426:, but hey ... thats just my style!. Almost all of the lines are part of what used to be the old "Southern Region", but the reality is that though the name has changed ... the association lives on. I guess it shows that you can reorganise the railway, sell it off and buy it back ... but history and tradition survive. IMHO, I think the template is better, but I accept you valid points about lines in London and on the GW etc. The problem lies with the vague and woolly title "Railway Lines in South-East England". If I were to be provocative, and put my Chris Green "Network SouthEast" hat upon my head, then I would start to add many of the lines in Anglia, the Great Northern, London onto the Template ... and then we really would have fun sorting it all out. Like I say, history lives on ... and the association with the old regions is still strong today, so I would probably keep the template as it is and "weed out" some of the infiltrators from the Great Western and make it a pure "Railways of the former Southern Region of England".
915:
Tunnel
Construction site. Anyhow, still a "Railway Line in the South of England", does it need to be differentiated as a freight only line? I think not, else we ought to rename the article "Passenger Railway Lines" and "Freight Railway Lines" in the SE of England. But at the end of the day, a railway line is a railway line is a railway line, what it gets used for can be left to a specific article. Not sure if that answers your question, but it answers what I interpreted your question to mean. Want the short version. "No, I don't think you need to split them".
229:
211:
239:
22:
179:
1183:. Naturally these provide the potential for relatively inexpensive restoration of passenger services. This has in fact been proposed recently by ATOC, for several routes, and actually implemented in the case of Corby, Northants earlier this year (2009). Other routes, such as the Amlwch branch in Anglesey, are effectively mothballed, with overgrown track in place, but needing considerable civil engineering prior to any re-use.
77:
53:
440:
clear to non- railway enthusiasts, whereas arranging by former BR region or pre-grouping company, while valid, may be rather less accessible to the average user (looking for travel information rather than history). An extreme example is wherever two or more regions meet: the two
Windsor lines would need both Southern and Western regional templates to ensure adequate
537:] then they use the system of "main line", "secondary", "London and south east commuter", "rural" and "freight", which gives us a referable to source of classification, the current method (used on most of these templates) seams somewhat arbitrary. I'm very interested to hear other peoples ideas so we can establish some consensus on this.
790:(say); you might want to remove some articles from a parent category to a subcategory, but the template would stop this, unless the template is intelligent enough to decide for itself the correct category. So any automatic categorisation would need some careful thought before implementation. You might decide it's not worth the effort. --
91:
1003:
I see what you mean now. Well, it looks okay. I still think that we can do better with some of the categories, but I am not about to stir things up too much (yet!). I still don't like "Commuter Lines", and I don't like "Main Lines" much either. I would add "Only" after freight to make it quite clear.
969:
anyway as for this question, IIRC we haven't got many - as you say the Grain line (still big for aggregates and containers), Angerstein (sp?) Wharf (aggregates) and
Dungeness (nuclear flaks) - all 3 are covered in other article, although i want to write an article on the grain line. elsewhere i think
914:
Erm, not sure what you mean? Lets talk a specific example, the freight line to the Isle of Grain in Kent. Not used for passengers since (a long time ago), but still used for freight. If memory serves me, it was used to move the concrete linings for the
Channel Tunnel from the fabrication plant to the
687:
articles. I held back from making any edit to this template because I wasn't sure of the intention of the person who originally categorised this template. It is possible to make a template have the property of putting any article that uses the template into a category. For example, if this template (
1161:
Doing this required some thought as to categorisation of lines. Google Earth already, supposedly, mapped the active railway of the UK, though several lines shown are known personally to be long gone and others, sometimes major (such as
Calderdale in Yorkshire - now open for all traffic following a
965:
thus IMHO, i still have an issue with the idea of "primary", "secondary" and "minor/branch" as one can't point at something to classify them. network rail at least off a 5 point classification list (primary, secondary, London & south east commuter, rural and freight) - I'm not sure how we could
501:
An excellent analysis. As you rightly say, what are the templates for? I'll need time to "mull it over" and recollect my thoughts. I have to say that if we keep the current template names, then we need to do some serious work on sorting out inconsistencies between them! As a starter for 10, where
439:
If you created a "Railways of the former
Southern Region of England" template, for consistency you would need to complete them for the other regions too. Then you run into other issues, like: what are the templates for? The current template lists the railways in a geographical area, which should be
1193:
Thus newly mapped lines have been shown as either closed or, effectively, freight only. Google Earth itself shows (NB comment above) the open lines (when queried, their stated aim is to show active lines, whatever the current use). Some sections of
Heritage lines are actually shown, but not all.
