Talk:Derby railway station

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 Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Derbyshire Mid‑importance

	Derbyshire portal The article on Derby railway station is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Station age

Derby Station is clearly NOT a Victorian structure - are you telling me all those concrete columns are 19th century! It was also my understanding that the station had been relocated a significant distance North from its original location nearer London Road. following WWII. I am of course happy to be proved wrong - (but I was born & bred there just after WWII) Linuxlad 22:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Found a web-reference which largely confirms my childhood understanding. Station dates from 1839 - Carriage and Wagon and Loco works wee bombed by Zeppelins in 1916. In WWII Station was bombed on 15th Jan 1941 - half a dozen bombs exploded, destroying large part of roof and bridge. 'Original tri-junct station was swept away in rebuilding of 1952' (http://webp1.mimas.ac.uk/~zzaascs/mrsoc/zepp.html)

Footnote - walked right down the south (London Road) end of platform one yesterday, nearly opposite where the Birnmngham and London lines merge.There is a short piece of apparently older platform there and also the dreaded 'milepost 0'. The 1952 structure in many places is covered by the more recent refurb - is this 'concrete- cancer'??? Linuxlad 20:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The site of the station has not changed: it was always immediately south of Derby Junction (where the MCR line from Nottingham originally came in, via Chaddesden, to join the NMR) and immediately after the river crossing. As originally built it was a typical early Victorian one-sided station: 1,050 feet long with just one through platform edge (plus a north and a south bay), the main platform and bays connected to seven stabling roads by a series of carriage turntables (rolling-stock was moved around the station by hand). These platform and stabling roads were all beneath a three-bay train shed (this is what was blitzed in WWII). {See 1841 plan).

The station entrance has always been where Midland Road meets Railway Terrace. There would not have been room for an earlier passenger station nearer London Rd in any case, as the space between the passenger station and London Rd was soon occupied by the LNWR goods station as soon as that company gained running powers. Could the stretch of older platform you saw perhaps have been part of the parcels platform opposite London Rd Junction? (Station frontage 1902 Station frontage 1973).

Quote: Mile posts on the 'Cross Country' route are origined from Derby because of it being the MR's home. Mile post 0 is to be found at the south end of Platform 1, near an apparent fragment of the original station.

I have taken the above out for now, as it needs a bit more explanation. The 0 milepost at London Rd Junction dates only from 1907, when the Midland "re-did" all its mileposts with 0 normally at St Pancras (the West Line from Derby London Rd Jc to Bristol was an exception). Before that, the MR had had separate 0 mileposts for every line, the zeros for Derby - Rugby and Derby - Leeds being at the midpoint of Derby station (London Rd Junction itself did not open until 1867, and the Derby - Rugby mileage was via Derby Junction and Chaddesden in any case). Not trying to "blind you with science" - honest! - but if we are to mention the Derby zero in this article, it needs a little more research... -- Picapica 23:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation here on location - it wasn't up when I 'pulled the big switch' last night - but I had in fact found the tri-junct station layout last thing (same Polish ref as yours I think), realised how it correlates with what still remains on platform 1, and was thinking to change the words (now done). Looks like I was relying too much on 'well-known fact' from my Derby school-days.

The mile post point is a little moot - when I first moved down to Berkeley/Bristol, my boss, (a Brummy and a railway buff) specifically commented on the mile post origin - the point IS that it is anomalous without the MR association and it doesn't matter if it wasn't until the 1900s.

The main point however is (or was when I first started the article off) that Derby station IS 'recent' in all its observable core structure - it was even more clearly so in the 50/60s when I was a kid - and that the reason for this, the bomb damage, is part of Derby-folk history. As kids we always found it significant that Derby had received so little bomb-damage, when it was home to Rolls-Royce, and the only major damage had been to give the place a nice new station (from the platform side anyway). RWH aka Linuxlad 08:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS. of course if we're going to be picky, it isn't at all clear that the Derby complex was deliberately targetted (because of strategic importance) in WWI and possibly not in WWII either.

