Talk:Cambridge line

message: This "line" does not really exist in the way that others do.  Prior to electrification, the main route to Cambridge was from Liverpool Street.  The line between Royston and Shepreth Branch Junction use to be operated by a diesel, and there were no through trains from Kings Cross.
I propose that this article be re-named to refer to the branch between Hitchin and Cambridge. The section between Kings Cross and Hitchin is well covered on other pages.Canterberry 18:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a check and it seems to be more officially the Hitchin-Cambridge Line e.g. ECML route plan from Network Rail. If you feel there is a case but are unsure, you could put this article on WP:RM#Other proposals. Otherwise, i would suggest moving it to Hitchin-Cambridge Line via the move tab once you've clicked on the article. Simply south 18:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a bit surprised with the above prevarifications. The line is shown clearly on page 24 of Quail map #2 as The Up & Down Cambridge lines, and it runs from Cambridge jn to Shepreth Branch jn. This is confirmed by the definitive publication - the Network Rail Sectional Appendix. I'm proposing to rename the page accordingly. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Royston Branch Line or Shepreth Branch Line

message: This page has recently been moved from the Hitchin to Cambridge Line. Can anyone provide any details of the references to "Cambridge Line" in Quail or the Sectional Appendix? The discussion from 2007 above appears to indicate that it is known under another name in Quail. Google searches turn up a book of the same name by Michael Bonavia but this concerns the Varsity Line. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quail Reference is in my comment immediately above, Sectional Appendix ref is London North Eastern Route LN125 Seq 001. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent page move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cambridge line. 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/20141010024553/http://www.networksoutheast.net/jan-1988-to-dec-1988.html to http://www.networksoutheast.net/jan-1988-to-dec-1988.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215025631/http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/content/doc/timetables/fcc09d_gnbook_allroutes_011209.pdf to http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/content/doc/timetables/fcc09d_gnbook_allroutes_011209.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article title is "Cambridge line". I'm not sure I understand the proposals in the previous two sections regarding the name.
"Official" documentation or the Quail maps aren't relevant here; someone looking for information on this line probably wouldn't have looked there first. (As an aside the Oxford direction lines at Didcot are named the Up and Down Chester Lines; official designations aren't useful in manning Wikipedia articles. Moreover if you live in Bishops Stortford (for example), the Royston route isn't "the Cambridge Line" for you.
Finally, shouldn't "railway" be in there somewhere? Wikipedia isn't a railway enthusiast's playground. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: we use WP:COMMONNAME which says that, generally, you should use the common name of a subject, and then disambiguate as needed. We don't need to call the Piccadilly Line the "Piccadilly London Underground Line" because there is no other "Piccadilly Line" which could be confused with the tube line. Similarly we don't call Picard theorem "Picard theorem of meromorphic functions", despite that being a much more descriptive name. As regards people in Bishops Stortford, it really doesn't matter if they call it The Posh Pricks Railway unless they can call it that enough in reliable sources to outweigh any other names. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if you asked a thousand people at random, what they understand by "The Cambridge Line" how many would respond "the railway line between Hitchin and Cambridge"? And how many of that thousand would say "I know that because I referred to some maps used by railway enthusiasts, called "Quail maps"? Afterbrunel (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'd argue those people don't have a name for it at all, and the common name is the one used by the industry. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite daft, and the policy says to use a WP:RECONIZEable name, not the "official" name. Calling this the Cambridge line is confusing, as most people would assume that meant the line from Liverpool Street. It should be renamed back to the Hitchin–Cambridge line, as the move was never discussed or agreed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Anyone fancy adding a couple of short sections for the junctions. TBH, they would only be needed as placeholders in case there is ever a derailment or similar at one or other. 
Shepreth Branch Junction is especially needed since it is nowhere near Shepreth, it is the other side of Great Shelford (at ). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And just to prove my point, I realise now from the discussion above that Shepreth Branch Junction means "the junction for the Shepreth Branch" ... in Hitchin, at . Still nowhere near Shepreth of course. Anyone? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junctions