756:
you are confident that all the articles which include this (or any similar) template genuinely deserve to be in the appropriate category. If there is a consensus view that this is a good thing (nobody else has commented on this, yet) such "stealth" categorisation needs to be clearly stated in each
1197:
Given the projects focus on closed lines and their history post-Beeching closures have been mapped using the former regional colours of the respective BR regional operators. Closures before that systematic "cull" of one third of the UK's railway mileage are shown in their own colour. Width then
1117:
I have spent the last couple of years, using spare hours, mapping the closed lines of the
England and Wales, starting up north, onto satellite imagery. Recently, following a request, I did likewise for Kent, East Sussex and most of West Sussex, before returning to 'infilling' central and eastern
407:
about a common layout for all these templates. Some have freight lines, the London ones are different from the rest of GB/UK, the current standard is "main, commuter and rural" which i don't necessarily agree with, but there should be some commonality. The division between the 3 divisions of the
322:
Great job on adding it back in. Poor job on the fact that there is NO ARTICLE on this branch line!! Not sure whether to praise you for your effort, or to take pity on you for not realizing that the reason it was removed was because there was no article. Now we have a template that has a "dead"
958:
As you may gather form the above there is no standard/consensus on what we should do in these regional templates (as in how we cover the railways lines in each area). the Scots are probably the most advanced of anywhere, and got so many closed lines they have split their template into two. the
686:
The point I was making was that templates and articles should not both appear in the same category – any category should either contain no templates, or contain nothing but templates. Readers who are not editors shouldn't get to see any links to templates when they are browsing categories of
1004:
Also, I thought that "disused" lines were on a separate template and had their own article too ... something like "List of CLOSED railway lines in Great
Britian". I guess there is a "grey" area between "disused" and "closed" ... and I'm not sure I want to go too far down that road either.
696:, then any article which used this template would automatically be put into that category. That probably wasn't the intention, and probably is not a good idea. It is up for discussion as for what might be an appropriate template category instead. Have I made sense now? --
475:
I think the way forward may be tied to the answer of 'what the articles are for?', ie are they travel guides or historical articles. Answering that question may help decide whether the templates should be arranged geographically (for the former) or historically (for the
563:
Hmmm good point, i think the fact that previously the big main lines (GWML, WCML, MML, ECML, CTRL and XC) were bold'ed so .... If many people thought it was superfluous then we can scrap it and go back to just "main lines", a somewhat arbitrary description.
301:, then using as an item separator meant that the browser was forced to make the line break in the middle of a link. The only problem with my version is that we really need a "non-breaking hyphen" but HTML does not offer one.
819:) haven't been good at using. What we need to do is a) use it (ie there are a lot of railway lines with no cats, or cats that bear no relation to rail transport, just the generic "transport in x". Then we've got to sort the cat further (
827:
as a sub cat, but there are a lot to do, and at the same time probably need to do the same with disused rail lines. We're been very good with our railway station cats but obviously not with railway lines. Panic not about the "cheat",
985:
anyway my 2 cents is be bold, add an extra three lines on listing first freight lines where applicable, 2nd heritage lines and 3rd closed line - we'll just have to see how big it gets, and then think about splitting
666:
Now if that makes any sense about what i think we want, maybe you can direct me about what code needs changing, as i don't entirely understand what your on about! (i think your saying these templates should be in
1144:. He did not say that he had done it on Knowledge (XXG), only that he done it. His work may be useful, but unfortunately he has not really been clear on what he is proposing. But at least give him a chance! --
962:
the south eastern one (this one) is somewhat experimental in that it divided the old southern region of BR (its presumed scope) into its 3 subdivisions - no one moaned, but no one took the idea up elsewhere.
