Jump to content

Talk:Waterloo–Reading line

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

'mapneeded=yes'

[edit]

The 'mapneeded=yes' tage has been removed, a basic map has been added. Canterberry 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Reading-Waterloo; Windsor-Staines and Chertsey Branch to form one Windsor Lines page

[edit]

These three Merge deleted - No reasons given for the merger on the talk page. and I thought it might be worth combining them to make one single Windsor Lines page. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.74.164 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unregistered user who does not sign his edits has little right to make such a proposal. The reason given for the merger as the "pages are very short" is not a reason and is not acceptable. Canterberry 13:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By way of an aside, the term 'Windsor Lines' was used in the 19th century as a convenient shorthand among the Company for these lines to emphasise the only direct, no-change link from close to the centre of the City to the established town of Windsor (and vice versa) most of the other places along the line beyond half-way to there were much smaller settlements and could be regarded as near-villages or anyway were on the way to that terminus, 1 of 3. Windsor also preceded in date the other settled destinations offered. The term would in passenger numbers be deprecated today! Note the Chertsey Loop as it actually is operates for tourist services as a corollary from London to country railway destinations and is not a mere 'branch'. Another silly misnomer not even ending there, ever. It could also be operated as a loop if Network Rail so wished to invest in doing so, rapidly. The Reading to Waterloo lines would be the modern group description given as that has more usage as places on that line have grown and an albeit narrow range of just semi-fast, but regular, services are offered. That line even given 'line operating inertia' has the most scope for faster and more exciting services.- Adam37 Talk 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I think that is a great idea.--I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More details for Map

[edit]

If no-one more adept than I am at making maps makes these change then one year I'll try:
1 Point Pleasant: one curve in use, another disconnected
2 Barnes curve
3 Connection to Terminal platform 3 at Richmond
4 West to south curve at Staines
5 Curve at Virginia Water
6 If one level crossing is shown, rest should be (3 between Barnes and Mortlake, N Sheen, Feltham).--SilasW (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a hurry, I have added 1, 4 and 6. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before modifying the map, can we have some references please. Item 2, regarding a west curve at Barnes appears dubious to me. Also the station is incorrectly positioned on the map as it is. The station is east of the junction between the lines to Chiswick and Richmond. Also the curve at Virginia Water is questionable. Looking at Google Maps, I see little evidence of any former curve. Olana North (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing and replying. I don't have a reference to hand for Item 2 but it did exist for a very few years until the line from S. Acton to Richmond was built (and that rendered it redundant); the curving row of houses built facing the concave side of the chord is called Railway Side, and a stub of brickwork remains just south of the Hounslow line. (Oops! Inserted PS - Since yesterday evening some one has stuck in the Barnes curve but left Barnes as two stations instead of one east of the junction.) Item 5 is in The New Adlestrop Railway Atlas albeit wrongly as open. On Google Maps the eye of the faithful can just see a line of less high vegetation which starts to curve away from the Chertsey line where the Chertsey line stops being straight and begins its curve to VW station, perhaps it is clearer on Multimap, especially the Birds Eye view looking west. I'll try to dig out WP-fit references in my next session at the BL. I listed just a little of what I spotted as missing. How much should these diagrams show? There are unshown Eurostar connections, Queenstown Road, curves to the WLL and connections at Reading. And why a zigzag where the North Downs line joins? Looks more like playing with Lego rather than considered information.--SilasW (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The disused chord at Virginia Water is shown as a dashed line on the relevant OS Landranger map. The zigzag on the diagram at Wokingham was intended to show that the North Downs Line was built first and that the line to Staines is a diverging route. (See also North Downs Line) Mertbiol (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comments about Map

[edit]

