Talk:Alton line

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Alton Line.

Renaming?[edit]

I suggest that the article named The Alton Line should be renamed/moved to one called Alton Line. This is because I have noticed that the articles on the South Western Main Line and other lines do not have a 'the' at the start of their titles.

--Larry Cruncher 22:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation request: Alresford[edit]

In the history section there is reference to Alresford, original to a railway station disambiguation page. Could a knowledgable user please pipe-disambiguate the link in the history section to the proper target? Thank you. Courtland 05:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subway in Ash Vale?[edit]

I do not really understand the meaning of that piece of subway in Ash Vale. Is that supposed to be North Camp station on the North Downs Line? If so, why a blue sign and why no station? Could anyone please enlighten me? MichaelXXLF 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's intended to indicate a walking route to North Camp - I'd just remove the subway curve.... AlexTiefling 08:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it I can see it as well. :-) Thank you very much! Probably not the world's best solution though but I cannot think of anything better myself. MichaelXXLF 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line Singled in 1985?[edit]

I believe the line was singled between Farnham and Alton in around 1985. I assume Bentley has a passing loop? Anyway, if anybody knows more about this perhaps it could be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.199.180 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Ascot to Guildford Line[edit]

This is not an actual railway line - as noted, it contains parts of the Waterloo to Reading Line, Alton Line and North Downs Line. I do not believe we generally have articles for specific services. Perhaps the Ascot to Guildford Line page could be changed into a disambiguation to the three mentioned lines. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree - the majority of the track that the service uses is distinct from the North Downs Line / Alton Line. The Alton Line has no interaction with the tracks from Ash Vale to Ascot. While the Ascot-Guildford line does overlap, I would say it's worth retaining it's own page due to it having it's own tracks. --User:Devvok 21:08, 3rd April 2014. — Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the line from Ascot should be included as part of the Alton Branch. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. The North Downs line from Redhill to Reading was built as a complete route by the South Eastern Railway and, apart from using a few miles of the LSWR Shalford Junction to Ash Junction, was built entirely by them. The Guildford to Ascot line really has little to do with the North Downs line - they are operated by two different franchises and use different forms of traction. Apart from Guildford, the two routes have only two minor stations in common. You might as well justify merging the North Downs line with the London to Brighton line on the grounds that they both serve Redhill and Gatwick Airport or with the Waterloo to Reading line on the grounds that both of those serve Wokingham, Winnersh and Reading.

The Guildford-Ascot service is run, in effect, as a branch of the Waterloo to Reading line (with through trains at peak times) and if it has to be merged with anything, it should be that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonS Diss (talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No outcome has been agreed upon so have removed the proposal and have closed this discussion. You can start another propose if you so wish. Mark999 (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alton 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 01:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]