714:
668:
465:
is really a 'main line'. (That one rather amuses me. Since the list is A-Z sorted this one is the first of the 'main lines', apparently taking precedence over the South
Western and West of England main
877:, since the qualifications for category membership are assured. Whether there is any point in doing this, as the category will (probably) contain exactly the same content as the template, is debatable.
637:
has (AFAIK) the most extensive list of railway line in Great Britain. All the regional templates (of which this is one) are listed there and *i think* the tempaltes and lists given on that page match.
1190:
which includes thousands of miles of relatively intact infrastructure lacking lines to areas of complete redevelopment, open-cast mining etc. where all traces of the former railway has vanished.
408:
southern region is a valid one, but that assumes the template is for the "southern region of BR" rather than the South East region (ie Oxfordshire to Kent via Hampshire) which is how the page
928:
The template is classed into those which are passenger\mixed (Intercity to Rural), those which are now solely for freight and disused together, and those which are heritage\tourist lines.
300:
into the template is that it makes assumptions about the user's text size and window width. Worse, if the user's text/window size means that line breaks are needed before the <br: -->
336:
More seriously, just think how many more people will see that the article is missing. Isn't it then more likely that someone will find the time to create it? Red links are not evil!
1198:
indicates, for the former, use upon final closure (general of freight only). Very wide semi-transparent regional colours indicate the freight only or mothballed "missing" routes.
757:
template's documentation, including advice that removal of the template from any article will also remove from the category unless manually added. (I've seen similar problems with
1083:
Each template seems to have its own unique style. It has been discussed many times with standardising them but nothing of fruition. Go ahead. And no, there is no policy AFAIK.
502:
is the boundary of "south east England"!? If it includes "Anglia", then I think you can see where my "Network SouthEast" argument will lead us ... to a rock and a hard place.
1201:
Naturally consideration of urban areas, with both underground and light rail systems, gives rise to a further category, being entirely "passenger only" ... might I suggest
1278:
1283:
656:
1253:
1288:
1258:
261:
1050:
Is there any reason why I shouldn't add a "Northern" to the template, accepting that it will only have Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire in it (specifically the
1263:
688:
528:
1268:
400:
937:
1026:
583:
404:
252:
216:
422:
I agree. I re-organised the template because it was getting (IMHO) too unwieldy and difficult to read. Yes I took a bit of a liberty and a dose of
652:
634:
524:
409:
373:
904:
Freight lines are not technically disused. Would it be okay to split these into separate or would that make the templates overly complicated?
1273:
660:
832:
816:
616:
categories. If the intention is that articles that transclude this template should be in the category, then the category should be within
188:
129:
125:
63:
975:
531:
has the title "Railway lines in South-West England and the "Great Western"" to explain it contents. Other than this geographical note,
305:
605:
1126:
You have done nothing of the sort. This is your first posting! If you are a sockpuppet, then I suggest you tread very carefully.
874:
1149:
1073:
121:
112:
58:
33:
553:
Adding intercity lines, many of the other main line could be classed as intercity lines so i think this is rather ambiguous.
1141:
1227:
820:
787:
641:
601:
824:
527:
is by far from perfect "central England" and "northern england" covering for 2 and 2 "regions" respectively. Notably
979:
721:
645:
1145:
1069:
372:
actually. Personally i strike red links form the template until we've got a page for it to point at. There is also
1162:
period as, merely, a major freight artery), completely overlooked. These I have assigned to its own posting as "
1239:
1216:
1153:
1135:
1106:
1092:
1077:
1033:
1008:
992:
971:
949:
919:
908:
883:
844:
794:
731:
700:
677:
624:
590:
568:
557:
541:
506:
488:
454:
430:
416:
380:
355:
342:
327:
312:
39:
651:
In addition there are a plethora of closed and heritage lines not included on most of the templates and at
244:
1102:
1088:
760:
260:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
648:) - in theory there should be so many that we would need subcats like the templates we have (at least).
