Jump to content

Talk:London and South Western Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A lot of the article as currently stands is a list of stations and description of the currently open former LSWR lines. This stuff is listed elsewhere I think - isn't there an SW main line article ? Expansion is needed, re the companies history etc.... For example, what about the territory battles with the GWR over things such as the LSWRs plans for a London to Bristol route, and others. Wikipedia railway related articles seem to be, in the main, about listing basic facts (e.g. list of stations on a route). Encyclopaedic articles are much much more than the hum drum ladelling out of the dull basics. Thoughts ? Discuss here and add your views--jrleighton 03:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree about the listing of stations along the route. -- 10:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route Map[edit]

  • I think the map needs a serious cleanup, and probably division into several separate routemaps. I hardly know where to start, though! AlexTiefling 11:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I made it as a stand-in until someone could produce a jpg map, something geographic, to show the company's spread; how it was essentially two network areas with a single main line linking them (i.e. there was virtually nothing between Salisbury and Exeter.). The routes could then be highlighted in colours or something on the map. Graldensblud 09:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Competing lines in pink" - this contradicts the explanation of colours given in the legend. Signalhead 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Clean-up[edit]

Have sorted out route details, and moved them to relevant articles concerning LSWR infrastructure past and present. Have also created a new article on the LSWR secondary routes, so now the LSWR article is tidier than it was. Please do not revert changes made, as the article is about the LSWR COMPANY, and its expansion into new territory through the construction of routes, but not the routes themselves. Thank you.--Bulleid Pacific 12:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreeing with all the comments, the article needs a massive clean up. A stranger coming to this page would be confused by all the detail and not properly understand the strategic development. And the most prominent main heading is BRISTOL. Yes, the early battle with the GWR is significant, but it was a battle that was lost early on and the LSWR moved on to other things.

And when I read the involvement of the S&D, I thought of the Somerset & Dorset, not (at first) the Southampton & Dorchester.

The line diagram too is utterly confusing -- I'm sorry -- someone has put a lot of work into that. But it helps no-one who doesn't already know, how far-reaching the LSWR was. I think a series of geographical maps are needed.

But I agree entirely with Bulleid Pacific, that the article needs to restrict itself to the company's strategy and aspirations, and the detail of individual lines should be elsewhere, and linked to, of course).

Afterbrunel 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that Southampton to Bournemouth and Weymouth is listed as a Secondary Route Afterbrunel 07:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo (Bridge) Station: Wikipedia contradiction[edit]

Could one of the knowledgeable editors of this article look at the Waterloo Station article and amend one article's account of why Waterloo Station was so named? This says that originally it was "Waterloo Bridge", being near that Bridge, while editors of the other maintain with a fervour verging on the fanatical the less credible unsourced statement that it was named after the battle. My scepticism expressed in the Waterloo Station article, in part as the battle was "decades" earlier, was deleted with some such comment as "decades for 31 years is not NPOV."--SilasW 10:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the basis of this comment more fully on Talk:Waterloo station. Basically several people (including SilasW) have put forward a very plausable theory that Waterloo station is indirectly named after the battle (ie. Waterloo station is named after Waterloo Bridge, which is named after Waterloo battle), but no-one has cited a reference. So a theory it remains, and until a ref is cited it shouldn't go onto WP. This article states that Waterloo station was originally named Waterloo Bridge station; if so this would (IMHO) prove the theory above. But sadly again no cite. I've added the fact template to encourage the addition of a cite. -- Chris j wood 10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LSWR timetables show it early as Waterloo Bridge with change to Waterloo taking place around 1860.
Look at Wikipedia's Waterloo Station article and its talk. If consultation of, for example, the full set of Bradshaws at the British Library (granted not strictly a primary source) proved some other naming history I am sure Wikipedia would be the stronger for it.--SilasW 10:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think people tend to use imprecise terminology for these matters -- haven't we all read articles in present day newspapers, where an ill-informed journalist has written something about railways that is just plain mistaken? Thinking back to the 1840's, people hadn't got the idea of stations having a name, any more than supermarkets or filling stations have got a name -- you go to Sainsbury's or Texaco, not to "the Acacia Avenue supermarket" or the "By-pass filling station". So for some people -- if they didn't say "The London and South Western Railway station" -- the new station was just "the station near Waterloo Bridge" -- and therefore "the Waterloo-bridge station".

