Talk:Cotswold Line

Error in route diagram

The route diagram is useful, but at the start it has the line crossing the A34 and A40, then the Sheepwash channel. The line crosses no roads before the Sheepwash channel. The A40 and A34 are correctly shown after Wolvercote. The earlier ones should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.134.60 (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Line or railway

In common with many articles with the suffix Line this article seems to think that it is synonymous with railway. The term Line is one used by the railway marketing people to sell the services running over particular routes. The railway lines (NB small 'l'!) over which the present-day Cotswold Line trains run were: Oxford-Worcester, part of the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway (first Act of Parliament 1845); which took over the (Worcester and Hereford Railway, to become the West Midlands Railway in 1860). Latter amalgamated with the GWR in 1863. Peter Shearan 08:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa! The first part of my comment above still holds good, but I hadn't read lower down the article which shows exactly what I have said above. Nevertheless, I have amended very slightly the opening statement: it isn't a railway! Peter Shearan 09:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wolvercot Junction or Wolvercote Junction

Wolvercot seems to be the traditional railway spelling and it is still in use as in the SRA Strategic Plan 2003 (pdf). --Cavrdg 2 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

1. Well-written: Passed
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Fail — the article contains insufficient references, or if the four provided are, they are not cited for certain statements. Important information such as the #Route section are not made easy to verify. Use of inline citations is highly recommended - I know of no Featured Articles that do not use this format of citing sources.
7. Images: Pass

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review or discuss my decision at my talk page if you believe I have been misguided.

Sincerest regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

From the lead: "The Cotswold Line is an 86.5 mile long railway line running from Oxford to Worcester". No it isn't: that's the distance to Hereford. The distance to Worcester is 57-58 miles, depending on which Worcester station you mean. 81.158.1.233 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mickleton Halt

The "Mickleton" link on the route map is pointing to Mickleton Station on the Tees Valley Railway. It would be better if it pointed to Mickleton Halt railway station, although that page does not yet exist. Is there anyone who understands how the stnlnk parameter works and can fix this?Bruern Crossing (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. Have changed Mickleton to Mickleton Halt. Lame Name (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mickleton Halt link

Created a stub for Mickleton Halt railway station but the link from this page, although working, still shows as page does not exist. Unable to figure what needs tweaking to rectify. Lame Name (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Delay made the gauge narrower?

Some of the text is "The Act required the line to be built to Brunel's broad gauge [...] in but delays, disputes and increasing costs led to its being completed as standard gauge."

I suppose I see what is meant, but it seems a bit odd. Shall I change it?

Afterbrunel (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Act (8&9 Vic. cap. clxxxiv) did state "constructed and completed in all respects to the satisfaction of the engineer ... of the Great Western Railway Company", ie Brunel, and "formed of such a gauge ... as will admit of the same being worked continuously with the said Great Western Railway". It seems that there was to be mixed gauge on the line north of Abbot's Wood, where a connection to the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway was to be made. The disputes between the GWR and the Grand Junction Railway, which was to connect at the northern end, were quite fierce, with the OWW caught in the middle. Both Jenkins & Quayle and MacDermot make much of both the disputes and of the financial situation at the time; it seems that on 21 February 1851, the OWW (represented by Samuel Morton Peto and John Parson) came to an agreement with the Midland Railway (successor to the Birmingham & Gloucester) and the LNWR (successor to the Grand Junction) that these two would work the OWW for 21 years; to permit such trains running through to Oxford, the OWW would have to lay standard-gauge rails. This being in breach of the Act, the GWR objected, and the OWW laid mixed-gauge rails throughout - and only ever ran one broad-gauge train, the Board of Trade Inspector's special on 2 June 1853, two days prior to opening of the section between Wolvercot and Oxford. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tunnel through Malvern Hills

The article states "The original tunnel through the ridge of the Malvern Hills, known as Colwall Tunnel, was completed in July 1860." According to two tunnels were driven concurrently -- Colwall Tunnel and Ledbury Tunnel. The latter was closed some years later (do not have date at hand, but can get it if needed). The book is very detailed and seems authoritative. In the narrative on pages 282-285: by 25th May 1858 the railway was extended for two miles through Great Malvern to Malvern Wells. The Bransford Road station was opened on Sep. 1 1858. "Completion of remaining 20 miles to Shelwick depended on progress of two tunnels at Colwall and Ledbury. In February 1860 Liddell reported that the syenite rock at the east end was so hard that 2½ yards was the best week's work yet done, 4 feet being the average, while on the west side of the hill, 10 yards per week was made through shale. In all 815 yards had been driven, leaving 749 yards, and a third shaft was sunk to expedite the work." Corresponding data is given for the Ledbury tunnel. The Malvern Wells to Hereford section was opened on 13 Sep 1861. The Colwell and Ledbury tunnels were 1567 and 1323 yards long. The book goes on to state, completely consistent with article, that the Colwall tunnel was replaced by a new bore, 1589 yards long, opened 2 Aug 1926. The engineer was Charles Liddell and contractor Thomas Brassey. Given the concern about length, and my non-expertness in topic, I am just putting this information here in case of use, minimally as another reference. If you could use another about lines into Hereford: I found the information whilst looking into history of Malvern. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Some more possible references in the online bibliography of Railways in Worcestershire: Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

For those possessing a first edition of MacDermot (which has a larger font and more broadly-spaced lines), the page numbers are 541-3, 550-1 but the dates do not agree with the above: Henwick - Malvern Link opened 25 July 1859; Worcester (SH) - Henwick opened 17 May 1860; Malvern Link - Malvern Wells opened "one week later" (assume 24 May 1860); Malvern Wells - Shelwick opened 15 September 1861. The table in Appendix 1 (pp. 868,866) varies again: Henwick - Malvern Link opened 25 July 1859; Worcester (SH) - Henwick opened 16 May 1860; Malvern Link - Malvern Wells opened 25 May 1860; Malvern Wells - Shelwick opened 17 September 1861. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The bibliographic record for the book I inspected describes it as: History of the Great Western Railway, by E. T. MacDermot. Rev. by C. R. Clinker. Edition: 1st rev. ed. Published/Created: London, I. Allan [1964]-1967. Physical description: 3 v. illus., maps., ports. 24 cm. Contents: v. 1. 1833-1863.--v. 2. 1863-1921.--v. 3. 1923-1947, by O. S. Nock. I will qualify any dates I use (which would not be at that level of detail) by "according to the monograph" with the reference, if this is safe WK practice -- I feel more comfortable referring to a book to which I have access. My main concern is that it mentions TWO tunnels being drilled in the late 1850s. Is that correct? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes two tunnels - one at Malvern (known as Colwall Tunnel; eastern end at grid reference SO774436; western end at grid reference SO760429), and one at Ledbury (eastern end at grid reference SO724385; western end at grid reference SO712386). But you mention both of these, so where's the problem? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)