228:
210:
1051:
1235:
655:, (but probably should be and is on the midland one, was once on the scottish one) - ie c/ref with
257:
1208:
1131:
333:
It's far from being a "dead" link, when clicking on it could give birth to a whole new article...
1098:
1084:
1059:
1030:
946:
905:
587:
554:
423:
396:
369:
1212:
1005:
916:
532:
503:
462:
427:
352:
324:
836:
535:
raises the excellent point of classification, if one reads Network rail's Business plans
453:
There is also a problem with the current terminology. For example, there is no way that
1231:
1027:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Standardisation of regional line templates
989:
841:
728:
674:
640:
Conversely, we've (WP:UK trains) have been bad at adding lines to the cat in question (
584:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Standardisation of regional line templates
565:
538:
413:
377:
117:
178:
76:
52:
1247:
1127:
1055:
309:
133:
100:
1065:
791:
697:
621:
1169:
It seems after some consideration that lines fall into three major categories.
880:
523:
If these templates are by the current regional split of the UK then the list at
485:
339:
234:
786:
This sort of blanket inclusion could also be a nuisance for subcategories of
815:
Nah, its me trying to avoid some hard, long and arduous work. Its a cat we (
1025:
OK and whoops, i have just restarted the discussion on the project page at
120:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can visit the
600:
This template, along with other similar templates, is currently within
90:
1179:
Secondly a surprising length of other active lines are currently
715:
Category:Rail transport navigational boxes of the United Kingdom
669:
Category:Rail transport navigational boxes of the United Kingdom
376:
if IMHO, people feel the need to list lines without articles.
15:
959:
central england one above, is perhaps the next most advanced.
399:
but should we not have some sort of discussion either here,
177:
116:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
724:, rather than cheat (or is that cheat you pointed out OK?).
1164:
Google's mapping of existing railways in England and Wales
304:
Have you considered a | symbol as an item separator as in
124:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
1166:" showing both commission and ommission errors as found.
945:
in the current layout (which i assumed was standard).
1176:, i.e. passenger and freight, at least potentially.
1064:
Is there a policy on defunct lines? Specifically the
256:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
160:
657:Category:Heritage railways in the United Kingdom
644:, which should actually roll back to its parent
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
875:Category:Railway lines in South-East England
831:BTW to get some more thoughts try asking at
689:Template:Railway lines in South-East England
529:Template:Railway lines in South-West England
405:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject UK Railways
270:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject London Transport
765:, which "steathily" adds to a "Parishes of
401:Talk:List of railway lines in Great Britain
205:
157:
47:
966:do this but tis something to think about.
713:Right, then these templates should be in
1279:Template-Class London Transport articles
720:we'll have to have a purge and populate
1284:NA-importance London Transport articles
833:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject UK Railways
817:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject UK Railways
207:
49:
1254:Template-Class rail transport articles
1113:Kent & Sussex ... and points north
982:and of course each NR route plan pdf).
653:List of railway lines in Great Britain
635:List of railway lines in Great Britain
525:List of railway lines in Great Britain
410:List of railway lines in Great Britain
374:List of railway lines in Great Britain
1289:WikiProject London Transport articles
1259:NA-importance rail transport articles
661:Category:Closed British railway lines
412:appears (to me) to be divided up by.