Hope you'll let me off the pickiness charge (it's being so picky that makes me a Wikaholic, I'm afraid :)) long enough for me to report -- for the sake of completeness on the milepost 0 question -- that I’ve now had a chance to check the facts and figures relating to what I had vaguely at the back of my mind. First, I have to say that I was suffering from a little bit of false memory syndrome myself in thinking that pre-1907 the Midland measured all of its lines from a zero-point at Derby. While the routes north and south-west from Derby were indeed measured from a zero at the mid-point of Derby station, maps from the 1880s and 1890s show that the former Midland Counties line from Trent (coming in to the north end of the station via Chaddesden and Derby Junction) had mileposts measured from Rugby. The "new" 1867 route (the "Litchurch loop") from Spondon to London Road Junction allowing trains from Trent to run through the station from south to north, on the other hand, was measured from Derby towards Spondon Junction.

It was probably to sort out all this muddle (the line between Bedford and Leicester, for example, still had mileposts measured from Hitchin a quarter of a century after the opening of the London Extension to St Pancras) that the Midland embarked on its systematic re-mileposting exercise of 1907. This was based on clear principles: the backbone of the system was the shortest route from the zero point at St Pancras station to Carlisle; the mileage count from St Pancras was continued along all branches diverging via facing junctions; every branch joining via a trailing junction, on the other hand, was measured from a new zero point at that junction.

The shortest MR route from London using this formula (approaching from Spondon via the Litchurch loop and London Road Junction) puts Derby station at 128 miles and 37 chains from St Pancras. London Road Junction itself is at 128 miles and 23 chains, and as the line from Birmingham trails into the line from London here, a 0 milepost was erected at this junction from which point distances were then measured on the (very long!) "branch" to Bristol. The 0 milepost to be seen today is thus 14 chains south of the pre-1907 zero at the midpoint of the main platform of the first Derby station, its siting a consequence of the principles of the 1907 system rather than having to do with Derby’s earlier headquarter status. (Another notable example of a Midland Railway 0 milepost, by the way, is the one at Manton Junction in Rutland, where the line from Peterborough trails into the route from St Pancras.)

Subsequent closure of the "Chaddesden loop" (which provided the shortest route from St Pancras to Ambergate and beyond, via the erstwhile Derby South and Derby North Junctions, i.e. without passing through Derby station at all) has led to further mileage "fun and games" at Derby, including the "disappearance" of 50 chains at the station itself. But that's another story... -- Picapica 22:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well haven't we just moved from direct causation to common correlate (why is the 0 where it is? Because it's the junction. Why is the junction there? Because the line was going to Derby station.)

Anyway, the fact is arguably less memorable than the near-correct fiction - perhaps we should start a 'history & folklore' section :-)

1952 design & aesthetics

I would question whether it's fair to call the 1952 design 'stark' - at the time it seemed very 'New Elizabethan' I recall, and I was always rather proud as a child that Derby had a new modern structure, rather than an overblown Victorian high-vaulted monstrosity, like St Pancras or Paddington :-) Linuxlad 08:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Derby Midland when?

Re Edit summary of 20th Dec 05, It seems unlikely that the connection is with the North Midland Railway, since its official name at first was the "Great Central Station" (which it was at first!) and its popular name the "Tripartite station" or the Tri Junct Station. Nothing to do of course with the Great Central Railway which was built much later. When its became known as the Midland is lost in the mists of time, but I feel it reasonable to assume that it came about when the Great Northern station was built in Friargate. This is how they were known to Baedeker in 1890. Chevin 13:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (and I'm no expert) that the name change was linked to when the Midland Railway took over the the running of the station (when all three of the companies using it, including the North Midland Railway, merged). All of the stations the Midland Railway operated had Midland in their title, hence, Nottingham Midland Station and, bizarrely, Sheffield Midland Station.Green Tentacle 13:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the historical reason, the station is still called 'Derby Midland Station' (as seen by the relatively modern sign) and should really be at Derby Midland Station (with all words capitalised because they are all part of the title). So I'm being bold and moving it. - Green Tentacle 13:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that's true. Certainly [1] and [2] call it Derby, not Derby Midland. How old is the sign? And when did the other station close down? Morwen - Talk 13:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sign was errected in 1985. It is generally just called 'Derby Station' (as it is the only station in the centre of Derby), but the official name remains the same. Sheffield Midland Station has 'Midland' in its article title, even though there are no references to Midland at the station anymore. I don't know when Derby Friargate Station closed down (I would guess in the 1960s, when Derby Nottingham Road Station also closed), but it was certainly long before the new sign was put up. - Green Tentacle 14:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm threading this to make it clearer. I still don't believe they would call it Midland while it was the only station. (Pear Tree was at that time a village outside the town and Nottingham Road was called just that) Sheffield Midland wasn't built until later, when there were already four other stations belonging to other railways.

