Talk:Sutton and Mole Valley lines

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

Untitled[edit]

The article as originally written falls into the trap set for many of these lines - namely that is a railway line in its own right. It is not a railway line - as can be seen from the map I have now put as the External link - but simply the name given by the Southern to describe the services on the route, which services run from London to Horsham, with a branch to Epsom Downs. There is a distinct connection with the Arun Valley Line, since the original openings were from London through Epsom, Dorking, and Horsham to Shoreham-by-Sea - part of which is the Arun Valley Line. This is the problem with not looking at the history of the line, I'm afraid.

Incidentally, the timetable listing calls it the S&MV LINE, not Lines, which is why I have moved it.

I have also included the section from London Bridge (on which there was a query), which can be seen from the Southern map, is very much part of the Line. Peter Shearan 08:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I have removed the 'mapneeded=yes' from the TrainsWikiProject tag, as this article clearly has a map (of sorts!). I have to confess, that whilst I am pleased to see a map, I am less than pleased to see a map that I find confusing. I am sure that we can do better. The "dotty" lines factor is way to high, and we need to reduce it (in my view). Canterberry 22:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map modiciations[edit]

I presume the line map is showing the through routes that are possible, rather than scheduled - if so then it's my recollection that trains from the Epsom Downs side of Sutton station can ran onto the Carshalton tracks. The reason they aren't normally isn't scheduled (not sure about peak hours) is because it's operationally easier to have trains that terminate at Sutton or Epsom Downs not crossing the other lines if it can be avoided (whereas Epsom to Croydon services have so much demand it's unavoidable).

Also Dorking Deepdene is to all practical extents and purposes a high level street interchange part of Dorking station - I've often had through tickets for it. Should the North Downs Line and Dorking be closer and Deepdene showed?

Is anyone able to modify the map to do this? Timrollpickering 20:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can modify the map, but it is so badly drawn, that I would need to start afresh. The issue of what the maps show (or do not show) is highly contentious. Suffice it to say, that this map is amongst the worst offenders. Canterberry 01:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified Horsham, so it looks more like the junction station it is rather than two separate station - one being a terminus not linked to the other! (SouthernElectric 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've had a go at redrawing the map, but am still not 100% happy with it. I think that the main problem is that the map drawing template is very good for long-and-thin lines, but unable to cope with short-and-fat networks like the South London Metro. 10:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.72.176 (talk)

Rewrite?[edit]

Taking on board that an up to date service route map is available here, should this article be rewritten so that it reflects the history of the main part of the line (Horsham, Dorking, Sutton etc.), this would also allow the route diagram to be simplified/corrected. Opinions? (SouthernElectric 11:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest that this article is split into two new articles - one for the lines to Sutton (including the Wimbledon Loop , Mitcham Junc and West Croydon lines (The Epsom Downs branch has its own page already)) and the other for the Mole Valley part (including the line from Raynes Park to Epsom, Sutton to Epsom and Leatherhead to Effingham Junc). If I understand the history correctly, the LBSCR and LSWR built a joint line from Epsom to Leatherhead with the intention of the LBSCR running on to Dorking and Horsham and the LSWR running to Guildford via Effingham Junc. (I'm not sure when the Mole Valley Line designation was first used, but I don't remember it appearing before the days of Connex. The line only runs alongside the River Mole between Leatherhead and Dorking, so the name isn't very appropriate anyway.)

What are the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines?[edit]

Confusion in earlier talk shows "Sutton & Mole Valley Lines" to be all in the minds, with different minds at odds.
The article starts with a history (instead of a definition) which relates to these seven segments:

  • Raynes Pk to Epsom,
  • Peckham Rye to Sutton
  • W Croydon to Sutton
  • Sutton to Epsom
  • Epsom to Leatherhead
  • Leatherhd to Effm Jn
  • and Lthrd to Horsham.

