Talk:Argyle Line

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Trains: in UK / in Scotland 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 is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Mid-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Argyle Line.

Is the inability of Class 320 rolling stock on the Argyle Line realy relevant?

In addition, the comment about tight tunnels seems odd since in the past the APT, Class 318 and Mk 3 stock have run on this line, and these are probbly not the tightest tunnels on the suburban Glasgow rail network. There may be an issue with a platform clearance, if so where? --Stewart 06:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the flow of the article makes life difficult for readers; someone who wants to know what the Argyle Line is has to wade through "History" and then "1979 train service" for heaven's sake. Why that way round? --Afterbrunel (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical to me - an article in chronological order. You have now destroyed that order with your edit. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Whifflet Line service has now been incorporated into the acticle, however should the service to Lanark still be include as the trains do not run through the core section under Argyle Street (hence the name). As the Lanark services are now self contained into Central Station, maybe a new article - Lanark Line - with reference to the historical 1979 to 2014 timetable when Lanark trains ran through central Glasgow under Argyle Street. Thoughts? ==Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 13:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argyle 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922170017/http://www.spt.co.uk:80/news/story318.html to http://www.spt.co.uk/news/story318.html

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) 17:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Argyle 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060304095217/http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/performance_statistics/stat_usage/stat_usage_notes.pdf to http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/performance_statistics/stat_usage/stat_usage_notes.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060213212011/http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/performance_statistics/stat_usage/stat_usage.exc to http://www.sra.gov.uk/pubs2/performance_statistics/stat_usage/stat_usage.exc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Argyle Line#Missing link. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long are the tunnels and how many stations are underground. This is essential information that is not stated. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:2C66:411C:ACEB:4BCF (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Argyle Line
Legend
West Highland Line and North Clyde Line Dalmuir Clydebank Singer Drumry Drumchapel Yoker Milngavie Hillfoot Bearsden Garscadden Westerton Scotstounhill Maryhill Line Jordanhill Anniesland (for Maryhill Line) Hyndland Partick Finnieston West Jn Finnieston East Jn Exhibition Centre North Clyde Line Anderston Glasgow Central ( St Enoch) Argyle Street Bridgeton WCML / ECML Dalmarnock Rutherglen Whifflet Line Cambuslang Cathcart Circle Newton Uddingston Blantyre Bellshill Hamilton West Coatbridge Central Hamilton Central Whifflet Airbles Motherwell (for WCML & ECML) Chatelherault Holytown Merryton Shieldmuir Larkhall Wishaw Carluke Lanark Carstairs East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line Glasgow–Edinburgh via Carstairs line

The definition of "Argyle Line" as specified by this article and RDT is an absolute joke - it seems to indicate that literally any station served by a train which goes through Glasgow Central Low Level is on the Argyle Line. I think this is a Thameslink scenario - the service is called Thameslink, and covers a multitude of different routes, but the line itself is comparatively small. In which case, if, as the article says, infrastructure-wise the Argyle Line is the bit from Finnieston to Rutherglen, then what (infrastructure) line is all the other bits of railway? Some of it is WCML but most isn't. Can we split the infrastructure from the train service? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a further problem, everything west of Partick is also claimed by the North Clyde Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This concern was examined during the research for the latest update. Now that various source references have been added, the evidence corroborates the broad definition of "Argyle Line". Although the static infrastructure is more narrowly defined, the suggestion to split into separate articles would likely create unnecessary duplication. DMBanks1 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]