Talk:East West Rail

Route announcement and related documents

The summary page for the route etc is https://eastwestrail.co.uk/routeupdate and all the documents are on AWS, who knows for how long. So for the convenience of future editors, be advised that the summary page has been archived to https://web.archive.org/web/20230526195707/https://eastwestrail.co.uk/routeupdate and the onward links have also been archived. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Time to split this article?

It is getting very long and getting bogged down in detail. The blow-by-blow account is of historic interest but I consider that it gets in the way of readers who just want the essentials. So I suggest that it is time to split out that detail into a Chronology of East West Rail, leaving this article for the "edited highlights". Comments? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I may suggest doing what we did with Crossrail - a chunk of that was split into History of the Crossrail project - thus, History of East West Rail or something like that. That allows for this main article to be about the line with a brief bit of history and more detailed on the operational side of things potentially. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"History of Crossrail" is more obvious because of the clear dividing line between talking about it v work starting. At EWRL, that is also true for each phase individually but overall the talking and working happened / is happening in parallel. My first idea too was "history of", but it was for this reason I didn't think it would work. In maybe 20 years time, it will be possible to look back and take the long view needed to write a history but right now I don't think we can do that. What I think is needed now is a short version and a long version of the current article, to meet the needs of different audiences. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm certainly supportive of a split. Suggest for now we have Development of East West Rail and East West Rail. The former might even split into History of East West Rail and East West Rail development project (some something like that). As @Mattdaviesfsic says, the main article is more focused on operations, with a (very) short summary of the history and development progress to date 10mmsocket (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Certainly like Crossrail and Elizabeth Line, IMO we will need separate articles for engineering and operations in any case. We don't know yet if it is going to be given a new name – "East West Main Line" was being touted; I've also seen Oxbridge Line and even Varsity Line. If it is, what goes in which article should be fairly obvious. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

NAO report

if anyone is concerned about the WP:PRIMARY aspect of citing the NAO report directly, there is a BBC report at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-67692875 which emphasizes the need to deliver new settlements along the route if is to justify its existence. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Chancellor's statement on 7/3/24

I don't think it worth adding this Next stretch of East West Rail line approved in Budget, since it is just a re-announcement (and it is just about a refurb of the Marston Vale line with click-bait headline). So I haven't. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Difficultly north:, I reverted your edit because I can't see its purpose. As I said above, no new money was allocated. All it did was to confirm continued funding for the existing plan to upgrade the Marston Vale line – specifically, to soften the curve at Bedford St Johns and relocate the station. Even more specifically, there was no statement about funding for the central section (BDM-CAM). IMO, the article already covers adequately the controversy over the route for that section so I don't see what new we can add unless and until the Transport Select Committee reports on its hearings this week. We might infer that, once the St Johns curve is re-engineered, that sets in stone that the route will go through Bedford rather than bypass the town to the south, but that would be OR.

Or have I misunderstood your intent? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Universal Studios theme park

If the Universal Studios theme development goes ahead, it has been proposed that Kempston Hardwick and Stewartby may possibly close and another station would be proposed to better serve the new development. It is shown as an East West Rail station. (Plans here Page 13)
Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

(I hope you don't mind that I've pimped up your post.)

True, but for now it is wp:CRYSTAL. For now, it seems reasonable (= factual) to me to say that Universal have proposed it, though it would be more convincing if EWRCo had endorsed it. But I can't see where it says anything about closing Kempston Hardwick and Stewartby? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. It looks like I was mistaken it was there although there seems to be speculation on a few other websites this is going to happen. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually further to this, the images showing the proposed site, with the large brickworks already having been bought by Universal, do not show these stations, especially Kempston Hardwick, which is located on Manor Road. So it either is going to be closed or relocated. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 20:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH to say that. We would have to stick to what they say and not add any inferences. I don't doubt that this is exactly what the proposal as written would mean but the actual planning permission may be different. So for that aspect at least, we would have to wait and see. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Project newsletters

On 24 June, User:FFM784 deleted the Project Newsletters, citing policy WP:ELNO. To my mind, these are valuable historical documents of significant interest and deletion of this list seems to me to be an unduly harsh interpretation of the policy. So I am opening this discussion to see if there is a consensus in favour or against retention. (For the convenience of editors, I have appended the list and added the most recent issue.) I will notify WP:WikiProject UK Railways. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Reinstate for reasons already given. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
• Include. I'm not seeing what part of ELNO is relevant here - they are clearly appropriate official information that supplements the encyclopaedia article. It would be ideal to link to a directory/index of the newsletters rather than the long list of individual ones if such exists (I've not looked), but if it doesn't exist then the long list is better than nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

East West Rail Alliance (Atkins Lang O'Rourke, NetworkRail, VolkerRail) project newsletters

• • EWR Alliance, ed. (April 2020). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – April 2020".
  • Cuzner, Mark, ed. (July 2020). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – July 2020". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (October 2020). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Autumn 2020". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (January 2021). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Winter 2020/2021". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (April 2021). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Spring 2021". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (August 2021). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Summer 2021". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (November 2021). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Autumn 2021". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (February 2022). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Winter 21/22". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (May 2022). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Spring 2022". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (September 2022). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Summer/Autumn 2022". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (April 2023). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Spring 2023". East West Rail Alliance.
  • ——, ed. (August 2023). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Summer 2023". East West Rail Alliance.
  • James, Mark, ed. (31 May 2024). "EWR2 Project Newsletter – Spring/Summer 2024" (PDF). East West Rail Alliance.

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:ELNO is clear stating:

Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not external links for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section..

As it stands, there are seven instances where these newslatters are being used as cites, therefore per the policy these should not be repeated in the external links section. If the ones not yet used as cites can be used to improve the article, great, but dare I say, some may just reinforce what is already covered by other more reliable (i.e. WP:SECONDARY) cites. Weshmakui (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)