Talk:Varsity Line

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Historic Info Wanted

It would be nice to get the feel of the original line - anyone got any old timetables? How often did service run? What were the end-to-end timings, the times of first and last trains (well I suppose academics never did get up very early...) Lawrence18uk (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are copies of timetables dating from as early as 1910 on display at the Ridgmont Station Heritage Centre - I'll see if I can get some details on my next visit Andywebby (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marston Vale line

Would the Marston Vale Line become the Varsity Line or would they remain with the seperate names? Simply south 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

since it is just a marketing name, they can call it what they like. But I can't see how they could call it the Varsity Line unless and until it ran through from Oxford to Cambridge again.

Wild speculation

I deleted this

Another somewhat hopeful idea that has been discussed is to run the section between the West Coast and Midland lines along a new alignment, serving Milton Keynes before heading off to the east to join the former Bedford-Northampton line near the village of Turvey, following this alignment into Bedford. This alignment, whilst allowing Bedford and Milton Keynes stations to be served without the reversal of trains is likely to be entirely unaffordable.

since it reads like the railway buff's version of fantasy football. It cannot be a serious option given that the Marston Vale line already connects the WCML to Bedford. --Concrete Cowboy 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steeple Claydon Crossing

According to www.miltonkeynes.com, the level crossing at Steeple Claydon was recently repaired and replaced. Could this have significance, or is there any more information? User:Tom walker, 18:07 GMT 3 September 2006

Bin-liner freight?

What is "bin-liner freight"? When you say "within this", which "this" do you mean? The overgrown track to Steeple Claydon? or something else? --Concrete Cowboy 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received a private mesage to explain that "bin liner freight" means freight wagons containing domestic refuse going to a land-fill site. --Concrete Cowboy 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X5 bus?

Is it worth mentioning somewhere here the X5 coach route which runs along much of the varsity line route? It is operated by stagecoach and goes via Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. It runs every 30 minutes and is quite popular - this could be mentioned as an argument for the varsity line to be rebuilt...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.99.35 (talk) 22:13, March 11, 2007

RDT

Currently Template:Varsity Line is under construction and would welcome improvement. Simply south (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Main suggestion I'd have (and it probably offends against practice elsewhere) is to show the WCML in a contrasting colour. I wait to see what you are doing with the run into Cambridge, I hope you aren't addding a speculative alternative route.
PS, what does RDT mean? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means Route Diagram Template. See WP:RDT.
Anyway i have just completed it or at least a great deal of it, with it showing current routes which operate on it, some proposed areas including some other schemes which will eventually join onto it and some other features. Bletchley took me a long time to figure out (using Multimap and Template:Marston Vale Line). If you are wondering what the Cambrisge route to the right of the historical line is doing there, it is the Hitchin-Cambridge Line with the proposal considering this as an alternative route. Simply south (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see on some there are level crossings. Do you put these everywhere where there is a level crossing, or only if it intersects with a main road? SeveroTC 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably say only on a main road. Simply south (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see on some they include roads and also rivers. How much detail do you want to include, as I'm sure I can look a few of these up (although I'm not going to touch the template!)? SeveroTC 20:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, although i don't think level crossings are notable enough anyway. Simply south (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of stations needed twice?

Since we have a route diagram that lists all the stations, do we really need another copy in the body of the article? It seems to me that it just clogs the article and discourages readers from going past it. For now, I'll just move it to the bottom but if there are no objections in the next couple of weeks, I'll delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove duplication of details about the possible reopening of the line?

I suggest we reduce the section of the re-opening of Varsity Line to a brief summary given that the subject is already covered in the East West Rail Link article. I also note that the reopened line will be on a different alignment. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we must have WP:CRYSTAL, best to limit it by keeping it all in one place --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support reduction to a summary + referral. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the content seems very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakmighty (talk • contribs)

Bedford and Cambridge Railway - dubious dates

The material on the B&C Railway suffers from highly dubious and inconsistent dates. The Railway company did exist, it's Board Minutes are in the National Archives but not digitised. Surely we can come up with a reliable source that has credible dates? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awdry (1990) says (p. 60) that it was incorporated 6 August 1860, and "opinions differ on the date of opening, some citing 1 August 1862, others October of that year". The B&C did absorb the Sandy & Potton Railway on 7 July 1862 (Awdry 1990, pp. 100-1), which may explain the text "the Bedford and Cambridge Railway which opened on 7th July 1862"; the S&PR had opened in 1857. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Private company instead of network rail

This page needs updating to cover the private funding for it recently announced. (not got time myself) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38201570 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.187.71 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no it doesn't - this article is about the historic line, not the new [different] route. New stuff goes in East West Rail Link at least until there is some real track laying to Cambridge. In any case, "Grayling will announce" - let's wait until he does, then we'll have a direct citation rather than a "by the way" in a story about something else. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article; and the name?

