Talk:Hope Valley Line

Non-sectioned comments

Does anyone what stock the line uses, or whether or not it's electrified? 86.0.203.120 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not electrified - that was the quibble with shutting the Woodhead Line just to the north. Linuxlad 21:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Title

The large majority of news references to this line, seem to have it in the uppercase 'Line' "Hope+Valley+Line"&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZhNeF65LqAhVFtnEKHU81BVg4FBD8BSgDegQIDBAF&biw=1366&bih=627 I would argue that this article has been downcased wrongly (and without any discussion). G-13114 (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hope Valley upgrade

As there are quite a few articles about railway upgrades including Transpennine Route Upgrade, I was thinking of writing a separate article on the Hope Valley line upgrade. Do people think this is a good idea? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For a passing loop and a new platform? I'm not sure this is of the scale or promotion with distinct identity as the TRU. I suspect there will be a fair few local and industry sources saying what's going on and what it costs etc but is that really passing GNG? Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 00:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I had started one but I have now put in an archived sandbox. I will resurrect it easily if/when there are more upgrades to the line and it warrants its own article. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Just chiming into this old discussion saying it would be better to include the TPRU in this article - which I will begin now. MelonLost (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

nevermind, someone got there before me! Will do some reshuffling of the article to make that section more obvious. MelonLost (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 18:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

---

• Hope Valley line → Hope Valley Line

Was moved to lowercase with out any discussion, but is consistently referred to in the uppercase form in most sources . In fact this article should never have been moved to lowercase in the first place. G-13114 (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 13:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• G-13114's first three sources are good evidence of capitalised usage in running prose, the fourth doesn't use the name except in the page title so isn't useful, the fifth uses it only once and that in a list so also isn't determinative. Looking at some other sources:
  • Northern use "Hope valley line" in an engineering works notice
  • Rail Engineer also consistently use "Hope Valley line" in this article
  • Today's Railways use "line" once but "Line" every other time
  • CPRE use "Line" on this page
  • Volker Rail use "line".
  • VolkerWessels UK also use "line"
  • Network Rail use "line" in this press release
  • Rail Advent capitalise "Line" in this article
  • The Hope Valley Railway Users Group consistently use lowercase
  • Paul D. Shannon Branch Line Britain: Local Passenger Trains in the Diesel Era has mixed usage
  • Mike Hitches Steam Around Sheffield consistently uses "line"

  If Dicklyon (who originally moved the page) found even 2-3 instances of lowercasing they would declare that incontrovertible evidence that the lowercase was correct. I'm leaning towards agreeing that the very mixed usage seen here, especially combined with the recent major project being the "Hope Valley Upgrade" or "Hope Valley Railway Upgrade" (with the final word being variously capitalised) suggests that the proper noun part here is just "Hope Valley" so I'm at a weak oppose but, unlike Dick, I'm more than willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Reply, I never argues that the lowercase was never used, but that the uppercase is used by the organisations and in the places that it counts. I think those examples are mostly pretty weak. For example, to pick a few examples, engineering notices always seem to use lowercase for some reason, the Rail Engineer mostly refers to just the Hope Valley Railway, and only uses 'line' once, CPRE refers to the 'Hope Valley railway line' once and then uses the uppercase 'Hope Valley Line' in the next paragraph, so it supports the uppercase argument. It's possible that Volker uses lowercase as a style convention, in any case theor opinion matters little in the big scheme of things. The Hope Valley Railway Users Group page uses the phrase 'Hope Valley rail line' once, so I think your claim is a bit misleading as it's not comparing like with like. G-13114 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Sources that use Hope Valley line from my google search are: . It's a line through the Hope Valley, so using title case makes absolutely no sense unless it is used by a massive majority of sources. Almost every line has some sources using title case because some people like using title case; I found for the Hertford Loop line calling it the Hertford Loop Line, all of which are wrong. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Reply The uppercase 'Line' is used by the organisations which matter, i.e. the companies which run trains on the line, Northern and East Midlands Railway, which suggests that the uppercase is the official name. You could just as easilly make your argument in reverse, that there are some organsations which will use lowercase because they like to do so, but that doesn't make it official. G-13114 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Corresponding to what is "official" is not a goal of Wikipedia as far as I know. See, e.g., WP:OFFICIAL. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - per above, and that it is a railway line going through the Hope Valley, prose in article should be changed to reflect this. MelonLost (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support: This and this for some more. As it was previously moved without discussion 'Hope Valley Line' should be retained in the case of a 'no consensus'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support: Used by a significant number of sources including the operator. Keith D (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, the norm with British railway routes is to have "line" in lowercase. So while there may be a few sources for this line that use uppercase, the general trend is for lowercase, which is why it's the standard form for articles on Wikipedia. Blythwood (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Having looked at the sources for a variety of routes, I'm not at all convinced that there is a "norm". Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  There are a number of articles that use uppercase such as Great Central Main Line, East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line Keith D (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Thryduulf here. The 'norm' might be to not capitalise it for general use, but there are also a great many lines where it's identified and publicised in a capitalised Title Case form, including 'Line'. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support Hope Valley Line Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support – moved to lowercase title by now-banned editor Dicklyon, whose views ArbCom has found are not consistent with Wikipedia's capitalization standards. Per MOS:CAPS, a substantial majority of sources capitalize the phrase, so we should move it back. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• ‘’’Support’’’ GRALISTAIR (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

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.