Most services running NEish on S&MVLines metals end up at central London stations, and the present map reflects that by showing the routes to those termini with most other stations stopped at (or run through) on the way. The map, glorious tho it may be, would be better called "Sutton & Mole Valley Lines and a Whole Bunch of Lines Their Services Connect to" for it does not show S&MVL limits. West Croydon may be on, or at the end of, an S&MV line but even if its S&MVL services continue to London via Selhurst that hardly puts Selhurst on the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines. I ask this as I was trying to untangle the S&MV Lines article.--SilasW (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no answer so I searched. Google shows a mere 35 articles with 65 not shown for being similar. In contrast "North London Line" had 100,000 hits. A few of the 35 are not in English, many of the others are cribs or outright copies of the WP article at some stage in its evolution. I found no use of the expression by British rail authorities although it is often used in WP articles. The present article says:
"Confusingly, all of the commuter services run by Southern which terminate or call at Sutton are, regardless of origin or destination, branded as Sutton and Mole Valley Line services"
The Southern website has 2007 timetable change for S&MV Lines but otherwise gives only a "Sutton and Mole Valley London services route map" without "lines" which, despite the "all" in the quotation above, does not show its limited Sutton loop service.
Is S&MV Line/s really a fit subject for a WP article? (Feline insertion?)--SilasW (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It raises a number of issues about the naming/geographic extent of articles on railway lines, many of which I am sure have been discussed before. I'm sorry to say that I do not have an answer, but if the suggestion is "deletion" then I am sure that this article will receive an overhwelming "Keep" response. So where does that leave things? It probably takes us round in a circle. The article needs improving, theres no question about that, and it needs more focus too. Your problem is going to be making improvements without losing information already in the article (lest you demonstrate that it exists in other articles). Sorry to sound less than postitive, as I support your goal of improving the article. I'm just not sure down which path to tread. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility that I might be talking of Deletion was of course bait to get replies, some of which might help. The best I can think of is for "S&MV Line/s" to say just that that is a common unofficial, yet Southern, way of referring to "these", listed, linked lines and to ensure there is an article for each. I see little correlation between articles' real values and polls by self-selected voters.--SilasW (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all clear from this article if there is any basis for labelling the Epsom to Raynes Park side of things as part of the "Sutton & Mole Valley Lines". It is not served by Southern (who use this term) and I suspect any passenger usage is because Epsom to Dorking stations inclusive are run by Southern and historically information from South West Trains has had limited penetration of the stations. (In the mid 1990s in the run up to privatisation it was impossible for a passenger to obtain a copy of the relevant South West Trains timetable at Epsom!) Timrollpickering (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and structure of page[edit]

There is a lot of discomfort here about the title of the article and whether it is appropriate, and whether the subject matter is a sensible grouping.

There are several problems (outlined by others above): one of them is linking current operations (which many people find very interesting) and historical (which a quite different group of people find interesting); the linkage is often quite difficult. It leads to non sequiturs like this (from the article today):

1857: Wimbledon and Dorking Railway authorised under the auspices of the London and South Western Railway, reached no further than Epsom. This is why services are run by South West Trains. (My emphasis.)

The history could go in the LBSCR page, but it is better that it does not. Any article about an important railway gets quite enormous if you do this in any detail. I think the answer is to write a series of history pages about some grouping of LBSCR routes (say "Suburban lines" and "Main lines to Worthing and Chichester") and link to them from the main LBSCR page, with a brief summary there for those who don't want all the detail. Then this page and others like it could be limited to recognisable groupings of current passenger services, for the modernists. NB passenger trains are not the only things that move on rails; also the refranchising next year will upset all the existing groupings.

