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
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bedfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Time to split this article?
It is getting very long and getting bogged down in detail. The blow-by-blow account is of historic interest but I consider that it gets in the way of readers who just want the essentials. So I suggest that it is time to split out that detail into a
Chronology of East West Rail, leaving this article for the "edited highlights". Comments?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
"History of Crossrail" is more obvious because of the clear dividing line between talking about it v work starting. At EWRL, that is also true for each phase individually but overall the talking and working happened / is happening in parallel. My first idea too was "history of", but it was for this reason I didn't think it would work. In maybe 20 years time, it will be possible to look back and take the long view needed to write a history but right now I don't think we can do that. What I think is needed now is a short version and a long version of the current article, to meet the needs of different audiences. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Certainly like Crossrail and Elizabeth Line, IMO we will need separate articles for engineering and operations in any case. We don't know yet if it is going to be given a new name – "East West Main Line" was being touted; I've also seen Oxbridge Line and even Varsity Line. If it is, what goes in which article should be fairly obvious. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Difficultly north:, I reverted your edit because I can't see its purpose. As I said above, no new money was allocated. All it did was to confirm continued funding for the existing plan to upgrade the Marston Vale line – specifically, to soften the curve at
Bedford St Johns and relocate the station. Even more specifically, there was no statement about funding for the central section (BDM-CAM). IMO, the article already covers adequately the controversy over the route for that section so I don't see what new we can add unless and until the
Transport Select Committee reports on its hearings this week. We might infer that, once the St Johns curve is re-engineered, that sets in stone that the route will go through
Bedford rather than bypass the town to the south, but that would be OR.
If the Universal Studios theme development goes ahead, it has been proposed that Kempston Hardwick and Stewartby may possibly close and another station would be proposed to better serve the new development. It is shown as an East West Rail station. (
Plans here Page 13) Difficultly north (
talk) Time, department skies
19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(I hope you don't mind that I've pimped up your post.)
True, but for now it is
wp:CRYSTAL. For now, it seems reasonable (= factual) to me to say that Universal have proposed it, though it would be more convincing if EWRCo had endorsed it. But I can't see where it says anything about closing Kempston Hardwick and Stewartby? --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
19:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry. It looks like I was mistaken it was there although there seems to be speculation on a few other websites this is going to happen.
Difficultly north (
talk) Time, department skies
20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually further to this, the images showing the proposed site, with the large brickworks already having been bought by Universal, do not show these stations, especially Kempston Hardwick, which is located on Manor Road. So it either is going to be closed or relocated.
Difficultly north (
talk) Time, department skies
20:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be
WP:SYNTH to say that. We would have to stick to what they say and not add any inferences. I don't doubt that this is exactly what the proposal as written would mean but the actual planning permission may be different. So for that aspect at least, we would have to wait and see.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Project newsletters
On 24 June,
User:FFM784 deleted the Project Newsletters, citing policy
WP:ELNO. To my mind, these are valuable historical documents of significant interest and deletion of this list seems to me to be an unduly harsh interpretation of the policy. So I am opening this discussion to see if there is a consensus in favour or against retention. (For the convenience of editors, I have appended the list and added the most recent issue.) I will notify
WP:WikiProject UK Railways. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Include. I'm not seeing what part of ELNO is relevant here - they are clearly appropriate official information that supplements the encyclopaedia article. It would be ideal to link to a directory/index of the newsletters rather than the long list of individual ones if such exists (I've not looked), but if it doesn't exist then the long list is better than nothing.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
East West Rail Alliance (Atkins Lang O'Rourke, NetworkRail, VolkerRail) project newsletters
Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not external links for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section..
As it stands, there are seven instances where these newslatters are being used as cites, therefore per the policy these should not be repeated in the external links section. If the ones not yet used as cites can be used to improve the article, great, but dare I say, some may just reinforce what is already covered by other more reliable (i.e.
WP:SECONDARY) cites.
Weshmakui (
talk)
03:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Bedfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Time to split this article?
