Talk:Romford–Upminster line

Map

This article has a map, so I have removed the 'mapneeded=yes' from the TrainsWikiProject tag. Miner2049er 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The branch is not signalled

From the article:

There were plans to link the line to the tracks from platform five (District Line) at Upminster, to the depot. This would have allowed the transfer D Stock units onto the main line to be hauled away for refurbishment.

This is badly written, and the exact meaning is unclear.

1. What is the depot referred to? Upminster depot?
2. What "main line" is referred to? The District line tracks? The Romford branch line? The National Express-operated Great Eastern Mainline (Liverpool St - Southend/Clacton/Norwich/etc)? The Fenchurch Street - Southend/Grays tracks?
3. What is a D stock unit? A District line D-stock unit?
4. Does "hauled away" mean taken to the depot (in which case it seems like the second sentence is almost redundant)?

There are two main possibilities which occur to me:

1. The connection was intended to allow the trains operating the Romford - Upminster branch line to access the Upminster depot (in which case, why does it mention D stock, why were there worries about signalling problems on the branch line, and why does it use the words "hauled away" for a transfer of a few hundred yards)
2. The connection was intended to allow District line trains to be hauled from the Upminster depot, and up the branch line so that they could join the Great Eastern main line at Romford, to be transferred to another depot.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.60.217 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have changed the obvious errors with cites but this article could have much more written. The Peter Kay 3 volumes, and Vol 4 still to come is the "Bible" for The LT&SR.REVUpminster (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to update this page, the line is no longer served by 315s but by class 321s now. 317s are also used but rarely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.63.223 (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

the chain

I find the use of the largely archaic measurement, the chain, in this article, very attractive. Many people reading it, however, will not realise that it doesn't refer to interlinked rings of metal, but is ¹⁄₈₀ of a mile, so I suggest that that fact is added after the first use of the term, and I'll do so unless anyone argues otherwise. 152.37.69.31 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

linked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watford DC line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Move the article now?

It's been a year since the last move request, and now that the name appears on the Official Tube Map, and the London Tube and Rail Map, how about we move it now? TfL - Liberty Sunil060902 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sunil060902: This was disputed as recently as 9 February. Please raise this centrally, such as at WT:LT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport has an RfC for moving this page to Liberty line or splitting out a new Liberty line article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Romford to Upminster name change

 Courtesy link: Windrush line  Courtesy link: Mildmay line  Courtesy link: Liberty line

Following the naming of the London Overground's 6 lines in 2024, the consensus after multiple discussions – 15 Feb, 20 Nov, and 25 Nov – was that only the Windrush line and Mildmay line needed separate articles. 2 years later, some editors have attempted to create the Liberty Line article without consensus, and discussion on the matter has restarted. Hence, the following question:

Should Romford–Upminster line (A) remain as is, (B) be moved to Liberty line, or (C) be split into a new Liberty line article? Faisalisonline2 (talk) 14:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Faisalisonline2 I think you need to reword your question above to remove what look like copy-and-paste ghosts. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

As per consensus of four editors here, B - rename to Liberty line. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 16:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2026

I think this move was premature - yes it was mostly in favour, but "the opener of a discussion can close it only if unanimous opposition is obvious" and it wasn't unanimous. I'm not sure if anyone is going to object - what about you @Amakuru as the sole opposer - but in future I would be very careful about doing this. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

It was only a couple hours before the full 7 days passed. I've seen other page movers close discussions even earlier than that, even when there was opposition. I get your point but this isn't really that big of a deal. Fortek67 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't trivialise my post by saying "this isn't really that big of a deal". It's not respectful. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67 you should almost never close discussions that you started, especially when it isn't unanimous. This actually is a big deal, especially when you've been cautioned previously to slow down. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused now. I didn't start this discussion? Fortek67 (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

What's confusing? I started the discussion about your inappropriate and premature closure of this discussion and as it also turns out the discussion at Talk:Lea Valley lines, which I have now reverted. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

"Premature" being by 2 hours? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 12:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriate then. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

An 8-1 support is not going to be overturned in 2 hours, WP:AGF and give the guy a break Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 12:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:Should have gone to Specsavers Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 12:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

