Talk:Heathrow Airtrack

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 9, 2015

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

Low

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

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

London Transport Mid‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Heathrow Airtrack.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Heathrow rail services.

Staines High Street Station

This is actually a "re-opening" of an old station, rather than a "new" station. There used to be a Staines High Street station, but it was closed in 1916. There is little left of the old station due to redevelopment, but this "new" station will be built on the site of where the old station used to be. Harry Holland (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:Staines_High_Street_railway_station#Old_Station_of_same_name for more on this Grunners (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egham

I strongly suspect this section was written by an Egham resident with an agenda, as it has a one-sided feel without any references. Psym (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is but that because i don't know how to add referrences yet. most of it is straight from the consultation doc ref 2 in the existing stub and the airtrack forum website also already cited, only it is pretty difficult to figure out how to put them in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moli egham (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really sounds like a bit of a rant to me! Not sure if references will do the trick to convince me its neutral.134.219.158.221 (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC) . It may be a rant, but it is all factually correct. OK, i'll go back and look again and see if that is "all" or "almost all" moli but i still don't know how to sign this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moli egham (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the speculatory language in the Egham section (i.e. reference to "perfunctory" consultation), as well as correcting some of the misleading (and even factually incorrect text). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil style (talk • contribs) 14:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Perfunctory" means a consultation document which is not sent out to the affected parties in the affected area, by someone who doesn't advertise the "consultation" in the local papers in the affected towns, who finally (after dozens, perhaps hundreds of calls) arranges an "exhibition" at less than a week's notice, advertised with a tiny listin less then 1 column x 2 inches in the back pages of one local paper, provides displays which leave out the name of the town, provide statistics verbally but decline to provide them on paper or electronically.... Can I have my word back please? meher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.204.193.18 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this has been an issue since 2008, I have gone ahead and edited down the text of this section to bring it more in line with Wikipedia style. Please be aware of the WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV policies in future. This is not a campaigning website but you can post campaign material on blogs and other websites. The section still needs to be shortened as it still feels a bit "soapboxy" but it's not as blatant as it was before.14:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Abandonment

Need to identify the most reliable of this lot:

--Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feltham?

Looking at the map, it looks like it would be a very simple engineering project to build a 2 mile railway line spur from Feltham station to Terminal 4 station, along Bedford Road and Great S W Road. A bit of tunnelling and a lot of soundproofing would surely keep local residents happy, especially if they get a nice fast service from Feltham to Clapham Junction and Waterloo in return. Has this ever been proposed? -Roberthall7 (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Heathrow Airtrack. 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 to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heathrow Airtrack. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702192823/http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-s-vision-for-future-rail-access-10f.aspx to http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-s-vision-for-future-rail-access-10f.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.egham-airtrack.co.uk/

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) 02:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]