I am uncomfortable with this article. It starts, very reasonably, with "This article is about the historic Oxford - Cambridge line from 1845 to 1967. For its modern recreation, see East West Rail."

This has been consistently ignored by enthusiastic, but not always well-judged, edits about later events. Even the Infobox defies this recommendation. The RDT diagram (IMHO hopelessly ugly and opaque) dominates the text and may put the reader off. Why is Quainton Road on it?

I am uncomfortable about the title of the article, "Varsity Line". I don't recollect that being on everyday use until fairly recently. (No doubt someone can find a old usage in print, but I emphasise "everyday use". It was just the Oxford to Cambridge line. An as-yet ill-informed person looking to wikipedia to help, and who noticed an old railway line at Bicester (say) on a map is unlikely to think "Varsity Line", which doesn't even mention that it is a railway article.

The only source citation in the entire article relating to the pre-1967 period is Awdry, p 63, which is an encyclopedia. A single paragraph, 91 words. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Yes, I know, sometimes you can't avoid that, but it seems a bit lazy.

I wonder if the answer is a new (separate) article with more thorough historical citations. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation adjusted costs: style to use?

In adding the current equivalent (£12M) of the £125,000 cost, I followed the footnote style already in the article, viz., A prospectus for the Bedford and London & Birmingham Railway was prepared; the capital was to be £125,000.[1][note 1]

IMO, it is more accessible to give the equivalent in-line, thus: A prospectus for the Bedford and London & Birmingham Railway was prepared; the capital was to be £125,000[1] (about £13,000,000 today).

Does anybody have a strong preference either way? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference simpson1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

References

  1. ^ About £13,000,000 today.

Termini

Why Oxford and Bedford, rather than Oxford and Cambridge? Mdrb55 (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the former rail route between Bedford St John's and Cambridge has been entirely pulled up. Part of it is now occupied by the Ryle Telescope, other sections have been built over (such as in the areas around Sandy and Potton), so a new route needs to be surveyed, acquired and constructed. This would need to include bridges under or over the A421, A1 and M11. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, this article is about the Varsity Line as it was in 1967, not what has happened to it subsequently. So Oxford and Cambridge are the correct terminus stations, Bedford Midland Road wasn't even on it. The "Varsity Line" was the line between the Varsity cities: when it stopped going to Cambridge it wasn't the Varsity Line any more. Somebody is getting confused with East West Rail (Western Section). Or are we to show Bicester Village (sic) as the western terminus? I have reinstated Cambridge as the eastern terminus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It could be argued that the name "Varsity" might have stuck out of habit even if both termini were lost. That is not relevant here, however, and the line that this article describes goes from Oxford to Cambridge. Britmax (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East West Rail Category