Strictly to maintain consistency, the article title should be Derby Midland railway station. It would, however, save ambiguity when I get round to writing a bit about Friargate.

The sign on the front of the building was to acknowledge its history, as with the Midland Crest (also new) on the front. Also there are articles in Wikipedia about other Sheffield stations Chevin 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: merge Tri Junct Station into this article

Tri Junct Station was just the old name for Derby Midland Station and therefore all the information in it (and there's plenty) should be merged into this article. I've added the relevant merge templates to the articles. - Green Tentacle 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for merger

Support. - Green Tentacle 14:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support (will add my comments later this evening) -- Picapica 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes against merger

Opposed. It would make it all far too complicated and long. It has a natural break when the Midland was formed by the merger.Chevin 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Tri Junct Station was just the old name for Derby Midland Station
No it wasn't. It couldn't be if the Midland didn't exist. Chevin 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Midland Railway didn't exist has nothing to do with it. The station originally built as the Tri Junct Station is now Derby Midland Station. It is a mess at the moment. This article has a brief history from when the station was first built as the Tri Junct Station to the present day, whereas the Tri Junct article has a detailed history from the early years only. A lot of information is repeated between the two articles.

Could I also politely request that you don't reply by slicing my comments in half, making them incoherent? Just indent and reply. Quote the relevant parts if necessary. Thanks. - Green Tentacle 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support merging the two articles, because both deal (one partly, at present, and one wholly) with the history of essentially the same station on substantially the same site. The station has grown, and been extensively remodelled and rebuilt on more than one occasion, had its official name changed -- but Derby railway station as we have it now is the direct descendant of the first "Great Central Station" (as originally proposed -- I don't know that the name was ever used of what was eventually built) / Tri Junct Station, which would later be known as Derby Midland, before becoming what it is today (*): simply Derby railway station.

I don't believe that a merged article would necessarily be "far too complicated and long". Isn't it our job as Wp contributors to uncomplicate articles by good articulation and effective presentation of the material they contain? Nor do I think that incorporation of the contents on the Tri Junct page in the main station article would make it overlong by Wikipedia standards. Ok, it would have a substantial history section -- but no more extensive than what we ought to have as an eventual aim for the articles on all principal railway stations.

What is important, in my view, is that the historical material all be combined by one hand -- to start off with. We can all be editorially bold in true Wikipedian spirit once that has been done, but I think that somebody needs to do a proper initial job, rewriting the history so that it includes the information from both articles -- much more than a mere make-do-and-mend cobbling job.

(*) If I may, I would also like to put in a plea here for the merged article being renamed to "Derby railway station". I don't know of any source to justify the idea that it is any longer "officially" called Derby Midland (and I speak as someone whose work includes editing railway timetables). I would like it to be a standard that, for all articles on currently open GB stations, we use the NR name plus "railway station": "Bedford railway station", "Leeds railway station", "Bradford Forster Square railway station", "Bradford Interchange railway station", etc. -- i.e. using today's name for stations (not neglecting, of course, to mention any previous names in the article itself), since the starting-point for such articles ought to be what exists now. There can, of course, be other articles about now closed stations under the name they bore at closure (see Leicester Central railway station, for example), but the only station with Leicester in its name today is Leicester railway station, not "Leicester London Road". Besides which, we all ought to do everything we can to help the fight against that childish-sounding (in British English at least) abomination: "train station...! -- Picapica 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Chevin, if you do end up changing your mind about the merger proposal, I would nominate you (as the principal begetter of the Tri Junct article, which contains the bulk of the historical information at present) to rewrite the history section of the "Derby railway station" article. -- Picapica 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks! Seriously I'm not too against it. I wrote it when I was just starting out and didn't want to mess around with other people's articles too much. I also don't like long articles on the net though. However there is a majority vote. I'll have a go at it shortly. Incidentally, as an aside, I've used the original names within the articles about the history of lines. e.g, Masbrough. Chevin 11:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Copy of email sent to "You and Yesterday" http://www.youandyesterday.co.uk/articles/Derby_Midland_Station I notice that your article on Derby Midland Station is almost a direct crib of an article written by myself or others. In accordance with the terms under which it is made available, please will you accredit it to Wikipedia 81.156.82.46 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On checking the above link today the article does now credit Wikipedia as the main source. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early East Midlands railway schemes