The map has been improved but these issues remain:
1) How much detail is appropriate?
2) Out-of-use Wloo Int and its immediate connections are not shown. Was the track through platform one at Vauxhall used exclusively by Eurostar in its time? That track ran on to the northern ("Do not alight here") platform at Queentown Rd but what was the layout that got two tracks over the flyover? Was the north Qt Rd track reserved for Eurostar running to the North Pole depot? Should the flyover be shown?
3) In use (as opposed to what the trackwork could allow) the South Western main line and its branches are not connected to the Windsor/Reading lines from the head of the routes at Waterloo. They use separate platforms at Vauxhall and don't diverge just after Qu'tn Rd, which has no platforms for the "mainline" services.
4) Several lines cross under and over the Reading line near Queenstown Road.
5) The E to NW chord (?Sheepcote curve?) from the Reading line to the WLL is not shown, and doesn't the NW to W (Latchmere curve) not just lead to CJ platform two but also connect to the Reading line?
6) The connection is missing at Richmond to the southmost platform of the terminal station to platform three (virtually an LO only platform, it may have no trainstop for LU use).
7) The Kingston loop has a flyover.
8) One level crossing is annotated "level crossing" which should be unnecessary. Most level crossings give the name of the road, should all do that (eg North Sheen > Manor Road, Workingham and Rusham to whatever roads, and is "Waterloo" "Waterloo Road"?--SilasW (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased but not sitting on my laurels to report:-
1) Much more detail has been added over the last 8 years, including a few select drop downs for junctions/junctions with yards and sidings.
2) The international term is since St Pancras opened seen as a short-lived throwback ripe for an exciting new name, the focus is on the up-in-the-air nature of the track layout around those parts still, pending the extra platforms and existing lines you refer to all being repaired, strengthened and reallocated.
3) Noted but too much for the main diagram, the BS coding templates now encourage in their guides drop-downs i.e. 'expand' functions for such internal operation/routing extra details, of most use and fascination to heavy logistics suppliers, Network Rail, ministers, rail companies and politicians.
4) Ditto.
5) This station has been considerably detailed compared to most other important lines and can also have an expand function if desired.
6) Ditto.
7) Now shown.
8) This allows screen readers to pick up on these as opposed to more salient features which your comment alludes to. They are notable mainly urban feature here for such a heavily used infrastructure, goods and passenger route. Their cheap inclusion also caught my eye. Rather more expensive now to upgrade!- Adam37 Talk 20:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The article has been flagged as unreferenced which is true, but it calls in the template "Waterloo to Reading Line" which gives two sources. References and sources given in templates should be carried to articles calling the templates.--SilasW (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When electrified

[edit]

Was the line electrified in 1916? Isn't that the year of inner suburban 3rd railing?--SilasW (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading electrification

[edit]

I don't think that the line was electrified all the way to Reading in 1931. See Reading Southern railway station#Electrification. The article text cited Dendy Marshall for the Reading line electrification; but I can't find it in there. What I can find is electrification to Windsor 6 July 1930, on page 413, so I've moved the ref and added a page number to it. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electrification at Reading was switched on in January 1939. I refer you to the "Southern Electric" series of books, the latest of which was published a couple of years ago. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim

[edit]

fares are usually lower than those between Paddington and Reading. Many users are commuters to London, not travellers between the termini.

This may be true of later stations nearer to Waterloo, but highly unlikely that someone would get to London from Reading using this line. It takes about an hour and 10 minutes - the direct train from Reading to Paddington takes about 25 minutes. No contest - and I don't think that the fares are much different. I would say the MAJORITY of users get off at stations other than Waterloo.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement is essentially correct, but two amendments would clarify it:
Many users are commuters from the intermediate stations to London, not travellers between the termini Reading and London.
--Redrose64 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But perhaps the statement should be removed altogether. It sounds like guesswork (particularly with no ref).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 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: move The consensus is that all pages should be moved as proposed. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Decap Line per common lowercase in edited sources (news and books), and change "to" to the symmetric dashed form to be consistent with other articles and prior RM discussions. I've been doing these one at a time, but those attract little to no participation, so I'm hoping this one will do better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

Survey

[edit]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterloo–Reading_line&oldid=1205096856"