# Talk:Chesham branch

Can I suggest that there is a discussion here first on the name of the article. Renaming an article and using the edit summary to justify the move is wholly inappropriate. Seek concensus here to the name first please, anything less is disrespectful to other editors of this page and those with an interest in the topic. Tmol42 (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to kick things off a quick search on Google quickly brought up this page amongst others referring to 'Chesham Branch' from the London Underground (LU) consultation on possible changes in 2005.Tmol42 (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We could quite legitimately use either. There are a few reliable sources which call it the Chesham branch linethis one is a good example). TfL seems to use the shorter title, as do a number of self-published sources like this. But then there's Clive Foxwell's book about the line (currently cited a number of times in the article), which according to Amazon uses the words Branch Line in its title. So where does all that leave us? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I was making the move not on the fact of a service but simply that it is a branch line and other railway lines around the UK, this seems the standard naming for branch lines. Simply south (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think iridescent's reasoning at User talk:Iridescent#Chesham Branch Line is persuasive: if the best recent sources about this line never use "Chesham branch line", neither should we. Ucucha 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) As I've already said to you on my talkpage, "Line" has a very specific meaning within London Transport, and the Chesham branch doesn't meet it; an autonomous unit within London Underground with its own management, it's own timetable and its own colour on the tube map. The Chesham branch has none of these and never has. Even the Hammersmith & City and East London lines were just "Metropolitan Line (Hammersmith and City)" and "Metropolitan Line (East London Section)" until they were given full "Line" status in the 1990s; there are plenty of other semi-autonomous sections within LT (the Olympia branch, the Mill Hill East shuttle, the Edgware Road-Wimbledon section, the Uxbridge branch, the Watford branch, the Edgware and High Barnet branches), none of which use this "Foo Branch line" formulation. – iridescent 23:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Limit to outside metro systems? Also, i am not missing your point. Simply south (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
[ec] Using "line" in naming this article is anomalous in the context of London Underground's usage of lines and branches and gives the branch the appearance of a higher status than it has without adding anything. It is part of the Metropolitan line and "branch" provides sufficient explanation of its context as a branch off from the main route. We don't refer to the Heathrow branch line, Wimbledon branch line or the Edgware branch line, so why do so with the Chesham branch. --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new section to reflect the changeover from the Shuttle Service to Through Service realising of course it will need to be updated once the new service starts to operate. Having no technical knowledge about S stock trains etc no doubt I have made some basic mistake with the title or the jargon for which I am happy to stand corrected.Tmol42 (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Once the new trains are up and running, I'll rewrite the legacy section to cover it. Given that LT and Bucks CC are both involved, and neither have a reputation for competence and efficiency, I suspect something will go wrong and the whole thing will be postponed. – iridescent 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I read this great article but was hoping to read something about the navvies who built the line and accidents during its making.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.221.102 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Chesham branch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090823120715/http://www.crossrail.co.uk:80/the-railway/crossrail-maps to http://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-railway/crossrail-maps
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the reference instead. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chesham branch. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722181721/http://www.chilternvoice.co.uk/2010/12/01/last-chesham-shuttle-before-the-through-trains/ to http://www.chilternvoice.co.uk/2010/12/01/last-chesham-shuttle-before-the-through-trains/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 12:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello there fellow editors! It's been really dead recently, but I noticed that this article has quite a good potential so I have been trying to address all issues, and most have been resolved. I have been referring to the FA candidate discussion for all of the issues. Feel free to help out. I'll place a list here for easier reference. #roadtoFA Thank you!
Source Issues:

FN 68, 105: page(s)?
Other Issues:

"under way" is two words
This has personally given me a headache to search for the phrase. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think "(pronounced /ˈtʃɛsəm/)" is necessary; "Chesham" is pronounced as it sounds.
I prefer it to be kept as there may be pronunciations of Ches-Ham lmao VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
"almost three times more to buy in Chesham than to buy in Berkhamsted" needs rephrasing: "almost three times as much to buy in Chesham as in Berkhamsted".  Done
Why is "Watford" a redlink? There is an article.  Done Used the town wikilink instead
I am a bit confused by this: "[T]he line between Harpenden and Boxmoor eventually opened in 1877.[15] (The Harpenden–Boxmoor section was never completed; trains to Boxmoor terminated nearby at Heath Park Halt, and passengers to and from Boxmoor had to complete their journey by horse or horse-drawn bus.)" It would be better to clarify that the Harpenden and Boxmoor line partially opened in 1877.  Done
"Watkin turned his attention to the proposal to link to Aylesbury." Link what to Aylesbury?  Done London side actually
General point: the habit of inserting parenthetical asides into the text is a bit annoying. I'd get rid of the parentheses, and either absorb the comments into the text or relegate them to footnotes.  Done
"As the train pulled into Chesham, it was greeted by celebratory gunfire as it drew into the town..." Note the duplication of phrasing  Done
"...but a fast trains each morning..." ?  Done ? Made an assumption based on grammar
"The opening of the railway dramatically ended Chesham's isolation" Whose view is being expressed here?  Done removed
Perhaps explain why the Metropolitan Railway C Class locomotives performed poorly on the London-Aylesbury line. Was it the gradient?
In the Opening of the Aylesbury line section, I don't think the final paragraph is relevant to the Chesham branch line (nor is much of the detail in the preceding paragraph).  Done
Please consider this monster sentence, and see if you can split it, probably into three sentences: "On 30 July 1898 John Bell, General Manager of the Metropolitan Railway, took control of the Quainton Road signal box himself and refused to allow a GCR train onto MR-owned tracks on the grounds that it was scheduled to take the Great Western rather than the Metropolitan route south of Aylesbury,[74] while on one occasion in 1901 King Edward VII was travelling home after visiting a friend in Wendover; the MR signalman allowed a slow goods train to run in front of the royal train, causing the King to arrive late back in London.[75]  Done jeez
There are further issues of relevance in the Relations with the Great Central Railway section, much of which has no direct connection with the Chesham branch line but is rather more general railway history. I believe that much of this information could be summarised or left out.  Partly done
"1915 the extremely effective Metro-land advertising campaign..." Says who?  Done
"With the profits generated, the line was further electrified as far as Rickmansworth." When did this happen?  Done
"...it suffered two significant accidents in this period". Not clear what "this period" refers to.  Done
London Transport section. Again, the text needs to be kept on-topic. The first two paragraphs make no mention of the Chesham line.  Done cut short
"...and the line was operated entirely as a shuttle service." Not clear from the context what is meant by "the line".  Partly done cuz im not sure
On nationalisation, the LPTB was already in public ownership in 1948 so it is wrong to imply that it was nationalised along with the railway companies  Done
"Sunday services on the branch were abolished as a cost-cutting measure, although this decision was reversed following protests." This would be more sensibly worded: "A decision to abolish Sunday services on the branch as a cost-cutting measure was reversed following protests."  Done
"The Greater London Council was scheduled for abolition..." Tie this to a year. It's a while since you mentioned 1986.  Done
"The Chesham branch was proposed as a terminus for the original Crossrail scheme, which would have seen Crossrail trains running from Paddington to serve the stations between Rickmansworth and Aylesbury and the Chesham branch, allowing London Transport to withdraw from Buckinghamshire and cut the Metropolitan line back to serve only the branches to Watford and Uxbridge." Unwieldly, please split.  Done
EDIT: Just realised I have forgotten to sign. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)