Jump to content

Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line

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

TOC

[edit]

Has anyone got a confirmation if the main stopping service has switched from Southeastern to Southern, as the infoboxes along this line don't reflect this. Pickle 14:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See new South Central franchise 84.71.229.251 (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 January 2017

[edit]
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The result of the move request was: Closed by nom as WITHDRAWN/SNOW due to general opposition to considering so many possible variations at once in one place. I'll re-file as a downcasing-only proposal, and defer consideration of "to" vs dash to individual articles. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– Decap Line in descriptive titles. Also change to to symmetric en-dashed form. Both per previous big multi RM discussion at Talk:Chester–Manchester line#Requested move 2 November 2016. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I link some book searches for each one here in case that helps people decide whether to support. You can click on "News" for another data point, or "All" if you want to look at web results, polluted as they are with Wikipedia clones. Mostly what they show is that there is no standard or proper name, and that in descriptive names the symmetric dash or "and" is usually more common than "to". Add quotes, with or without "to", to find explicit counts of different terms if you like; the search doesn't care about punctuation such as dash or hyphen or nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redhill Tonbridge – [1]
  • Picton Battersby – [2]
  • Exeter Plymouth – [3]
  • Bristol Exeter – [4]
  • Harrogate Church Fenton – [5]
  • Walsall Wolverhampton – [6]
  • Leamington Stratford – [7]
  • Glasgow Edinburgh via Carstairs – [8]
  • Eastleigh Fareham – [9]
  • Princes Risborough Aylesbury – [10]
  • Ascot Guildford – [11]
  • Castleford Garforth – [12]
  • Gospel Oak Barking – [13]
  • Waterloo Reading – [14]
  • Northallerton Eaglescliffe – [15]
  • Okehampton Bude – [16]
  • Reading Taunton – [17]
  • Acton Northolt – [18]
  • Reading Basingstoke – [19]
  • Hull Scarborough – [20]
  • Durham Sunderland – [21]
  • Cross Gates Wetherby – [22]
  • Eastleigh Romsey – [23]
  • Slough Windsor & Eton – [24]
  • York Beverley – [25]
  • York Scarborough – [26]
  • Yeovil Taunton – [27]
  • Southampton Fareham – [28]
  • Wolverton Newport Pagnell – [29]
  • Carmarthen Aberystwyth – [30]

Survey

[edit]

Please respond with something like Support all, or Support downcasing but not dash, or Support with exceptions, or Oppose with reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where, then? Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think there's anything wrong with mass nominations on a single talk page, provided that all relevant article talk pages are notified, but in this case there are already on-going discussions about the naming convention at WT:UKT, therefore I propose that this discussion is speedy closed pending conclusion of those discussions.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 14:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The strong suggestion at that discussion, from Mjroots who is the main opposer of fixing the caps, was that I should open RM discussions on the affected articles. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Both name formats are reasonable but usage varies and I see no reason to strongly desire to standardise on either one. I think it makes sense to go with the name in most common usage in each individual case as the article title having the other name as a redirect. The presumption should be that the current title is correct and anybody wanting to change it should need to show that the other name is more commonly used. This will avoid a lot of unnecessary moves and disputes. TBH, I suspect that most readers won't even notice if they get redirected to an article with a very slightly different title to the one they originally entered or clicked on so long as they end up at the correct article on the correct subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass nomination. Each case needs to be considered individually as there is no consistency in the real world and we should reflect the sources in each case. Because of that lack of real world consistency, a nomination this large will just be a WP:TRAINWRECK (no pun intended). Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention in putting together the list was to find cases that are essentially equivalent, and along the same lines as those at discussed Talk:Chester–Manchester_line#Requested_move_2_November_2016. And the sources show, I think, that the present titles are not common, as the descriptions of the lines vary all over the place. The previous consensus was that the dash, being more symmetric, was a more logical and widespread convention, and that it would be good if we could make the rest of the line articles consistent, which is what I have been working on. Certainly if you see exceptions that you would like to leave with "to", or if you would prefer to see all stay with "to" for now, say so. On the downcasing, on the other hand, there is no reason to object, as sources are very clear that none of these are treated as proper names; but if you see any cases where I'm wrong about that, please do point them out. I think you'll find it easier to get through the list here, or sample it at least, than chase a bunch of separate RM discussions and write a reply at each one. As RCSprinter123 wrote, "The thing is that we can't be looking at this on a case-by-case basis, because there needs to be consistency, otherwise it just looks weird and loads of links need updating." Dicklyon (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of capitalisation at least (I haven't looked into the dashes as much), you can't have both consistency and follow the sources because sources are inconsistent. Some proper names, which should obviously be capitalised, are descriptive - West London Line for example, while others are just descriptive. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red XNOppose Aside form the question of whether this is the best place to discuss this, I feel we should stay with the status quo becasue
    • I don't think dashes are user-friendly, it's easier to type "to" than insert the correct length of dash
    • my personal view is the these are proper nouns and therefore deserve to be fully capilatised
    • the use of upper case Line is has been adopted by editors as a de facto naming convention across a large number of related articles (do we know the proportion of "Lines" versus "lines" before this debate started?)
    • it will no doubt break hundreds of links to and from Wikipedia Commons that editors will spend months fixing by hand, until which time there will be many frustrated users.
  • Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:54, 27 January 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.

