This article is rated GA-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 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). Kent Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Kent tasks: Here are some Kent related tasks you can do: Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category. Edit the Top and High importance articles. Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council NPOV: K College Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sussex Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Transport Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does anyone know how many platforms there are in Eridge? 86.132.252.194 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally two island platforms, four faces. One loop has now gone and until fairly recently the other has been used by by TWERPS (Tunbridge Wells and Eridge Railway Preservation Society) for storage of a diesel loco. They have a marketing site here with a bit about the station.--Old Moonraker 19:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I an relatively new to Wikipedia, but think that most stations on this line are now not stubs (?). Could someone please verify this. Squidnchips 18:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick looks shows only Hurst Green railway station and Oxted railway station haven't got stub tags next to them. All the articles for this line are stubs. There is some wiki polciy for classifying when an article is not a stub. I think the aim is to make them longer, have a a look a http://www.kentrail.co.uk/ for a site with the kind of level of info on each station really needed (ie photos, lots of history, etc). Pickle 15:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a map and removed the 'mapneeded=yes' from the Wiki Trains tag. Miner2049er 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From north to south: Riddlesdown stn, Riddlesdown tunnel, Riddlesdown viaduct, Upper Warlingham stn., Woldingham viaduct, Woldingham stn, etc. I.e. Riddlesdown tunnel and viaduct are in the wrong place and Woldingham viaduct is missing. The map template looks a bit scary, or I'd try it myself - kudos to those who know how to work it!.--Old Moonraker 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Old Moonraker 08:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, Monks Lane Halt (1907-1939) should be added in just to the south of Hurst Green, before the Crowhurst spur. Ravenseft (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tunnel under the Redhill-Tonbridge line is only 330 yards (not the official figure). It's out of proportion with, for example, Oxted tunnel: if it were reduced on the map it would make more room for the Halt, or is this necessary to because there's something above it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the tunnel ought to be shortened - Mark Beech tunnel between Hever and Cowden at 1341 yards is longer but appears shorter on the map. More on Monks Lane Halt - on the 1912 map shown on p. 11 of Mitchell and Smith's branch lines to Tunbridge Wells West, it is shown as located just before the Redbridge to Tonbridge line crossover. The tunnel is referred to as the "Edenbridge tunnel", apparently 319 yards long. Ravenseft (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've answered my own question: Edenbridge tunnel is not to scale because it needs room for the "line over" map component. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a BS7-2 diagram on the template, including a revised East Grinstead layout. Aquizard disagrees with me regarding this layout here and while understanding these doubts I still feel the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, but would appreciate feedback from others either way. Britmax (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the diagram is an improvement in the sense that it shows more clearly the high and low level stations, I have to agree with Aquizard's point that it gives the impression that there were two stations at different locations, whereas, as he points out, one was directly above the other. To his points, I would also add two more - the article on East Grinstead covers both high and low level stations, reducing somewhat the need to distinguish between them, and it is highly likely that in the next five years East Grinstead will, in any case, be remodelled to allow the Bluebell to run services through to it. Ravenseft (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the template a bit, and added conversions as per MOS. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to do some work on this article over the next few weeks. Principally, I would like to expand the history section, tighten up the remainder of the text and improve the referencing. (I have done this in the past few months for the North Downs Line, Brighton Main Line and Redhill–Tonbridge line.) Per WP:CITEVAR, would anyone object if I convert the reference format to use Template:sfn?
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made these changes. Mertbiol (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Oxted line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 21:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 09:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• there is a half-hourly service between London Victoria and East Grinstead, and trains run hourly between London Bridge and Uckfield. -> there is a half-hourly service between London Victoria and East Grinstead, and hourly service between London Bridge and Uckfield. I think this flows better.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Steam haulage on the Oxted line was replaced by diesel traction in 1965. Should this be 1964, as stated in the body? Also, I would say that steam haulage was replaced "by 1964" rather than "in 1964" seeing as it was a multi-year process.

