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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles 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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
My guess is that its because odd-numbered platforms are at the northern end of the station, and the even numbered ones are at the southern end. Platform 14 would be the southern end of platform 13, but its not really long enough for two faces (and you can't go south from platfrom 13 because of buffers). Likewise, platform 15 is the northern end of the opposite face, which again isn't long enough for two, but the southern end of this would be 16. Thryduulf12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be the first railroad (railway) station - looks like Ellicott City, Maryland, USA, had one, albeit a much less grand one, almost 10 years earlier. http://www.ecbo.org/historic-site.shtml
Thanks for that Anywikiuser. Good idea to put them on as templates... I should have done so in the beginning, but it didn't occur to me at the time. Shazz0r removed the diagram from the Cardiff Central article last week and I was tempted to put it straight back, given that he's only been on Wikipedia since November 2007. Instead, I might put a notice on the article's talk page to find out if anyone finds it of interest or of use. David Bailey (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first line claims "oldest and largest railway station in Bristol" - although I know it to be true a claim like this needs to be referenced for a reviewer who may never have been to Bristol. Also how is being situated "situated east of the main city centre" relevant to it being the oldest & largest?
The claim "earlier parts of the station are all Grade 1 listed buildings" is not really supported by the reference (14) which relates to a 1865-78 building by By Sir Matthew Digby Wyatt. Are there other references for other parts of the station being listed.
Do the passenger numbers need to be in the lede is such detail?
Could some of the references from Temple Church, Bristol be used to support the claims about the name?
I find the sentence "The curved wrought-iron train shed over the new through platforms was 500 feet (150 m) long on the platform wall." confusing. - Why? I interpret it as "The train shed and the platforms are curved; the length of the curve was 500 feet".Pyrotec (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The platform is higher than the track, the wall is what the platform rests on at the track-edge of the platform. If you look at this , you will see the wall just in front of the train (and also hidden by the train). Sorry to labour the point.Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't platforms always higher than the track? but I've struck it.
This was how it was described in the cited text. It struck me as an odd phrase, but I thought it meant the supporting wall which is on the platform. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clarify tag on "This had a junction nearly 0.5 metres (0.00050 km) from the station" I think different units could be used.
In the section 1870s expansion some other towns could be linked eg Gloucester & Bath
Could "South Wales Junction" be explained on first mention (I thought it was in Wales) as it is several paragraphs later we get "alongside Bristol East Junction (formerly South Wales Junction)"
No it went to New Passage; it was superseded by the Severn Tunnel, but it appears that the latter line used most of the track bed of the former.Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In 20th century should "Canons Marsh" be wikilinked (currently is a redirect to to Cabot, Bristol)
It might just be me but I don't understand "As part of this work four exitisng signal boxes were replaced by three new Power Signal Boxes and the semaphore signals and mechanical point linkages were replaced by electric searchlight signals and point motors."
Perhaps it could be restated. Four mechanical boxes (plus manual points & signals) replaced by three (electric) signal boxes (with electric signals and electrical-operated points).Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - I never knew there were so many different types of signal boxes etc.
There seems to be a list of when different lines closed but no discussion/explanation of why this was. - Its probably safe to blame Beeching! Pyrotec (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link to DMU is to a disambiguation page - I presume this should be Diesel Multiple Unit ? & should be written out in full for the uninitiated like me.
Should "automated teller machines (ATM)" be wikilinked?
