Talk:London and South Western Railway

message: A lot of the article as currently stands is a list of stations and description of the currently open former LSWR lines.  This stuff is listed elsewhere I think - isn't there an SW main line article ?
Expansion is needed, re the companies history etc....   For example, what about the territory battles with the GWR over things such as the LSWRs plans for a London to Bristol route, and others.
Wikipedia railway related articles seem to be, in the main, about listing basic facts (e.g. list of stations on a route). Encyclopaedic articles are much much more than the hum drum ladelling out of the dull basics. Thoughts ? Discuss here and add your views--jrleighton 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand 

message: *I think the map needs a serious cleanup, and probably division into several separate routemaps. I hardly know where to start, though! AlexTiefling 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I made it as a stand-in until someone could produce a jpg map, something geographic, to show the company's spread; how it was essentially two network areas with a single main line linking them (i.e. there was virtually nothing between Salisbury and Exeter.). The routes could then be highlighted in colours or something on the map. Graldensblud 09:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Competing lines in pink" - this contradicts the explanation of colours given in the legend. Signalhead 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Route Map

message: Have sorted out route details, and moved them to relevant articles concerning LSWR infrastructure past and present.  Have also created a new article on the LSWR secondary routes, so now the LSWR article is tidier than it was.  Please do not revert changes made, as the article is about the LSWR COMPANY, and its expansion into new territory through the construction of routes, but not the routes themselves.  Thank you.--Bulleid Pacific 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Clean-up 

message: Could one of the knowledgeable editors of this article look at the Waterloo Station article and amend one article's account of why Waterloo Station was so named? This says that originally it was "Waterloo Bridge", being near that Bridge, while editors of the other maintain with a fervour verging on the fanatical the less credible unsourced statement that it was named after the battle. My scepticism expressed in the Waterloo Station article, in part as the battle was "decades" earlier, was deleted with some such comment as "decades for 31 years is not NPOV."--SilasW 10:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded to the basis of this comment more fully on Talk:Waterloo station. Basically several people (including SilasW) have put forward a very plausable theory that Waterloo station is indirectly named after the battle (ie. Waterloo station is named after Waterloo Bridge, which is named after Waterloo battle), but no-one has cited a reference. So a theory it remains, and until a ref is cited it shouldn't go onto WP. This article states that Waterloo station was originally named Waterloo Bridge station; if so this would (IMHO) prove the theory above. But sadly again no cite. I've added the fact template to encourage the addition of a cite. -- Chris j wood 10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterloo (Bridge) Station: Wikipedia contradiction 

message: July 3 1848 -- The South-Western Extension to Waterloo-road
Wednesday last was fixed as the day for the Government-inspector to survey the line. … The entire extension is on a lofty viaduct from Nine Elms to Waterloo-road … The extent of room at the Waterloo-station is at present about 5 acres … The whole of the land from Nine Elms to Waterloo-bridge has cost 580,000 l … As a general principle the trains will leave the Waterloo-station at the same times that they have been accustomed to leave the Nine Elms.
July 8th 1848, classified advertisements
London and South Western Railway – Opening to Waterloo-Bridge – Notice is hereby given that all the Trains of this Company now starting from, and arriving at, the Nine elms station, will, on and after Tuesday, the 11th day of July instant, start from, and arrive at, the Waterloo-bridge station. …
July 12th 1848 – classified advertisement
London and South Western Railway – Extension to Waterloo-bridge. The public are informed that the LINE is now OPEN for PUBLIC TRAFFIC, and that all the passenger trains heretofore running from Nine-elms, now start from, and arrive at, the Waterloo station. The entrance to the station is, for the present, in the Waterloo-bridge-road. …  P Laurentz Campbell, Sec, Waterloo station July 11th 1848.
July 14th 1848 – classified advertisement
Passage to Canada via Southampton and Plymouth. The ship Daedalus … for Quebec and Montreal … passengers must be at Waterloo-station at 12 o’clock on the 18th to proceed by railway to Southampton … 
July 24th 1848 – classified advertisement
South Western Railway. The ONLY carriage entrance to the Waterloo-station is at the Surrey side of Waterloo-bridge. Toll – cab 2d empty 1d; foot passengers one halfpenny. Trusty porters, with trucks and barrows, are in attendance at the Waterloo-bridge Steam Boat-pier to take any luggage to the railway station.
August 19th 1848 – classified advertisement
London and South Western Railway – Opening of the Windsor, Staines and South-Western Railway to Datchet … on Tuesday 22nd August. By order P Laurentz Campbell, Secretary, Waterloo-station, August 16th 1848.
There are a lot of classified advertisements referring to going by train from Waterloo-bridge, used as a location description; the following are the only four hits I got in this period for Waterloo-bridge-station:
September 8th 1848 – classified advertisement
The GROTTO at Oatlands-park. Tickets of admission for the 30th instant, 5s to admit two persons … Oatlands is distant from London 17 miles and from the Weybridge station of the South Western Railway half a mile. Trains leave the Waterloo-bridge station and return many times in the day. 
November 18th 1848 – New item
Fatal accident on the Datchet railway – Yesterday evening a collision took place … It appears that the express train which left the Waterloo-bridge station at 5.35 reached the junction at Richmond at 6.5 … 
February 16th 1849 -- Railway intelligence.
(Report of LSWR AGM) – possibility of owning steam packet boats – A poll upon this question was ordered to be taken, to be kept open at the Waterloo-bridge station from 10 o’clock to 3 o’clock tomorrow. 
June 6th 1849 – Sporting Intelligence
ASCOT HEATH RACES
… the South Western Company provided special trains from the Waterloo-bridge station to Staines and Datchet … 
Afterbrunel 08:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extracts from the Times newspaper