I've looked through the Times newspaper for the period and it is possible to see references to that, but it is obvious that the official station name was "Waterloo-station". (They used hyphens a lot more in those days).

I give the references I found below, but I respectfully ask Silas to agree that, for the time being, we remove the reference to Waterloo Bridge station, until and unless someone could find it called this in an official document. Here are the extracts I found:

Extracts from the Times newspaper[edit]

July 3 1848 -- The South-Western Extension to Waterloo-road

Wednesday last was fixed as the day for the Government-inspector to survey the line. … The entire extension is on a lofty viaduct from Nine Elms to Waterloo-road … The extent of room at the Waterloo-station is at present about 5 acres … The whole of the land from Nine Elms to Waterloo-bridge has cost 580,000 l … As a general principle the trains will leave the Waterloo-station at the same times that they have been accustomed to leave the Nine Elms.

July 8th 1848, classified advertisements

London and South Western Railway – Opening to Waterloo-Bridge – Notice is hereby given that all the Trains of this Company now starting from, and arriving at, the Nine elms station, will, on and after Tuesday, the 11th day of July instant, start from, and arrive at, the Waterloo-bridge station. …

July 12th 1848 – classified advertisement

London and South Western Railway – Extension to Waterloo-bridge. The public are informed that the LINE is now OPEN for PUBLIC TRAFFIC, and that all the passenger trains heretofore running from Nine-elms, now start from, and arrive at, the Waterloo station. The entrance to the station is, for the present, in the Waterloo-bridge-road. … P Laurentz Campbell, Sec, Waterloo station July 11th 1848.

July 14th 1848 – classified advertisement

Passage to Canada via Southampton and Plymouth. The ship Daedalus … for Quebec and Montreal … passengers must be at Waterloo-station at 12 o’clock on the 18th to proceed by railway to Southampton …

July 24th 1848 – classified advertisement

South Western Railway. The ONLY carriage entrance to the Waterloo-station is at the Surrey side of Waterloo-bridge. Toll – cab 2d empty 1d; foot passengers one halfpenny. Trusty porters, with trucks and barrows, are in attendance at the Waterloo-bridge Steam Boat-pier to take any luggage to the railway station.

August 19th 1848 – classified advertisement

London and South Western Railway – Opening of the Windsor, Staines and South-Western Railway to Datchet … on Tuesday 22nd August. By order P Laurentz Campbell, Secretary, Waterloo-station, August 16th 1848.

There are a lot of classified advertisements referring to going by train from Waterloo-bridge, used as a location description; the following are the only four hits I got in this period for Waterloo-bridge-station:

September 8th 1848 – classified advertisement

The GROTTO at Oatlands-park. Tickets of admission for the 30th instant, 5s to admit two persons … Oatlands is distant from London 17 miles and from the Weybridge station of the South Western Railway half a mile. Trains leave the Waterloo-bridge station and return many times in the day.

November 18th 1848 – New item

Fatal accident on the Datchet railway – Yesterday evening a collision took place … It appears that the express train which left the Waterloo-bridge station at 5.35 reached the junction at Richmond at 6.5 …

February 16th 1849 -- Railway intelligence.

(Report of LSWR AGM) – possibility of owning steam packet boats – A poll upon this question was ordered to be taken, to be kept open at the Waterloo-bridge station from 10 o’clock to 3 o’clock tomorrow.

June 6th 1849 – Sporting Intelligence


… the South Western Company provided special trains from the Waterloo-bridge station to Staines and Datchet …

Afterbrunel 08:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I became involved as a attempt to get brought forth solid evidence for the allegation that W'loo was named after the battle then relatively well past, which was proclaimed with vigour in the Waterloo article. Had the name originally been Waterloo Bridge as the LSWR article stated then it was clearly not named after the battle. In Waterloo's talk I quoted LSWR timetables which used Waterloo Br. Afterbrunel shows mixed usage of W and WB, as I did. Now (sorry I must use the right cliche) At this moment in time (2007:09:01:22:56) the W'loo and the LSWR articles still disagree as each has reversed its position. But I have no favorite.--SilasW 22:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waterlow & Sons published monthly books of timetables for the LSWR. Originals bound by year for 1858 1859 and 1860 are in the British Library. They sometimes refer to Waterloo Station in "editorial" matter but all the timetables themselves have Waterloo Bridge or Waterloo Bdg, in a variety of font sizes and arrangements as each timetable was fitted to its page. A notice referred passengers to a company official at Waterloo Bridge Station. See in Waterloo Station talk that a bound original of the LSWR 1864 timetable has "Waterloo" in some tables and "Waterloo Br" in others.--SilasW 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring the Page[edit]

We seem to have talking about this before.

