Talk:Hastings line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Talk

Hastings article mentions about problems with the loading gauge - this should be added to this article and explained / expanded upon here if anyone knows anything about it --84.68.63.54 14:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

further investigation leads me to believe that a tunnel somewhere between Hastings and Tunbridge Wells had a low height on it (there are only a one or two tunnel on my OS map). When the line was finally electrified in the late 80's/early 90s (to 750v DC) this was overcome, presumably by going single track in the tunnel but no site I've browsed mentions it - they could have re-bored the tunnel but i doubt it. --Pickle 18:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Both the statements above are incorrect - see my rewrite - and there are seven tunnels. In addition the statement that the line to Tunbridge Wells was electrified in the interwar years is totally wrong. The nearest electric trains got to on this line was to Sevenoaks. Diesels worked the entire line through Tonbridge until electrification in 1986. Even the main line to Dover was still steam until after WWII. And the single track through the tunnels is not quite true - the two lines (up and down) are interlaced. Peter Shearan 10:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on this page, at the time i didn't many sources to look up, cheers ;) Pickle 12:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Interlaced Track etc. etc.

According to this thread, there is considerable doubt about the tunnels having interlaced track. The claim needs a solid third-party citation, or to be removed. --88.110.235.235 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Long thread with some intresting details....

This bit on tunnels is also very intresting ;

... Mountfield suffered a partial collapse in the early/mid 1970s, and was singled by 1975, being laid on concrete slab track which also helped strengthen the foundations. For a while after the collapse there was single line working, before a closure of about six to eight weeks to single line. When the line was electrified the layout at Mountfield was amended with the trap points being removed, and

signals moved back.

Wadhurst, Strawberry Hill and Somerhill all singled between April 1985 and January 1986. Grove Tunnel at Tunbridge Wells was laid double slab track, owing to clearances being tight to prevent movement of the track. ... - [1]

Have in incorporate it soon Pickle 18:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no interlaced track in the tunnels on the Hastings line - the single track tunnels all have "conventional" single track. I'm not 100% sure reference to Mount Pleasant Tunnel should be included - the Hastings Line to most people is the line between Tonbridge and Hastings and does not include the continuation on to Ore. Purists might argue that the two tunnels either side of St Leonards Warrior Square station shouldn't be included - they are not part of the actual Hastings line being built as part of the LBSCR Hastings - Eastbourne line, rather than as part of the SER Tonbridge-Hastings Line. There's several things amiss with the list of tunnels - running south from Tonbridge, the tunnels are Somerhill Tunnel* (almost immediately after the Hastings line branches away from the main line), Wells Tunnel (immediately to the north of Tunbridge Wells station), Grove Tunnel (immediately to the south of Tunbridge Wells station), Strawberry Hill Tunnel* (not far south of the site of the former Grove Junction), Wadhurst Tunnel*, Mountfield Tunnel*(which was singled long before the others and as not as part of the electrification of the line), Bo Peep Tunnel and Hastings Tunnel. (Not all of the tunnels sre singled as the article states - those marked * are the single line tunnels). Incidentally Hastings Tunnel is to the west of Hastings station and not the east as implied in the article - it adjoins the eastern end of St Leonards Warrior Square's platformsDamnedfroggy 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

The article covers the services runing from the London terminal to Hastings (and beyond to Ore) *AND* "Tonbridge to Bopeep Junction" ie Network Rail code "SO170" Pickle 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you ride on the line every day you cannot edit the article to tell us whether the lines through the tunnels are single or interlaced as this falls foul of our no OR rule. However, would someone who owns the 1066 DC DVD referred to in the article watch it to check, then edit the article appropriately, quoting it as a source? I am not enough of a railway fan to do this (well all right but not this far east!!) but someone must have a copy of it. Britmax 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted all of the talk on this matter. Let me be quite clear on this. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INTERLACED TRACK. Anyone who disputes this should provide clear evidence before posting any such nonsense. Listen to me people ... I used to live in Tunbridge Wells, I have worked on the railway for over 18 years, I have travelled on this route too many times to count, the railway track diagrams from the Quail Map Company say there is NO INTERLACED TRACK, I have access to the Network Rail Sectional Appendix for this route ... and there there is NO INTERLACED TRACK.

I shall say this for one final time ... there is NO INTERLACED TRACK. Sheepcot 23:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the delete as your not aloud (unless your an admin) to delete talk page contents. Pickle 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to "clean-up" the page. [sigh]Sheepcot 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that, what tends to happen, is that when a discussion becomes old and inactive is that you archive the old talk to an archive page ;) Pickle 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Its all a bit pointless now ... the railways pages have been hi-jacked by the waterways people. I shall not be contributing anything more.Sheepcot 13:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

I've amended the template to show the Mountfield line and KESR line junction correctly. Mjroots (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam?

There seems to be a dispute about the Quail source used in the article. As the website is advertising books for sale, it could be classed as linkspam. IMHO it would be better to use the {{cite book}} template to reference the book itself. Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The website is not the reference, it is one of the books being advertised there that is the reference. --Dr Greg (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have created a citation template for Quail Vol 5; put the route map into a template using Quail and Jowett as sources; and added Quail & Jowett to the source list on Template and Article. The original comment is now surplus to requirements. --Stewart ^(talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Loading Gauge and Track Centres

When the exact dimensions of loading gauge and track centres is known, please add to Double track#Track Centre examples. Tabletop (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bulleid Pacifics

Jewell, p22 states that all three classes of Bulleid Pacifics were able to operate on the "northern section" (Tonbridge - Grove Junction) of the line. Can anyone confirm this? Mjroots (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: - Derry (p20) states that the Battle of Britain class could work the Hastings Line, but these had cabs 8'6" wide. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Derry, Richard (2004). The Book of the West Country and Battle of Britain Pacifics. Clophill: Irwell Press. ISBN 1-903266-23-8.

Some books give the impression that the difference between a West Country and a Battle of Britain was in the width, but a check of the loco names shows that this cannot have been the case, because 21C101-170 (narrow cabs) included 22 (21C149-170) with Battle of Britain names, and 34071-110 (wide cabs) included 18 (34091-108) with West Country names.

According to

Bradley, D.L. (September 1976). Locomotives of the Southern Railway, part 2. London: RCTS. ISBN 0-901115-31-2. OCLC 653065063. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"the width across the cab had been restricted to 8ft. 6in. when use of the class had been envisaged on the Charing Cross-Hastings services, but when this failed to occur no valid reason remained for its retention and, when forty more were built after Nationalisation, the side sheets were extended to the full 9ft. 0in." (Bradley 1976, p. 61)

"these twenty locomotives [34071-90] were the first genuine Battle of Britains, being fitted with 9ft.-wide V-fronted cabs" (Bradley 1976, p. 74)

"the original intention had been to work the West Country class over the Tonbridge-Hastings line and for this purpose the width of the cab and tender was restricted to 8ft. 6in. to suit the load gauge of that route, but, apart from a brief visit in 1945 no use was made of the facility, and when the Battle of Britain class was introduced in mid-1947, the opportunity was taken, first to widen the cab to 9ft. 0in. and, commencing with No. 34071 the tenders also" (Bradley 1976, p. 78)

There is a discrepancy here: Bradley implies on pp. 61 & 74 that the wide cab was introduced with no. 34071, but on p. 78 he implies that some, if not all, of the earlier locos with Battle of Britain names (i.e. 21C149-70) had the wide cab.

He does state that a 9ft 0in. cab was fitted to the locos that were rebuilt from 1957 on (Bradley 1976, pp. 92–93). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the article. As I don't have Bradley's book, would you cast an eye over the paragraph please? Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: You appear to have misinterpreted what I put above, particularly in your phrase "eighteen locomotives of the West Country and 22 of the Battle of Britain class were built with cabs that were 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m) wide ...". Here's how they break down:

• 21C101-148 (48) West Country 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) cab and tender
• 21C149-170 (22) Battle of Britain 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) cab and tender
• 34071-90, 34109-10 (22) Battle of Britain 9 ft 0 in (2.74 m) cab and tender
• 34091-108 (18) West Country 9 ft 0 in (2.74 m) cab and tender

Regarding "all were later fitted with 9 feet 0 inches (2.74 m) wide cabs", they weren't - it was only the locos that received the full rebuild (losing the air-smoothed casing) that were given 9 ft 0 in (2.74 m) wide cabs; locos that were not rebuilt retained whatever cab width they had been built with. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Now corrected. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Railway ticket image

I've unhidden the 1066 electrics railway ticket image. The issue was raised at the GA review, and I asked at WP:MCQ. No definitive answer was received and the thread has now been archived for the second time (Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/September#Railway tickets). As the copyright chaps are usually pretty hot on infringements, I take this as a sign that there is no problem with having the image on Commons and in the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Map

I have added a map and removed the 'mapneeded=yes' tag from the header. Sheepcot 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a better map? If the reader does not know where Hastings is, it is quite hard to find the actual line. Maybe the line can be highlighted? Or at least Hastings could be highlighted? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: There is no better map. Unfortunately there is no equivalent (East) Sussex railway map available. Hastings is marked on the map, but agree that it really does need some shading to indicate its location. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: - can you fix this please? Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wadhurst Tunnel

I'm hoping to persuade Network Rail to release a photo of one of the portals of the tunnel on a Wikipedia compatible licence. I've submitted a request to -them and am awaiting a response. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Prose issues

Background

I got considerably muddled in the last two paragraphs of the background section, with the mixture of detail relating to several different lines, incomplete date information, and no explanation of the proximity of Hastings to St Leonards. I have redrafted the last two paragraphs as below, omitting details which either add nothing to the main narrative, or which merelt confuse:

The extension into Tunbridge Wells opened on 25 November 1846, without any public ceremony. Meanwhile, the SER had been granted permission to build a line from Ashford in Kent to St Leonards, East Sussex, passing through Hastings. However, by 1846 the rival LBSC had extended their line from Lewes to reach St Leonards; this potentially gave the LBSC a shorter route to Hastings than the planned SER route via Ashford. The SER therefore sought permission to extend their branch from Tunbridge Wells across the High Weald to provide a more direct route to Hastings. Authorisation for the construction of a 25 miles 60 chains (41.44 km) line from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings was obtained on 18 June 1846, but as Parliament deemed the line between Ashford and St Leonards to be of military strategic importance, they stipulated that this was to be completed before work on the extension from Tunbridge Wells could start. The SER unsuccessfully challenged this condition, which delayed the construction of the Tunbridge Wells to Hastings line until 1851.

Please consider this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

References

@Brianboulton: so you want to merge the two paragraphs into one then? I agree with the mention of A to StL passing through H. Would drop the "potentially" because the LBSC route was shorter than Hastings-Ashford-Redhill-London. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the two paragraphs could easily be merged into one, as above. The reason I said "potentially" is that I thought a line from Lewes to St Leonards would fall short of Hastings itself, St Leonards being to the west of the town. But you can tinker with the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Construction

• You say in the second para that by March 1851 the trackbed had been constructed, but when did construction begin?

• I'd say 1845/46 would be a reasonable guess. Unfortunately, newspapers such as the Tonbridge Free Press are not (yet) available online. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• There seems to be enough cited evidence to show that construction was under way late in 1845. Work on the Wells tunnel was under way in September 1845, and T. Wells station was built by November 1846. That's surely enough for a modest "Construction began in late 1845..."; be even more vague if you wish, but you should not, in any event, say nothing. Brianboulton (talk)

• The first two sentences are rather clumsily written, with "as a result" particularly awkward. I suggest: "The Hastings Line crosses the forested and hilly terrain of the High Weald, and the sandstone Hastings Beds. This necessitated the building of eight tunnels between Tonbridge and Hastings".

 Done rewritten. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The SER was anxious to construct the line as economically as possible, since it was in competition with the LBSC to obtain entry into Hastings and was not in a strong financial position in the mid 1840s." I don't see much point in this sentence. Surely it would be normal business practice to construct the line as economically as possible anyway, not just because SER was in competition with another line. And I don't see the relevance of mentioning SER's general financial position as not strong.

• It is relevant. There's always a balance to be struck between keeping gradients down as low as possible versus the need to construct longer, more expensive tunnels. Savings made in construction can mean increased expenditure in operation (e.g. Lickey Incline). Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• You risk adding to readers' confusion, but let it pass. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• The sentences beginning "Climbing steeply out of the Medway Valley..." and ending "1 in 945" is a summary of the route rather than of its construction. It's written as though the line already existed ("the line undulated", "the line then climbs"), but in your narrative construction hasn't yet begun. This detail is useful, but should be in a better place, preferably in a paragraph of its own placed after the second paragraph, and rephrased accordingly, e.g. "As completed, the line climbs steeply out of the Medway Valley..." etc. And keep to the present tense.

• I've given that paragraph its own subsection. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I've only just noticed that your comments are at Talk:Hastings Line; the other FA reviewers are all posting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hastings Line/archive2. It does help if the comments which should lead this article to FA-class are all in one place. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I am the only reviewer making detailed comments on the prose, which needs considerable attention. As I stated on the FAC page, I'd prefer not to clutter that page with detailed prose comments, but I should be back there shortly when this review is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, re the part about "to construct the line as economically as possible" - among the main features of this line were its narrow tunnels, due to skimping on costs; and the steep gradients. Elsewhere in the country, engineers like Brunel spared no expense to build lines with no gradients to speak of, and fewer (but much larger) tunnels. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Further prose cmts

• The final paragraph of the Construction section isn't really about construction, but about events years and decades after the line was completed. I think you need another subsection, "Subsequent problems" or some such.

•  Done Mjroots (talk)

• "Wadhurst Tunnel collapsed in 1862 and it was discovered by the SER that the same situation existed there too." What is meant by "the same situation"?

• This should be clear now. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Openings: the use of bullet points in article prose is generally disapproved by MOS. The article is very listy already, and straight prose should be used wherever possible.

• I think that using BPs in this instance enables a clearer presentation of the information. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stations: I would begin the preamble by a clear statement of which were the original stations, and which were added later. I imagine that the statement about William Tress only applies to the original stations – he can't have still been designing in the 1920s.

• I've clarified which stations were designed by Tress. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am troubled by the "bitty" appearance of this section. Do you really need the specific links to all the station articles, because these links are already provided in the collapsible diagram at the beginning of the article? Do you need all the station images? They extend way, way beyond the Station section – they are nice images, but they do add significantly to the article clutter.

• See my comments at FAC2 re putting this section into a table format. All images are valid. TW gets two because they are by different architects and have different dates. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Incidentally: on my display the collapsible line diagram has a default position of hide, while the much less useful "Development of Tonbridge station" diagram has a default of "show". This is the wrong way round – the station development diagram is barely worth including at all, while the line diagram is important.)

• I created the diagram as a response to your criticism that you didn't understand the situation at Tonbridge from the text, now you say it is barely worth including. I'm happy without it, are you? Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I was hoping for a prose clarification. The diagram does not really help and could easily go. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Links to other lines: the difference between unbuilt "authorised" and unbuilt "proposed" branches is too small to warrant separate subsections, which add to the bittiness. I suggest you combine these, and perhaps find a place for Bo-peep junction, too. This slight piece of information hardly warrants a separate section.

• There us a big difference between a line that has obtained an Act of Parliament for its construction and one that is merely proposed by a group of speculators, whether or not the authorised line is actually built. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am sure that is the case. But it still doesn't require the division of the prose into separate sub-subsections. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Bopeep junction info moved to description subsection. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Planned electrification: Check "The Southern Railway had provided with line with 104 new carriages and six Pullman Cars between 1929 and 1934." Does this sentence (when corrected) refer to the Hastings Line, or to Southern Railway generally?

  The line. The SR as a whole put over 800 loco-hauled coaches into service during the same period, including the 104 for the Hastings line but excluding catering cars and Pullmans. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• changed to "the line with". Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The rolling stock built in the 1930s being by then overdue for replacement." This does not constitute a complete sentence.

• Reworded Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Operators: You should briefly explain what is meant by the "Grouping", rather than requiring your readers to use the link.

• I disagree, although I have wikilinked the article on the Act. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• That does not help your general reader who will still have to use the link to find out whar "the Grouping" means. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Clarify that "Southeastern" was the name of a new operating company, to avoid confusion with South Eastern Trains

• Do you mean the South Eastern Railway. It is clear when that company is meant because it is referred to throughout by its initials, SER. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• I just wanted the final sentence in this section to read: "On 1 April 2006 a new operating company, Southeastern, took over the operation of passenger trains on the route". Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Nearly through with these comments – will try and finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have spent a fair amount of time on this, but I am not sure I can be of much further help to you. I think that the prose has improved – but I see that you still think that the sentence "The train, consisting the Royal Saloon..." etc, is correct English, which is a shame. My final thoughts, which I will summarise on the FAC page, are that the article is too "listy", and this is made worse by your use of bullet points when straight prose would do. Also, the article is seriously over-imaged. This has the effect of distorting the article's presentation. The fact that all the images are "relevant" is neither here nor there; often when preparing articles you accumulate more information than you can use. You need to make a reasonable selection. I wish you well with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)