• At Hurst Green Junction, south of Hurst Green station, the line divides, with the electrified tracks running to East Grinstead and unelectrified tracks diverging towards Uckfield. This makes it sound like there are three tracks north of Hurst Green Junction. I suggest rewording to At Hurst Green Junction, south of Hurst Green station, the line splits into two, with an electrified branch running to East Grinstead and an unelectrified branch running to Uckfield.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the Uckfield branch was mostly singled south of Hever in 1990. -> the Uckfield branch was mostly converted to single track south of Hever in 1990. I think this would be clearer.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• and interchange is available with the Bluebell Railway at East Grinstead. Add that the Bluebell Railway is a heritage railway.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The station tables shouldn't be collapsed, as per MOS:COLLAPSE.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• but public services were delayed until 10 March that year -> but public services were delayed until 10 March. The year goes without saying as its mentioned right before.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nevertheless, the first part of the Oxted line was electrified in the mid-1930s, when third rail was installed between Selsdon and Sanderstead stations for the use of trains running via the Woodside and South Croydon line. -> The first part of the Oxted line was electrified in the mid-1930s, when third rail was installed between Selsdon and Sanderstead stations for trains running via the Woodside and South Croydon line.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the paragraph above the Nationalisation (1948–1996) section should be moved into that section, seeing as the paragraph talks about the initial nationalisation.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• with house building to the south of the town centre. I think this fragment is a bit awkward. How about with housing development south of the town centre.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Diesel multiple units were introduced to the Oxted line on 18 June 1962, when the first of nineteen Class 207 units, built specifically for the route, were introduced to peak-hour services.[88][89] Steam-hauled passenger trains were withdrawn on 6 January 1954. Are these dates right? Were the steam-hauled passenger trains withdrawn 8 years before the DMUs were introduced?

   fixed Thank you for spotting this. Steam-hauled passenger trains were withdrawn in 1964 not 1954! Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason that sections of the Uckfield branch were single tracked?

  I can't find a reliable source, but I understand that track renewals were due on much of the line and it was cheaper to replace one track rather than two. Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• most trains from Uckfield terminated at Oxted and only four per day continued to London. This begs the question of when did most trains from Uckfield start running to London again? Unless I missed where it was mentioned somehow.

  I haven't been able to find a reliable source, but I believe that all-day through running to London resumed after the full introduction of the Class 171s in 2004. Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Having searched a bit more, I realise that the date of "mid-2004" for the re-introduction (in a BBC News article that I have already used as a reference). I have added this information. Mertbiol (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I know that Class 207, Class 171, Class 377 and Class 700 are already linked earlier, but this is a good place to link again under the newish MOS rule that allows for duplicate links.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• the Class 205 and Class 207 units had been fitted with blue asbestos insulation panels -> the Class 205 and Class 207 units were fitted with blue asbestos insulation panels

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issues here.

No issues here.

• Ten of the workers were seriously injured. -> Ten workers were seriously injured.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of the sources are print sources, so I will have to assume good faith on those. For the online sources, I did spot checks.
• The Oxted line is a railway line in southern England. It links central London and the borough of Croydon with the towns of Oxted, East Grinstead, Edenbridge, Crowborough and Uckfield. The route passes through the counties of Greater London, Surrey, Kent, East Sussex and West Sussex. This needs a source.

   Done Mertbiol (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• For footnotes 6 and 7, a page number would be more helpful.

  I would prefer to continue to use the Line of Route (LOR) numbers (as currently - i.e. "SO530" and "SO540"). The page numbers change every time the document is updated, whereas the LOR always stays the same. Mertbiol (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Steelkamp: for taking on this review. I have responded to your initial comments Mertbiol (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my review, so I'm putting this on hold now for you to address everything. Everything that you have ticked off looks good to me, so its just the two comments under Passenger rolling stock and two comments in the source review left to address. Steelkamp (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Steelkamp: I think I have addressed everything. Please let me know if you have any further points. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further concerns, so I am going to pass the review. Congratulations. Steelkamp (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review Steelkamp!! Mertbiol (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]