Talk:Great Central Main Line

message: Hold on a minute somebody has performed a right hatchet job on what was here on this topic on the Great Central Railway article, and for some inexplicable reason has lopped off huge amounts of text. Can whoever did made this mess please restore the old text in its full detail. G-Man * 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As I understand it, the Channel Tunnel project of the early 1880s was clearly in abeyance by the time a firm decision was made to build the London Extenstion. It's true that the line was built to a loading gauge that would have allowed through traffic from contintal railways. But I'm not sure the possibility of international through trains could be considered the raison d'etre for the line as claimed in the Traffic on the London Extesion. So my thoughts are:
* does the stuff about Channel Tunnel really need to be there at all?
* there should be more information on the traffic that the line did carry, perhaps including beyond regrouping and nationalisation.
Ivanberti 12:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun to meet the latter point by including mention of the GC crack passenger expresses of the 1930s. Alarics (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I am also uncertain whether the Channel Tunnel aspect really merits the emphasis given to it in the article. It may have been in the forefront of Sir Edward Watkin's mind when he first conceived the line, but I think it is a stretch to suggest that the absence of the Channel Tunnel by the 1960s played any part in the closure decision, and meanwhile the route seems to have operated quite happily in all the intervening decades. As it stands, the article gives the overall impression that the line was a total flop from start to finish, and I'm not sure how accurate that is. Alarics (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Channel Tunnel

message: The shape of the loop doesn't look right to me, it's drawn as if it connected the two routes... however careful study of OS large-scale maps given in Mitchell & Smith "Marylebone to Rickmansworth", figures IX, X, XI (particularly the latter two), and also contemporary A-Z street maps (incl. a recent reprint of the 1938/9 edition) shows that both ends of the loop were on the Neasden-Northolt line; it did not join with the Neasden-Harrow line, although it got very close. I've fixed up Template:Chiltern Main Line but that still leaves this article and Great Central Main Line (diagram) in error, and there isn't much space to play with without serious rearrangement. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wembley Stadium loop 