Requested move 27 January 2017

[edit]
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: Closed by nom as WITHDRAWN/SNOW. Apparently there is no appetite for looking at these as a group, even though they all have exactly the same simple issue. If anyone objects to the early close by nom, please just revert it within the next day or two. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– Decap Line in descriptive titles, per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
Survey
As I said in the closing statement, I withdrew that in favor of this much simpler question. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCCAPS applies to capitalization of article titles in general. MOS:CAPS applies to capitalization more generally, and talks about how to decide. The question at this RM discussion is capitalization. I don't understand why there could be any question of whether those guidelines appear in deciding this, or why some rail fans seem so willing to just ignore them. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question is why the guidelines require your desired outcome. NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS contain numerous exceptions. You don't get to just jump in, sprinkle some Google Books links, shout NCCAPS, and act like that's a defensible argument. I suspect most editors participating here consider railway lines akin to institutions (MOS:INSTITUTIONS), and capitalize accordingly. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are all descriptive titles; sources don't cap them. What else needs to be said? Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are descriptive names that, in at least some cases, are likely to be the proper name as well. Where this is the case some instances of the string will be describing the route, and others will be using the proper name. Where the two differ this is obvious, e.g. "Tarka Line" vs. "Exeter-Barnstaple line", but when the proper name is descriptive it is impossible to know whether the proper name or a description is being used without looking at each mention in context. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant they are merely descriptive names, as evidenced by the fact that sources don't cap them. I haven't looked at the ones you mention that are not included in the present proposal. Do you see any in this list that have evidence of being treated as proper names? Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 30 January 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.

Since the multi-move was procedurally opposed, I'm starting over with just a single-article move here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2017

[edit]
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 to Redhill–Tonbridge line. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Redhill to Tonbridge Line → Redhill to Tonbridge line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS; sources mostly do not cap it. Optionally, say if you prefer to use symmetric dashed version (Redhill–Tonbridge line) rather than "to" between place names. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in sources

Please examine the searches, see if there is a common name, whether the dashed version is preferred, and whether caps are preferred. It is my impression that there is no proper name here and that the dashed (or hyphened or slashed) form is about as common (and more logical and more consistent with other such lines). Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey
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.

