Talk:South West Main Line

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

Possible rename[edit]

I am proposing renaming this article to Southampton and Weymouth Main Line, and then renaming West of England Main Line to South Western Main Line. See discussion on Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain#Railway lines in the United Kingdom -- Chris j wood 11:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this comment can be archived. Note that as at 2015, London is a European transport hub so 'south-west' meaning south-west of the capital as used in much expansion has additional meaning.- Adam37 Talk 13:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Line Speeds[edit]

Is there any chance we can add some more information about line speeds etc, as a look at the Great Western Main Line page has some more details about that line and this page could benefit from similar details I believe? Currently all we have is "with large stretches cleared for 100mph running" but which stretches, any unusually slow sections compared to the rest of the line in general etc? I'm pretty sure trains don't fly through the Wimbledon to Surbiton area at 100mph for example, as my house would rattle even more if they did, more like 60-70mph maybe. Also what about the fast/slow lines, are they all cleared for the same speeds.....I'm sure I'm not the only person reading this who would be interested to know this sort of thing...surely! Jrhilton 21:27:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the upper limits are interesting for potential. The rest is highly operational and logistical so varies based on business cases put forward year-by-year to Network Rail. See WP:TALK now as in the light of this fact, the comment becomes polemic so needs to find a non-encyclopedia forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam37 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo via Weybridge railway service[edit]

Currently I have put this up for a rename as I think it deserves to possibly be a line. It is mainly served by commuter trains. I am mentioning this as the stations are on the South Western Man Line but are not mentioned here. Also part of my reasoning is the creation of the Trent Valley Line and the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line articles. Simply south 23:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with SWML? Simply south 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you might as well, as there's little scope for adding non-timetable detail. (However, also see below...) -- EdJogg 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite agree, as this is simply a different service on the line and not a different line. We should create a new article on it, but it should be clearly shown as a local service. I'm not quite with the name of it: Waterloo to Woking via Weybridge service implies it is a different line, so shouldn't it be called the Waterloo to Woking stopping service? Also there should be one for the Waterloo to Basingstoke stopping service, which is just as frequent. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All now in place.- Adam37 Talk 13:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stations between Waterloo and Woking??[edit]

Are there any stations between Waterloo and Woking, besides Clapham Junction? If there are, this article ignores them and provides no obvious means of finding out what they are or where they are described. EdJogg 23:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look above this talk section. Simply south 00:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what you meant, but your reply did make me look at West of England Main Line, where I discovered the stations are listed, so I have added links as appropriate. EdJogg 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though they probably should be added to the SWML as that's really the line they're on. What do you think? Simply south 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Waterloo-Weybridge-Woking page referenced above could be expanded to provide fuller data for that section of the route, and the SWML and WEML pages refer out to it? AlexTiefling 10:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Simply south, I now understand your original reply! Obviously the title Waterloo via Weybridge railway service did not make me think that it would contain relevant information – perhaps if the title also included 'Woking'?? (Heck, it was late at night, and it's started a discussion...)
AlexTiefling's ideas seem sound. That section of route was the first LSWR mainline to be developed, so there is scope for a history section too. I would suggest that:
  1. Queenstown Road and Vauxhall stations be included on all relevant route maps, allowing...
  2. just the stations between Clapham Junction and Woking to be omitted, instead showing a section of dotted line and a link to the Waterloo-Weybridge-Woking page, indicating that 'intermediate stations may be found at.... '
  3. Can add the plethora of divergent routes on the new route map – might as well make the most of it!!
BTW, Portsmouth Direct Line article will need the same treatment as SWML, since that also omits all the same stations. EdJogg 10:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Queenstown Road. Yes it is on the main line but it is served by trains to Barnes, Brentford, Strawberry Hill, Staines, Windsor and Reading, i think. Simply south 11:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. Now we're getting into the old chestnut of 'lines vs services'. For an article describing a section of line, as we are discussing here, I would expect the route map to show ALL stations, or at least indicate that certain stations had been omitted for clarity (as long as a link was provided to a page where they were described). ECML fails miserably on this point, since it is not clear how many stations are on the line, although I understand that the distance and number of stations covered requires rather different treatment.
If you omit Queenstown Road, (a) the route map suggests there are no intermediate stations between Vauxhall/Clapham Jnc (as appropriate) and Waterloo and (b) a reader has no idea how to find the article describing it
My suggestion for including both minor stations north of Clapham Junc was simply to make the map neater, as there would then only need to be a single reference to the page describing the omitted stations. EdJogg 11:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will probably add them to the SWML template (and i wouldn't call Vauxhall minor, thanks for the typo). Simply south 11:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them. Simply south 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now upgraded Portsmouth Direct Line to suit. This uses an alternative to showing all the stations, which I think works reasonably well. EdJogg 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I just changed Liphook and Liss to HST. Simply south 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! I'm strongly in favour of a good balance between detail and concision. Ideally, every notable feature on every line should be shown somewhere in the Project, but not every single time we map out a line which happens to pass it. This setup follows that principle admirably. AlexTiefling 13:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of prolonging this discussion further... The stations between Waterloo and Woking or Basingstoke could be removed in their entirety (from West of England Main Line), and replaced with the 'ellipsis' (dotted line) and a comment showing which line contained the actual detail. There is a precedent for this: Reading-Plymouth line omits all detail prior to Reading, and looks very business-like as a result. EdJogg 15:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The principal stations should still be included. Simply south 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think that would work, but I think I've cracked it now.
Have a look at the latest West of England Main Line... EdJogg 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for Waterloo to Basingstoke section??[edit]