It is getting very long and getting bogged down in detail. The blow-by-blow account is of historic interest but I consider that it gets in the way of readers who just want the essentials. So I suggest that it is time to split out that detail into a
Chronology of East West Rail, leaving this article for the "edited highlights". Comments?
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
"History of Crossrail" is more obvious because of the clear dividing line between talking about it v work starting. At EWRL, that is also true for each phase individually but overall the talking and working happened / is happening in parallel. My first idea too was "history of", but it was for this reason I didn't think it would work. In maybe 20 years time, it will be possible to look back and take the long view needed to write a history but right now I don't think we can do that. What I think is needed now is a short version and a long version of the current article, to meet the needs of different audiences. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Certainly like Crossrail and Elizabeth Line, IMO we will need separate articles for engineering and operations in any case. We don't know yet if it is going to be given a new name – "East West Main Line" was being touted; I've also seen Oxbridge Line and even Varsity Line. If it is, what goes in which article should be fairly obvious. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Difficultly north:, I reverted your edit because I can't see its purpose. As I said above, no new money was allocated. All it did was to confirm continued funding for the existing plan to upgrade the Marston Vale line – specifically, to soften the curve at
Bedford St Johns and relocate the station. Even more specifically, there was no statement about funding for the central section (BDM-CAM). IMO, the article already covers adequately the controversy over the route for that section so I don't see what new we can add unless and until the
Transport Select Committee reports on its hearings this week. We might infer that, once the St Johns curve is re-engineered, that sets in stone that the route will go through
Bedford rather than bypass the town to the south, but that would be OR.
If the Universal Studios theme development goes ahead, it has been proposed that Kempston Hardwick and Stewartby may possibly close and another station would be proposed to better serve the new development. It is shown as an East West Rail station. (
Plans here Page 13) Difficultly north (
talk) Time, department skies
19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
(I hope you don't mind that I've pimped up your post.)
True, but for now it is
wp:CRYSTAL. For now, it seems reasonable (= factual) to me to say that Universal have proposed it, though it would be more convincing if EWRCo had endorsed it. But I can't see where it says anything about closing Kempston Hardwick and Stewartby? --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
19:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry. It looks like I was mistaken it was there although there seems to be speculation on a few other websites this is going to happen.
Difficultly north (
talk) Time, department skies
20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually further to this, the images showing the proposed site, with the large brickworks already having been bought by Universal, do not show these stations, especially Kempston Hardwick, which is located on Manor Road. So it either is going to be closed or relocated.
Difficultly north (
talk) Time, department skies
20:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It would be
WP:SYNTH to say that. We would have to stick to what they say and not add any inferences. I don't doubt that this is exactly what the proposal as written would mean but the actual planning permission may be different. So for that aspect at least, we would have to wait and see.
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Project newsletters
On 24 June,
User:FFM784 deleted the Project Newsletters, citing policy
WP:ELNO. To my mind, these are valuable historical documents of significant interest and deletion of this list seems to me to be an unduly harsh interpretation of the policy. So I am opening this discussion to see if there is a consensus in favour or against retention. (For the convenience of editors, I have appended the list and added the most recent issue.) I will notify
WP:WikiProject UK Railways. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Include. I'm not seeing what part of ELNO is relevant here - they are clearly appropriate official information that supplements the encyclopaedia article. It would be ideal to link to a directory/index of the newsletters rather than the long list of individual ones if such exists (I've not looked), but if it doesn't exist then the long list is better than nothing.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
East West Rail Alliance (Atkins Lang O'Rourke, NetworkRail, VolkerRail) project newsletters
Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not external links for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section..
As it stands, there are seven instances where these newslatters are being used as cites, therefore per the policy these should not be repeated in the external links section. If the ones not yet used as cites can be used to improve the article, great, but dare I say, some may just reinforce what is already covered by other more reliable (i.e.
WP:SECONDARY) cites.
Weshmakui (
talk)
03:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply