Talk:Staines–Windsor line

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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). Berkshire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire 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.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Surrey Low‑importance 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:Staines to Windsor Line.

Shouldn't the routemap be the other way up? ie with Staines near the top and Windsor at the bottom? This would better fit with the article title. EdJogg 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone it with BS5 and HBHF to show how its a branch. I think orientation is the right way up. Pickle 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's much less of an issue like that. I have revised the text around Staines further to better show the direction of trains at Staines. If you think this looks OK, I know of a couple more branch line maps that would benefit from the same treatment (hadn't tried it before). -- EdJogg 09:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea (of the arrows) is great, but i can't see them (IE7, Windows XP, 1280x1024, etc), not sure how to rectify it really. Pickle 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That any better? They show up OK on my laptop now (IE6, Win2K, 1024x768) (They were a tad unclear before, but I wanted the smaller text if possible) - EdJogg 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I really like the idea, are there any other icon type things (even image files) that could be used) that are bolder, while still being "normal" size or even "small size" text. Pickle 10:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found some. Searched the image namespace for 'arrow' and found these after a couple of pages. Didn't think they would work when I viewed them 'large', but reduced down I think we'd be hard-pressed to find better. This method is crying out for a template though! EdJogg 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the current version now ;) Pickle 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template {{RoutemapRoute}} has now been created, based on this format, and is in use on this page. Will canvass opinions for enhancements at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template before rolling-out anywhere else. EdJogg 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These three pages are very short and I thought it might be worth combining them to make one single Windsor Lines page. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.74.164 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unregisterd user who does not sign his edits has little right to make such a proposal. The reason given for the merger as the "pages are very short" is not a reason and is not acceptable. Canterberry 13:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE merge -- I cannot see any benefit in merging the pages except to make one bigger page, which seems to be merging for the sake of it. Besides, I cannot think of a suitable title for the merged page. Certainly 'Windsor lines' is not appropriate, as two of the lines do not serve Windsor!! If it is not possible to think of a suitable name for the combined page, it suggests that the subjects should remain existing separately.

EdJogg 19:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the line electrified at 750v? Isn't that a more recent higher voltage?--SilasW (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC) It was 660--SilasW (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This station needs to be re-inserted. Till today it was mentioned as a possible reopening for Airtrack. It existed while the Windsor to Virg W chord was in use. The template needs re-arranging to allow the word "Staines" to be level with its blob.--SilasW (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

There's a new map, with St Hi Str and a few other details, waiting only for resolution of the next question.--SilasW (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)It's back--SilasW (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is "Staines to Windsor & Eton Line" but starts off "The Staines to Windsor Line". Google finds only "Staines to Windsor Line" in apparently official sites and "Staines to Windsor & Eton Line" only in sites which echo this WP article. Should not "Staines to Windsor Line" be used and the glorifying "& Eton" be junked? It in no way defines the line better. There is another question despite alleged WP guidelines (which can flip overnight): should the terminus be anded or ampersanded?--SilasW (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The station name is '&', according to the National Rail website. With '&' it is clearer (for a title) that the two names are associated.

EdJogg (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a branch line crossing Staines Moor for 3/4 a mile or so to supply fuel to the Metropolitan Water Board pumping station (see this old OS map).

The pumping station opened in 1892 and was changed to steam in the early sixties so it seems it was used for seventy years or so (it's still shown on early 1960s OS maps).

Any opinions on whether this is of sufficient notability to mention on the page and have the diagram updated?

Barry Wom (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got that date wrong - it opened 1896.

Barry Wom (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to find more information about this line to the pumping station, but have drawn a blank. Perhaps, rather than being a branch of the Staines–Windsor line, it was a separate railway owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water Board (MWB). The MWB operated a narrow gauge railway at Hampton - see Hampton Kempton Waterworks Railway and I wondering whether a similar set up was also built at Staines. I will keep my eye out for any information. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hampton Kempton railway was a standalone narrow gauge line, yes?

This line across Staines Moor was a standard gauge branch line which connected to the Staines-Windsor line, as you can see on the OS map linked above. I imagine construction was paid for by the MWB but I can't imagine they had their own fleet of trains just to service the pumping station. Barry Wom (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Barry Wom:

Thanks for your reply. How do you know that the Staines Moor pumping station branch was standard gauge and how do you know there was a direct connection? Yes, I agree that the OS map appears to show a connection, but this could simply be a transfer station and sidings - i.e. an oversimplification on the part of the OS. On this OS map, the Hampton Kempton railway appears to have a direct connection to the Shepperton branch line - but we know it didn't because they were different gauges.

It's perfectly plausible for the MWB to have had its own railway at Staines Moor. Remember that we are pre-National Grid at this point and large industrial facilities, such as this one, would usually have had their own power station in the early 20th century. A private railway was a very common way of delivering the (very large amounts of) coal required.

Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Barry Wom:

I have just checked my copy of Jackson (1999) The railways of Surrey again and have found a mention of this line - I don't know how I missed it first time around! On page 190 he says "Between the years 1897 and 1940 when solid fuel was used in its pumping station off London Road, Staines, the Metropolitan Water Board (MWB) relied on the railway for supplies. Coal was moved from the Staines-Windsor branch over a three-quarter mile private siding."

I will add a sentence to the article.

Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have confirmation of the precise dates - I was only able to determine that it was disused by 1955 based on OS maps. Barry Wom (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This 1934 25" map shows it as a branch from the Staines-Windsor line. Its terminus is on the adjacent sheet. Bazza (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]