The new route map components allow us to show much more information than was previously possible. Rather than just a list of station dots connected by lines, all the junctions (current and former) and closed stations may also be shown, allowing a great deal of context information to be packed into a very small space – much more encyclopaedic!

Between Basingstoke and Waterloo, as I write, there are numerous junctions missing: Reading, Ascot line, Pirbright Jc., Bordon Camp, Brookwood Cemetery, Virginia Water, Effingham Jc, Hampton Court, Shepperton, Chessington/Epsom, Sutton, Wimbledon (x3!!). No doubt there are many more in the other direction, and a few closed stations too, still to add. All this adds up to a potentially very long Route Map.

So, how about creating a new page such as Waterloo to Basingstoke Line to contain the relevant section and its Route Map. It would also allow better coverage of the many, many services that share this section of track. An added bonus would be the rationalisation of other articles, such as West of England Main Line, Portsmouth Direct Line, and all the others that connect to the main line. In each case, ALL duplication could be removed, and it would only be necessary to refer to the new mainline page. (For an example of how this can work effectively, see Reading to Plymouth Line).

Thoughts? EdJogg 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I'd say its part of SWML. Simply south 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EdJogg's suggestions sound very sound to me. AlexTiefling 08:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would work like the Waterloo to Woking stopping service, but it should be called the Waterloo to Basingstoke stopping service. As with the Woking service, it should be shown very clearly as a SERVICE and not a LINE.

Branches[edit]

Do you think the branches to the other suburban lines should be included on the template? Simply south 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely! There isn't a better way to show the relationships between the branches – it will help to locate them relative to the stations. The 'Southern' route maps also require mileages added.
EdJogg 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being stupid! Anyway, there are rather too many to do at Clapham Junction. How will we get round that? Simply south 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how best to show it on the main diagram – what we have is probably as close as we can get. The correct place to show the junctions is in a new route map on the Clapham Junction article itself. There is already a section attempting to describe the situation (Clapham Junction#The junction, but I think you'll agree that a diagram will make much more sense! (See Cornish Main Line for an example of the amazing capability of this map system!).
EdJogg 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new Route diagram template at Clapham Junction showing the layout of the railway lines. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hook Rail Freight Terminal[edit]

The Hook railway station article claims that there is a branch to the west of Hook station leading to a freight terminal. I have been unable to find any evidence for the existence of the terminal and am therefore proposing to remove the statement from the article. Could editors with a more comprehensive local knowledge than mine check the article and let me know if the statement should remain? Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I come from the Basingstoke area and I do often pass through Hook and I can't see anything like a rail freight terminal or branch line from the train. At the most it's a couple of sidings, but I can't even see any of these. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I have now removed the reference to the freight terminal from the article. Mertbiol (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram stops at Southampton...why?[edit]

I can see I've been here numerous times before, but this time it was as a reader not an editor.

