Jump to content

Talk:Severn Valley Railway

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

Eardington Halt

[edit]

Although closed I think it would be appropriate to include a mention of Eardington Halt. It enjoys the benefit of a group of volunteers that try to keep it tidy and is the stabling point for several wagons which the Permanent Way department use. In answer to the request by Beeurd on 7 September 2005, I have started adding articles about some of the stations north of the current terminus at Bridgnorth.--7severn7 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not encyclopedic enough for the main article (unless it becomes much longer, anyway), but it may be worth mentioning Eardington Halt, which was between Bridgnorth and Hampton Loade, and was open for a few years in the 1980s. Loganberry | Talk 16:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was quite dissapointed not to see any information about the old Severn Valley branch as it was, which ran from Hartlbury Junction through Stourport and along the current preserved route from Bewdley and out past Bridgnorth. I don't know enough about the line to be able to complete an article myself, however.--Beeurd 13:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's something I'd like to see as well, though I also don't know enough about the line's past history to do so. (And I live in Bewdley!)

I've entered some stuff about various stations beyond Bridgnorth which you might like to read, edit or add to.--7severn7 13:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidderminster Town

[edit]

Would it be sensible to use the name "Kidderminster Town" rather than simply "Kidderminster" for the SVR station, given the existence of Kidderminster National Rail station just a short distance away? As I understand it the "Town" designation was traditionally used by the GWR to indicate the closer station to the town centre (which the SVR station is... just!), and the name is quite often used in the local press (I live in Bewdley), but on the other hand the SVR website refers to the station simply as "Kidderminster". I haven't changed the article itself, as I'm not sure about the official status or otherwise of the "Town" name. Loganberry (Talk) 00:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this - the GWR-style board outside the station listing SVR stops calls it "Kidderminster Town"... but then it leaves out Country Park Halt altogether! Loganberry (Talk) 23:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the SVR station is known as Kidderminster Town. As for Country Park Halt - the station was added a few years ago and they probably never got round to changing the board.--Beeurd 13:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kfriends.org.uk/ shows the new running in boards clearly stateing Kidderminster Town.

North of Bridgnorth

[edit]

Quoting to the offical SVR webpage:

Incidentally, to complete the record, the railway land north of Bridgnorth has been sold, and there is now no possibility of Severn Valley trains reaching Ironbridge and Shrewsbury ever again. [1]

So the list of stations north of Bridgnorth (Ironbridge etc.) that has now had to be removed twice is definitely wishful thinking, and shouldn't be added back again! --RFBailey 15:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there is much discussion on the SVR Online forum and amongst working volunteers regarding pressing for a formal feasibility study into a northern extension. Concern exists regards a currently small heritage line within Telford that may take a significant amount of the SVR's custom should it expand.

In view of the above wouldn't it be better to replace the sentence "Because of this, never again will trains haul past Ironbridge or to Shrewsbury" with the following "Because of this the likelihood of trains every again passing on to Ironbridge or to Shrewsbury is very remote".--7severn7 08:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bailey, quite reasonably, pointed out text that could be misunderstood by the reader thus implying the Telford Steam Railway could take over part of the SVR. I have re-written the section to state the factual situation more clearly without bias.--7severn7 11:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed the errors on the map of the northern section of the line. Ironbridge Power Station stands on the site of Buildwas Junction Station and the connection towards Craven Arms was towards the north.7severn7 12:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is no-longer a hot topic, and I suggest it takes up too much of the article. Globbet (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagree, there is no point removing or cutting down a perfectly well written and encyclopaedic section just for the sake of it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedic how? The section contains only one reference, for a start, and some of it at least verges on WP:POV. SVR is a longish article and I don't think this issue justifies the 10% of it that it currently occupies. The prominence given suggests that this is a matter of serious current debate, which it isn't, however much hot air it may generate. Globbet (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you leave it in for the time being Bill as it might need to be re-inserted and editted. Drop me a line. 7severn7 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Shropshire Star (8th May 2009)and Telford Journal (15th May 2009) report that EU funding is no longer available for land stabilisation works in the Ironbridge Gorge ( or anywhere else in the EU).

There is much interesting information in a document prepared by Telford and Wrekin Council. [2] This document states on page 8 that it is not possible to completely stop movement in the gorge as "the forces of nature are far too powerful". A Google search on Jackfield landslide will turn up all sorts of facts on the severity of the problem. All this strongly suggests that the railway could never be reinstated through the gorge. So why is there a persistent undertow of minority opinion that the railway should be extended Northwards? Is it not more sensible to call "time" on this ? Why carry on with meaningless discussion? Why waste four(or is it five?)years discussing it on the SVRA Forum? Why is there so much space devoted to it on these pages? Get real!!7sabrina7 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the section on extension northwards with a brief summary of the recent announcement by the Ironbridge Railway Trust. However I would personally suggest not adding further detailed information on their proposals at this stage, at least until it is clear whether the Restoring Your Railway Ideas Fund application is successful.--Robin84F (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Station articles?

[edit]

What do people think about doing an article on each station, as has been done for their National Rail equivalents? If even tiny unstaffed halts like Hartlebury can have them, then personally I don't see why not; most of them have plenty of history and interest behind them, after all. The reason this has crossed my mind is that someone else created one for Kidderminster Town, which I've done some minor expansion and correction of. Loganberry (Talk) 22:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a move, although I have not checked what happens on other heritage lines. DonBarton 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles for each station on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway - and a look at Pickering railway station shows that there is also a suitable template available. So it looks like all systems go! Loganberry (Talk) 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an inclusionist, I have to agree. Let's rock and roll. HawkerTyphoon 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just written quick stubs for all the currently open SVR stations. Lots of expansion possible, of course, but hopefully it's a start. Loganberry (Talk) 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've now swapped around the direction of travel on the infoboxes in those new articles, so that they match the Bridgnorth -> Kidderminster direction used in this article and its own list of stations. Loganberry (Talk) 22:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would make particular sense to include a write up on the various stations. Especially with the developments taking place at Kidderminster Town and Highley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7severn7 (talk • contribs)

And I see you have now done some of that; thanks! I think your contributions will need wikifying and a bit of cleaning up - for example, external links should be in references, not in the main body of the text - but there's definitely useful information there. Loganberry (Talk) 13:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy for others to clean up my edits. I'll just continue to add stuff as and where I can.--7severn7 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up and expanded all station artlcles, added pictures ect, hope its all correct - if not feel free to change it --Greenfinch100 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former stations

[edit]

Does anybody know the names of ALL the stations which were originally between Bridgnorth and Shrewsbury? I only have knowlege of a few of them and would like to know where the rest of them were, what remains of them ect -- Cheers -- Greenfinch100 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few weeks I've added all that I can think of to the north of Bridgnorth including Cound Halt. Please dive in and expand correct anything that I may have got wrong.--7severn7 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be an idea to include on the line plan the stations along the original Severn Valley Line via Stourport? 7severn7 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives

[edit]

4150 is a 2-6-2T. Please don't change it again mis-leading people. Follow the link.--7severn7 11:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously someone thought the Bulleid boiler at Bridgnorth was that from 34027 Taw Valley when in fact it is from Sidmouth 34010. 7severn7 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why no 'Lady A' in the rolling-stock section? Globbet (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Globbet (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GWR 4-6-0 6960 Raveningham Hall
[edit]
GWR 4-6-0 6960 Raveningham Hall

This engine is not on your list of Locos. Is it not part of the Server Valley Railway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexus5 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Nexus5 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Maps

[edit]

I finally managed to do new map for page, would anyone like one done for the line north of b'north as well? Greenfinch100 15:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely like the style of the maps. Its a pity about the errors I've pointed out elsewhere.7severn7 12:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article

[edit]

I moved the following text, about the potential northern extension, from the article:

The amount of funding required for this extension has never been sensibly quantified and has been the subject of much conjecture. Interested parties with a realistic overview of the project have even dismissed commissioning a feasibility study as a waste of money.7sabrina7 (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loganberry (Talk) 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loganberry; Whilst I do not disagree with your decision to move this to the talk page, may I invite you to review the Northwards extension section of this article and decide which of it is POV or wishful thinking, and which is hyperbole? There is very little fact!7sabrina7 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009
(UTC)7sabrina7 perhaps you could contact me. 7severn7 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion page = Place for discussion.7sabrina7 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer 7sabrina7: the "Extensions to the railway" section is certainly in need of improvement. The main problem, as mentioned in the tag at the top of the section, is that there are nothing like enough citations. In fact, there appears to be one in the entire section, which is wildly inadequate. I'm not knowledgeable enough about these discussions to say what's POV, what's wishful thinking and what's hard fact. That, of course, is why citations are so badly needed! Loganberry (Talk) 16:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All very interesting stuff.Cattery (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits (September 2009)

[edit]

The placement of a bracket before or after a fullstop is often a subject of debate. My understanding is the present arrangement is that used most commonly left of the Atlantic whereas the previous grammar was that appropriate to the location of the articles subject. Always open to correction though. 7severn7 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick flip through The King's English and Modern English Usage I could find no advice on the matter, but observed that where Fowler has a whole sentence inside brackets, he puts the stop inside too. This makes sense to me, but I know nothing. Globbet (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See this too wp:MOS#Sentences_and_brackets. Globbet (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signalling

[edit]

I have amended the paragraph on acceptance lever working to read "The single line section between Bewdley South and Kidderminster is track circuited throughout and is signalled using acceptance lever". Since track circuiting is a must would it be better for it to read "The single line section between Bewdley South and Kidderminster is signalled using acceptance lever is therefore track circuited throughout.7severn7 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Route

[edit]

The schematic diagram helps but it needs a legend. I'd guess that extant structures are red while pink distinguishes structures which have been demolished or removed. For readers not familiar with the area, a scale map is needed. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Severn Valley Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 20:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Severn Valley Railway. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnels on preserved railways

[edit]

This information is provided to support the statement that Bewdley Tunnel is the seventh longest tunnel on a UK Heritage Railway within Preservation. I have noted it here as I do not consider it warrants its own article.