This is a pretty large change, and may upset a lot of people who don't like change. Any comments? Afterbrunel (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the page needs to be restructured. It is clearly the work of several authors with different priorities, so the same topics have been covered multiple times from various points of view. I think the history deserves a more expansive and coherent treatment. These lines are a classic example of rivalry between pre-grouping companies, and while they are distinctly secondary now they were once a mainline route to Portsmouth. The history is even relevant to present-day services, because the convoluted and shared network we have now is the result. The overlapping history sections could be consolidated and re-drafted with more narrative and fewer lists. I would have a go at that purely as an authoring exercise, so long as more knowledgeable contributors are willing to fact check me. Swiveler (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - yet again we have the common Wikipedian failure to understand the difference between a service and a line. There isn't much here to even confirm the existence of the S&MVl. Googling 'Sutton & Mole Valley line' produces no primary source material, only sites which which can be seen to have copied verbatim Wiki's inaccuracies. The first comment on this page (from 2005 !) sums it it up succinctly.
"The article as originally written falls into the trap set for many of these lines - namely that is a railway line in its own right. It is not a railway line - as can be seen from the map I have now put as the External link - but simply the name given by the Southern to describe the services on the route, which services run from London to Horsham, with a branch to Epsom Downs. There is a distinct connection with the Arun Valley Line, since the original openings were from London through Epsom, Dorking, and Horsham to Shoreham-by-Sea - part of which is the Arun Valley Line. This is the problem with not looking at the history of the line, I'm afraid."
Simply rewriting the page won't fix the problem. Grouping lines together on the basis of a now-defunct brand name for a service is a pretty bizarre way to do it. The railway lines which do exist and have citations, the Wallington, Portsmouth, Epsom, et al deserve their own line pages. I would suggest that they are split out. Dr Sludge (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely go along with that, although no doubt there will be divergent opinions about what the actual lines are. My opening bid would be: the Portsmouth Line - from Peckham Rye to Horsham (or Arundel Junction) via Sutton & Epsom. Even this was cobbled together by LBSC from sections built at different times for different reasons. But it was a recognised mainline until well into nationalisation, it's a spine that the other branches can be related back to. Swiveler (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020 Split Proposal[edit]

New discussion[edit]

Having observed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Sutton and Mole Valley lines comment by Mattbuck about a split I'd like to kick off a discussion per WP:PROSPLIT I'm off the opinion its currently easier to flow with current service than attempt to go to with how they were built. Trying to keep Mole Valley together probably doesn't work well; the lines here generally running SW-NE whereas the River Mole is more SE-NW over area of this article. I could really do with more research before kicking this off; but here we are:

  • 1: Split off (best create a new artice) of the Wallingford Line from Sutton to West Croydon. This is possibly not controversial.
  • 2: Split off Effingham Junction - Epsom - Raynes-Park; effectively the Guilford-Waterloo via Epsom SWR service with Joint Southern sections taking precedence.
  • 3: The bulk of the article that remains is arguably the "Portsmouth Line" and between Portsmouth and Streatham North Junction is covered by Horsham-Epsom-Sutton-Victoria services and was part of the Portsmouth/bognor-Horsham-Victoria services in the 1960s/70s. However "Portsmouth-Line" is possibly a poor choice as it is arguably a superset of this line and might also cover the routing via Three Bridges.
  • 4: The "rump" between Streatham to Peckham Rye I find harder to classify but it is traversed by London-Bridge-East Croydon via Norbury services; but I find it difficult to associate it with the rest of this article.