message: I'm reassessing this article from B to C class because there are large swaths of text that are unreferenced, there is only one photograph and there are a couple of empty sections.  I look forward to seeing the results of the work that is ongoing here. Slambo (Speak) 11:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found other photos of preserved LSWR equipment on Commons, so I started a category there and linked to it from this article.  I'd like to see some photos of the railway while it was in operation.  Slambo (Speak) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment 

message: Online references give the LSWR's first voltage inconsistently as 600, 630, and 660. Perhaps the voltage did vary with the load and the distance from substation. One "source" even gives 750v, apparently anachronistically struck by the Southern Railway's later improved juice.--SilasW (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varying voltage 

message: The article says "the routes met at Falcon Junction (just east of the present Clapham Junction station)" but the Railway Clearing House map at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cj.tolley/rjd/rjd-017.htm shows Falcon Junction west of the station on the LB&SCR line, not the L&SWR. Did the name migrate with later developments or is this a slip-up?--SilasW (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ubiquitous Middleton Press reproduces a Railway Magazine map of the junction circa late-1930s in Victoria to East Croydon. Definitely marked as LBSCR only, albeit somewhat out-of-date at the time of issue. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with a supporter, I've cut "Falcon".--SilasW (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falcon Junction 

message: The article says, as do some books, that the London and Southampton Ry changed its name to London and South Western Ry on 21 May 1838 when traffic began. Elsewhere, including somewhere in WP, and Dendy Marshall's History of the Southern Railway give 1839 as the year of the change. According to that book (whose first edition has been said to have more than fifty minor errors) it was sanctioned by the Act which gave powers to build a line from the present Eastleigh to near Gosport and dropping "Southampton" was a sop to the inhabitants of the rival port Portsmouth. As ever railway articles have scant rigorous sources and are based on what past authors and present editors thought. Has anyone ever tried to find which Act allowed the change?--SilasW (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is helpful that you pointed this out, as it seems to have been taken for granted, as you suggest. Frustratingly Williams, in what ought to be the bible for this, sidesteps it, referring to the L&SR on one page and the L&SWR on the next with no explanation. However the answer appears to be "An Act to amend the Acts relating to the London and Southampton Railway Company, hereafter to be called the "London and South-western Railway Company" and to make a branch railway to the port of Portsmouth." This was 2 & 3 Victoria, cap xxvii, given the Royal Assent on 4th June 1839. I'll incorporate this into the text now. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Williams in Chapter 1 is vague; but did you flip on to page 122? See paragraph beginning "Section 2 of the Act made a doubtful concession to Portsmouth ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, of course I did; it's rather wishy-washy too, isn't it. Williams is remarkably circuitous, which is why I added the primary source material instead, see my remarks above.Afterbrunel (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Company's name 

message: Should we not consider merging the contents and information in LSWR Secondary Routes into a section on the London and South Western Railway's article? I propose a merge into a section named Secondary routes. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. :-) --DavidCane (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be contrary to WP:SS: Suggest that here have a brief section "Secondary routes", with a  tag at the top of it. Keep the subsidiary article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree per Old Moonraker, but I think that LSWR Secondary Routes should be renamed as a list and reassessed as list class, seeing as that is all it really is is a list of bullet points with no references. WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary routes merge 

message: The section on L&SWR ships is huge and no doubt lists every ship the company owned. But there is nothing whatever about where the ships went to. Isn't this a major omission?
Similarly, we have a vast list of locomotive engineers. Their main contribution seems to have been changing the colour the engines were painted. Don't we owe them a bit more than that? Afterbrunel (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would anyone object if I export the shipping details to a separate (new) article and retain a brief summary here with a link to tnew page? Afterbrunel (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have done this. The shipping tail was wagging the dog, rather. Nonetheless the article is really just a list of vessel names and dates, and needs fleshing out to discuss shipping services, not just the ships. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ships  and locomotive liveries 

message: This article is getting quite long, and there is more must-do work to add. On the other hand I am uncomfortable with the great long lists at the end. Were the resident engineers in themselves so noteworthy as to need being listed? Was John Strapp a much better engineer than John Bass, or was he much worse? And what about locomotive engineers? Couldn't someone who knows more about their work than I do write a separate "Locomotives of the LSWR" article? As to "Locomotive Liveries" I don't think that warrants being here. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists