Talk:Dearne Valley 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).

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Dearne Valley line is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

From PNA/Transport[edit]

The Dearne Valley Line (DVL) is one example of an article which has no historic input. The National Rail (NL) website here shows that - as a PR job I suspect - they have named certain sections/lengths of line. The named one was on the stub list. As a start it was necessary to rename the article from xxxx line to xxxx Line, since that is the full title. Secondly, the article carries no historic base for the naming of the line, which I have now included: it was, and still is, a main artery joining two places (Sheffild and York) by means of a joint working arrangement.

I then discovered that, for some reason, the stations on the line were divided as to their location - odd, since the whole thing is an entity. The further problem was that other lines, also named like the DVL had been treated in exactly the same way - only the modern existence is covered with no historical background whatsoever. A glance at the NL list will show that there are quite a few of those lines, and it is obvious that many are named as they are because of their history. I shall try to find out how many of them are articled, but this will take some time. Peter Shearan 13:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have now had an intensive period of amending the articles in question; they all needed clarification as to what they were (not railways but services over stretches of modern lines). Peter Shearan 08:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I started editing this because it is on the stub list. However I note:

If one looks at list of named lines it is obvious that National Rail have done a PR job and named lines all over the country - hence my reason for changing the title to Dearne Valley Line and not simply xxxx line. Unfortunately when I changed it discovered all the others had been written as a Wikipedia article in similar vein!

I don't think it's obvious at all! That list (now here) is a handy reference to some of the names currently knocking about (frequently of recent commercial invention, and not guaranteed to survive franchise changes), but "National Rail" (the marketing name of ATOC) does not have any lines to name, and nor do the TOCs. What they do have ownership of are passenger services and the companies' marketing departments are fond of "branding" these services with a name which often ends in "Line" -- but these are "lines" more in the sense of a shipping line than a railway line (a physical route which may carry far more than just a passenger service), and do not necessarily correspond to the real, physical lines, owned by Network Rail. The National Rail list is, in any case, a jumble of historic all-traffic route names (the North & West Line) and passenger-service marketing names (ATW's Marches Line), but doesn't mention Wikipedia's "Welsh Marches Line"! -- Picapica 12:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each one of them is a standalone entity and therefore I cannot see why there has to be the division between where the stations are located.
this Line has a historical significance, since a great part of it was the result of a joint agreement between the NER and the Midland.I haven't checked my reference books to see whether the same would apply to other named railways, but I am sure that they often were the result of similar circumstances. That of course is why the lines still exist today in the form that National Rail have produced them - they are arteries within the system. The manner in which they are written in these articles only suggest the modern circumstances and completely ignores their significance Peter Shearan 11:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does have an historical significance. It's just historically this was the Swinton and Knottingley Joint, whilst the Dearne Valley Line was a completely different line! the Solipsistic Snallygaster warns you not to click on this link 10:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical data[edit]

I've entered the opening dates of the different sections of the route, as well as giving a basic description of the services which use bits of the route today. I don't have books at hand to talk about the significance of the route or its operational history; the dates and constructing companies will have to do for now!

Eborbuses 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dearne Valley line/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires photographs
Query the West Yorkshire station template - is it useful on this article? If so should it be collapsed and ones for North & South Yorkshire added.
Tone of route detail appears to be non-encyclopedic
Route diagram should be extended to cover historic route as described in text

Keith D 13:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Trent Valley Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]