Talk:Reading to Plymouth Line

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reading to Plymouth Line page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

A fact from Reading to Plymouth Line appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2008, and was viewed approximately 681 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that City of Truro was the first railway locomotive to exceed 100 mph (160 km/h) while hauling a train near Wellington station on the Reading to Plymouth Line in England?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/April.

Wikipedia

Trains: in UK

Trains Portal

This disambiguation page 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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This disambiguation page is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

Devon

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon

Wiltshire

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

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

Structure of article

Proposed merge with Cornish Main Line

This is really a continuation of the recent discussion about splitting Great Western Main Line. In my opinion the Reading to Plymouth and Cornish sections should have been one article and I propose that they are merged with the new title Reading to Penzance Main line.

My reasons being:

The Network Rail Route 12 is "Reading to Penzance".
The is no train service starting at Reading and terminating at Plymouth.
There is no historical precedent for a "Reading to Plymouth" route.

Geof Sheppard 07:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good deal of logic behind the suggestion, however, it is important to consider the fate and handling of the route maps. Simply combining the two will result in a map that stretches off the screen and onto the floor. Simplifying to show just open stations will lose a huge quantity of valuable detail.

As I see it, these railway line articles serve two purposes:

As a guide of rail services for travellers
As an encylopedic article about the history and development of a section of railway infrastructure

(erm, can you spot the slight tinge of POV there?!)

The first of these purposes requires a route map and article with essentially just current information – ie open stations only, no junctions, scenic features, etc. It's probably what is available on TOC websites, but that is a separate discussion.

The second provides 'everything': context for travellers, track layout for rail enthusiasts, history for researchers, and could also serve as a lineside guide for someone travelling on the route!

I would agree that the two articles should be merged at a high level, possibly all going into Great Western Main Line as well, but then linking to a hierarchy of separate route segments which contain detailed route maps and the history pertaining to the specific section. These sections can include such information as resignalling schemes, re-gauging dates, etc, in far more detail than is appropriate on the main article.

As a slightly tangential argument in support of a reorganisation, these route sections could also include sub-sections describing the history of each closed station that does not warrant its own article in WP (which is a possible solution to a discussion that has been going on elsewhere, and may well be still).

Suggest the following breakdown:

Great Western Main Line – parent article

As an alternative, we could break into sections corresponding to the original railway companies or routes, but this is likely to be less accessible to non- rail enthusiasts.

I'm sure that we would have absolutely no difficulty populating and referencing such articles!

EdJogg 09:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support EdJogg's suggestion. I am currently working on maps for the Thameslink route, and have no intention of replacing the existing Brighton Main Line map and article in the process. High-level, current-travel-only data combined with more detailed brekadown articles seems ideal. AlexTiefling 09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems to revolve around a larger question that EdJogg has hinted at - just what are these articles are for anyway? My POV is priamaily historical, but any information about, say, closed stations belongs on the articles about the founding railway. The problem that leaves is what to do about stations that were opened by (in my case) the Great Western? They belong in neither the Cornwall Railway nor Cornish Main Line, but would overload Great Western Railway.

As for the alternative (further!) splits, the last named is really just Cornish main Line renamed, so I would suggest it becomes GWML (Cornish Main Line). I would split the current GWML page (if at all) into London-Didcot and Didcot-Bristol becasue of the relief lines and suburban traffic. An alternative to Reading-Exeter (another odd combination) would be Reading-Taunton (ie the route created in 1906) and Bristol-Exeter which then matches the historical perspective. Geof Sheppard 12:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your alternative, historically-based, suggestions are much better, and was what I was hinting at with my "As an alternative..." line, above. (Original suggestions were 'off-the-cuff' -- didn't have time to research further!) By using a name such as Great Western Main Line (Reading to Didcot), etc, we can encompass every historical era of the line's history, including recent information, as required.