273:Template:WikiProject London Transport
250:This template is within the scope of
110:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
974:but I'm struggling on the rest (see
582:Discussion effectively restarted at
299:The problem with putting <br: -->
1264:Template-Class UK Railways articles
161:Associated projects or task forces:
38:It is of interest to the following
1269:NA-importance UK Railways articles
306:Template:Bridges of Central London
142:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Trains
14:
823:). I had a play earlier and made
821:Category:Railway lines of England
788:Category:Railway lines of England
642:Category:Railway lines of England
606:Category:Rail transport in London
602:Category:Railway lines of England
938:Railway lines in Central England
873:template should auto-include is
869:The only category, if any, that
825:Category:Railway lines of London
237:
227:
209:
89:
75:
51:
20:
1172:Firstly most active railway is
691:) contained within it the code
1097:And see the discussion above.
1034:21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
1009:21:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
993:21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
950:20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
920:20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
909:19:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
884:13:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
845:12:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
795:12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
732:02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
722:Category:British railway lines
701:11:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
678:01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
646:Category:British railway lines
625:17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
591:21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
186:This template is supported by
1:
1240:17:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
1228:Oxfordshire Ironstone Railway
1222:Oxfordshire Ironstone Railway
1154:11:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
1136:07:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
264:and see a list of open tasks.
130:WikiProject Trains to do list
1274:All WikiProject Trains pages
1217:09:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
748:In my opinion, that "cheat"
351:I really hate smart people.
253:WikiProject London Transport
955:Sorry for the belated reply
368:I think its something like
145:Template:WikiProject Trains
1305:
1140:Don't shoot new editors!
1107:19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
1093:19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
1078:16:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
970:there is the Fawley line,
900:Freight and disused lines.
457:should be considered as a
276:London Transport articles
222:
185:
156:
70:
46:
569:23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
558:20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
542:16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
507:11:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
489:10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
455:Waterloo to Reading Line
431:08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
417:03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
381:23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
356:22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
343:22:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
328:21:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
313:00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
245:London transport portal
189:WikiProject UK Railways
148:rail transport articles
1186:The third category is
694:]</includeonly: -->
318:Shepperton Branch Line
182:
1146:John Maynard Friedman
1118:England. Searching "
1070:John Maynard Friedman
181:
1142:WP:Assume good faith
1052:West Coast Main Line
980:this London area map
693:<includeonly: -->
618:<includeonly: -->
461:, any more than the
972:Ardingly aggregates
258:Transport in London
1122:" will find it.
1120:Closed Railways UK
395:I'm all for being
308:or a • symbol? --
183:
113:WikiProject Trains
34:content assessment
1060:Marston Vale Line
292:
291:
288:
287:
284:
283:
204:
203:
200:
199:
196:
195:
108:
107:
1296:
976:this UK wide map
942:
936:
764:
695:
619:
612:categories, not
463:North Downs Line
278:
277:
274:
271:
268:
267:London Transport
247:
242:
241:
240:
231:
224:
223:
217:London Transport
213:
206:
168:
158:
150:
149:
146:
143:
140:
93:
84:
83:
79:
72:
71:
66:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1244:
1243:
1226:I've added the
1224:
1115:
1048:
940:
934:
902:
758:
692:
617:
598:
580:
578:Standardisation
393:
320:
297:
275:
272:
269:
266:
265:
243:
238:
236:
166:
147:
144:
141:
138:
137:
109:
95:
94:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1302:
1300:
1292:
1291:
1286:
1281:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1246:
1245:
1223:
1220:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1095:
1063:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
996:
995:
987:
983:
967:
963:
960:
956:
932:
931:
930:
929:
923:
922:
901:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
878:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
839:
829:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
725:
718:
706:
705:
704:
703:
681:
680:
672:
664:
649:
638:
631:
630:Good question!
