Talk:South Eastern Railway (England)

message: Is it correct that Maidstone and Canterbury have lost their second station? Surely Canterbury still has two and Maidstone three? rossb 15:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Second stations

message: Sorry to be terribly nit-picking, but this material is so well crafted it seems a shame not to fix the number of cases where your spacebar seems not to have worked, after full-stops and commas.
What motivated the edit was the section about the variety of means of traction.  In the end I found there weren't any grammatical errors, but at first I felt there was an error there somewhere.  It's perfectly correct, but it "threw" me.  Perhaps it would be smoother if parentheses replaced the two hypens (before "built" and after "1839") ?
--Edetic 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do whatever needs to be done mate, as they say "be bold"  - I'm illiterate when it comes to grammar (i didn't write this article) Pickle 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CWR - spacebar 

message: The South Eastern Railway Company was originally proposed in 1836 to build a line from Dover to Reigate, where it would share the Brighton line into London via Croydon, running into London Bridge station which was owned by the London and Greenwich.  It would seem then that some of this first paragraph is wrong since the London and Greenwich was a separate company and neither line initially ran anywhere near the Canterbury and Whitstable line. Does anybody mind if I do a rewrite and tidy on this? Chevin 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have a go and rewrite to list the Main line (SEML - ie redhill to dover) as coming first, but then put notes about later aquisition of london and greenwich and crab and winkle. IIRC this is an odl article thrown together not very coherintly ;) Pickle 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I've got the info on its construction etc including Wishaw but am awaaiting a book for its later history. Chevin 08:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision suggested

message: As far as I see the article does not give a date for the formation of the SER, nor a date for its passing (1923?). The sections about the companies which formed it go on and on with happenings that seem to be well after their lines were under the SER. A revision is needed.--SilasW (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: End - "5 August 1899", when it and the LCDR effectively merged (a joint management committee to get around various tax and other government impediments to rail industry consolidation prior to WW1) to make the SECR. Technically i guess the shareholders and company still existed until grouping, but passenger facing wise it disappeared in 1899. If i was really clever i would do some sort of rail succession box like most defunct and current TOC have. 91.111.74.139 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A management committe was formed for the operations; however the SER and LCDR companies remained legally distinct, and the infrastructure remained owned by those two companies. New lines built after 1899 (such as the Chiselhurst loops and the new line in the Broadstairs/Ramsgate area) were built and owned by one or the other, but not by the SECR. The text of the Railways Act 1921 lists both the SER and LCDR as constituents of the group which became the Southern Railway. Hence the use of :Category:Railway companies disestablished in 1899 is incorrect. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begining and End 

message: I propose to entirely rewrite and expand this article over the next few weeks. I have just cut out two large chunks of text on the London and Greenwich Railway and Canterbury and Whitstable Railway which do not appear to me to be directly relevant to the main article, and in any event the information is already given in their respective main articles. (It will of course be necessary to make some reference to these railways later in the SER article but not in this detail.) In case anyone is unhappy with this action, I have moved them below pro tem.--Das48 (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite and expand article