message: I just removed the following trivial information from the article. If anyone wants to substantiate it and readd it, go ahead.
 UKWikiGuy (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine; articles like this do attract "trainspotting". My own view is based on the idea of significance - is it important to the plot of said film that the action was seen to take place on this line; or could the film's makers have used any generic railway line? That is, would it have made any difference to the film if he had caught a Brighton train at Victoria? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I noted that mention of the continental loading gauge was expunged from the article. I have inserted some text which makes mention of this in connection with the channel tunnel proposals, and with the crucial references. I don't think this is a POV issue as it is widely written about by various authors, however I have ensured that the wording is not too assertive. If there are any other sources which add more detail, do please add references. Cnbrb (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  After going to the trouble of updating this article, a user has now deleted the information. I have reverted this deletion - please do not delete information which is well referenced with cited, reliable sources. If this information is factually incorrect, editors are welcome to add other sources as per WP:Reliable Sources which refute the claims but it is not acceptable simply to delete things which you may disagree with. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The essence of the new text regarding the loading gauge and the channel tunnel is broadly correct. However, there was at that time no recognised continental European gauge; that only came at Berne in 1912. In addition, there are better sources out there; in particular, there is one WP:SELFPUB which I prefer to avoid unless the author is well-known. Nevertheless, given that this article needs a good overhaul, it's a useful addition. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am more than happy for it to be corrected/expanded upon. Could you possibly point in the right direction for some good sources? I find the subject of the loading gauge and its connection with Watkin's channel tunnel ambitions rather an interesting detail and I feel it deserves to be retained within this article, given that it is so widely referred to by so many sources. That said, I do appreciate that some editors may feel it should not be given undue weight, so I hope we can strike a balance. Cnbrb (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you cite evidence from *primary* sources to support the statement that the GCR London Extension was constructed to a larger gauge than contemporary British lines ? As a member of the infrastructure staff on the preserved section I can confirm that the structure gauge is not any more generous than many other lines, and indeed there were significant issues with continental (Norwegian) rolling stock fouling the structures when the line hosted a Norwegian loco and coaches in the 1970s.  As a primary source I offer the official clearance gauge diagram which was provided as part of the pack of drawings produced for use by contractors at the start of construction of the London Extension, and signed by the company's then Engineer Alexander Ross in November 1895 (and with a minor update by J.G. Robinson in December 1904) which is no larger than the latter LNER and BR gauges. The statement that the line was constructed to this larger gauge appears to be one of the oft-repeated myths relating to the LE which cannot be evidenced from primary sources, but which is common in books produced from the 1970s onwards. The diagram I refer to is at http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/27_CLEARANCE_DIAGRAM.jpg I also provide a copy of a slighty later (GCR era) diagram for producing a gauge to check bridge clearances, which also gives the key dimensions. http://www.swithland-signal-works.co.uk/plans/24A_BRIDGE_GAUGE.jpg You may wish to compare them to other UK gauges. Svs02 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2015.
 The most useful article which I've found so far on this question is by Graham Boyes in the Journal of the Railway and Canal Historical Society, December 2007, entitled "The Origins of a Modern Myth - The Loading Gauge of the GCR London Extension". Briefly, this states as follows:-
*There is no evidence to suggest that Watkin foresaw through trains between Manchester and Paris; he intended the existing cross-Channel boat trains to be used.
*The dimensions of the loading gauge were 13ft 4½in by 9ft 3in (the Berne gauge is 14ft 0½in by 10ft 2in).
*The Great Northern's loading gauge was the same width but 4½in higher than the Great Central's.
*The idea that the GCML was built to a continental loading gauge is a myth started by Roger Calvert in 1965. It has been repeated by Robert Robotham and Mac Hawkins.
The conclusion I draw from this is that whilst the GCML was built to a more generous loading gauge than is usually the case in Britain (in particular bridge construction, headroom and clearances), it is not entirely correct to assimilate it with a continental gauge. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Whether it is true or not. The fact that this claim has been widely made in books etc (and I have a few) surely means that the topic needs inclusion in the article, rather than being wiped from it entirely? G-13114 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks Lamberhurst, you raise some interesting points there, and there could be a question of more accurate terminology which can be improved. It is a very interesting topic, but I'm afraid Svs02's demand that Wikipedia editors cite primary sources is not a valid one; in accordance with WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia is usually supposed to rely on material from reliable secondary sources. By all means, cite books which state that the GCR was not built to a particular gauge or whatever you think should be included, but using primary sources to prove a negative is shaky to say the least, and certainly not a reason to wade in and delete portions of well-cited text. The fact is that the "myth" is very widely covered by many, many authors. The Boyes article sounds very interesting and I would very much value its inclusion in the Wikipedia article - some authors think that the design of the line was linked to a channel tunnel, others dispute this idea - whatever. Bring your expertise to the article. It's much, much better if the Wikipedia article discusses this part of the topic, however briefly, in a neutral and well-cited way. Sorry, but wading in and deleting chunks of text is not constructive editing.Cnbrb (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs to be included in the article, myth or not. There is a separate thread on the main GCR article on this issue - see here - which mentions another article. I would be interested to know if the "GC" in the UIC GC profile comes from the GCML. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The "UIC GC" seems to have originated with  by  - observe the edit summary. The entry was added in  by  and in between was slightly amended so that HS1 became High Speed 1. The cited source links to this PDF - and neither of those mention "UIC GC". Both mention "UIC GB+" though, and GB is probably not Great Britain - see Leaflet 506: Rules governing application of the enlarged GA, GB, GB1, GB2, GC and GI3 gauges. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame that leaflet is not freely available as I have difficulty in finding material in English. What I have found confirms however your suggestion that GB doesn't refer to Great Britain, nor does GC refer to Great Central. In fact, according to this source (in French, see page 18), there are essentially three main gauges: "GA" which stands for "gabarit A" (gabarit is French for "gauge") and which we know as the Berne gauge, "GB" (gabarit B), GB1 and "GC" ("gabarit C"). According to a RSSB document (p. 54), HS1 is cleared to GB1 gauge on passenger sections and GC gauge on the through freight route. The same page raises doubts over whether British gauges can be readily compared to the UIC standards. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks folks, I'm sure you'll dig up some interesting stuff. I cannot pretend to be any sort of expert on this level of detail, but I do find it an interesting detail. Your research & contributions are appreciated. Cnbrb (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Wonderful. So you're saying that if enough people have repeated arrant nonsense then that arrant nonsense should be included in the entry? The myth about the loading gauge belongs in a future article about how false information is spread, not about the Great Central main line.212.159.44.170 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you choose to frame it like that, then yes. It is acceptable and desirable for an article to include a misconception if it's widely published by otherwise reliable sources, and for the article also to state that this has been refuted by other authors. "It has often been stated that (insert "arrant nonsense" [sic] here and then cite reliable sources). However this has been refuted by (cite reliable sources here)." As long as it's properly sourced, it's useful to the reader to know that a misconception exists and that it is a misconception. Too many editors believe that simply suppressing all mention of a misconception makes a Wikipedia article better; it doesn't. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth  Cnbrb (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loading gauge 

message: This article would really benefit from a route map, as other railways (extant, closed, or a mixture) have on their articles. 5.71.4.109 (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already got one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route map 

message: If anyone keeps back issues of Rail, citations [47] and [49] are in need of repair, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back issues of ''Rail'' magazine 

message: I was also confused at the lack of a route map, noted by another commenter. I didn't realise it was hidden by default until I tried editing the article to include the route map. Should it be shown by default (like West Coast Main Line)? It is a long route so takes up a fair amount of space on the article, but I think it's very useful information to show by default. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show route map by default?