Talk:Southern Railway (UK)

message: Please note that there is an ongoing discussion on this article and articles on the other "Big Four" pre-nationalisation companies here. Contributions to the discussion are welcomed. ColourSarge (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: The Discussion has been archived here.-- EdJogg (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on format and push for GA status 

message: === Electric traction ===
I know the article is still in development, but the "Traction and Rolling Stock" section makes NO mention of any electric stock (neither EMUs nor locos). I would have said this is a serious omission! EdJogg (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and the reason it has been omitted is the fact that I have had very little spare time of late to continue the overhaul of this article.  It will get done, but this is a long term project that deserves to be done well, and to have time taken over it.  So bear with the editiors (I hope more will contribute!)  --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I've made a start but not wikilinked most of the ships as there'll be a sea of red. Individual ships can be wikilinked when articles are created. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing information...?

message: I know the article is still in development, but the "Traction and Rolling Stock" section makes NO mention of any electric stock (neither EMUs nor locos). I would have said this is a serious omission! EdJogg (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and the reason it has been omitted is the fact that I have had very little spare time of late to continue the overhaul of this article.  It will get done, but this is a long term project that deserves to be done well, and to have time taken over it.  So bear with the editiors (I hope more will contribute!)  --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric traction 

message: The article makes no mention of the fleet of ships owned and operated by the Southern Railway. Another serious omission that should be addressed. I'll post a note at WT:SHIPS and ask for help there. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a start but not wikilinked most of the ships as there'll be a sea of red. Individual ships can be wikilinked when articles are created. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ships

message: This needs expansion too! Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Air services

message: Did it make any? What was its financial performance like (return on capital, dividends, share price performance) relative to the stock market in general and the other Big Four companies?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.160.165.186 (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Profits

message: This is more by way of a 'FYI' than a query.
Pages already exist for Coaches of the London and North Eastern Railway and Coaches of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and Withdrawn British Rail Stock anticipates similar pages for the SR and GWR. When a page is started for SR coaching stock, this would be a good page title to start with... (even if it is later decided to rename them as Southern Railway coaching stock or similar).
EdJogg (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a good idea, but I think the section in question is brief enough and won't grow much more if I have anything to do with it. If and when the new page is created, someone else will have to write a more detailed history of Southern coaching stock. It also begs the question of who will write the histories of pre-Grouping stock, as well, as whoever does this will have won half the battle regarding Southern coaching stock... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate coaching stock page? 

message: This section stated
:Three significant events occurred under Walker's tenure as General Manager: the rebuilding of Waterloo station, completed in 1922; electrification in mid-1920s; and the appointment of Bulleid as CME in 1937.
I've changed it to
:Two significant events occurred under Walker's tenure as General Manager: electrification in mid-1920s; and the appointment of Bulleid as CME in 1937.
The first event happened before the formation of the Southern Railway, and therfore would be more appropriate to the LSWR article. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General Managers

message: I think maybe the link to Nationalisation should be changed to link to British Rail as that would be a more appropriate article than Nationalisation as the BR article explains about the nationalisation so a full readthrough of the article isn't really nessecary IMO. CrossHouses (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline in Infobox? Nationalisation. 

message: A couple of things, the Southern was formed from the LSWR, LBSCR, SER and LCDR. Both of the latter were in existence until 31 December 1922 as separate entities. The SECR was a working arrangement between the two companies. Also, the Canterbury and Whitstable railway predated the London & Southampton by almost 10 years, yet the latter gets a mention in the lede. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: A recent edit has sorted out the paragraph on locomotive numbering. These amendments are mostly correct, but one is not: "New locomotives were prefixed by the letter of the works where they were built", which is referenced to Haresnape, p. 124. This is untrue; if we analyse locomotives built down to the end of May 1931 (A900 was built May, followed by 1901 in June), we find the following:
*U A610-9 built at Brighton 
*U A620-639 built at Ashford 
*L1 A753-9, A782-9 built by North British 
*K A791-9 built by Armstrong Whitworth 
*K A800-9 built at Brighton 
*N A823-5 built at Ashford 
*N A826-875 commenced by Woolwich Arsenal, completed at Ashford 
*N1 A876-880 built at Ashford 
*K1 A890 built at Ashford 
*U1 A891-900 built at Eastleigh 
*Z A950-7 built at Brighton 
*L&B E188 built by Manning Wardle 
*H15 E321-4, E330-4 built at Eastleigh 
*N15 (Maunsell) E448-457 built at Eastleigh 
*H15 E473-8 built at Eastleigh 
*N15 (Urie) E753-5 built at Eastleigh 
*N15 (Maunsell) E763-792 built by North British 
*N15 (Maunsell) E793-806 built at Eastleigh 
*S15 (Maunsell) E823-837 built at Eastleigh 
*Lord Nelson E850-865 built at Eastleigh 
*V E900-9 built at Eastleigh 
What Haresnape actually states is "For new construction, Maunsell used the prefix to denote the parent office for the design". To reinforce this, in
*
we find that the Z class were given A-prefix numbers (not the B-prefix that their builder might suggest) because they were designed at Ashford. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * Regardless of the outcome I've replaced the image with the image of a person rather than a steam locomotive.  But of source feel free to improve.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The railway was a for-profit business. And yet there's nothing in the article about the finances of the railway.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.208.54 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How profitable was the SR?