597:
596:Categorisation
594:
579:
576:
574:
572:
571:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
494:
493:
492:
491:
480:
479:
478:
477:
470:
469:
468:
467:
448:
447:
446:
445:
434:
433:
392:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
361:
360:
359:
358:
346:
345:
337:
334:
319:
316:
296:
293:
290:
289:
286:
285:
282:
281:
279:
262:the discussion
249:
248:
232:
220:
219:
214:
202:
201:
198:
197:
194:
193:
184:
174:
173:
171:
169:
163:
162:
154:
153:
151:
118:rail transport
106:
105:
96:
88:
87:
82:
80:
68:
67:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1301:
1290:
1287:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1249:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1189:
1184:
1182:
1177:
1175:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1061:
1057:
1056:Chiltern Line
1053:
1045:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1010:
1007:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
994:
991:
988:
984:
981:
977:
973:
968:
964:
961:
957:
954:
953:
952:
951:
948:
943:
939:
927:
926:
925:
924:
921:
918:
913:
912:
911:
910:
907:
899:
885:
882:
879:
876:
872:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
846:
843:
840:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
796:
793:
789:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
768:
762:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
733:
730:
726:
723:
719:
716:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
702:
699:
690:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
676:
673:
670:
665:
662:
658:
654:
650:
647:
643:
639:
636:
632:
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
615:
611:
607:
603:
595:
593:
592:
589:
585:
577:
575:
570:
567:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
543:
540:
536:
534:
530:
526:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
508:
505:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
490:
487:
484:
483:
482:
481:
474:
473:
472:
471:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
443:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
411:
406:
402:
398:
390:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
357:
354:
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
341:
338:
335:
332:
331:
330:
329:
326:
317:
315:
314:
311:
307:
302:
294:
280:
263:
259:
255:
254:
246:
235:
233:
230:
226:
225:
221:
218:
215:
212:
208:
191:
190:
180:
176:
175:
172:
170:
165:
164:
159:
155:
152:
135:
134:Trains Portal
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
104:
103:
102:
101:Trains Portal
97:
92:
86:
85:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1225:
1207:
1202:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1187:
1185:
1181:freight only
1180:
1178:
1174:dual purpose
1173:
1171:
1168:
1163:
1160:
1119:
1116:
1099:Simply south
1085:Simply south
1066:Varsity Line
1049:
1031:Simply south
947:Simply south
944:
933:
906:Simply south
903:
870:
769:" category.)
766:
753:
749:
613:
609:
608:. These are
599:
588:Simply south
581:
573:
555:Simply south
552:
458:
442:geographical
441:
394:
321:
303:
298:
251:
187:
128:. See also:
122:project page
111:
99:
98:
40:WikiProjects
29:
1006:Canterberry
917:Canterberry
533:Canterberry
504:Canterberry
459:branch line
428:Canterberry
353:Canterberry
325:Canterberry
1248:Categories
391:New Layout
126:discussion
1232:Wipsenade
1046:Northern?
828:thanks ;)
761:UK Parish
444:coverage.
1128:Bhtpbank
1058:and the
752:be used
620:tags. --
614:template
476:latter).
466:lines!!)
403:or even
310:RHaworth
132:and the
30:template
792:Dr Greg
727:Thanks
698:Dr Greg
622:Dr Greg
610:article
424:WP:BOLD
370:WP:BOLD
1209:Mikb01
1188:closed
1054:, the
990:Pickle
881:EdJogg
842:Pickle
837:WP:TWP
767:county
729:Pickle
675:Pickle
566:Pickle
539:Pickle
486:EdJogg
414:Pickle
378:Pickle
340:EdJogg
323:link.
139:Trains
59:Trains
36:scale.
1203:metro
750:could
633:IMHO
64:in UK
28:This
1236:talk
1213:talk
1150:talk
1132:talk
1103:talk
1089:talk
1074:talk
1068:? --
1062:).
871:this
659:and
604:and
397:bold
295:nbsp
1230:!--
986:it.
835:or
1250::
1238:)
1215:)
1205:.
1152:)
1134:)
1105:)
1091:)
1076:)
1029:.
978:,
941:}}
935:{{
763:}}
759:{{
754:if
671:).
586:.
167:/
62::
1234:(
1211:(
1148:(
1130:(
1101:(
1087:(
1072:(
717:.
663:.
192:.
136:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
