Talk:Birmingham–Peterborough 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).

This article lacks references.

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

Lincolnshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire 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.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warwickshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stamford (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stamford, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.StamfordWikipedia:WikiProject StamfordTemplate:WikiProject StamfordStamford articles

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Birmingham to Peterborough Line.

Untitled[edit]

According to this [1] a new station 'Coleshill Parksway' is to open on the line later this year. Worth mentioning somewhere. G-Man * 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Line diagram[edit]

Can anyone explain why the line elements do not join up as they do at nl:Wikipedia:Spoorlijnsjablonen – and can this be fixed? -- Picapica 13:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they do join up for most users, it depends on your browser settings. Try altering your default text size and see if that makes any difference. The best place to ask is WP:RDT – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So they do, I now see (on my home computer – earlier I was looking at the page at work). Strange, though, about the difference in the display between en: and nl: when using the same browser with the same settings. Thanks for your answer, anyway. -- Picapica 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy?[edit]

Is the comprehensive list of stations served (complete with OS grid references) necessary in the body of the text, given that it duplicates almost entirely the information already available in the line diagram infobox at top right? -- Picapica 16:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redundant information, stations served as well as former stations are all in the line diagram.

EricITOworld (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line diagram again[edit]

Since the line diagram has been nested in the infobox it breaks the line diagram by introducing spaces into the line. We either need to fix this or not to nest the line diagrams in the infobox. Probably a general problem rather than specifically related to this article. Any thoughts. Keith D (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the line diagram out of the info box for the time being. Happy for someone to integrate it who can make it work.PeterEastern (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rolling stock[edit]

the only stock that regually uses the whole line is class 170s all the others listed justy use the line between wigston north junction and syston. Should they be moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.77.135 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Birmingham to Peterborough Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100725012028/http://www.hinckley.netfirms.com:80/Hinckley%20-%20R.htm to http://www.hinckley.netfirms.com/Hinckley%20-%20R.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Birmingham to Peterborough 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update and clarification needed[edit]

This from the article needs an update: "The work, detailed in the Network Rail Freight Route Utilisation Strategy, should be completed by 2014." And this needs clarification: "In February 2010 Network Rail confirmed that it would ... perform work to increase capacity between Ely–Peterborough line..." Is it 'to increase capacity between here and the Ely–Peterborough line' or 'to increase capacity on the Ely–Peterborough line'? -Lopifalko (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]