Not sure why this needs to be discussed but it says on the East West Rail article that it is reusing a lot of the Varsity Line for the modern project. Indeed when you take into account the Oxford-Bicester Line, the disused section to Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line and possible route options east of Bedford, the East West Rail reuses over two thirds of this route. As it is a more modern version of this and specifically includes this line, having the article in the category is certainly relevant. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 01:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is about a historic line. It confuses issues to mix the old with the new.
Btw, you've been around here long enough to know about WP:BRD and not simply to reinstate your reverted edit before a consensus is evident. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its historical and because of the subject of this line, it is every bit relevant to the East West Rail, just like the Waverley Route is to the Borders Railway. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 13:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond dispute that the Varsity Line article should mention its successor and that the EWR article should mention its predecessor. But the question here is whether either is a defining characteristic of the other, and so should be categorised as such. See especially the third item in Wikipedia:Defining. See also WP:overcategorization. That is the basis of my specific challenge. Where do we draw the line?
In the end, it is a judgement call. I suggest we both hang back now and let other editors give a view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising it at the wikiproject. I added a context note there for readers unfamiliar with the Home Counties, which I think bears repeating: I guess a similar question would arise as to whether Great Central Main Line should be included in category:High Speed 2 (as of now, it isn't). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include, Varsity line is related to the EWR. That said there is probably a reasonable case to merge the East West Rail and Varsity line articles much like Crossrail and the Elizabeth line. Riorgisinx (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an astonishing misunderstanding, there is no equivalence whatever. "Elizabeth Line" is just a formal name for the new line that was built by the Crossrail project. It may be that EWR will get renamed but have no idea whether it will be, let alone with what name. Would you propose merging Great Central Main Line with HS2? It is just as related. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Big difference; HS2 is a new line that will only use the Great Central Main Line alignment for a short (12 mile) section. The EWR project is reinstating an old line, using the Varsity line alignment from start to finish. Riorgisinx (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might if it were true. EWR is reusing (broadly) the route from Oxford to Bedford St Johns but, from there to Cambridge, the route will be entirely new. Even the Oxford-Bedford section is heavily re-engineered, it is not just a matter of renewing the sleepers,ballast and track. The GCML and Varsity Line are historic routes that are relevant to the extent that their modern replacements follow broadly the same alignment but in neither case is the "defining characteristic" test met that would justify the proposed nesting. Absolutely they should be mentioned in the article but including them in the category is a
Here is a good test: if it is valid to put Varsity line in category:East West Rail, then it must be equally valid to put East West Rail into Category:Varsity Line. (Ignore the detail that the category doesn't exist.) The issue is the "defining characteristic" that permits one to be nested under the other. You can't, they are equal in the hierarchy. For the long explanation see the article Category mistake--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As both the EWR and Varsity line are intertwined it would be appropriate to have the EWR article as a member of the Varsity line category and vice versa, but as the latter doesn't exist, a moot point. While it does involve more than just new sleepers, rails etc, the EWR project at this stage is rebuilding an existing railway line, save for the some alignment and infrastructure improvements here and there, it will follow the same alignment. As to whether the EWR continues beyond Bletchley, and if it does under what name, nobody knows. Riorgisinx (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you re-read WP:NONDEFINING. Two topics can't each be a sub-topic of the other.
EWR is defined as being the route between Oxford and Cambridge. The Bicester-Bletchley segment is just the first deliverable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another similar example: would anyone consider that Great British Railways should go in category: British Rail and vice versa? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway

Is it just me or is that section only very tenuously related to this article? It seems to describe a failed bid to run a service over the line and not any significant construction work. The text is heavy going so maybe I missed the point? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

Someone has deleted an illustration I added to this article. They have challenged my rationale in the history summary, where of course I am unable to reply.

One of the deficiencies of Wikipedia articles is that they tend to be huge slabs of text, rather out of step with the modern approach to the needs of a general readership. My daily newspaper includes interesting, but not immediately relevant, photographs in the editorial pages simply to lighten the mood; compare any national neespaper from the 1900s, which are dull and heavy going.

It is rarely possible to use directly and immediately relevant images in railway history articles. Sometimes "opening day" engravings from the Illustrated London News are available, although these are often generic illustrations, often by artists who did not witness the event. "Last train" ceremonies at line closure often appeared in the press but are rarely copyright free.

I believe that out of copyright picture postcards of stations, which can often be found, have a place in these articles. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging in the WP:BRD process. The someone was me. As I wrote in the edit note, the policy on images is that their purpose is to illustrate, not to decorate. The article already has enough images to give the 'flavour' of the line. It is not at all obvious how an image of Fenny Stratford (probably one of the least significant of the stations on the line, single tracked here, barely more than a halt) adds significant value. When it is associated with a section on "grouping of the railways", the reader must wonder why – what's the significance? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, a magazine or a tourist guide. We don't decorate articles to make them look pretty. Please remember that most visitors use mobile phones to read it, not giant desktop screens. So images must earn their keep: I don't see how this one does. But let's see what consensus emerges. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aylesbury?

Is this correct? The obvious enhancement to the prosperity of Aylesbury following that town's connection to the L&BR changed attitudes When/where/how was Aylesbury connected to the L&BR? (before Verney Junction, obviously). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: More than two decades before the Wycombe Railway. See Cheddington to Aylesbury Line and Aylesbury High Street. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before my time . What confused me is that there is nothing about it at Aylesbury (which I suppose is puristically correct since it was a different station, but...) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this any good? I have done it elsewhere where a town was served by two different railway lines, e.g. Burnley Manchester Road railway station. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Varsity_Line"