If split the articles might initially be a little stubby but I think they have some co-herence and at least can be related to a current passenger services. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As original proposer (I guess), I would say split them by the way they were built. We have a lot of "service line" articles, and honestly I find them a bit icky - they can be very much fly-by-night and join random things together, which is what created this article in the first place. If tomorrow it was decided there would be no trains between London and Bristol via Bath, the line between London and Bristol via Bath would still be the Great Western Main Line, the fact no trains ran its whole length is utterly irrelevant to that. Similarly the fact that some trains run from London to Weston-super-Mare does not make Weston part of the GWML.
The Quail Trackmaps, and the article, suggest there are four lines which are together the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines:
The above sections indicate there has been a consistent view that this article is not anything about any cohesive thing relating to service or infrastructure. I would do the split myself, but I'm not well-versed in south London railways. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really need to get access to a lot of books I don't own to get a definitive viewpoint on this. In many ways we are in a very similar sectional cut.
  • The Wallington Line we agree on.
  • The Bookham Branch Line is likely to be too stubby; and it probably isn't a good fit on the New Guildford line ... (and I'd note my own efforts to change trains at Effingham Junction mostly ended in much effing and frozen nuts).
  • The Epsom Line I'd mainly winge about the name as it is ambiguous to most people ... though it is the faster line to London ... (I think it was originally the Wimbledon to Epsom Line and pre-dates Raynes park station)
  • .... I think it make some historical (and current) sense to have the LSWR/extensions to Dorking and Effingham covered in it from the LSWR Viewpoint, in essence this means appended Bookham Branch to it.
  • Portsmouth Line feels like a little bit of a misnomer given the original services were via Three Bridges ... it feels like it may have had some relevance at some period in history; though perhaps the mileposts have it in the end to Horsham? Perhaps? .... I've just come accoss "Route 6" in this book which makes Dorking at 25m [[1]] however this video shows MP 22 at Dorking ... [[2]] at 1m 27s. So I'm quite waivery on this and is difficult to check stuff in Lockdonw.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dorking is 22 mi 8ch from Waterloo via Worcester Park. My railway journey database indicates that London Bridge to Dorking along the Portsmouth Line is 25mi 54ch. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the suggested names are ambiguous. For example, we already have Portsmouth Direct Line and Epsom Downs Branch. The Bookham line is not a branch line as it is a through route. Wallington is on the Sutton Loop. I understand the need to split the article and Mattbuck has done commendable work on his proposals. However, there is a danger here of inventing wiki-names for the articles which don't correspond how things are on the ground. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamberhurst: I note Wallington is not on the Sutton Loop in the article Sutton Loop Line. If people believe it should be then it is properly to be challenged at that article in a separate discussion..Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Sutton Loop Line article is another case of current services, historic services and historic lines clashing. The Wimbledon to Sutton or St Helier line was one of the later builds in about 1930 and the current loop services dates from about 1996 - prior to that Wimbledon to Sutton services ran (IIRC) notionally to West Croydon and in practice back up to a London terminus. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Lamberhurst, these are official names as described in the Quail track maps (vol 5, 3rd edition 2008, map 22 - more recent versions may differ or be clearer) - I'm not inventing these myself. The Bookham Line I think was described as a branch in this article, the roads are referred to as the Up/Down Bookham. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quail isn't the bible on line naming. I would say that as was done with the Cambridge Line, it needs to be backed up with a Network Rail reference, preferably from the Sectional Appendix. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quail also gives several different kinds of names, any one or more of which might be considered to be the "line name". For the stretch between Epsom and Leatherhead (map 22) we have:
  • Up Portsmouth / Down Portsmouth (for each track; presumably this is how they are designated at Wimbledon signal box, but the designations extend all the way back to Peckham Rye Junction)
  • BTH3 - engineer's line reference, being South Bermondsey Jn - Sutton - Epsom - Horsham Jn
  • SW 180 / SO 680 - line of route code; these are for Raynes Park - Horsham Jn and South Bermondsey Jn - Horsham Jn respectively
  • S:LBSC & LSW Jt - the postgroup:pregroup ownership.
Mileages are shown from Waterloo via Worcester Park, which kinda conflicts with the engineers' line ref. What it certainly doesn't provide is the line/service name as used by a TOC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now have a more recent edition of Quail, the pagination is different:
  • Padgett, David; Kelman, Leanne (November 2019) [1994]. Munsey, Myles (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 5: Southern & TfL (4th ed.). Frome: Trackmaps. map 25. ISBN 978-1-9996271-2-6.
but there are no relevant changes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that service-based lines are not useful. Where trains are running can change at any time and is not defining the infrastructure. This article should only describe one railway line, the main branch via Mitcham. As it can be seen in the Sectional Appendix this line also includes the section from Peckham Rye to Bermondsey Jn. That one is currently covered by the article South London line which seems to be a mix of many lines with an Overground-service running on it. In my opinion that article should only describe the service.--PhiH (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I have come back to this my head hurts. I did begin, and not finish, an analysis at [[3]]. And I've forgot exactly where I was and am at. I have a couple of ideas and thoughts.

