![]() | 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:Varsity Line RDT. |
It would be nice to get the feel of the original line - anyone got any old timetables? How often did service run? What were the end-to-end timings, the times of first and last trains (well I suppose academics never did get up very early...) Lawrence18uk ( talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the Marston Vale Line become the Varsity Line or would they remain with the seperate names? Simply south 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this
Another somewhat hopeful idea that has been discussed is to run the section between the West Coast and Midland lines along a new alignment, serving Milton Keynes before heading off to the east to join the former Bedford-Northampton line near the village of Turvey, following this alignment into Bedford. This alignment, whilst allowing Bedford and Milton Keynes stations to be served without the reversal of trains is likely to be entirely unaffordable.
since it reads like the railway buff's version of fantasy football. It cannot be a serious option given that the Marston Vale line already connects the WCML to Bedford. -- Concrete Cowboy 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
According to www.miltonkeynes.com, the level crossing at Steeple Claydon was recently repaired and replaced. Could this have significance, or is there any more information? User:Tom walker, 18:07 GMT 3 September 2006
What is "bin-liner freight"? When you say "within this", which "this" do you mean? The overgrown track to Steeple Claydon? or something else? -- Concrete Cowboy 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning somewhere here the X5 coach route which runs along much of the varsity line route? It is operated by stagecoach and goes via Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. It runs every 30 minutes and is quite popular - this could be mentioned as an argument for the varsity line to be rebuilt...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.99.35 ( talk) 22:13, March 11, 2007
Currently Template:Varsity Line is under construction and would welcome improvement. Simply south ( talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Since we have a route diagram that lists all the stations, do we really need another copy in the body of the article? It seems to me that it just clogs the article and discourages readers from going past it. For now, I'll just move it to the bottom but if there are no objections in the next couple of weeks, I'll delete it. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we reduce the section of the re-opening of Varsity Line to a brief summary given that the subject is already covered in the East West Rail Link article. I also note that the reopened line will be on a different alignment. Any thoughts? PeterEastern ( talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The material on the B&C Railway suffers from highly dubious and inconsistent dates. The Railway company did exist, it's Board Minutes are in the National Archives but not digitised. Surely we can come up with a reliable source that has credible dates? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This page needs updating to cover the private funding for it recently announced. (not got time myself) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38201570 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.187.71 ( talk) 20:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with this article. It starts, very reasonably, with "This article is about the historic Oxford - Cambridge line from 1845 to 1967. For its modern recreation, see East West Rail."
This has been consistently ignored by enthusiastic, but not always well-judged, edits about later events. Even the Infobox defies this recommendation. The RDT diagram (IMHO hopelessly ugly and opaque) dominates the text and may put the reader off. Why is Quainton Road on it?
I am uncomfortable about the title of the article, "Varsity Line". I don't recollect that being on everyday use until fairly recently. (No doubt someone can find a old usage in print, but I emphasise "everyday use". It was just the Oxford to Cambridge line. An as-yet ill-informed person looking to wikipedia to help, and who noticed an old railway line at Bicester (say) on a map is unlikely to think "Varsity Line", which doesn't even mention that it is a railway article.
The only source citation in the entire article relating to the pre-1967 period is Awdry, p 63, which is an encyclopedia. A single paragraph, 91 words. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Yes, I know, sometimes you can't avoid that, but it seems a bit lazy.
I wonder if the answer is a new (separate) article with more thorough historical citations. Afterbrunel ( talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
In adding the current equivalent (£12M) of the £125,000 cost, I followed the footnote style already in the article, viz., A prospectus for the Bedford and London & Birmingham Railway was prepared; the capital was to be £125,000. [1] [note 1]
IMO, it is more accessible to give the equivalent in-line, thus: A prospectus for the Bedford and London & Birmingham Railway was prepared; the capital was to be £125,000 [1] (about £16,000,000 today).
Does anybody have a strong preference either way? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
References
References
Why Oxford and Bedford, rather than Oxford and Cambridge? Mdrb55 ( talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why this needs to be discussed but it says on the East West Rail article that it is reusing a lot of the Varsity Line for the modern project. Indeed when you take into account the Oxford-Bicester Line, the disused section to Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line and possible route options east of Bedford, the East West Rail reuses over two thirds of this route. As it is a more modern version of this and specifically includes this line, having the article in the category is certainly relevant. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 01:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Include, Varsity line is related to the EWR. That said there is probably a reasonable case to merge the East West Rail and Varsity line articles much like Crossrail and the Elizabeth line. Riorgisinx ( talk) 06:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me or is that section only very tenuously related to this article? It seems to describe a failed bid to run a service over the line and not any significant construction work. The text is heavy going so maybe I missed the point? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Someone has deleted an illustration I added to this article. They have challenged my rationale in the history summary, where of course I am unable to reply.
One of the deficiencies of Wikipedia articles is that they tend to be huge slabs of text, rather out of step with the modern approach to the needs of a general readership. My daily newspaper includes interesting, but not immediately relevant, photographs in the editorial pages simply to lighten the mood; compare any national neespaper from the 1900s, which are dull and heavy going.
It is rarely possible to use directly and immediately relevant images in railway history articles. Sometimes "opening day" engravings from the Illustrated London News are available, although these are often generic illustrations, often by artists who did not witness the event. "Last train" ceremonies at line closure often appeared in the press but are rarely copyright free.
I believe that out of copyright picture postcards of stations, which can often be found, have a place in these articles. Afterbrunel ( talk) 19:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this correct? The obvious enhancement to the prosperity of Aylesbury following that town's connection to the L&BR changed attitudes
When/where/how was Aylesbury connected to the L&BR? (before Verney Junction, obviously).
