Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 18:02, 10 February 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Mid-importance). Wales Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales 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:Valley Lines Network.

Split?

I am picking up where Jonjoe left off. Should this artticle be split? As the Valley Lines are both a local commuter network radiating from Cardiff, Newport and Bridgend and also were once a toc. This might be in a similar fasion to the Island Line. Simply south 20:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need two articles on this topic. But we need to decide whether this article should be primarily about the former TOC, or should it be about the network? As that TOC corresponded more-or-less exactly to that network, much of the content of a Valley Lines (train operating company) article would duplicate a Valley Lines (network) article. (NB. Those are just hypothetical names!) --RFBailey 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this article does not read very smoothly. The fact that it discusses a TOC that ceased to eist in 2001, and goes on to discuss the modern routes (with reference to places such as Rhoose that were not served by that TOC). All the valley line routes have individual pages describing themselves. I feel the best option is to restructure the first few paragraphs about the TOC into their own page, an take the discussion on the current lines and form a page that discusses the valley line routes as a whole, an the role they play in the local area. This page would serve as an index to the seven (counting the Ebbw Vale line) lines, and should be referenced by the Arriva Trains Wales article in the appropriate place. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be split, as the valley lines was a TOC and what is now classed as the valley lines includes such lines like the maesteg line which was operated by wales & borders - the valley lines are now considered the south wales commuter routes operated by ATW and there should be a new (and brief) article based on the former TOC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.16.210 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Article deffinatly needs a split. keep the valley line network info here, and move the Formet TOC to something like Valley_Lines_Trains Shazz0r (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have moved the information about the previous TOC to Valley Lines Trains All details of the network will stay here, so it can be developed further Shazz0r (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Route Table Formatting

My edit () proposes to clarify the routes given that the Vale of Glamorgan Line and Merthyr Line both branch into two. 90.203.45.108 is against this with the reason given as broken formatting even though administrator Alison W reverted to my version. Comments and opinions please and could 90.203.45.168 be more specific with your objections? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And the reason for rendering stations within the Cardiff primary area boundaries ...? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you answer my request first. I've asked you a few times and you seem to be reluctant Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for rendering stations within the Cardiff primary area boundaries, please? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You have given no reason for why you're edit should remain. I have. If you don't give a reason, we will have to get administrator intervetion again Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As requested in the first place, please provide an explanation for the entirety of that edit. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley Lines is a system in Cardiff and the Valleys. The stations in bold merely point out which are in Cardiff for the reader's convienience. What irritates you so much about that? Now, explain your objections. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Why do you feel the need to make the distinction between which ones are inside the boundaries of the Cardiff primary area? What is the significance of the county boundaries to the rail network as a whole? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I have said, for the reader's convienience. This is an encylopaedia, a place of information. You can't point out anything wrong can you? It's yet another example of your anti-Cardiff views isn't it Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I could throw in a picture of a pink elephant if I thought it was to the reader's convenience to do so. What is the relevance of the Cardiff city boundaries to this article? Why identify the ones within Cardiff, and not the ones within Vale of Glamorgan, Bridgend, RCT, Caerphilly, etc.? Why give undue weight? Did you stop to think that perhaps this is really a symptom of your own pro-Cardiff bias? 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did stop to think that but decided againts it since it is article related and adheres to the NPOV policy. Whereas you cannot provide a single reason for your objection and have just broken the 3RR. Welshleprechaun (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find my objection summed up nicely by your responses here. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ebbw Vale

Should the Ebbw Vale line be included in the Valley Lines article? Points for:

• It is geographically close and similar to existing Valley Lines
• Services run to Cardiff
• The Maesteg line runs along the South Wales Main Line to get to Cardiff

Points against:

• Timetable information is not listed in the same printed leaflet as the existing Valley Lines (Numbers escape me at the moment)
• An intention of Phase 2 is to run trains to Newport as well as Cardiff
• The Ebbw Vale service does not call at any intermediary stations on the South Wales Main Line, unlike the Maesteg service.

I don't believe Arriva officially refers to any of the lines as Valley Lines any more, except for the occasional driver advising passengers to "change at Cardiff Queen St for other Valley Lines services", so it seems to me that we have to go on general consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansbaradigeidfran (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should. The different timetable is because services started after that timetable was published.

For the next timetable, Ebbw line services will probably be incorperated into the main one rather than have a seperate one. Also why would Ebbw line services call at any intermediary stations on the South Wales Main Line? There are none between Cardiff and the first station on the line Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I also believe it should be included as a valley line. Shazz0r (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The timetable separation I was referring to was on a poster I saw at Llandudno Junction station, with a map colour-coded according to what timetable booklets cover it. That poster has now been replaced with train alterations, but I recall that the Ebbw line was coloured the same as the SWML services, not the old Valley Lines.

I see on Arriva's website that what used to be the zonal fare map now includes the Ebbw Vale service, and the Maesteg line is now included to the other end of the service, at Cheltenham. The fare zones aren't marked there anymore, though. This looks like support from Arriva for the Ebbw Line's candidacy as part of the Valley Lines, but could be contrived to suggest that the line to Cheltenham is too. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone give any insight as to whether this page ] is still accurate? Does this rover ticket now include Ebbw or Cheltenham in the area? I know I'm probably flogging a dead horse, but please amuse me on this. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Route Diagram link

I'd like to remind all editors that the route diagram that lives at the right of this page lives at Template:Valley Lines Network

Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. Simply south (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

rail linc services

May I suggest the posibility of dedicated rail linc routes are added to the network maps.

• They only accept rail passengers and are not valid to the general public
• Drivers issue tickets by way of a rail ticket machine
• They are branded in such a way that makes them part of the rail network
• They are shown on the ATW network map and in timetables.

THANKS IN ADVANCE Alecs casnewydd (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Valleys & Cardiff Local Routes. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525204307/http://www.arrivatrainswales.co.uk/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=4776 to http://www.arrivatrainswales.co.uk/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=4776

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• C-Class rail transport articles
• Low-importance rail transport articles
• C-Class UK Railways articles
• Mid-importance UK Railways articles
• All WikiProject Trains pages
• C-Class Wales articles
• Mid-importance Wales articles
• WikiProject Wales articles