Should Avon Bridge (built in 1839 by Isambard Kingdom Brunel to carry the Great Western Main Line into Bristol Temple Meads railway station over the Avon) get a mention?— Rodtalk 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - Done.Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there have been great improvements in the clarity - but lots of single sentence paragraphs (& even sections) ave been introduced which a GA reviewer is likely to criticise. Could they be combined?— Rodtalk19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm probably guilty of those. I'm trying to clean up the article (well my vision anyway) without changing the style too much; and I'm trying to make sense of what is being said. If they are still there by Monday, feel free to copyedit them.Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the edits folks, much appreciated! In terms of pictures, there are no historical views, and a picture of the B&E offices would be useful. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to an E-H view: [[1]], copyright ownership is stated so I suspect that we can only add a link, not a copy. Pity!Pyrotec (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this [[2]] images are protected by copyright, and a reproduction fee may be needed. Under English Law (OK I know that the wikipedia servers are not in England) it cannot be uploaded without written permission from English Heritage (and a fee paid, if they demand one).Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know on what legal basis they make that claim for a copyright expired image. Anyone have an idea? If no-one here has an idea, I'll make a FOIA request to English Heritage for any legal advice / documents they have backing up that claim. I see one of their 3 objectives is "Broaden public access to the heritage"! [3]Rwendland (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is crying-out for a classic interior view of the old station (like while there were still tracks in there). -- EdJogg (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the article, but was replaced by Image:Bristol Temple Meads from Bath Road bridge.jpg. Personally I prefer mine as it shows the 1935 platforms better in the context of the whole station, and it is a crisper image, but was loathe to switch it back as I have self-interest :-) It does need an explict width (300px to 400px) to look good - the default just does not work well for wide images. I could do a wider crop including the defunct Royal Mail building and more track on the left to see if that works well as a true panaroma shot. Rwendland (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a panorama version as a wide image. Not entirely sure this is successful, but it is probably worthwhile. Views? BTW the text could usefully say something about the Royal Mail sorting office and access bridge, which used to be a major operation - if someone knows much about it. Rwendland (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...apart from the NMSI branding! This is probably the image I am imagining.
Is it 'legal' to copy a public domain image (which must have been scanned by someone else) for use here, or would we need to create our own scan from the original? Or am I being paranoid??
OK, let's assume I'm being paranoid for now. I suggest you go ahead and create the image as you suggest. The fact that the image is now public domain may be sufficient to avoid any problems of how we obtained it! EdJogg (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The number of people entering and leaving the station in the twelve months to March 2007 was more than 6.5 million, an increase of nearly 1.5 million in four years." - this sentence is better started "More than 6.5 million people..."."There are eight tracks serving passenger platforms but most are numbered separately at each end so the platform numbers run from 1 to 15." - this whole sentence strikes me as awkward... it should be 2 or three sentences.
"Ahead is the main station building and to the right a flat area marks to site of the B&ER station. Arches beneath this area have been used for storage purposes and provide an emergency exit from the station subway which is often used when line closures necessitate the transfer of railway passengers to road coaches." - not referenced.Internet references should be standardised using {{cite web}}
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
"Opened on August 31, 1840, it was designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel as the western terminus of the, 7 ft 0¼ in (2,140 mm) broad gauge, Great Western Railway, from London Paddington station." - might want to introduce Brunel as a British railway engineer.Also, the station is the western terminus of the... what?
"Brunel's original station on the left is now dominated by Fox's 1870s extension" - the NPOVness of this particular caption is in question; better to merely identify the two structures."At the top of the slope an entrance to the covered car park marks the junction between the original terminus and the 1870s extension, highlighting just how short Brunel's station was." - I don't think the cover's main purpose was to highlight how short the original station was... is that comparison appropriate here to begin with?"As would be expected for such an important station," - not necessary
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
I have tackled the prose and NPOV issues in the Lead and Description sections. I have also made some changes to the Lead and History sections stimulated by the covearge comments, but would welcome a fresh pair of eyes. The Refs need a more detailed check. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked off a few things. I'd still mention Brunel was a railway engineer in the intro; most of us haven't heard of him. —Rob(talk)16:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By second platform, do you mean platform 2? There is such a place; the Lead is correct in saying: platform 2 is not signalled for passenger trains, while this is expanded in the Description to describe it as: another bay platform but ... is not signalled for passenger services and is now only used for stabling empty trains.
Sorry, I'm the guilty party here, and have been busy elsewhere (hence belated response). I only leave in-line comments like this when I 'know' that another editor is watching my proof-reading efforts of his work and hence can choose to respond quickly without starting a detailed talk-page discussion...
In this case the 'first platform island' is mentioned, followed by the 'third platform island', and the 'final platform island'. So, what about the 'second platform island'??
In attempting to revise the lede text concerning the Grade 1 Listed status, I managed to track down three images of the station at Images of England: ref 380660, 380662 and 380663 (+ there may be others). These should be added to the external links section using the {{IoE}} template. (The image captions make interesting reading.)
It is, however, still difficult to determine from these precisely what is listed and what not, so I think some other references might be in order.