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
12:25, 2 January 2024 (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:Varsity Line RDT. |
It would be nice to get the feel of the original line - anyone got any old timetables? How often did service run? What were the end-to-end timings, the times of first and last trains (well I suppose academics never did get up very early...) Lawrence18uk ( talk) 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the Marston Vale Line become the Varsity Line or would they remain with the seperate names? Simply south 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this
Another somewhat hopeful idea that has been discussed is to run the section between the West Coast and Midland lines along a new alignment, serving Milton Keynes before heading off to the east to join the former Bedford-Northampton line near the village of Turvey, following this alignment into Bedford. This alignment, whilst allowing Bedford and Milton Keynes stations to be served without the reversal of trains is likely to be entirely unaffordable.
since it reads like the railway buff's version of fantasy football. It cannot be a serious option given that the Marston Vale line already connects the WCML to Bedford. -- Concrete Cowboy 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
According to www.miltonkeynes.com, the level crossing at Steeple Claydon was recently repaired and replaced. Could this have significance, or is there any more information? User:Tom walker, 18:07 GMT 3 September 2006
What is "bin-liner freight"? When you say "within this", which "this" do you mean? The overgrown track to Steeple Claydon? or something else? -- Concrete Cowboy 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning somewhere here the X5 coach route which runs along much of the varsity line route? It is operated by stagecoach and goes via Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. It runs every 30 minutes and is quite popular - this could be mentioned as an argument for the varsity line to be rebuilt...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.99.35 ( talk) 22:13, March 11, 2007
Currently Template:Varsity Line is under construction and would welcome improvement. Simply south ( talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Since we have a route diagram that lists all the stations, do we really need another copy in the body of the article? It seems to me that it just clogs the article and discourages readers from going past it. For now, I'll just move it to the bottom but if there are no objections in the next couple of weeks, I'll delete it. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we reduce the section of the re-opening of Varsity Line to a brief summary given that the subject is already covered in the East West Rail Link article. I also note that the reopened line will be on a different alignment. Any thoughts? PeterEastern ( talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The material on the B&C Railway suffers from highly dubious and inconsistent dates. The Railway company did exist, it's Board Minutes are in the National Archives but not digitised. Surely we can come up with a reliable source that has credible dates? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This page needs updating to cover the private funding for it recently announced. (not got time myself) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38201570 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.187.71 ( talk) 20:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with this article. It starts, very reasonably, with "This article is about the historic Oxford - Cambridge line from 1845 to 1967. For its modern recreation, see East West Rail."
This has been consistently ignored by enthusiastic, but not always well-judged, edits about later events. Even the Infobox defies this recommendation. The RDT diagram (IMHO hopelessly ugly and opaque) dominates the text and may put the reader off. Why is Quainton Road on it?
I am uncomfortable about the title of the article, "Varsity Line". I don't recollect that being on everyday use until fairly recently. (No doubt someone can find a old usage in print, but I emphasise "everyday use". It was just the Oxford to Cambridge line. An as-yet ill-informed person looking to wikipedia to help, and who noticed an old railway line at Bicester (say) on a map is unlikely to think "Varsity Line", which doesn't even mention that it is a railway article.
The only source citation in the entire article relating to the pre-1967 period is Awdry, p 63, which is an encyclopedia. A single paragraph, 91 words. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Yes, I know, sometimes you can't avoid that, but it seems a bit lazy.
I wonder if the answer is a new (separate) article with more thorough historical citations. Afterbrunel ( talk) 15:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
In adding the current equivalent (£12M) of the £125,000 cost, I followed the footnote style already in the article, viz., A prospectus for the Bedford and London & Birmingham Railway was prepared; the capital was to be £125,000. [1] [note 1]
IMO, it is more accessible to give the equivalent in-line, thus: A prospectus for the Bedford and London & Birmingham Railway was prepared; the capital was to be £125,000 [1] (about £16,000,000 today).
Does anybody have a strong preference either way? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
References
References
Why Oxford and Bedford, rather than Oxford and Cambridge? Mdrb55 ( talk) 21:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why this needs to be discussed but it says on the East West Rail article that it is reusing a lot of the Varsity Line for the modern project. Indeed when you take into account the Oxford-Bicester Line, the disused section to Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line and possible route options east of Bedford, the East West Rail reuses over two thirds of this route. As it is a more modern version of this and specifically includes this line, having the article in the category is certainly relevant. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 01:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Include, Varsity line is related to the EWR. That said there is probably a reasonable case to merge the East West Rail and Varsity line articles much like Crossrail and the Elizabeth line. Riorgisinx ( talk) 06:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it just me or is that section only very tenuously related to this article? It seems to describe a failed bid to run a service over the line and not any significant construction work. The text is heavy going so maybe I missed the point? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Someone has deleted an illustration I added to this article. They have challenged my rationale in the history summary, where of course I am unable to reply.
One of the deficiencies of Wikipedia articles is that they tend to be huge slabs of text, rather out of step with the modern approach to the needs of a general readership. My daily newspaper includes interesting, but not immediately relevant, photographs in the editorial pages simply to lighten the mood; compare any national neespaper from the 1900s, which are dull and heavy going.
It is rarely possible to use directly and immediately relevant images in railway history articles. Sometimes "opening day" engravings from the Illustrated London News are available, although these are often generic illustrations, often by artists who did not witness the event. "Last train" ceremonies at line closure often appeared in the press but are rarely copyright free.
I believe that out of copyright picture postcards of stations, which can often be found, have a place in these articles. Afterbrunel ( talk) 19:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Is this correct? The obvious enhancement to the prosperity of Aylesbury following that town's connection to the L&BR changed attitudes
When/where/how was Aylesbury connected to the L&BR? (before Verney Junction, obviously).
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
12:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)