EdJogg 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - think this one needs further debate if what you propose in the last message is to become policy - its would effect all UK lines, not just the former GWR. I have just implemented maps for many of the former South Wales coal lines. Effectivly the 'Modern" articles sit alongside the "historic line" articles - there were many seperate companies which existed before consumption by/merger into the GWR. Looking at the article around which this merge proposal was founded, the article text mentions the numerous viaducts, which are included in the map - would the merged article if it covered Reading to Penzance? The map would be huge to include all the details. Some wider debate and though needed. Rgds, --Trident13 23:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've learnt how to do route maps now and I've added in the two major (now closed) junctions which were missing plus the stations that I had mentioned. However, this has increased the length of the route map which is getting too long IMO. I would consider it a more natural location to end this line at Taunton. The remainder of the line to Plymouth could be merged with the Bristol to Taunton line to create the Bristol to Plymouth line. This would create two routes of roughly equal length. This would also be more in keeping with the historical developments because the Bristol to Plymouth route was opened in 1849 where as the line shown here didn't fully open until nearly 60 years later! It might be a good half-way-house for the proposal to split all of the GWR lines up into the lines according to when they were opened,.Grizzlyqi 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the line is broken down more the existing Great Western Main Line and Bristol to Taunton line should stay the same, but the Reading to Plymouth line should be broken down into the Reading to Taunton line, and the Taunton to Plymouth line (Devon Main Line? That sounds the ideal name for it, but isn't official). The reason being that the Bristol and Reading lines generally have similar volumes of trains, with Bristol local services and long-distance Cross Country route trains heading towards Bristol while London-bound trains head towards Reading. Network rail considers the Reading line to be the priority line; the junction layout does not. Possibly, the Taunton to Plymouth line could be merged with the Cornish Main Line. :AndAnotherUser 19:25, 29th October 2007 (UTC)

Is this merger still live? Is there any consensus? Simply south (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion below and above I believe the consensus was that the articles should not be merged (so that can be removed) but that the article should instead be split (although the nature of the split and potential mergers/new articles created were still under consideration when the discussion ended).Grizzlyqi (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that we will reach a concensus at present. I still have grave doubts about Wiki "inventing" routes that have no historic or current existence using the names given.

Now that this article has been expanded we can get a better idea of what the two would look like if the route maps and prose were combined. I personally don't think that it would be as bad as was thought. When this discussion started the map ran on way past the words becasue it was justa stub. Now, let's get the Cornish Main Line expanded to a proper article too... Geof Sheppard (talk)

I would agree that since there is no precedent for creating the Devon mainline, this would not be a good idea. However, my suggestion would be to split the line into; The Reading to Taunton Line, The Bristol to Exeter Line and The Exeter to Plymouth Line. All of these routes have a historical basis, the Berks and Hants Railway plus the Castle Cary Cut-Off forming the first; the Bristol and Exeter Railway forming the second and the South Devon Railway forming the third. This set-up has the benefit of firstly splitting up articles into a far more manageable set-up (in terms of creating lines of roughly similar lengths instead that should all be capable of forming strong articles) and secondly creating articles that adequately tie in with the other existing articles for A) the historic lines as listed above and B) articles such as Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line). The articles could also be more encyclopedic when it comes to their history and services sections as the current article does not resemble either very well. How would this set-up be considered?Grizzlyqi (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. It would be far easier to talk about the history of the line that way. Merging this with the Cornish Main Line would be far too unmanageable given that this one is causing enough trouble. On the other hand, splitting it allow the articles to be far more detailed. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is some support for this idea and that it will be a fairly big project, I will flag the article for a split so that anyone who might be concerned can contribute in a new discussion below. I shall also flag this up on Bristol to Taunton Line since part of the proposal would include merging that article into the Bristol to Exeter Line.Grizzlyqi (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at the bottom of the page regarding the split proposal and part merger to form Bristol to Exeter Line.Grizzlyqi (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route