Added section on Sponsorship of the train station and photographs. Relevant content as it is an important first time the station has been sponsored in such a way. Added citations to the sponsorship text too.Deejayone (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note this material was added, removed & then re-added so it may be useful to debate it's appropriateness here. I feel that if the sponsorship is particularly unique (eg the first station in England to be sponsored) then it would probably be appropriate - but would need to be backed up with reliable sources which are independent of the company concerned - otherwise I would agree with User:Rwendland that this is blatent advertising which should be removed. Whatever the outcome for the text the number of images showing the logo of the company concerned is definitely excessive.— Rodtalk19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Rod here. Blatant advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia, but a side note that the station is sponsored, and that this is the first sponsorship deal of its kind, would be OK. I would also like to ask the original contributor if they have any Conflict of Interest in this? David Bailey (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first sponsored station in the UK, I think Deejayone is saying it is the first time that Temple Meads has been sponsored. Reading, Basingstoke, Exeter St Davids sll spring to mind as having been sponsored some years now. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I replaced the details as there was no talk regarding the removal. As Geof Sheppard said, it is not the first sponsored station in the UK, it is the first time Temple Meads has been sponsored which I though was quite important in Temple Meads' history - there was some coverage and debate about it in local press, I shall try to find a citation. David Bailey: No conflict of interest although I do work in advertising and was impressed at the use of sponsorship of the station on a local relevancy level when I first saw it, hence me taking shots and doing research on it and the company involved. Deejayone (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no conflict of interest why did your IP address user Special:Contributions/88.96.237.201 add all of www.mysheffieldjobs.co.uk www.mynottinghamjobs.co.uk www.myteesvalleyjobs.co.uk www.mycambridgejobs.co.uk and www.mypeterboroughjobs.co.uk to Wikipedia? And that all your commons photos [4] have myXjobs.co.uk somewhere on the photo? I note that My JobGroup Ltd, which operates these websites, is based in Sheffield, where you say you live. Rwendland (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I work in advertising which is in a shared building with what I would presume is a shared IP. Some of the other offices in the shared building belong to MyJobGroup Ltd (co-incidence) and they might have added the other bits. I certainly didn't. You will notice that I began to contribute to Wikipedia recently and the only photo's I have added to commons SO FAR are the ones for the train stations (that I picked up on one of my many commutes to Bristol, to contribute to this article) and of Sheffield Wednesday's Hillsborough ground (to contribute to that article, because I am a fan of the club and you would see now a member of the Wikipedia Sheffield Wednesday project on request of one of the admins there following valued contributions to the pages there), which just happens to be sponsored by My Sheffield Jobs (co-incidence). It would be nice to be welcomed as a new user to contributing on Wikipedia and pointed in the right direction with worthwhile discussions, rather than face accusations and Miss Marple-esque investigations. Fair enough my photos have been removed from the page (I am not complaining about that if that is the concensus of more experienced members who have pointed out their reasons for doing so) and if it is decided that the text be removed by concensus then fair enough, I don't mind - that is fine. I don't even mind explaining that I have no conflict of interest if it is asked in a nice and polite manner; but over-zealous accusations, snooping and the tone in which Rwendland has conducted himself is not appreciated (if you had asked in a nice non-accusational manner I would have explained in full in a less defensive way, take the example of David Bailey above). As I said (and Rwendland ignored), I thought the content to be valid as it is a significant event in that it is the first time Temple Meads has been sponsored which I though was quite important in Temple Meads' history (indeed, as I said, it was debated and covered in the local press and I am attempting to find a citation as necessary). Deejayone (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather inclined to side with you on this one. Your gallery of pictures showed how dominant the advertising was in relation to the signs (looks ghastly!). Maybe you can doctor the pictures to pixellate the offending wording? You could also de-advertise the text by removing the mention of which company was sponsoring, although this is tricky ground, as your contribution is presenting certain facts about the current station in a discreet manner (which is fine) but it will clearly extend the reach of the advertising being described (against WP policy, as mentioned).
As for Rwendland... You must realise that WP is under constant bombardment from commercial "editors" trying to push their products. Some simply add many spam links; others create new pages; etc, etc. The 'Miss Marple' tendency is inevitable when you're an editor trying to determine the acceptability of new content. Rwendland obviously reckoned he had more than enough 'evidence' against you...
