Talk:Abbey Line

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abbey Line article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 41, 2015

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. The editor who added the request suggests the following:

add a geographic map

Hertfordshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Abbey Line.

Rewrite

As explained, I have rewritten this to include some history - I know it was in the Xlink, but it should be here too - and to put it into some chronological order Peter Shearan 06:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to TfL

I had to remove this nonsense.

If this were to happen the St Albans branch line could be transferred to the Bakerloo Line or Metropolitan Line once they are extended to Watford Junction.

This would require the line to cross the WCML which is simply not feasible without the construction of an expensive and un-necessary flyover.Sheepcot 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, they could just run a shuttle service from Watford Jn to St. Albans Abbey, a la Chalfont & Latimer to Chesham. I've reverted the deletion and amended the post to reflect this D-Notice 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am sorry, but it still had to go. What you are proposing comes under the catergory of "original thinking" and has no reference or citation. Try again, amigo.Sheepcot 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have removed the 'unref=yes' in the TrainsWikiProject tag as I believe that this article now has a reasonable number of inline citations and references.Sheepcot 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I have removed the 'mapneeded=yes' in the TrainsWikiProject tag as I believe that this article now has a reasonable map.Sheepcot 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

If we can get a photograph added to this page, then do people think that can we apply for "GA" status?? If not, then what more needs to be done. Canterberry 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on this field but it does seam awfully short for GA article (even a "B"), the self references (point 3 on city status) probably won't go down well. IMHO the history bit could be expanded quite a bit, the line website has stuff on it and there appears to be a book on the line.... Pickle 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The reason for this is that according to official sources this line is called the Abbey Line (and when doing a search, minus all the mirror sites, this name appears to be the most common). Simply south (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a redirect, didn't see any harm in doing so (if article moves then just overwrite the redirect, and make this one the redirect). However the UK railway history does conform quite strongly to conventions so I disagree simply on the basis that it may break existing articles. If not then I have no objection. SimonTrew (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Links Here puts 90+ railway pages. These will need manual checking since some will mean St Albans and some will mean Abbey Branch. I have to say nope not a good idea until that is done; I've put in the redirect so it's easy to change appropriately to that in those articles. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the railway line articles can easily be fixed as they only link here due to the railway templates. Changing the links in the rail templates and they should follow suit (not immediate, there is a bit of a lag time of a couple of hours, but that's WP generally). Simply south (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have no objection as such, but probably best to check those articles first. It's a pain I know, but I've just checked and augmented over 100 references on one article, it can be done. The templates are a nuisance I agree there, you kinda wonder where the link is when it's not in the article, oh sheesh it's at the bottom in a box. I dunno what the solution is to that but it's annoying, I agree. Need "What Really Links Here" or something.

My worry is not so much people linking to St Alban's Branch, which I guess is rare except in railway articles, but linking to St Albans, or to St Alban's Abbey i.e. having chosen the wrong link. That's part of the fixup process IMo to make it all better. SimonTrew (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy I changed my mind. Nobody in his right mind is going to link to St Alban's Branch for any other reason than it being the Abbey Branch. Be Bold, go ahead and change it! Support and Be Bold just do it. SimonTrew (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Flyer

Time to start a discussion asking why Abbey Flyer cannot be bolded as an alternative name? Simply south (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rail services which extended out of Greater London

This surely isn't one because it's not in greater London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abbey 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket machines

I was at How Wood last night and it had a single ticket machine. I guess the other intermediate stations do too. So the article needs correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7787:3700:519A:FDC0:195E:722B (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can satisfy WP:NOR and WP:V; but we don't include every little detail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I think the solution is to remove the current unnecessary detail, rather than include more. There's no need to go into such details for this page. (Perhaps on the individual station pages it may be relevant.) I reworded the ticket paragraph to remove excess details. --David Edgar (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

60,000 passengers per hour?

The section "The future" talks about "60,000 passengers per hour", apparently implying the current service. This seems unbelievable. It appears to be taken from this report (Figure 4.19), as the maximum hourly capacity of heavy rail. This value is surely completely misused in this context, given the single class 319 in use. Are there more appropriate statistics to use in this section? --David Edgar (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been extrapolated from a hypothetical figure for heavy rail derived from a very simple diagram. I don't see the relevance to the capacity of a short single line run by one short train either. I've ridden on that line and don't see where these people would come from, or go. Britmax (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed these figures and after re-reading the report (page 67), I reworded it according to what's actually said. --David Edgar (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abbey 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]