Brockenhurst railway station is on the SWML, apparently, but the route diagram omits all stations after Southampton. Why? I found a good map on the Southampton and Dorchester Railway page, which also refers back here for a chunk of its map. As a reader looking for info quickly, I don't have time to hunt round the article for links -- I want adjacent railway lines shown as links on the map, so I can follow routes if I want to. Moreover, why is it such an undetailed map?

EdJogg (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full map is now hidden and accessible via a "Show" button at the bottom of the infobox, The map you seem to think is the diagram for the article is a historic map of the London and Southampton railway. Whose idea was it to hide all the diagrams, anyway? Britmax (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I've made it visible again. It's pretty important to an article about a major railway line. Someone with a narrow monitor can easily click 'hide' if it gets in the way.
If an experienced editor like me can miss its availability, what chance have less frequent visitors?
If there is a concern that it is too long, a simplified map -- utilising collapsed sections -- would show that a map was available without taking over the article.
EdJogg (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rematerialising it. Agreed about your experience and missing it - I was surprised when I realised what was going on, as you have been around a while. My feeling is that I can't see why the diagrams are hidden at all as this kind of thing is bound to happen. And the first time someone takes the time to draw up a diagram then realise there's one already there... Britmax (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible security problem with source for "most stops on network".[edit]

I have just tried to open the source page given for "most stops on the network" referring to a Waterloo to Weymouth train. I recieved a warning message about the site and have reverted its addition pending a check on whether the site has a problem or whether it's just a glitch. Britmax (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the message I receive is headed "There is a problem with this website's security certificate." Britmax (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got to it: but it's just a collection of timetables on what appears to be a self-published website. To determine the truth of the statement "The rail service with the most scheduled stops on the National Rail network runs on weekday mornings from Waterloo to Weymouth" one needs to compare those timetables against one another, which is a violation of WP:NOR bordering on WP:SYNTH. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research. It is in the timetable data released by ATOC, downloadable from http://data.atoc.org/ Edward (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the ATOC data explicitly make a statement having the same meaning as "The rail service with the most scheduled stops on the National Rail network runs on weekday mornings from Waterloo to Weymouth"? Or is it necessary to compare each timetable with the others? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is just data, it doesn't contain any statements. I wrote code that looks at each journey and finds the longest ones, my work is verifiable. I've used software to extract information from a data file, but I don't think violates the Wikipedia rule against original research. Edward (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: it doesn't contain any statements. You have used the data to draw your own conclusions. See WP:NOR#Using sources, where we find "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." (my bolding). It goes on "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context ... If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery." (my bolding).
Later on, we have
  • "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below."
  • "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source."
The ATOC data is a primary source. Here are some of the things stated about primary sources:
  • "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
  • Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources.
Compare what it says about Secondary sources: these "are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. ... Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." I'm sorry, but I see no evidence that your claims have been published by a reliable secondary source. There are several periodicals covering current events on Britain's railways - off the top of my head I can think of Modern Railways, Rail, The Railway Magazine and Today's Railways UK. All of these may qualify as secondary sources, so, have any of them published a claim similar to yours? If so, you are free to use that as a reference. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments in route maps[edit]