And look, I'm not trying to be rude to you. I really said it's not that deep because it's only a couple hours. Same with the split discussion. As Mattdaviesfsic said it's just two hours, with 8-1 support. That's the far majority. I really don't want to upset anyone here. Please don't think of me as a bad editor for this. Fortek67 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fortek67: I have no objections to the close here, but I'm curious why you've decided to split Lea Valley lines. Did you consider the point I made about the scope of the article and that Lea Valley lines isn't supported by sources? If so, why did you decide to reject my point? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think if the current plan is to go ahead, the next step we should take is to delete the Lea valley line page after the split is complete so your plan will still go ahead with no compromises or backtracking. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The Weaver line is made up of multiple lines, similar to the Mildmay line, which has its own article. The Lea Valley Lines are made up of sections that aren't served by the Weaver line. For example, the Overground doesn't go all the way to Hertford East, or Stratford. Now to be fair, maybe an RM would have been better for this. But what would we have done with the remaining sections that aren't served by the Weaver line? Fortek67 (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Like in @Amakuru's plan on the talk page, branch towards Hertford east goes on Hertford East Branch, Line from Stratford shall be on West Anglia Main Line and everything else goes under Weaver Line. The current Lea Valley line page will only indicate services that are on it and the redirects to the page respectively. This way there isn't too much clutter about the Lea Valley lines and Make it more straightforward. I will now begin the split of the Weaver line as per consensus but if it isn't too much trouble, either you or @Pretzel Quetzal could help me with this being all set up. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

There is already a draft article, see Talk:Weaver line. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 19:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll see if I can help you lot out, will do my best, but I've just got other things to do atm. So start trimming down Lea Valley lines? Fortek67 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If the situation Faisalisonline2 describes is what we end up with, Lea Valley lines being some sort of disambiguation or set index page between the three lines that make up this "Lea Valley" concept, although I still think it would have been easier to just move Lea Valley lines to Weaver line. The majority of the relevant content is the same, and the London Overground routes form the bulk of what we are labelling the Lea Valley lines too.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

but then we have the problem of the Hertford East Branch and The line from Stratford. Simply renaming everything "Weaver line" will create more confusion along the line. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I think Amakuru means, remove the non-Overground bits and then rename it to WL. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 05:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I have already done that on the current Weaver line page and I have added redirects to each of the three pages I previously mentioned on Lea Valley lines. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what Matt says. There is no need to do all that on a separate page. The Lea Valley lines page should be moved to Weaver line, because that's where the attribution history lies, and it forms the absolute majority of the history. What you've done now is not good because you've separated the material from its history. Then the material relating to the Hertford branch and the section through Tottenham Hale can be trimmed down - it isn't really needed here anyway, given that we already have dedicated articles for that at Hertford East branch line and West Anglia Main Line. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I've transferred all history to the Weaver line already, trimmed down Tottenham Hale and Hertford East branches from history and anything from Weaver line that is not in correlation to it respectively. Plus removing the Identity from Lea Valley lines completely will cause a lot of problems along the line in citation, unifying the two non-Weaver Line roues to the Infrastructure they are a part of, and more. Just removing the Lea valley line Identity doesn't have a lot of benefits and has significant drawbacks in the reasons I have just stated. So in the long run, similar to what many editors have stated, Infrastructure is different to services and we shouldn't just let a majority service become everything there is and hence I still think the Lea Valley lines page is still needed. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, you haven't transferred the history, you've done a WP:Cut and paste move, and an earlier one was already reverted once. The whole point is that Lea Valley lines isn't a valid concept in the rail industry. Where are the sources that talk about that concept? It is just a strange amalgamation of three different things at the moment. I'm not averse to having a small rump of text at that page since there has been something there for a long time, but we need to do a page move of the bulk of this history to Weaver line, and then just add a small amount of text back to Lea Valley lines as new content. Its main purpose is to guide readers to which of the concepts they'll be interested in. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok what about this? Since we already have a Weaver line page, the current Lea Valley line page will turn into a redirect/disambiguation page. All history goes into the three respective articles. This way, information isn't lost, and its not a copy and paste dilema. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

A compromise for common ground if I may insist. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Albeit the LVL is really an overarching description of different lines (including WL), so any split here makes sense. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 05:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)