Talk:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Some questions

Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • When was it transferred to the Eastern Region?

[edit] Split

As we did recently with Thameslink, I think that this article should be split into an article about the LTS line and one about the LTS railway. Thryduulf 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is already an article about c2c. That is plenty. MRSC 07:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
c2c is only the current post-privatisation TOC, which is different to the railway company that constructed the line, which is different to the line that has been operated by the LTSR, the LMS, British Rail and c2c. Again comparing Thameslink, we have an article about the line, the company the constructed and ran the line, the first post-privatisation TOC and the most recent TOC -
LTS Thameslink
Line London, Tilbury and Southend Line Thameslink
Constructor London, Tilbury and Southend Railway British Rail
Pre-nationalisation operators London, Tilbury and Southend Railway N/A
Midland Railway
London, Midland and Scottish Railway
Post nationalisation operators c2c Thameslink (train operating company)
First Capital Connect

Thryduulf 12:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats all well and good but how many articles do we really need about this short line? The third article would be redundant. There just isn't that much new information to put in it. Much better to have 2 strong articles than 3 diluted or repeated ones. Don't split articles for the sake of it. MRSC 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It is good to that this article shows the history of the line and its prsent. Why does it need to be split? (rhetorical) Simply south 16:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Branches

Would Barking to Grays and Upminster to Pitsea via Grays count as seperate lines? Simply south 15:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO normally yes, but LTS is a relatively contained system so no need to become over complex. Pickle 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map : Do we need to show LUL/DLR lines

This is an old debate, but I guess we need to go through it all over again. Do we need to show other lines?? We have a symbol "SBHF" to indicate an interchange with another line, so is drawing out the eastern end of the district line really necessary. On other maps, parallel routes like this have been removed, and woebetide anyone that dares to add it back. I can think of reasons why it ought to be retained (it was a part of the LTS in a former life), but lets have a debate as would like to improve the layout and move it onto the BS5 format in order to better show the Tilbury Loop. Canterberry 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For this article yes they should be kept as the District and DLR lines where originally part of the LTS line, and this article covers the history relatively well. Else where they have been included alongside somewhat irrelevantly. Pickle 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The DLR could possibly go, but the District Line is highly relevant given the history and current operations (as explained in the text). MRSC • Talk 18:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I thought it was rather big fr the article, so i have moved it to its own separate place at Template:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway.

Separately, should the Romford to Upminster Line be added, and if so, how will the ex-link from the main line to the branch line be shown? Simply south 19:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Romford-Upminster Line should NOT be added. The reason is that there is no physical connection at Upminster between the tracks. The line from Romford runs into a bay platform and the track is then severed. At best a link to the article could be included, but I would strongly advise against adding the track. Canterberry 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It did once (See Romford to Upminster Line), BS5 might allow you to show it but it would require you to kink out the line at Upminsiter or something. Pickle 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I am struggling with this one. On the one hand I do accept that showing the Romford to Upminster Line would be the right thing to do. On the other, it would upset the linearity of the map. I am loath to "kink" the line, as I think that keeping the core route of any map straight seems to have been accepted by most as the "right thing to do" ... and I am a supporter. I shall play around with it a bit and post some possible ways of adding the Romford line on this talk page ... we can then debate this further. Canterberry 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added the ex-link in i think is the right place. I've also sorted the bend further up. Simply south 22:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know this is going to sound unimportant, but shouldn't the London terminus be at the top of the route diagram? Kevin Steinhardt 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really a set way on any map which terminus goes where. For example, look at East Coast Main Line's and South Western Main Line's maps\diagrams. Simply south 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think maps should align with the points on a compass if possible.Canterberry 20:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
However, if that were so for this article, we would create one very long page horizontally, not vertically as the line(s) run generally from west to east. Simply south 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats logical, but obviously silly. The idea of London being at the top of the page has some merit, but for a station like Euston, would not make any sense. For the LT&S, I think the orientation is fine, as if the diagram is rotated 90 degrees clockwise, then it would be geographically correct. I suppose that if Fenchurch St were at the top, then you would need to rotate the diagram 90 degrees anti-clockwise. I suppose you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. If someone has the time to re-draw it, then I would be a pedant and revert it, but equally, I see it as a futile exercise, when I think the diagram is pretty good as it stands (I helped!!).Canterberry 21:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simplified Map

The diagram has got very complicated and cluttered, and it is tricky to tell where the stations are at first sight. Would it be better to show a small simplified version with a link to the current detailed one, like what has been done for the Great Central Main Line? There is a simplified diagram already existing at Template:London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (Simple). Anywikiuser (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)