Talk:Riviera Line

Devon High‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Riviera Line.

To edit the route diagram go to {{Riviera Line}} Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split

This proposal is linked to the proposal to split Reading to Plymouth Line into 3 articles. The Riviera line is not a specific physical line but a branding used first by Wessex Trains and now First Great Western I think the articles should be more about physical lines than route branding and this article and in terms of physical lines this article will be duplicating the section from Exeter to Newton Abbot so this will be covered by Exeter to Plymouth Line with Newton Abbot to Paignton Line covering other section. ZoeL (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as posted above I think the articles should be about the physical lines. ZoeL (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not support the stations along this route are consistently branded on their signs as being a single route. In my mind this is more important than Wiki allocating arbitary junctions between lines; in historic terms we would want "Exeter - Plymoouth" as one route and "Newton Abbot - Kingswear" as another, but that would patently be nonsense in the context of current operations. If the suggestion that articles should be more about physical lines than route branding is to be adopted, it should be discussed on the UK Railways WikiProject talk page. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stations do have the branding yes but this is route branding by a TOC and is not related to pyshical lines so the article should be about that only and should not list route availability and freight gauge, Newton Abbot to Paignton is route GW620. An altenative would be to retain this article for details on route branding and split the content that deals with the physical lines. ZoeL (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But your reference shows Exeter to Plymouth to be part of a "Fordgate to Penzance" line (Fordgate is a tiny little place near Bridgwater, it has never had a junction or station) Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original route was GW100 Paddington to Penzance via Box, this was split in 1999 into 3 routes. Fordgate is where control changes from Bristol PSB to Exeter PSB. Mileages are still calculated from Paddington to Penzance via Box and the line designated main on track diagrams uses that route. ZoeL (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Riviera 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) 01:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]