  • That we aim to retain this article with the intention that it becomes a top level article "Sutton and Mole Valley lines" and clearly defines sub-articles we have chosen to split from it.
  • I personally believe an attempt to describe Peckham Rye to Horsham in one article is too complicated (if done properly), too many touch points, too much to take in in one go.
  • That we try to determine how we segment south-west of Sutton separarately from North-east London side of Sutton.
  • Is there sufficient agreement we can split out Wimbledon-Epsom? Quite frankly the Bookham-line can say very little that can't be said at Bookham station without a CFORK and would redirect nicely into a Wimbledon-Epsom article? Starting off with this would help a divide and conquer. (NB: This was suggested as Epsom Line above).
  • I've taken a WP:BOLD step and started User:Djm-leighpark/Epsom line on the basis of do something and see how it goes. I'm using a new build basis rather than a split as there is not a massive amount to split out. Main purpose is to do something to make progress and hopefully to do a little bit of divide and conquer. this will be a background task for me on slow burn.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my stupid thoughts anyway. I don't have Quail but if there is a specific Quail-driven proposal I'm happy to consider it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - on the whole I agree with PhiH in this instance that having this focus on actual lines, rather than services, would be preferable. The service patterns in south London are generally quite confusing, as numerous lines host multiple services going along different branches to different terminals. I get the impression that "Sutton and Mole Valley lines" was an attempt to make sense of the chaos, about 10-15 years ago by a particular operator (Connex South Central?) and followed by the WP editors of the day. That nomenclature simply doesn't exist any more though, and I don't think we should have any page at the present title. GTR now refer to all Southern services in the region as "Southern Metro", which might possibly be a good candidate for an article if people think there's justification for a service-oriented article. I'd therefore most likely support the suggestion to focus this article on the core "Portsmouth line" from South Bermondsey to Horsham, although someone with more knowledge of the history might like to comment if that's a real concept. (For example, Was it once a continuous line from London Bridge all the way through to Portsmouth, and if so, how does that fit in with the Arun Valley line?). Having said all that, Djm-leighpark, splitting out the Wimbledon-Epsom branch seems a no-brainer as I don't see much connection between that part and the rest myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the cusp of having a bit of a work over on this, but RL intervened and another (failed) WP project also. I had gathered some sources together,(some library loans, some bought) and I now have an addition of a quail book. This area has "a lot" of touch points. Raynes-Park—Effingham via Epson remains my initial preference for split. But I've only come back to editing articles after a RL commitments for a month and I'm only working areas that are either quick or straightforward or fairly focused and not likely to get into an involved tangle. So I'm not ready to pick this up myself currently. Regards, Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the update. Unfortunately I can't really put this at the top of my agenda either right now... too many other things on the boil already, not to mention a pending FAR that I have to do something about! It's food for thought, anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing South Bermondsey as the northern end was solely an ELR-driven proposal. I haven't found enough information about the section between South Bermondsey and Peckham Rye yet so that could very well be in odds with the history of the lines. Nevertheless, whatever we consider to be the Portsmouth line should have its own article. --PhiH (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swiveler just created a new article for the Portsmouth line. --PhiH (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just became aware of this discussion after the mention by PhiH (thanks for all the fixes, btw). I'd been fiddling with the Portsmouth Line article for months to scratch an itch, and finally decided it was done enough to submit during the latest lockdown.
I agree with general tenor of the discussion: train service pages have their place, but are prone to be ephemeral, especially since the 90s. TOCs tinker with service patterns to maximise profit, service description pages need to be tagged with warnings like "as of the May 2019 timetable". OTOH the physical routes are persistent, and a comprehensive description from a historical and technical perspective will be stable for years. Apart from well established routes like the Portsmouth Line, East & West Coastway, BML, etc., my inclination is to base these line-oriented articles on the early companies that built them. That explains why they are where they are and often accounts for their subsequent development. I did a couple of those as supporting background for the Portsmouth Line, but there are several others that could be useful. Swiveler (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sutton_and_Mole_Valley_lines&oldid=1216711577"