Hi there, I know that some work has gone into setting up this article and I don't want to start an argument on here, I would just like to post an observation though that I find "Reading to Plymouth Line" slightly misleading. It gives the impression that if you were on the main line North from Exeter and did not diverge from it, you would go to Reading. This is not the case, at Cogload Junction the line designated as "Up Main" continues to Bristol, the route to Reading (Berks and Hants) at this junction is the diverging route, as indicated by a "feather" at the signal before the junction and trains have to slow down to leave the "Up Main" and join the "Up Athelney" line. The Bristol to Taunton Line article also gives the impression that the line from Taunton to Bristol is just a link for 2 main lines when the case is that the Berks and Hants is more the link. I would say the articles should be Bristol to Exeter Line, Reading to Taunton Line or Berks and Hants Line and Exeter to Plymouth Line or South Devon Main Line. LindsayL 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above with regards to this. I agree with your first suggestion of Reading to Taunton Line although the line to Bristol should extend to Plymouth IMO otherwise we need an extra article for the Exeter to Plymouth section. As regards to current services, the majority of those to the SW currently go via the Reading to Plymouth route instead of the great way around which is the reason that these articles have been ordered as such. However, there is much stronger historical precedent to order them according to your suggestion since the full length of the reading to plymouth line opened some 50 years later after the line was built from Bristol.Grizzlyqi 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split into 3 articles

The proposal is to split the article into Reading to Taunton Line, Exeter to Plymouth Line and Bristol to Exeter Line which would include a merger of Bristol to Taunton Line with the Taunton-Exeter sections in this article. The main advantages for this are;

1) The three articles would more accurately represent the history of the lines in question. This article includes the Berks and Hants Railway as well as only a small section of the Bristol and Exeter Railway and the South Devon Railway. Three articles concerning the modern day equivalents of these railways would be a better basis for the articles than the arbitrary cut-offs that are currently employed.

2)The three articles would more accurately tie-in with other articles. For example, the article Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line) would cover all closed stations from a single article instead of the one and a quarter that it currently does.

3)The articles will more accurately mirror current services, this especially applies to CrossCountry services that only operate between Bristol and Plymouth and South West Trains that only operate between Exeter and Plymouth.

