Talk:Chiltern Main Line: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:37, 18 June 2008

Buckinghamshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire

Trains: in UK Start‑class Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

This article lacks references.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Chiltern Main Line.

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]

Chiltern Main Line - just Marylebone-Birmingham Snow Hill
London to Aylesbury Line
Leamington to Stratford Line
Leamington to Coventry Line
Princes Risborough to Aylesbury Line

Oxford-Banbury spur?

The section on 'future' suggests that Oxford-Banbury could be transferred to Chiltern as a consequence of a new Oxford-Risborough line; given that XC use the line as a key part of the Reading-Birmingham route, would it not be unnecessarily confusing to move this to Chiltern? 62.239.159.6 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line Speeds and History

I just added a bunch of info on line speeds and reformatted the History section to remove the "wall of text" effect. I'd appreciate any feedback available. -User:TheOneKEA (20080530 18:33) —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the speed info is good. Too good perhaps. Maybe just a more simple bullet point list would be ok (see the B'ham to Worcester via Kidderminster line page). Btline (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Intercity

This line is not an InterCity line. Yes, it links two cities, but it is the slower, secondary route between them. It is a regional secondary route and a commuter route. I have changed this. I have also changed the commuter to mention B'ham commuters as well as London. Btline (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. It is an intercity line, not an InterCity line. The line links Greater London (which is a de facto city) with the City of Birmingham, and thus qualifies as an intercity route. Howerver, it never regularly carried trains that were branded under the old BR InterCity brand; AFAICR it carried trains branded under the BR CrossCountry/Regional Railways brand. Line speeds, the presence of commuter traffic, and its (possible) classification as a secondary route by Network Rail doesn't really enter into the equation IMO. -User:TheOneKEA (20080618 18:35 GMT)

Revision as of 20:10, 18 June 2008 edit Btline (talk \| contribs) 1,593 edits →Not Intercity: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:37, 18 June 2008 edit undo TheOneKEA (talk \| contribs) 653 edits It is intercity. Next edit →
Line 34:		Line 34:

	This line is not an InterCity line. Yes, it links two cities, but it is the slower, secondary route between them. It is a regional secondary route and a commuter route. I have changed this. I have also changed the commuter to mention B'ham commuters as well as London. [[User:Btline\|Btline]] ([[User talk:Btline\|talk]]) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)		This line is not an InterCity line. Yes, it links two cities, but it is the slower, secondary route between them. It is a regional secondary route and a commuter route. I have changed this. I have also changed the commuter to mention B'ham commuters as well as London. [[User:Btline\|Btline]] ([[User talk:Btline\|talk]]) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

			Unfortunately, you're wrong. It is an intercity line, not an InterCity line. The line links Greater London (which is a de facto city) with the City of Birmingham, and thus qualifies as an intercity route. Howerver, it never regularly carried trains that were branded under the old BR InterCity brand; AFAICR it carried trains branded under the BR CrossCountry/Regional Railways brand. Line speeds, the presence of commuter traffic, and its (possible) classification as a secondary route by [[Network Rail]] doesn't really enter into the equation IMO. -[[User:TheOneKEA]] (20080618 18:35 GMT)