Talk:Rugby–Leamington line

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

Title[edit]

Is there a reason why this article title is "Leamington to Rugby line"? The railway was built as a branch from Rugby to Leamington, not vice versa: and when it was doubled, the work proceeded from the Rugby end. In railway operating terminology, the line ran down from Rugby to Leamington.

I strongly feel the title should be changed to "Rugby to Leamington line" to reflect the original construction and the terminology used by the LNWR, LMS and BR.

Any thoughts, anyone?

Andy F (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the change of name. What about merging Weedon to Leamington Spa line into this article as well? Lamberhurst (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lamberhurst. Re the change of name, I'll give a few days to see if anyone responds. Re merging Weedon to Leamington Spa line into this, that makes sense I think. I've got some additional text already written about th Weedon-Daventry-Marton jct line - I'll look it out. I'll copy this note to your talk page too. Cheers, Andy F (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both lines were in a combined article until a while ago when someone separated them out, and I think the Weedon line has its own article. I wasn't enthused with the split given the "combined" use of the line towards the end of their operations but didn't have the time to argue the toss either way. Britmax (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it matters one way or the other (although the present name seems to make more sense from the perspective of putting the names in alphabetical order). Changing it seems unnecessary to me. --RFBailey (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does matter as, in the absence of a recognised name for the line, the usual (and most logical) means of naming it is the line from A to B, the direction of travel being north to south or west to east depending on which direction is London. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha-order is more logical than direction of travel which is undefined as it could be any way north-south or south-north. Keith D (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by the alpha order aregument. For instance, the placenames on the [[Weedon to Leamington Spa line are not alphabetical but are ordered (correctly IMO) to reflect the line's genesis, its operation and the fact that railway terminology usually referred to lines in the Down direction (eg the ECML runs from Kings Cross to Waverley, not vice versa).
RFBailey: it matters, I'd suggest, in the interest of historical accuracy.
Keith: with respect, the direction of travel on a railway is virtually always defined - it is either Up or Down. That is not a compass direction, of course; examples of Down lines from London run north (St Pancras to Bedford), south (Victoria to Brighton), east (Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness), or west (Paddington to Reading). People are used to saying "down south" and "up north" in everyday speech but on a train you go 'down' from London to Inverness.
Since writing the foregoing I've found this Railroad_directions#United_Kingdom article
As to merging the the two articles as suggested by Britmax (above), I see the logic. However, it could equally be argued that they were two distinct routes (the Weedon line being a development of the initially terminal branch to Daventry). If, as Britmax says, the articles were separated somewhat arbitrarily I'd suggest we seek consensus before re-merging them. Andy F (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Engineers Line Code for this line is RTS. The initial 'R' would indicate that this line was treated by railway management as starting from Rugby. Therefore I would concur with renaming the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.21.30 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen this discussion from nine years ago, I have decided to move the article in line with this discussion. G-13114 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial expansion[edit]

I have substantially expanded this stub. I have not added all the links but will do so as time allows. I also have a selection of images to upload. Andy F (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any books/refs that could be added in? I have one. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have several printed reference sources (mags and books) plus a few online ones. When I go through the article adding the wikilinks, I will add refs. Obviously, if you can cite further references that verify the content that would be good too. Andy F (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of references and sources appended to article Andy F (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title again[edit]

Should we have "line" with a capital "L" like most of the other line articles, such as West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line, Coventry to Nuneaton Line etc.?

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose the merger of this article with Weedon to Leamington Spa line. Both are LNWR lines which, although worked separately, would be better dealt with in one article much like Midhurst Railways which covers three interlocking lines. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why. It was a different line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.25.114 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see a case for it unless you are also going to include the Coventry-Leamington line in one article as well, as all three branches operated in an interlocking way. By that logic you could even make a case for the Coventry-Nuneaton line to be thrown in as well, as the passenger services pre-1965 always ran from Nuneaton to Leamington, (and are again now) with a few running through to Weedon. Either all of the former LNWR Coventry/Leamimngton branch lines in the area are put in one article or they should all have separate articles. Most of the sources I've seen have them listed separately, a unified article would be pretty long and unwieldy. G-13114 (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Error on the route map[edit]

The route map indicates a south / or east-facing spur where the line joined the Chiltern mainline. This is in error. In fact the spur faced west / north, allowing direct access the the Birmingham and Stratford lines. 81.108.21.30 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further photos[edit]

These may be of some interest:

--Trevj (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Leamington–Rugby line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rugby–Leamington_line&oldid=1205128854"