Talk:South Yorkshire Joint Railway

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).

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal South Yorkshire Joint Railway is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The most joint railway - I don't think so[edit]

'As one of only two railways in England with 5 partners the South Yorkshire Joint Railway was the most "joint" of joint railways.' - the East London Railway beat them by having six partners: Great Eastern; London, Brighton & South Coast; London, Chatham & Dover; Metropolitan; Metropolitan District; South Eastern. Some people record that as five, believing that the London, Chatham & Dover Railway and the South Eastern Railway amalgamated in 1899; however, this was not the case - it was a "working agreement". Whilst many functions of the LC&DR and SER were merged in 1899 (such as the locomotive, carriage and wagon departments), the two companies continued to exist right down to Grouping, and all lines continued to be owned by one or the other of these two; even newly-built lines were assigned to one or the other.

Dendy Marshall, C.F.; Kidner, R.W. (1963) [1937]. History of the Southern Railway (2nd ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 309, 355, 391, 502, 503. ISBN 0 7110 0059 X.

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maltby railway station[edit]

The article Maltby railway station has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for reference found the only published (gBook) references in the novel "The Fifth Form at Saint Dominic's" By Talbot Baines Reed, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had better clarify this. The Maltby station reference is valid. Several serious references support this; I have checked Quick, latest version, page 270, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afterbrunel (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Afterbrunel: The notification is from nearly nine years ago. If you check the page history from that time, you will see that a valid WP:DEPROD occurred less than an hour later at which time Nthep (talk · contribs) added two references. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt, but I was concerned that someone less knowledgable than some, would read the alert and not be aware that it had been settled. Afterbrunel (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]