Personally I tend to find myself confused by the route maps, probably because I am more used to looking at true-to-scale maps, but I can see their point as a ready source of links to articles about connecting lines and particular locations. However, as something of a pedant when it comes to railway geography, may I point out that the UKAEA Sidings at Winfrith face Dorchester rather than London and that Sibley Pottery (between Holton Heath and Wareham) was actually Sandford Pottery, which name was used by the railways for the name of the siding. I have never heard the tunnel east of Southampton Central station called "Civic Centre Tunnel"; after all, as a railway tunnel it predates the civic centre by over 100 years and there was a canal tunnel on a slightly lower but otherwise almost identical route half a century earlier again. The official name of the tunnel is (and, as far as I know, always has been) plain "Southampton Tunnel". Jamjarface (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one who has worked on the map I will check these things. However, in my experience the tunnel is often called Civic Centre Tunnel and Sibley Pottery was there derelict when I was young, across the A351 from the site now occupied by the Gurkha restsaurant and a shop. As I say though I will go through some sources as the checks I used when I started here were less rigorous than the ones I would apply now. Britmax (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The siding was wrong and has been...tweaked. I will check the other problems in due course (unless someone else does). Britmax (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pottery was Sandford Pottery as Sibley was the other side of the road. That has been changed leaving only the tunnel question. Britmax (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to
  • Yonge, John (2008) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 5: Southern & TfL (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 29. ISBN 978-0-9549866-4-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
it's Southampton Tunnel; it is 528 yards long, and extends from 78 mi 52 ch to 78 mi 76 ch, with two tracks. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Route map[edit]

Why was the route map removed? I note that the change description stated that it "needs sorting" - but I've looked on the talk page for the map and for this page, and can't see what needs sorting about it. Could someone enlighten me? --Muzer (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to this edit... I see no evidence of change to Template:South Western Main Line since then, nor any posts to its talk page for well over a year - Bikeroo, what aspect of the route map still needs sorting? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just tried to edit it, and it turns out that adding the routemap into the infobox brings it above Wikipedia's expanded template size limit (of, I believe, 2MB), and it's probably not a good idea to have it outside the infobox because then it won't be hidden by default. Any ideas on how to resolve this, aside from cutting bits out of the map which I'm not sure I agree with? --Muzer (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually pretty easy to make a map hidden by default, you just add an extra parameter to the header. The heading should be something along the lines of {{BS-map|title = Bristol Area Railway Map|navbar = Bristol railway map|collapse = {{{collapse|}}}|map = etc etc etc. If the collapse parameter isn't in the header of the map currently, add it. Then all you need to do to make it collapse is use {{templatename | collapse=y}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, fixed. --Muzer (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved all besides Catford Loop Line. Consensus has developed supporting the suggested renames of all the pages except the Loop Line page. I suggest a separate RM is opened for that page. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:CONSISTENCY, MOS:CAPS. See South Eastern main line, Mid-Kent line, Chatham main line, Sutton and Mole Valley lines, Greenwich Park branch line, Swanley railway station, Medway Valley line, Maidstone West railway station, Ashford to Ramsgate line (all in the same transit system as those nominated), and numerous previous RMs about over-capitalisation of "line", "station" and other transport terms. The "line", "main line", and "branch line" portions are just descriptive disambiguation, like "cat" in Siamese cat and "onion" in Vidalia onion; WP does not capitalise these, regardless of topic. (They are even the exact same kind: one can say "I was on the South Western" if the context is clear, just as "I took my Siamese in for a check-up"). The over-capitalisation will also need to be fixed in the text of various articles and templates, e.g. Template:Chatham main line which has "Catford Loop Line", etc., but lower-cases others. This line-by-line variance is not permissible under MoS's most basic rule: be consistent within the same article. Finally, the fact some of them are abbreviated as all-caps acronyms, e.g. SWML, is irrelevant (AIDS is "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  1. A specific recommendation for Catford Loop Line is omitted from this RM, for individual examination. "Catford Loop" appears to be used as a proper name like "Chatham" in WP's own text, but it is not clear whether RS (outside "capitalise all train stuff" specialist works) do this consistently. We would use Catford loop line if "loop line" is just another term like "main line" and "branch line". If the term isn't used that way and sources do treat "Catford Loop" as a proper noun (not just in specialist works that capitalise all "train stuff"), then it would be Catford Loop line. I suspect the former is the correct title.
  2. It is undesirable for this random capitalisation divergence to persist in these articles. This is bad especially for reader consistency but also impedes the ability to do editorial work without pointless, continual strife over trivia. The current situation is largely just the result of page-by-page resistance to lower-case by railfans who like to capitalise stuff like all specialists do when writing for each other rather than for the general public. It's a waste of editorial productivity for WP:RM to entertain endless one-article-at-a-time, transport-related squabbles, especially since the matter has already been settled in the same lower-casing direction repeatedly; we have multi-page RMs for a reason.
  3. More than half the move-to names did not exist as redirects (i.e., were redlinks) until just now. A high priority for transit/transport/travel wikiprojects should be ensuring that variant typography gets readers to the desired article, regardless of anyone's views on how they "should" be spelling these names when they try.
  4. Some articles in this transit system have leads and infoboxes that do not agree with their article titles; e.g., Greenwich Park branch line's infobox says its name is Nunhead to Lewisham line, and the lead says "Nunhead to Lewisham line (Greenwich Park branch)".