I would like to restructure the page, and the purpose of this message is to see what consensus there is. At the moment, the page shows signs of a lot of good intentions and hard work, but it is not right. I think the sequence should be something like this:

  • Intro; Began with L&S, grew to large system, system map showing network at 31/12/1922
  • Origins; L&S mainly
  • Extension to become the L&SWR; strategic objectives at that time; Waterloo station
  • Portsmouth and other "outer suburban" objectives
  • Development of inner suburban
  • Electrification; power signalling
  • Competition with the GWR; developments west of Salisbury
  • Later growth; the S&DJR; infill routes nearer London
  • Locomotives and rolling stock
  • Officers, board structure, personalities
  • Events on the L&SWR territory post 1922

I think all except the first two and the last two should be very brief, and point to more detailed pages elsewhere; a sequence of maps would be helpful (showing the network at a series of key stages).

Oh, and why on earth is this part of Wikiproject Surrey? Afterbrunel 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) might be able to help on the 660 V DC electrification of LSWR that happened before WW1 (1913 IIRC)
b) LSWR ran train through surrey so tag it with surrey tags. i don't know of equivalent WikiProject for the other counties, although there is a wiki project London ....
c) keep up the good work ;)
Pickle 00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pickle; you'll have to try to get to bed earlier, though.

I see we are now part of Wikiproject London as well. Afterbrunel 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done some work on electrification, i could expand it more. I have a list of lines and dates ;
* October 1915 - ? (main line?) - "Waterloo - Clapham Jn - Point Pleasant Jn - East Putney"
* January 1916 - Kingston Loop - "Clapham Jn - Earlsfield - Wimbledon - New Malden - Kingston - Twickenham - Richmond - Barnes - Point Pleasant Jn"
* January 1916 - Shepperton Branch - "Strawberry Hill - Shepperton" and "Shacklegate Jn - Fulwell Jn "
* March 1916 - Hounlsow Loop - "Barnes - Brentford - Hounslow - Twickenham"
* June 1916 - Hampton Court Branch - "New Malden - Surbiton - Hampton Court"
* November 1916 - ? - "Surbiton - Claygate"
Its "76 route km" of route and "261 ST km"
I'm afraid that i don't know LSWR / SWT suburban well enough to say which wiki articles these are, etc. I also have dates for all electrifications of LSWR lines latter. I also suppose some sort of mention could be given to the tube electrification of bits of LSWR rails earlier. Also the technical reasoning behind adoption of third rail and the voltage. Pickle 09:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it Pickle, and thanks for what you've done already.
My only worry is that the article could get impossibly long. (I am already working on a separate "LSWR west of Salisbury" article to try to control this tendency.) I wondered if you thought there was enough to start a completely new article on the LSWR electrification, and just have a summary here?? (The summary might just say "voltage; first rolling stock rebuilt from steam stock; first lines electrified; third rail system adopted for LBSCR and SECR lines; finishing with Bomo and Weymouth".) What do you think? (But whatever, if you've got something to add, add it somewhere! Afterbrunel 21:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) size - keep going for now, and look at how other pre grouping (even grouping) rail companies have handled it. talk about the lines themselves particularly can be "hived off" to their respective articles, using the "main" and "seealso" links
b) electrification - I’ve done a huge amount of work (my first real self created article at wikipedia, rather than editing someone else’s) at Railway electrification in Great Britain. One day I hope to offer more details by breaking it down into 1500VDC, 25KVAC and Third Rail (which is mostly southern) and / or expand the Southern railway and BR southern region / Network Southeast article. I think what I’ve put up cover the actual LSWR period, without duplicating what is/should be at Southern. Obviously I would like to make a list of the suburban network and talk about the rolling stock but I don't know the lines and rolling stock of that era isn't my strongpoint ;)
Pickle 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm reassessing this article from B to C class because there are large swaths of text that are unreferenced, there is only one photograph and there are a couple of empty sections. I look forward to seeing the results of the work that is ongoing here. Slambo (Speak) 11:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found other photos of preserved LSWR equipment on Commons, so I started a category there and linked to it from this article. I'd like to see some photos of the railway while it was in operation. Slambo (Speak) 11:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varying voltage[edit]