Please add your support or criticisms for the proposal.Grizzlyqi (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal, the Bristol line is the "main line" at Cogload Junction. As I posted above, you have to leave the "Up Main" line and go onto the "Up Athelney" line to go to Reading via Westbury. ZoeL (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article covers the modern "route" – the historic lines are already covered by their individual articles but most also cover sections of other routes. In my mind the two sets of articles – current routes and historic companies – should be treated separately. I strongly oppose any move that creates any more "wiki routes" that are given titles that cannot be supported by cited evidence and may therefore fall foul of Wikipedia:Notability policy. The Reading to Taunton proposed article certainly has no basis in historic notability; in Network Rail Routes; nor distinctive train services. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with regards to the historic notability of the line from Reading to Taunton. This line is essentially separate and distinct from the Bristol to Exeter line on the basis that it was opened as a mainline (as opposed to a branchline from Reading) almost sixty years after the line to Exeter (it doesn't fit into the category of a railway since it was built by three different companies before becoming part of the GWR). It is necessary to make a distinction here between what are "routes", "lines" and "railways". I would agree that the historic articles must be about the railway and in this they are distinct from the articles about the lines because; A) the historic articles are about the companies and B) the articles about the lines refer to lines operated by different companies over their lifetime up to the modern day. However, a distinction should also be made between what are "lines" and "routes". The lines are essentially the tracks and stations. These articles contain information ranging from the companies that have owned the line since it was built, as well as details of past accidents along the line and indeed the details of the "routes" that pass over the line. Articles about "routes" should in my opinion be restricted to named routes (e.g. the Caledonian Sleeper) or should be adequately covered by the information in line and station articles. I'll admit that this approach is going to have what appears to be some arbitrary cut-offs when viewed in terms of modern services (Taunton is already an arbitrary cut-off for the Bristol to Taunton Line as is Reading for this article as it stands). However a route based approach is going to create some unnecessarily long articles with some considerable overlap between them (e.g. Taunton to Plymouth should be covered by two routes from Bristol and from London). Therefore basing the approach on lines IMO makes sense as at least landmarks such as junctions, major terminuses and historical railways can be used as cited evidence as a basis for these lines.Grizzlyqi (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the present article is not historically notable either. Perhaps it would be better to split away some sections first, and then we can deal with the Reading to Taunton section later (if necessary). Anywikiuser (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzlyqi has put forward an extensive arguement, but as yet I am not convinced on two grounds. Firstly, the Reading-Taunton section has no history of a line in itself; as stated, it is the combination of four or five distinct lines whihc, from the moment it was opened as a through route, has been considered as part of the London-Penzance route. Secondly, I do not think the length is a problem, WP:SIZE says that an article of this size does not need splitting on grounds of its size. The West Coast Main Line is in the order of the same size; it has also had a discussion about its scope recenly, but it still covers the whole of the "historic" WCML (although the Birmingham Loop has a seperate article). Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current Reading to Taunton Line did begin as several distinct lines, but the through route was planned Great Western Railway who joined them together and connected it to Taunton via the Castle Cary Cut-Off. In any case although the historical notability of the Reading to Taunton Route is debatable, there is much less historical notability of the Reading to Plymouth route. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair argument with regard to the size. With regard to your first concern, however, I think you are mistaken because the Reading-Taunton section has no history as a railway but it does have a history as a line. As you say it is considered to be part of the London-Penzance route but I think that there is a distinction to be made here between routes and lines. If we are to be concerned with routes then I think there should be a separate article named the London to Penzance Route which would restrict itself purely to the details of the Network Rail route and the services (which would importantly exclude issues such as historic building and ownership of the lines, previous accidents along the line etc).Grizzlyqi (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to notability as a whole I think the proposal improves on the current situation because we will create two articles (the Bristol to Exeter Line and the Exeter to Plymouth Line which both have notability in terms of a history as lines owned by separate railways and in terms of the current services that operate along their length (Cross-Country services starting at Bristol and South West Trains joining at Exeter). The current set-up by contrast has IMO no articles that fulfill the criteria which you describe. This article has no historic basis (as either a railway or a line since half of it was opened some 60 years after the first Berks and Hants or the South Devon Railway) or basis in current services since trains to Plymouth start/end at London, not Reading (plus other TOCs only operate along part of its length). Plus the Bristol to Taunton Line