Referencing style

[edit]

I would like to do some work on this article over the next few weeks. Principally, I would like to expand the history section, tighten up the remainder of the text and improve the referencing. (I have done this in the past few months for the North Downs Line and Brighton Main Line.) Per WP:CITEVAR, would anyone object if I convert the reference format to use Template:sfn?
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made these changes. Mertbiol (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for photos

[edit]

Hi,
I’ve recently been doing some work on this article, but have struggled a little to find good photos. I wondered if anyone had any pictures of the line in their own collections, that they might be willing to upload to Commons? It would be great to have some photos of passenger and goods trains from before 2008 (including steam, diesel and electric locomotives/multiple units). I’d also be very grateful for any pictures of the station buildings and signal boxes at Nutfield, Godstone, Edenbridge and Penshurst.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: Try looking on the Geograph website. Photos there are on a Wikipedia compatible licence and many of them have already been transferred to Commons. Start at Tonbridge and work your way along the line. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mjroots: I've looked at Geograph (and at the appropriately licensed photos on Flickr), but unfortunately there's nothing suitable from the time period(s) I need. (Most of the Geograph photos have been copied across to Commons already). Hence my appeal to editors who might have their own collections of photos. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 17:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Taking this review. The article is very well written and shouldn't need a great deal of changes. Please use {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc to reply to comments. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

[edit]
  • Would it be possible to add an interactive map (using {{Attached KML}} or {{maplink}})? I would be happy to guide you through that - it's pretty easy.
    I don't know how to do this, so I would be grateful for your assistance. My feeling is that the existing static map is very clear, so a zoomable map should be an addition and not a replacement. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, definitely an addition rather than a substitution. The basic process is to drawn the line in a mapping system that can export as KML (I find Google My Maps to be relatively easy). I'll ping you about that after we finish this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1921 and 1947 ownership changes seem worthy of a sentence in the lede
     Done To be clear, 1921 and 1947 are years of the relevant Acts of Parliament and the changes of ownership took effect in 1923 and 1948 respectively. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Route

[edit]
  • I would replace the second image in this section with the picture of Godstone that's currently at the end of the article.
     Not done The Godstone image is illustrating the point about the relative lack of passenger facilities, which is discussed in the proposals section. The Edenbridge Tunnel photograph shows a relatively unusual railway feature - namely one railway crossing another where a tunnel briefly opens out. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I think the Godstone image caption could better connect it to the text (something like Godstone station was proposed for improvements...). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added more to the caption to make the relevance clearer. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABC Railway Guide listings for Kent and Surrey show a number of level crossings on the line. Is there anything special about the two mentioned in the article? The current wording implies that they are the only two level crossings on the line (and also incorrectly indicates they are between Penshurst and Leigh, rather than Edenbridge and Penshurst).
     Done Thank you for spotting this. The Medhurst Row and Brasted Lands level crossings are the only ones mentioned in the Sectional Appendix. I had assumed, in error, that this meant they were the only ones, but the ABC guide (and other sources) prove otherwise. It's possible that in 2009, when the Sectional Appendix was compiled, the Brasted Lands crossing was a private vehicle crossing (as Medhurst Row still is today), but that it has been downgraded since. I have removed the mention of Brasted Lands and have made a slight change to the discussion of Medhurst Row. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do either of the sources indicate what length of Class 377 sets (how many cars) are typically used?
    I know from my original research that a roughly even mix of 3-car and 4-car units is used. Unfortunately I can't find a source that says this and the 2024 "Kent–Gatwick Rail Connectivity" study just mentions the 4-car units. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, that's fine then, and same for the other Class 377 question.. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:COLLAPSE, the stations table should not be collapsed by default.
     Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include a sentence about current freight operations
     Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • I recommend adding {{inflation}} for monetary amounts
     Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several images spill over between subsections, meaning they're a bit displaced from the relevant text. I would recommend moving the 1840 map to the top of its subsection and using {{clear right}} as needed.
     Not done The 1840 map is in the correct position, adjacent to the paragraph that discusses the line sharing between the LB&SCR and the SER. Yes there is a slight spill from the final image of Redhill station, but I don't think that matters. In my humble opinion, adding a space with using {{clear right}} would look worse. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure some details about individual stations (such as the 1961 platform reconstruction at Leigh and the 1924 fire at Penshurst) that don't affect the rest of the line need to be included here.
     Not done I think this material is useful, because it shows investment in the line up until the mid-1960s, when rationalisation started. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That should be contextualized then - right now it comes across as unrelated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't what you mean by "contextualized". Adding further detail not supported by citations would be original research. I don't think that requiring context would be part of the GA criteria. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just thinking a sentence like Investment in the line continued through the mid 20th-century, including projects like.... But I won't insist on that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For three years from May 1986, Reigate...: I assume you mean Redhill?
     Not done No, this is correct as it stands. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: during that three-year period, trains reversed direction at Redhill to run to/from Reigate? (And before that, Reading–Tonbridge trains also reversed direction at Redgate?) That might be worth clarifying in the text. At very least, Reigate railway station should be linked, since it doesn't appear to be linked currently. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's correct. Trains running Reigate-Tonbridge (and therefore also Reading-Tonbridge) required a reversal at Redhill (as do the current Reading-Gatwick services). I have added a clarification in the paragraph about the 1965 introduction of the Reading-Tonbridge services. I have also linked to Reigate railway station. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger rolling stock

