Jump to content

Talk:Chiltern Main Line: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
m TWP parameters
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TrainsWikiProject}}
{{TrainsWikiProject|class=start|importance=mid|unref=yes|mapneeded=yes|UK=yes}}

== Last paragraph ==
== Last paragraph ==



Revision as of 16:21, 28 March 2007

WikiProject iconTrains: in UK Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated projects or task forces:
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.
Note icon
This article lacks references.
Note icon
It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Last paragraph

Surely the last paragraph is somewhat subjective? -- 80.41.215.203 16:26, 21 Apr 2005

I have clatrified 'rubbish trains'; I presume that is what this comment was about. The last para now reads:
The line from Northolt Junction to Paddington alone has not been improved, and only one Chiltern train a day from Princes Risborough, and back, uses it, and only during the week. Freight trains carrying refuse from London use the line, however, and it has been used as a diversion when work is taking place on the line to Marylebone, or when the normal line into Paddington is closed.
which seems perfectly NPOV to me. What I don't understand is the last phrase and what exactly is thw 'normal line into Paddington'?. -- Chris j wood 20:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split article?

Should this article be split up into several new articles? The suggested new article names are below. Our Phellap 23:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]