Online references give the LSWR's first voltage inconsistently as 600, 630, and 660. Perhaps the voltage did vary with the load and the distance from substation. One "source" even gives 750v, apparently anachronistically struck by the Southern Railway's later improved juice.--SilasW (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Junction[edit]

The article says "the routes met at Falcon Junction (just east of the present Clapham Junction station)" but the Railway Clearing House map at http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cj.tolley/rjd/rjd-017.htm shows Falcon Junction west of the station on the LB&SCR line, not the L&SWR. Did the name migrate with later developments or is this a slip-up?--SilasW (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ubiquitous Middleton Press reproduces a Railway Magazine map of the junction circa late-1930s in Victoria to East Croydon. Definitely marked as LBSCR only, albeit somewhat out-of-date at the time of issue. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with a supporter, I've cut "Falcon".--SilasW (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Company's name[edit]

The article says, as do some books, that the London and Southampton Ry changed its name to London and South Western Ry on 21 May 1838 when traffic began. Elsewhere, including somewhere in WP, and Dendy Marshall's History of the Southern Railway give 1839 as the year of the change. According to that book (whose first edition has been said to have more than fifty minor errors) it was sanctioned by the Act which gave powers to build a line from the present Eastleigh to near Gosport and dropping "Southampton" was a sop to the inhabitants of the rival port Portsmouth. As ever railway articles have scant rigorous sources and are based on what past authors and present editors thought. Has anyone ever tried to find which Act allowed the change?--SilasW (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful that you pointed this out, as it seems to have been taken for granted, as you suggest. Frustratingly Williams, in what ought to be the bible for this, sidesteps it, referring to the L&SR on one page and the L&SWR on the next with no explanation. However the answer appears to be "An Act to amend the Acts relating to the London and Southampton Railway Company, hereafter to be called the "London and South-western Railway Company" and to make a branch railway to the port of Portsmouth." This was 2 & 3 Victoria, cap xxvii, given the Royal Assent on 4th June 1839. I'll incorporate this into the text now. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Williams in Chapter 1 is vague; but did you flip on to page 122? See paragraph beginning "Section 2 of the Act made a doubtful concession to Portsmouth ..." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I did; it's rather wishy-washy too, isn't it. Williams is remarkably circuitous, which is why I added the primary source material instead, see my remarks above.Afterbrunel (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary routes merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Articles merged per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WTF? (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not consider merging the contents and information in LSWR Secondary Routes into a section on the London and South Western Railway's article? I propose a merge into a section named Secondary routes. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. :-) --DavidCane (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be contrary to WP:SS: Suggest that here have a brief section "Secondary routes", with a {{Main|LSWR Secondary Routes}} tag at the top of it. Keep the subsidiary article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree per Old Moonraker, but I think that LSWR Secondary Routes should be renamed as a list and reassessed as list class, seeing as that is all it really is is a list of bullet points with no references. WVRMadTalkGuestbook 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-structure page (again)[edit]

This entire article is completely lopsided. I have started to improve the page from the beginning in response to Mack2's criticisms. The problem is that this will make the page even more lopsided, and the poor person who comes here only wanting a general overview of the L&SWR will have to wade through reams of detail, (Woking Common was renamed Woking; what colour was the lining out on the splashers of the locomotives, etc etc).

I propose to restructure the page with a fullish summary, 30 or 40 lines, followed by all the detailed stuff. Some of the detail warrants an article of its own ... locomotives, electrification ... ?