[edit]
  • There's only room for one image with the text here. If there's a need for more images, a gallery might be worthwhile.
     Not done As above, I can't see that this is a problem. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    General comment for the various image placement comments: per WP:IMGPLACEMENT, images should be adjacent to the relevant text. Right now, there are too many images, and they push other images away from the relevant text. On the screen I'm currently using (a somewhat obsolete desktop), the two images under "infrastructure" are pushed entirely out of that section by the infobox. The Bletchingly Tunnel image and the two following are pushed completely out of their relevant sections, as are the Tonbridge West Yard and Godstone images. It's not a pleasant reading experience when you have to hunt for the relevant image in a completely different section. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, with respect, the problem is your "somewhat obsolete desktop". There are only twelve images in the main body of the text - that's not many for an article of this length. I have looked at the image placement on both my laptop (Mac) and my desktop (PC) at work with a variety of different browers (Safari, Chrome, Firefox). The images are where I expect them to be - I do not have to "hunt" for them. For me:
    The two images in the "infrastructure" subsection display entirely in that section with no bleed through to the "stations and services" subsection. The infobox is not big enough to push them down.
    In the "proposals and authorisation" subsection, the 1840 map is entirely in the section with no bleed through. In the "construction and opening" subsection, there is clear white space between the two images. There is the tiniest bleed through of the bottom of the figure caption on the Redhill station image into the line occupied by the next subsection title, but this is not enough to disturb the text.
    In the "Passenger rolling stock" subsection, the H class image is adjacent to the paragraph that starts "During the 1930s". The bottom of the Class 119 figure caption does push the Class 508 photo down so that the bottom of its figure caption bleeds into the "freight services" subsection, BUT the top of the Class 508 photo is exactly in line with the "508s" in the main text. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, It might be a factor of skin as well. I use Monobook, which has a smaller font size and wider text area than the default. Do keep an eye out for how image stacks will behave on screens different from yours, but I don't think action is needed now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 2-4-0
     Done Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: Should you nominate this for DYK, the "Tadpoles" would make for a great hook.
  • When were Class 377 units introduced on the line?
    I know from my original research that the Class 377s were introduced when Southern took over the line in 2008. Unfortunately I can't find a reliable source that says this. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freight services

[edit]

Proposals

[edit]

Accidents and incidents

[edit]
[edit]
  • This section isn't needed. The first map can be moved to the Route or History sections; the second doesn't provide a lot of value.
     Done I have removed this section. If a zoomable map is added, then the "Railways of Kent" map (which doesn't show the Redhill-Tonbridge line particularly clearly) is unnecessary. Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Response from nominator

[edit]

Hi @Pi.1415926535: Thank you very much for taking on this review and for your very detailed comments. I think I have responded to everything so far and have edited the article accordingly. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: Looking good so far! Just a few minor clarifications, plus some solution to images being displaced from the text they accompany, are needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I have made some additional changes and have responded to your points above. Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mertbiol: Great work, happy to pass now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge_line&oldid=1258484220"