IMO is even worse in this respect. Meanwhile, I think there is an argument to make in terms of the Reading to Taunton Line having some notability. It is notable as being a line constructed after the GWR "Great Way Round" in several stages formed from the Berks and Hants railway, its extension, the Castle Cary Cut-Off and others in order to reduce journey times to the SW. It is also notable in that it is now commonly known as the Berks and Hants line, even although it does not include any track in Hampshire and is very separate from the railway built under that name.Grizzlyqi (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, do you support the split? Anywikiuser (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should be more about physcal lines than Network Rail routes. Network Rail do have a Reading to Penzance route but this is for a business plan and includes more than one physical line. The route is from Southcote Junction to Penzance and also includes branches. I think the articles though should be more about physical lines and in terms of physical lines, the Berks and Hants runs from Reading to Cogload Junction where it joins the main line from Bristol to Exeter. ZoeL (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I pointed out here, the articles are about the lines, not the Network Rail routes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anywikiuser (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading to Cogload Junction is route GW500 in the rules of the plan. This will also be used in the sectional appendix and quite separate from routes GW103 (Paddington to Uffington), GW105 (Uffington to Fordgate via Box) and GW108 (Fordgate to Penzace). ZoeL (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The modern route goes from Reading to Penzance, not Plymouth (no trains terminate there). To make an article to cover the whole of the modern route would be far to big; the other alternative is to split it to show the historic routes. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support fits in better with historical perspecitve, and allows more detailed discussion. Reading to Plymouth Line should stay as as a disambig page. Tompw (talk) (review) 19:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As someone noted I had yet to officially support the proposal. It would be useful to resolve this at some point soon. Given the support and the length of time the proposal has been listed for comment I would like to give this project a go at some point soon. Probably sometime in the next 4 weeks.Grizzlyqi (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a proposal related to this on Riviera Line. This proposal would split some of the content dealing with the physical lines into Exeter to Plymouth Line and Newton Abbot to Paignton Line. The Riviera Line article can stay but should only deal with the First Great Western branded route. ZoeL (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that mileages for all of the Bristol to Exeter Line and for the Exeter to Plymouth Line are calculated via Box as this is the way it is used on the lines. ZoeL (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support very different lines with very different histories, and now running a very different set of services. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is anyone actually going to do this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After several years of discussion the consensus was to split the Reading to Plymouth Line article into three articles - Bristol to Exeter line, Reading to Taunton line, and Exeter to Plymouth line. The split has now been done, though fairly crudely as I am not an expert on the subject. It will need an expert eye to look at it and smooth out the edges. SilkTork *^YES! 15:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that what is left is a disambiguation page. The phrase "Reading to Plymouth Line" would not properly "refer to" any one of the three shorter lines listed on the page, but only to the combination of all three of them. The phrase is not ambiguous; it refers to exactly one rail line, which apparently consists of three segments. (Although, if you want to get technical, someone looking for "Reading to Plymouth" probably is thinking of a line that goes from Reading to Plymouth, not for a line that branches off somewhere in the middle....) If someone searches for the "Reading to Plymouth Line" (or clicks on one of the many links to that term from other Wikipedia articles) there is no article that gives them the information they are looking for. Perhaps summary style would be a better solution than this unsatisfactory attempt at disambiguation. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not a disambiguation situation. I think a summary would be the proper thing. And someone needs to go through the incoming links to see which could profitably be changed to link to one of the new articles. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This result is not an appropriate use of the disambiguation system. bd2412 T 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading to Plymouth line seems to be a term invented by wikipedia, there is no refrence to such a line in the Engineer's line references or any track diagrams. Is this disambiguation page even needed? Bristol to Exeter, Exeter to Plymouth are both sections of the Great Western Main Line so links to these articles could be included in this page could either be deleted or redirected to Great Western Main Line. ZoeL (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Great Western Main Line" primarily refers to the original route between Paddington and Bristol via Didcot, Swindon and Bath. Indeed, the engineer's line reference "MLN" is described simply as "Main Line", and follows that route exactly, continuing beyond Bristol via Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbot and Plymouth to Penzance, so is only relevant to the route under discussion east of Reading West Junction, and west of Cogload Junction. Between those points, there are several different engineer's line refs:

BKE [Basingstoke Branch] (part) - Reading West Junction to Southcote Junction
BHL [Berks and Hants Line] (all) - Southcote Jn to Patney & Westbury Junction
SWY [Stert & Westbury Line] (part) - Patney & Westbury Jn to Heywood Road Junction
WES [Westbury Avoiding Line] (all) - Heywood Road Jn to Fairwood Junction
WEY [Weymouth Branch] (part) - Fairwood Jn to Clink Road Junction
FRA [Frome Avoiding Line] (all) - Clink Road Jn to Blatchbridge Junction
WEY - Blatchbridge Jn to Castle Cary Junction
CCL [Castle Cary & Langport Line] (all) - Castle Cary Jn to Cogload Junction

Therefore I don't think that we can either split or combine on the grounds of Engineer's Line References. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great Western Main Line also refers to the entire line from Paddington to Penzance via Bristol. Indeed this was the way the GWR saw it and most mileages on other lines were derrived from this line. In theory one Great Western Main Line article could cover all of this route but as you say above this doesn't include the Berks and Hants route via Westbury. The question is though if this article is needed at all? Yes there are trains that run from Reading to Plymouth but I believe these articles are about lines, not individual train routes. Details of train services should be in First Great Western ZoeL (talk) 07:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Route sections as first opened

The Reading to Plymouth line was built in sections. The line west of Cogload Junction (just east of Taunton) was completed between 1842 and 1849, and this can be seen to have been planned as a single route, although two different companies were involved (the Bristol & Exeter Railway and the South Devon Railway). East of Cogload Jc however, the route comprises portions of several cross-country routes, with connecting (cut-off) lines at strategic points. The major sections between Reading and Athelney opened between 1847 and 1862, the cut-off lines (three odd bits between Patney and Taunton) were brought into use during 1900 and 1905-06, and there were two more small sections in 1933 which did not shorten the route but did allow higher speeds. From east to west, these lines are:

Reading-Hungerford: Berks & Hants Railway, opened 21 Dec 1847 (absorbed by GWR prior to opening) (MacDermot 1927, p. 858)
Hungerford-Patney-(Devizes): Berks & Hants Extension Rly, opd. 11 Nov 1862 (MacDermot 1927, p. 862)
Patney-Westbury: opd. 1 Oct 1900 (MacDermot 1931, p. 609)
Westbury avoiding line: GWR, opd. March 1933 (Nock 1967, p. 90)
Westbury-Frome: Wilts, Somerset & Weymouth Rly, opd. 7 Oct 1850 (MacDermot 1927, p. 859)
Frome avoiding line: GWR, opd. March 1933 (Nock 1967, p. 90)
Frome-Castle Cary-(Yeovil): WS&WR, 1 Sep 1856 (MacDermot 1927, p. 860)
Castle Cary-Charlton Mackrell: GWR, opd. 1 July 1905 (MacDermot 1931, p. 610)
Charlton Mackrell-Curry Rivell Junction: GWR, 2 Jul 1906 (MacDermot 1931, p. 611)
(Yeovil Hendford)-Curry Rivell Junction-Athelney Junction-(Dunston): Bristol & Exeter Railway, opd 1 Oct 1853 (MacDermot 1931, p. 617)
Athelney Junction-Cogload Junction: GWR, opd. 2 Jul 1906 (MacDermot 1931, p. 611)
(Bridgwater)-Cogload Junc-Taunton: Bristol & Exeter Railway, opd 1 Jul 1842 (MacDermot 1927, p. 857)(MacDermot 1931, p. 617)
Taunton-Beambridge: B&ER, 1 May 1843 (MacDermot 1927, p. 857)(MacDermot 1931, p. 617)
Beambridge-Exeter: B&ER, 1 May 1844 (MacDermot 1927, p. 858)(MacDermot 1931, p. 617)
Exeter-Teignmouth: South Devon Railway, 30 May 1846 (MacDermot 1931, p. 619)
Teignmouth-Newton Abbot: SDR, 30 Dec 1846 (MacDermot 1931, p. 619)
Newton Abbot-Totnes: SDR, 20 Jul 1847 (MacDermot 1931, p. 619)
Totnes-Laira Green:SDR, 5 May 1848 (MacDermot 1931, p. 619)
Laira Green-Plymouth North Road-(Plymouth Millbay): SDR, 2 Apr 1849 (MacDermot 1931, p. 620)
MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. I: 1833-1863. Paddington: Great Western Railway. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. II: 1863-1921. Paddington: Great Western Railway. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Nock, O.S. (1967). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. 3: 1923-1947. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 0304 1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--Redrose64 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't actually a line called Reading to Plymouth line. Reading to Plymouth is simply a train service. ZoeL (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to imply that it was so named. For "The Reading to Plymouth line was built in sections", read "The line between Reading and Plymouth was built in sections". I merely used the former term because that's what the Wikipedia page has been named. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]