Comments please Afterbrunel (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have given this more thought; I have been fleshing out the London and Southampton construction text; this could easily run to 100 lines, and it was an important railway that justifies that amount of detail. The difficulty is that this dominates the page, which could quickly become an unwieldy 2000 lines long. A look at the Great Western Railway article shows how this could go. I therefore propose to start a new London and Southampton Railway article, including the existing text and a lot more, and reducing the text here to a dozen lines (say). I think the same could be done for the West of England (there is already a page for that), Portsmouth Direct, Electrification (that could easily be a huge article), locomotives (outside my own field -- anyone out there able to write it? The existing articles are all about individual classes with no historical development perspective.
By the way, I hope I haven't offended anyone but I have reduced the references in the construction section; these were referenced to individual page numbers in Williams and they ran
Williams 1968, p. 21
Williams 1968, p. 22
Williams 1968, pp. 25,27–28
Williams 1968, pp. 28,32
Williams 1968, pp. 28–29
Williams 1968, p. 34
Williams 1968, p. 36
I think the object of the Harvard system of citation is when one key fact needs verification and it is in the middle of some huge reference book. In our case the development of the construction of the original line is progressively described in Williams, and I think the sceptical reader would understand that he has to look through the chapter Building the Main Line to find the citations. Afterbrunel (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was me who put those page numbers in; and IIRC I did so because somebody complained that the original ref (which was to volumes 1 & 2 together, without page numbers) was so vague as to be useless. Please put those page numbers back. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will agree that what I have done now is a sensible compromise.
I have been developing an article London and Southampton Railway. Building on comments about the size of this (L&SWR) article, I think we need to move on to a position where the article covers the overview, and refers to a number of sub-articles which fill in all the detail. There is a lot about this in wp:splitting (although the mechanics are bewilderingly complicated). My proposal is to thin out the portion of this article dealing with the first construction and opening of the L&SR, and of course provide a pointer to the L&SR specific article. I appreciate that the name change took place before the actual final opening, but the opening provides a more natural break-point.
So far as locomotives are concerned, there is no doubt that they deserve a page of their own. The text in the L&SWR article at the moment is rather inadequate (see my comment on this below) and I feel that what is needed is to separate out the locomotive descriptive matter and to considerably expand it—something that is outside my area of interest. Can someone take that on? (In accordance with Wikipedia policies, naturally anyone can edit on a small or large scale but what is especially needed is someone with a burning interest in the topic to undertake a big write-up.) The summary in L&SWR on electrification needs to be expanded and better point to more detailed articles on L&SWR electrification—at present there is only a link to LMS schemes!
There is still a daunting amount of work to do to get this article properly structured. (And incidentally relatively few reference books to source from.) Afterbrunel (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ships and locomotive liveries[edit]

The section on L&SWR ships is huge and no doubt lists every ship the company owned. But there is nothing whatever about where the ships went to. Isn't this a major omission?

Similarly, we have a vast list of locomotive engineers. Their main contribution seems to have been changing the colour the engines were painted. Don't we owe them a bit more than that? Afterbrunel (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object if I export the shipping details to a separate (new) article and retain a brief summary here with a link to tnew page? Afterbrunel (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this. The shipping tail was wagging the dog, rather. Nonetheless the article is really just a list of vessel names and dates, and needs fleshing out to discuss shipping services, not just the ships. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LSWR or L&SWR?[edit]

This article uses the abbreviation L&SWR; several other articles use LSWR. It's not a matter of life and death which we use, but I feel they should be consistent. The company itself seems to have used LSWR on the side of locomotives mostly (although I think there was an elaborate script L&SWR early on. However taking the cue from the majority of locomotive and tender sides, I propose to convert the usage on this page to LSWR. Any comments? Afterbrunel (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with LSWR. It's slightly shorter, but is used by many books. LSWR even appears in the title of at least one book:
  • Faulkner, J.N.; Williams, R.A. (1988). The LSWR in the Twentieth Century. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0-7153-8927-0.
Interestingly, the two-volume "The London & South Western Railway" by R.A. Williams uses the even shorter LSW in the text. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll give it another few days in case anyone else wants to put a view. I see that at least one article has LSWR in its title, so changing in the other direction (to all L&SWR) would involve a rename. Afterbrunel (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another book
  • Burtt, F. (1949). Morris, O.J. (ed.). LSWR Locomotives: A Survey 1873-1922. London: Ian Allan. 21/230/50/349. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
in contrast to
  • Burtt, F. (1946). LB&SCR Locomotives: A Survey from 1870-1927. Staines: Ian Allan.
  • Burtt, F. (1947). SE&CR Locomotives: A Survey from 1878-1923. London: Ian Allan.
which are by the same author, in the same series. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This article is getting quite long, and there is more must-do work to add. On the other hand I am uncomfortable with the great long lists at the end. Were the resident engineers in themselves so noteworthy as to need being listed? Was John Strapp a much better engineer than John Bass, or was he much worse? And what about locomotive engineers? Couldn't someone who knows more about their work than I do write a separate "Locomotives of the LSWR" article? As to "Locomotive Liveries" I don't think that warrants being here. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]