Talk:Trent Valley line

message: I was not aware until today that a four line stub article had been written for the Trent Valley Line. The Trent Valley line is a section of the West Coast Main Line (and has been for over 150 years) with almost all the trough traffic between Rugby and Stafford and by common consent the line through Birmingham with little through traffic is the heavily used West Midlands branch. I do not see any need for a Trent Valley article. That part of the through route is in any case at present far far better covered in the West Coast Main Line article. What do others think? NoelWalley 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the discovery was triggered by the labels'n'links I added. However (to make that clear), my interest in the article is only as a fit subject for cleanup; I have no opinion on whether or not to merge it into WCML. --Alvestrand 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the amount of engineering work occurring on the line at present, I think it is deserving of its own article. I think the subject was covered in detail in a recent edition of Railway Mag - if I can get hold of a copy I'll knock up some information about it. Also, it would be useful to break down the WCML into sections, and leave the WCML article as an overview, to prevent it getting too large. I think that a lot of these Line articles suffer from being too detailed about the route, places served, etc, and not enough on history. I'll try to remedy this. — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the above, all UK main lines are just a collection of local lines bolted together by different rial companies over a hundred years ago to make one service. Pickle 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: When I put the new schematic in the article (the red map), I intended it to be showing only existing stations and/or junctions. I feel that the map is way too complicated right now and it's hard to read. Do we really need the closed lines and all the rivers? It seems superfluous to me. Geoking66 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TRAIL is fairly new, imported (i think) from the German Wikipedia. We haven't developed any standards for the template yet (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL). The only guideline we've so far agreed upon is that the very big mainlines (eg WCML, ECML, etc) would be left simplified (as the template is used on all station pages), with scope to add the complex template latter (this is only about 2 weeks old!). Some of the imported German stuff (eg Linke Rheinstrecke) has copious detail. IMHO perhaps some of the rivers and canals I put into this template is going over the top, as the Trent valley is littered with them, but on the other hand user may find this useful information. I think old railway lines and good sidings are very useful, for example the Scottish contingent have been very active in detailing their closed/defunct lines and it allows an excellent opportunity for them to be linked in. It is also somewhat limited by the icon available, as you can't junction off a HSTR. Thus i could live with losing some of the rivers/canals but i feel the closed lines/freight branches are vital. Pickle 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly-complex map 

message: : I've only two real points a) lack of inline citation (not all editors go for them, but the two cited aren't directly linked in) and b) lack of historical focus ie past lines and branches (several well done "line" articles cover this well Pickle 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on  03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only two real points a) lack of inline citation (not all editors go for them, but the two cited aren't directly linked in) and b) lack of historical focus ie past lines and branches (several well done "line" articles cover this well Pickle 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA|Good Article]] [[WP:GAC|'''Nomination''']] 

message: I am formally beginning a Good Article Review to see about removing this article from the GA list.  It does not appear to meet the Good Article criteria found at WP:WIAGA for the following reasons:
*Lead does not adequately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD).  Also makes inappropriate use of a bullet list.  The lead needs to be expanded so the entire article is summarized, and the list needs to be converted to prose.
*The article is inadequately referecned.  For an article of this length, one would expect use of inline citations per WP:CITE in either footnote or parenthetical style.  Without any way to fact check the various claims this article makes, it is inadequately referenced.
*The article is not adequately broad.  The text of the article simply covers the history and a current improvement project.  There is no treatment given to any other facet of this rail line.
Please make any comments at WP:GA/R as you see fit.  If the article can be improved to bring it up to standard, please do so ASAP, otherwise, pending a discussion at WP:GA/R, it may be delisted from the GA list.  If you have any questions, please drop a line at my talk page.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R]] Good Article Review requested. 

message: ::The Good Article status of this article has been delisted per review by a vote of 7-0. The discussion can be viewed in archive here. Once necessary changes have been made, this article can be renominated for review.
::Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: This statement sounds dubious to me:
A 3km (two-mile) section north-west of Colwich Junction will remain double track, as this goes through the 710 metre long Shugborough Tunnel, which would be too expensive to widen.
The "too expensive to widen" reasoning seems to be based on an assumption. Can anybody provide a citation for it? I think the truth of the matter is that four-tracking the double track section between Colwich and Stafford isn't justified because the traffic doesn't warrant it. South of Colwich, the line has to additionally cater for services via Stoke-on-Trent, and north of Stafford, services via Birmingham must be catered for. Between those two junctions, far fewer trains are running. –Signalhead < T > 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the answer is "both". I've reworded it without giving explanations, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shugborough Tunnel "too expensive to widen"? 

message: * Trent Valley Line – news – books – n-grams – robustly lowercase in n-gram of recent books.  70–80% lowercase; uniformly lowercase in news
* Medway Valley Line – news – books – mixed: 70% caps in news, 70% lowercase in books
* Dearne Valley Line – news – books – just 1 news item, lowercase line; about 70% lowercase in books
* Cheddar Valley Line – news – books – two-thirds or more lowercase in news and books
* Conwy Valley Line – news – books – about 70% lowercase in new; 50% in books; most caps from the many annual editions of Let's Go Western Europe
*: and in 21st-century books, only 2 of 13 capitalize Line for Conway Valley.
Other than the Trent, these are not common enough in books to show up in the n-grams search. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: I think that the Cheddar Valley Line should be discussed separately. This name appears to derive from from the original plans for a 'Cheddar Valley  and Yatton Railway' but modern sources generally refer to it as the Strawberry Line and this name is given to the cycle path which now uses much of the route. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being discussed here, as separately as you like.  Call out your concerns or exception in a comment. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I don't quite see the point.  Seems like Strawberry Line would be a good name for the bike trail (if it had a separate article), but how does that affect this discussion about line case? Dicklyon (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheddar Valley Line