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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of
Kent in
South East England 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.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles
I don't understand why there are two separate articles on what is essentially one service of trains. This "Line" (which is not an official title is it?) is part of the SET service from London which divides at Faversham - one section carrying on down the coast to Ramsgate - what is called in the OTHER article the
Kent Coast Line; and the other section calling at the stations in this article. Indeed the SET timetable shows just that situation. I have commented elsewhere on the fact that the other long-distance train service, - that through Tonbridge and Ashford - has no article at all. This one has two!
I have amended the wording here. Since Strood is not mentioned as one of the stations on the line it would complicate things; and according to the SET timetables trains for Ramsgate do not start from Charing Cross, only Cannon Street and Blackfriars.
Peter Shearan14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)reply
In light of the above i have begun a big overhaul - comment, revisions, etc welcome. As you can see I've extended the start to cover the route to Victoria and included the Catford Loop option. At the other end I've stated it as "Chatham Main Line - Ramsgate Branch" and "Chatham Main Line - Dover Branch". Where this leaves the
Kent Coast Line article is an issue i haven't got my head round yet.
Pickle02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Name
Upon reading "The Future of Rail in Kent" by Kent CC and Medway UA (
[1]). It deatials the lines passing through medway as the "The Mid-Kent Line" and "
North Kent Line". At somepoint this article may have to be renamed? The atricle also mentions an "East Kent Line", and seams to reffer to "Ashford to Margate via Canturbury" and "Ashford to Margate via Folkestone and Dover".
Pickle13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)reply
This is a very late reply, but it may help. The North Kent Line diagram is absolutely correct except that it has too much on either end. In reality it goes from St Johns to Strood, but the map shows London terminals to St Johns, and Strood to Gillingham.
However the Mid Kent line is nowhere near that lot. Nowadays it runs from Ladywell as far as Elmers End (formerly it continued to Addiscombe).
The "closed curve" shown on the map at Canterbury is the wrong way round. Trains coming from London could use the curve to go to Canterbury West and Ramsgate, but not towards Ashford as the map current ly indicates.
Four Ceps23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Cheers mate ;) I made this routemap some time ago, and the coding has improved and i need to sit down and redo this to exploit the new code ;)
Pickle19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)reply
St Pancras
No matter where trains now start to get to this line, is the modern connection to St Pancras really part of the Chatham Main Line?--
SilasW (
talk)
12:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)reply
Absolutely not. This is a common mistake on Wiki where someone is confusing a service with a line. The Chatham Main Line has absolutely nothing to do with Bedford or St Pancras which are on the Midland Main Line and Moorgate Line respectively. The map is (currently) showing the route correctly. The text is wrong.--
Fu Manchuchu (
talk)
04:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes; I agree with what Dicklyon said (we don't always agree, but in this case we do): this is a
WP:RM matter, not
WP:RFC. Also, if a RfC was truly warranted, the level 2 sections below should have been level 3 subsections. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
19:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Requested move 16 July 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose – It's not a proper name. When nom
moved it with edit summary "Moved to caps so is consistent with other similar articles", the only similar article it mentioned was
South Eastern main line, which is already consistent. If you look at better sources (e.g.
books,
news), you see that lowercase is common enough, meaning it's not generally treated as a proper name. Per
WP:NCCAPS and
MOS:CAPS, we avoid caps in such cases.
Dicklyon (
talk)
20:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Also, the Wikipedia consensus, per
MOS:CAPS, is to avoid unnecessary capitalization, which is why these RMs – with the participation of various editors with distance from both the rail/transport articles and the MoS – keep going lower-case. The usage in sources is mixed, and when it is, WP avoids the capitalization as unnecessary. If it were considered necessary in the real world, then usage would not be mixed in reliable sources. Usage being mixed does not amount to "either way is okay, so I want my way" when we have a site-wide rule for the other way. "Blaming" two editors for a community result (and a common sense one) that you don't like is not useful. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)reply
That's bollocks for a start - I'm not blaming anyone nor have I said "I don't like it" - I wanted to get a wide range of comments instead these 2 appear so you can understand my frustration but regardless - It's closed, I've struck the statement so can we all go back to doing something useful. –
Davey2010Talk16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I thought that was pretty wacky, too. I'm also not on that mission, and I thank RedRose for being one of those most willing to discuss line capitalization, but he was clearly not (usually) pulling in the same direction that I was.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
As to nom's comment above that "Both names have equal usage as shown above so I fail to see how it's thin at all....", that's the point. When case is mixed, we default to lower, per
MOS:CAPS.
Dicklyon (
talk)
03:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Chatham main 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: 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.