This section is way off topic to be included in an article about a specific station. This information wither needs to be moved back into it's own article, or distributed amongst the articles for the various railway companies. DrFrench (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree It explains why Derby has a large station and why it is where it is. I had originally written separate articles and was asked (see above) to merge them. Chevin (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Partly Agree I can see your point about explaining the importance of Derby - becoming the hub of the mighty Midland seems a bit of an anomaly with the much larger Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield in the area. It needs an explanatory punchline; I think I get it, something to do with connecting to the C&HPR and/or the M&PR, right? But it should say that in so many words.

OTOH it does feel a bit off-topic for an article about one station. The full section would be a useful addition to Midland Railway, or maybe North Midland Railway - The Precursors, or The Origins of the Network - with a shortened version here? Swiveler (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renameing

I propose the renaming of the article to Derby railway station for the following reasons:

The station has been known as Derby since the closure of Friergate Station.
Calling the station Derby Midland on wikipedia adds inaccuracy.
UK railway station articles do not correspond to their Historic names but to what the station has been named by railway authorities. Examples include Rolleston railway station.
Nearly all signs on the station and all information boards at other stations say Derby not Derby Midland

Discuss. C. 22468 (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations); and in addition to the above, public timetables state simply "Derby", unqualified.

Poking about in the page history, I see some dispute, with edit summaries claiming that the official name still includes the word "Midland". The logs show that the article was created as Derby station, and moved to Derby Midland Station on 21 December 2005 and moved again to the current title on 16 March 2006.

Slight correction to first point of Coolguy22468 - according to Butt (p.78): Derby Friargate closed earlier, on 7 September 1964; Derby Nottingham Road closed 6 March 1967; and the present station was renamed from "Derby Midland" to "Derby" on 6 May 1968 and has not been renamed since. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of routes

I think I will have a go turning the diagram of routes served into a {{rdt}}, I will probably do this in user space as I am bound to cock it up, but would like the opinion on whether it is worth doing in the first place, and when I make mistakes, others to correct it. I will do my best at it but inevitably there will be mistakes and so a few other sets of eyes will be handy. Si Trew (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should also I think go to GA for assesment for GA. It says succinctly exactly what it should and doesn't say anything else. It is I think worth taking to GA for assessment. I don't live in Derby and have not ever been there even, a lodger of mine came from there. I think it is a good article and should be assessed as such, I have immediately disqualified myelf for assessng it. But take it to Wp:GA it could do with a little polishing but is a good article that says exactly what it should and says no more.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean change the services section into an RDT? Oppose. The services section is standard for all stations, and RDTs... well, I assume you're saying you'd have a map of everywhere you can get to from Derby. There is no way that would be shorter than the current. If however you mean the EMT offpeak diagram, I did that last year at {{EMT offpeak diagram}} or something. It's on the EMT page anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's {{EMT offpeak map}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Derby 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Derby 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Departures board image replacement

That image of the departures board is extremely outdated, having been taken 12 years ago. I'm not the best photographer in the world, but I do travel through this station fairly regularly. I'll try and get a decent picture when I head through Derby next, unless someone else wants to try. AnselaJonla (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three Railways

What is the " other station" in the sentences:

  Following Vignoles's reassessment in 1835 a new route was proposed, either north or south of the Derby Canal to a terminus near St. Mary's Bridge with a branch to Full Street near to John Lombe's Silk Mill. Both options would cross the North Midland lines north of the other station.

I don't have the source so I cannot check it. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THe North Midlands's 06:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)~

"700 trains"

The section about the first steel rail quotes the rail as having been used by 700 trains daily. I have checked the original source quoted (LTC Rolt's Victorian Engineering p183) and this quotes 500, not 700 and have changed it to this. However, I still think that 500 trains is pretty dubious and doesn't pass the "is this a big number?" check. That's more than one train every three minutes (24 hours a day) and is given as an average so presumably even more at peaks and weekdays. In this era, that would have been extremely unusual, even at a busy junction. I suspect this may go back to an error with Rolt's original source and may have meant vehicles rather than trains which would also make sense in this context. This may however need some more in depth research using timetables from this era. Grizzlyqi (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]