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support SMcCandlish's points (stalking, sorry). One benefit I hadn't noticed is the disambiguation concerning "loop"/"Loop", whichever way is right. I like to know through the title that there's nowhere called "Chatham Main". Tony (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing connection on map[edit]

There is now a connection between Clapham Junction and the Chatham line towards Denmark Hill, used by the London Overground service. It should be shown on the red map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.223.221 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warmongering[edit]

@Mattbuck: and Britmax, we're not getting into an edit war, are we? Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, just me getting red mist over red letter editors changing stuff with no edit summary or anything. Sorry about that. Britmax (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Britmax while I understand your desire for sourcing for SWR, SWT had precisely zero sources too. So, as we all know SWT no longer exists, how about we change it to what we know is correct? Oh, and your reversion now means there are 2 references to SWR and 1 to SWT, so good going. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And now an IP has changed that last reference to SWT. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, consensus to move for consistency and used as names in sources so need capitalising. South Western main line moved to South West Main Line to align naming with sources & to capitalise as per rest of set. Keith D (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– While the names of some of these lines have previously been discussed here and here, in this category we currently have a mix of articles named either ABC main line or ABC Main Line. Given that an identical RM to rename Great Western main line to Great Western Main Line was carried unanimously, propose the above articles be renamed to give a consistent naming convention. Mallaeta (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - They're names, not descriptions. Proper nouns should be capitalised. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't the words street, station, road, etc. written in regular case (i.e. NOT capitalised) even when it forms part of the name? I thought that it should be capitalised but I have seen situations when they are not capitalised, especially in continental Europe. --Miklcct (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Miklcct, apart from "Battersea Power Station" (the article for which should be Battersea Power Station tube station), "station" is not part of the name, it's a descriptor. The station is called (eg) "London Paddington". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose on grounds of consistency. UK railway line articles are generally not capitalised, and I don't see why we should make an exception to those lines specifically. I'm actually quite surprised that the RM on the GWML article had such a supporting outcome. 86.175.194.133 (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per the preponderance of uses in reliable sources that have them capitalised. Some of the UK railway line articles are at descriptive titles and so should not be capitalised, some others were decapitalised incorrectly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but especially Brighton Main Line In the case of the Brighton Main Line, the capitalised form is consistently used in Network Rail documents, like these; [1][2][3], and in news reports from the BBC etc [4][5]. It is clearly the correct name, and in my opinion it should never have been moved to lowercase in the first place! G-13114 (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These are the formal names of the routes and should be capitalised. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using G-13114 and Murgatroyd49's argument. That's probably not what they intended, but the line's owner calls it the "South West Mainline". Otherwise, for consistency here, and ignoring that reliable source, Support "South Western Main Line". Bazza (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (1) These are proper nouns so should be capitalised if we follow the usual rules of English grammar. (2) if the owners or reliable sources are inconsistent, we should at least adopt a consistent approach in Wikipedia for the sake of our readers. The only exception would be if there was overwhelming evidence that the capitalisation was not used in reliable sources for a particular line, as has been shown for London Underground 'lines'. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with modifications - Network Rail uses these as proper nouns / official names - (example [6]) so follows that we should too. However on the same principle, the official name for the SWML in Network Rail literature is the South West Main Line not South Western Main Line, so that article should be moved to the correct name and the others should be checked for consistency too. WaggersTALK 11:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Waggers: As I noted above, Network Rail also refer to it as "South West Mainline", although their inconsistency might not be a total surprise. I agree with you that it should be renamed "South West Main Line". Bazza (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Proper Nouns take Capital Letters, every time. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that this RM has been up for 17 days now (which is ten days longer than normal) and the proposal has had overwhelming support, isn't it time an admin closed this and carried the moves out? G-13114 (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputing SWML name[edit]