The longest tunnels currently in use on preserved railway lines as listed on Wikipedia are as follows:

The statement is therefore correct unless anyone can name a longer tunnel in use but not listed here. For reference, the following tunnels shown on Heritage Railway maps are not currently in use:

  • Bridgnorth Tunnel (559 yards) on the former Severn Valley Railway between Bridgnorth and Ironbridge
  • Oakamoor tunnel (497 yards) on the Churnet Valley Railway's possible extension from Kingsley and Froghall towards Alton. Robin84F (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin84F: Please read the policy on original research. Also, you need to satisfy the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Noted, thank you. The relative length of Bewdley Tunnel is a statement that adds very little to the article so if it cannot be verified by any other means, then I suggest it is removed. I will leave this note here anyway. Robin84F (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Severn Valley Railway. 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) 05:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit of rolling stock section

[edit]

I've recently copy-edited the rolling stock section and have placed two requests for clarification:

  1. a wheel drop recovered from Leicestershire – for the benefit of readers who might not know the jargon; what is a wheel drop and how can one be recovered from an entire county?
  2. This building, lying adjacent to the main ... line, is known as the North Star Carriage Works thus perpetuating a typical GWR name – does this mean that the name has been devised by the railway in what they feel is a GWR style? A citation will be required to support this conclusion if so.

Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 12:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the wheel drop to include a link and citation. Regarding the 'North Star Works', from personal knowledge the term is regularly used as a nickname by the C&W staff and it was even used as the title of an article on the works in SVR News in 1988. However all official SVR publications appear to use the formal title of "Carriage Repair Works", so I have removed the informal name as having no reliable citation. Obviously anyone can revert it if they have a source that I don't. Robin84F (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. XAM2175 (T) 13:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble revisions January 2023

[edit]

I have amended the preamble for the following:

  • I have removed the 'sixth-longest heritage line in the United Kingdom' as being subject to the same type of citation issues as Bewdley Tunnel (see above).
  • The SVR doesn't 'follow the Severn Valley to Kidderminster'; it leaves it at Bewdley with Kidderminster being on the River Stour.
  • With the current coal crisis, use of vintage diesels is sadly rather more than 'occasional'.

Robin84F (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cost?

[edit]

I'm puzzled by the cost indicated in the paragraph Heritage Railway:

"£74,000 (£1.04 million in 2021)" and "£75,000 (£282,000 in 2021)"

How can it be? Ev292 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been updated to £74,000 (£1.23 million in 2023) and £75,000 (£334,000 in 2023). The source quoted (which appears reliable) gives RPI in 2023 as 161.950 (base of 100 in 2010). The equivalent RPI figures are 9.718 in 1972 and 36.331 in 1982. Multiplying by the relevant increase gives the answers stated. The period between the two years saw rampant inflation (14% in 1980 for example), so 1982 pounds were worth far less that 1972 pounds. It looks strange, but it is right. Robin84F (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Article map

[edit]

The main subject of this article is the heritage railway of that name, although it also makes brief reference to the commercial history of the original Severn Valley Railway of 1862 (the Severn Valley Branch as it became under the GWR and BR). The heritage railway between Kidderminster and Bewdley runs via the GWR loop line of 1878 which was not part of the original Severn Valley Railway.

The map correctly shows the route of the heritage railway. However by including the detail north of Bridgnorth, the map is neither one thing nor the other. Nothing north of Bridgnorth station relates to the present day heritage railway; at the same time the map does not show the southern part of the original railway (I can see no justification for a map which includes Ironbridge and Shrewsbury while ignoring the equally historically important Stourport and Hartlebury). Rather than add further historical information for the southern section to the rail map, I would propose to edit it so that it shows only the route of the heritage railway between Kidderminster and Bridgnorth in accordance with the main subject of the article. If there is a need for a map of the original railway in the article, it could be a separate rail map of the 1862 branch and 1878 loop line, although I think it might be better presented as a line map like that in the article on the Tenbury and Bewdley Railway. I would like to know others' thoughts before making any changes. Robin84F (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Severn_Valley_Railway&oldid=1223167648"