DOKUMEN123.COM

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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 was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

Article under construction. I will be adding more links. Biscuittin (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion 21 Oct 2015

Quote: "If the association itself is only worth a paragraph in another article, then why would a list of its members be a notable enough subject for a list? We have a list of British heritage and private railways, so it's not as if the lines aren't listed if this article is deleted".

This is incorrect. Community rail partnerships are related to certain National Rail lines, not to heritage and private railways. Biscuittin (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of ACoRP members. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Community rail

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.

The result of this discussion was merge. IamMattDavies (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I was thinking whether it would be sensible to merge both this page and the above mentioned, giving a reasonable explanation as to what ACORP is etc., then listing its members and so on.

It is likely I will do this, unless so many people want to object to it (don't push now!). Please consider this carefully. Thanks

IamMattDavies (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is one of the same. Wartzquart (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2020 (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.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please add your sources..

Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging content into new Community rail article

I have created a draft article on Community rail in Great Britain. I intend on merging this article's content into it, with a view to ultimately redirecting this page to that new article. I believe that this arrangement makes more sense; we get an article on community rail mentioning a relevant trade body instead of the other way around.

The draft currently has sections on the § Community Rail Network and § Community rail partnerships which can be fleshed out with text from this article.

I do not intend on keeping the lists of groups, members, etc. as I'm not sure they add anything of encyclopaedic value. Liam McM 11:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of lines is useful as it illustrates the wide range of different community rail lines and provides a way to link to them. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the concept of designated community lines and services disappeared in the DofT's 2018 community rail development strategy, replaced with their accreditation scheme. So I'm not sure that specific table shows anything "real" any more. Happy to be contradicted though :) Liam McM 18:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The table was "real" when it was created. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an "as is" website so it is reasonable, in fact often necessary, that articles include historic information. The long list of partnerships is probably too much and not really relevant, but I still think that the list of railway lines that were, at one time, officially designated as community lines is worth keeping. It just needs some context to show that it is an earlier designation system. Geof Sheppard (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]