Inspecting claims Network Rail refers to Waterloo-Basingstoke-Southampton-Weymouth as South West Main Line (SWML) may be incorrect. Inspecting the old document documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2008/Route 3 - South West Main Line.pdf seems to show a whole network referred to as SWML by Network Rail, and the Southampton-Weymouth sectikon shown as secondary.. A current website page seems to show the whole area refered to as "Wessex Railway" ([7]). [8] refers to SWML but refers to it containing "Guildford"? Is SWML in current official use for the line defined by this article? Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page on Network Rail's website, about the Wessex route, specifically refers to the South West Mainline (three words, not four, but clearly West not Western). --10mmsocket (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept that.  Done Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said the etymology of the name is interesting, given the line barely touches into South West England; and the question "What is the main railway line to South West England? would likely give an answer relating to a line through Exeter. Possibly need intro/section line the West of England line lead section. I've put my foot in it enough tonight anyway for the moment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've always believed that it's so-called because it's the south-western part of the former Network Southeast region. The main railway to the south west is the Great Western Main Line, out of Paddington. AndyLandy (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original line was built by the London and Southampton Railway, later the London and South Western Railway. so That is the main line, everything else is branches Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Pretty much all of the routes out of Waterloo were London & South Western Railway until 1923. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lines out of Waterloo[edit]

The article states "The London end of the line has as many as eight tracks plus the two Windsor Lines built separately," implying that there are ten lines in total out of Waterloo. My understanding is that this is incorrect. There are eight lines that run between Waterloo and Clapham Junction, of which three are allocated to the Windsor services, and five to the South West Main Line. Of course, I can't find a source for this right now. AndyLandy (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyLandy: See
  • Padgett, David; Kelman, Leanne (November 2019) [1994]. Munsey, Myles (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 5: Southern & TfL (4th ed.). Frome: Trackmaps. map 21A. ISBN 978-1-9996271-2-6.
Once through the signal gantry (29 chains from mileage zero), there are ten tracks as follows (west/north to east/south):
  • Windsor Relief 2
  • Windsor Relief 1
  • Windsor Reversible
  • Up Windsor
  • Down Windsor
  • Up Main Relief
  • Up Main Fast
  • Down Main Fast
  • Up Main Slow
  • Down Main Slow
These then change as follows. Distances are in miles:chains.
Point Distance Change in tracks Notes
International Junction 0:40 10 reduced to 8 Windsor Relief 1 & 2 lost; Down Windsor splits to Down Windsor Fast & Slow; Up Main Relief merged into Up Main Fast
Nine Elms Junction 1:78 8 reduced to 7 Down Windsor Fast & Slow combined as Down Windsor
2:65 7 increased to 8 Down Windsor splits to Down Windsor Fast & Slow
3:35 (none) Windsor Reversible & Up Windsor redesignated Up Windsor Slow & Up Windsor Fast
Then comes the divergence into two groups of four just before Clapham Junction station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, excellent, thanks @Redrose64: for clarifying that. I had no idea about those Windsor relief lines. I wonder if that Padgett reference should be in the main article? In other news, I'm going to have to get some of these books, there's very little detail online about actual line configurations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyLandy (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyLandy: Here's their link: Railway Track Diagrams, Book 5 – Southern & TfL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_West_Main_Line&oldid=1204838882"