are very good. The changes seem to be based on "condensing" the maps (to save space?), which is not necessarily a good thing in terms of improving their readability and hence their value. This users has also made some other changes which add little or no information, but just re-arrange existing data ... one wonders what this editor actually contributes materially? Four Ceps 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, not all of his changes are bad, although this particular line appears to be an exception! Most of his edits recently have been to route maps, and the sample of five or so that I looked at all seemed to be an improvement, although whether the junctions are still 'geographically accurate' is another matter, as I don't know the lines concerned.
In terms of simplifying maintenance, I find it easier to have all the rows the same type (eg BS5), as it is much easier to work out how they will align once displayed.
EdJogg 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about using BS5 for the maps. In fact it is the very reason that I do not use spoorstrip as it tries to replace anything BS5 with a simpler BS3 if it can. I think we ought to standardise on BS5, and do away with the BS3 and BS4 templates. Canterberry 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, getting back on topic, the issue of having the railway line that is the subject of the article as a "straight line" on the map is fundamental ... we MUST!! Canterberry 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. So the consensus is that the changes should be reverted. Mertbiol 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information from Hinchley Wood

[edit]

There was more detail on the line and the services under the entry for Hinchley Wood than in this article (it was getting to a point where it was even linking to the station article to get information. I have copied some of the information here. It needs editing: there may be some NPOV against the services to weed out, balance or reference and the Old Rolling Stock paragraph needs to be broken up and the references converted. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton & Mole valley query

[edit]

This article says that Effingham Jn to Guildford is shared with a branch of the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines but that article, although its map shows a tremendous mileage of track beyond what it claims as the S & M V lines, stops them at Effingham Jn. That a service on line A continues on line B hardly seems to warrant including B in A. How well are lines defined? Is there an official list? The S&MVL article mentions confusion apparently caused by different meanings for S&MVL.--SilasW (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Guildford 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Guildford 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.

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) 01:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

660 volts or 750?

[edit]

The article says 660 volts but the infobox says 750 volts. Which is correct? I understand that the value is only a nominal one but the difference here is sufficient to be able to say that this is a contradiction that should be corrected. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Guildford_line&oldid=1204261192"