![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Leamington Spa former branch lines. |
Is there a reason why this article title is "Leamington to Rugby line"? The railway was built as a branch from Rugby to Leamington, not vice versa: and when it was doubled, the work proceeded from the Rugby end. In railway operating terminology, the line ran down from Rugby to Leamington.
I strongly feel the title should be changed to "Rugby to Leamington line" to reflect the original construction and the terminology used by the LNWR, LMS and BR.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Andy F ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The Engineers Line Code for this line is RTS. The initial 'R' would indicate that this line was treated by railway management as starting from Rugby. Therefore I would concur with renaming the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.21.30 ( talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have substantially expanded this stub. I have not added all the links but will do so as time allows. I also have a selection of images to upload. Andy F ( talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we have "line" with a capital "L" like most of the other line articles, such as West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line, Coventry to Nuneaton Line etc.?
I propose the merger of this article with Weedon to Leamington Spa line. Both are LNWR lines which, although worked separately, would be better dealt with in one article much like Midhurst Railways which covers three interlocking lines. Lamberhurst ( talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't see why. It was a different line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.25.114 ( talk) 00:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The route map indicates a south / or east-facing spur where the line joined the Chiltern mainline. This is in error. In fact the spur faced west / north, allowing direct access the the Birmingham and Stratford lines. 81.108.21.30 ( talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
These may be of some interest:
-- Trevj ( talk) 12:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Leamington–Rugby 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Leamington Spa former branch lines. |
Is there a reason why this article title is "Leamington to Rugby line"? The railway was built as a branch from Rugby to Leamington, not vice versa: and when it was doubled, the work proceeded from the Rugby end. In railway operating terminology, the line ran down from Rugby to Leamington.
I strongly feel the title should be changed to "Rugby to Leamington line" to reflect the original construction and the terminology used by the LNWR, LMS and BR.
Any thoughts, anyone?
Andy F ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The Engineers Line Code for this line is RTS. The initial 'R' would indicate that this line was treated by railway management as starting from Rugby. Therefore I would concur with renaming the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.21.30 ( talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have substantially expanded this stub. I have not added all the links but will do so as time allows. I also have a selection of images to upload. Andy F ( talk) 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Should we have "line" with a capital "L" like most of the other line articles, such as West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line, Coventry to Nuneaton Line etc.?
I propose the merger of this article with Weedon to Leamington Spa line. Both are LNWR lines which, although worked separately, would be better dealt with in one article much like Midhurst Railways which covers three interlocking lines. Lamberhurst ( talk) 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't see why. It was a different line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.25.114 ( talk) 00:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The route map indicates a south / or east-facing spur where the line joined the Chiltern mainline. This is in error. In fact the spur faced west / north, allowing direct access the the Birmingham and Stratford lines. 81.108.21.30 ( talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
These may be of some interest:
-- Trevj ( talk) 12:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Leamington–Rugby 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)