Talk:Oxford-Worcester-Wolverhampton Line

Text moved

The "Accident" paragraph had been separated from the sources and external links which refer to it so I have moved it back to Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway. Biscuittin 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

I think there is a case for merging these three pages:

Biscuittin 16:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, personally... The Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway was a Company. The Oxford-Worcester-Wolverhampton Line is completely different.

It would be like suggesting that we merge Virgin Trains and the West Coast Main Line. Worley-d 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken. Biscuittin 08:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The West Midlands Railway was a successor company which had other constituent companies and whose rail network was geographically much larger than the OW&W's. May I suggest that the WMR should remain in a separate article?

I don't agree that "The Oxford-Worcester-Wolverhampton Line is completely different". The OW&W owned and operated its own track and owned and operated its own trains, so I don't see the relevance of the analogy of a modern train operating company being separate from the line on which it runs. Wikipedia's history of the OW&W line and company is divided between the "Development" section in one article and the "Problems" and "Accident" sections in the other article. The "Development" section in the article that is supposed to be about the line is actually all about the behaviour of the company. The distinction has not been maintained, which doesn't surprise me as it seems an artificial one. I suggest it would be much easier to read the whole history on one page, and the most reader-friendly way to enable this would be by merging the "Line" and "Company" articles. Motacilla (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the articles should be merged. A single page for the history of the OWWR is needed. Moreover, the present content hardly meets the neutral point of view standard, being heavily pro GWR and anti OWWR. Writing an acceptable history will not be an easy task and the only way to do so may be to present both points of view.Bruern Crossing (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merger of two OWW articles. I would leave the West Midland Railway article as it is. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]