Thanks EdJogg, all noted and taken on board. Also I feel I must apologise to Rwendland for 'jumping down his throat' - it wasn't the intention and I realise that it must have come across that way (and isn't what I believe Wikipedia to be about). I also realise that WP must get bombarded by the commercials, so apologise if that is the impression I give. Deejayone (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adopting a helpful tone, you might want to check if My JobGroup Ltd have used one of your photos without authority or attribution. The image My Sheffield Jobs have used on this web page [5] looks rather like a colour-deepened crop from one of your commons images [6] - even the shadow-line on the stand seating and time on the clock look to me near identical. Noticing this was one of the things that made me wonder if you worked for My JobGroup Ltd. Rwendland (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Could I suggest a compromise which wouldn't include the name & URL of the commercial company concerned..
"In June 2008, Bristol Temple Meads railway station was sponsored for the first time. The company placed it's logo around the station to promote its local jobs website.[citation needed] The sponsorship features pennants attached to lamp-posts across the car park/entrance to the station, branding on the platform running-in boards, and floor signage. Similar sponsorship has been applied at Bristol Parkway railway station."
This could be placed in the existing "station" sub head rather than having its own section. What do poeople think?— Rodtalk13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an "historic" first for the station, might it be more appropriate that it is placed at the bottom of the History section? The Station section is about the current layout and so would need the sponsorship information being deleted if (when) it were removed at the end of the contract. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some time now the "Services" section has had subsections covering rail services and bus/ferry services. Last week this was split with the latter becoming "Transport links". In my mind the coach service to the airport, rail-badged bus services to Clifton and Wells, and other services are as much a part of the service pattern at the transport hub as the trains. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article text says "Bristol Panel Signal Box was built on the site of the Platform 14"; the image caption says "Bristol Power Signal Box, built on the old Platform 14". I presume one of these names is incorrect, but I don't know which of "Panel" or "Power" is correct. KarenSutherland (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the rail diagram there is no indication of the connection from the Midland line into Bristol (Mangotsfield to Bristol St Phillips) that connected to the Pecket locomotive works (and perhaps was used to connect to the small collieries in the area??). I think this connection was somewhere near Clay Bottom - between Kingswood junction and Fishponds station - possibly near the Ridgeway Road bridge? The only evidence remaining of this railway that I know of is a bridge retaining wall alongside Whitefield Road near its junction with Deans Drive - this is at one end of the playing fields of Bristol Brunel Academy (formally the site of Speedwell school). The rest of the area has been redeveloped to build Fishponds trading estate and as landfill to create playing fields.
Hi IP person. I was the one who made that map, and I did it to the best of my knowledge. I didn't include everything in extreme detail (omitted bridges, all but 2 noteworthy tunnels, etc). I'm afraid that without more info I can't really add this extra section you refer to. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your map generating efforts are gratefully appreciated! no need to add the tunnel on this area map. My comment on a missing branch was hoping to prompt anyone who may know about this and where it connected to the Midland line - I'd guess somewhere near 'Kingswood Junction' as the branch to the Pecket works would have gone towards Kingswood - why else would it have 'Kingswood' in its name as it isn't really near that part of Bristol (nearer to St George?). I've not seen much reference to this little known branch anywhere but the railway retaining wall is still there and people I knew remembered a bridge over the road at this point (was at the bottom of the school playing field). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.237.204 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the 'missing branch' on 1:63360 (1 inch to the mile) Ordinance Survey map from 1946. The 'branch' started just south west of Kingswood junction and ran for about 1 mile (1.6km) in a generally eastward direction to serve some collieries in the Speedwell area. Shown on map as a freight line so not that important except it did serve the Pecket locomotive works. The map shows the bridge across Whitefield Road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.55.186 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The short franchise starting on October 2013 is technically a new franchise awarded to the same company as before, not an extension of the previous franchise. Although personally I'm not convinced the franchising details really belong in an article about a station. Wheeltapper (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead paragraph states: "and a ferry to the city centre in addition to the train services." What sort of ferry? Water ferry or shuttle bus? Cls14 (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.
I have just modified 4 external links on Bristol Temple Meads railway station. 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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Bristol Temple Meads railway station. 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.
I have just modified 9 external links on Bristol Temple Meads railway station. 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.
I have just modified 4 external links on Bristol Temple Meads railway station. 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.
b (MoS): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hillsborough-North-Stand-08--2-.jpg){kind=link}