Talk:Swindon railway station

Swindon Town Center Regeneration

"Swindon Town Centre Regeneration

There are plans to construct a second station entrance (and a multi-story carpark) on the North side of the railway line. The current pedestrian subway will be extended through to the North. Along with the new entrance, infrastructure will be put in place to accommodate taxis and buses on the northern side."

This has been removed due to the plans being mothballed SkippyUK 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Plans

@Mattbuck: you reverted my deletion of paragraphs of the Plans section. My reason for deleting those sections is that they better belong in the articles for the Great Western Line and the Golden Valley Line. Your revert comment was "they are relevant". I wonder what changes the redoubling of Golden Valley Line and the electrification of the Great Western Line will affect the facilities i.e. the ticket offices, car parking of the station itself? I have checked some of the sources in that section and none of them even mention the Swindon Railway station. AadaamS (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@AadaamS: - To my mind articles on railway stations should be inclusive. You can't just give information about the extent of the booking office without context. A good station article should include how it came to be built (which should include a brief summary of the railway which built it), and then any further changes of relevance. Now, you shouldn't go into insane detail about these things, but a summary is helpful, giving the major events which had some effect. For instance at Yatton, the article mentions the ups and downs of the Clevedon branch line and the Wrington Vale Light Railway, as these lines diverged at that station. It states when the line was changed from Broad to Standard gauge. It further notes that the GWML will be electrified - not because the line through Yatton will be electrified, but because that work will affect the service provision at the station.

That the GWML is being electified is hugely significant to the GWML, and thus should be at least mentioned in the article of any station on the line. The Golden Valley Line is a more indirect case, but it seems odd not to mention the redoubling at all, as that affects how many trains can come through Swindon on that route. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mattbuck:, thanks for your input. If the sources don't mention how the line upgrades affect the station or even its name, there is nothing but the opinion of an editor to add the source for hte line source to the station article. We don't decide what's relevant to write about the station, the sources do and this is my strongest objection. My second objection is maintainability of this encyclopedia. Do you propose that whenever a railway line is upgraded, this upgrade be added to the article of each and every station along the line? It is much less work to only add it to the article for the railway line, except of course if the station is mentioned speficically. Like say, when extra platforms have to be constructed. AadaamS (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There should at least be a mention of "the GWML through Swindon will be electrified by 2016". As for maintainability, you're right, it's a bitch. So is every year adding the station usage stats to all 3000 stations. Upgrades such as the GWML come along once every few decades, and it's the biggest upgrade to the line since Brunel built it. Probably the only other line-based change which should be mentioned is the change of gauge.

You're wrong though - editors do decide what's relevant. I grant you we take weight of sources as a guide, but it's hardly the only thing. Unless you can categorically state that you have read every piece of literature ever, interviewed every person who has ever lived, all to find more information, you are picking and choosing what you include. And even then, unless you include everything you are picking and choosing. Is the GWML upgrade more important to the station than repainting the café? That's a value judgment that we have to make ourselves, but I would question any editor who considered that repainting the café was more important. A sense of perspective is necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The line upgrade discussion isn't about importance, it's about scope and verifiability. Without the station's name in the source there's no way to WP:V verify the line upgrade's impact on the station facilities and all information in our encyclopedia must be verifiable. We're not discussing all the literature in the world, we are discussing the sources to this article, no more and no less. AadaamS (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The prohibitions against synthesis are fine, but they don't say you cannot make sensible inferences such as:

1. Swindon railway station is on the Great Western Main Line between Bristol and London
2. The Great Western Main Line is being electrified between Bristol and London
3. Therefore the railway at Swindon will be electrified.

We don't need a source to explicitly state that every station along the line will be electrified. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you it's not flagrant synthesis, but merely stating a line was upgraded doesn't contextualise the information with respect to the impact on the station either. I suppose we won't agree on where to draw the line around the scope of this article and at this stage I won't argue further but we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a civil discussion. AadaamS (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess we just have different views on station articles - I prefer articles where the reader doesn't have to visit other pages to understand the article, merely if they want further information about something. Comprehensiveness has its downside in increased maintenance though. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swindon 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206112511/http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/releases/sra/2003a1/2003b/itsofficialswindonplatform4i1334 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/releases/sra/2003a1/2003b/itsofficialswindonplatform4i1334

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: 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) 22:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Direct route to Oxford?

See also: East West Rail

Is there really a direct (but disused) line between Swindon and Oxford, or does this news item Three new east-west rail arcs explored for EEH geography actually just mean a service between them via Didcot? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Via Didcot, see the signalling map, there is no other route. Nanonic (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes and no. The current route is via Didcot the place but not Didcot Parkway - you turn north at Foxhall Junction just west of Didcot Parkway. As far as I know there has never been a more direct route, and my 1947 rail atlas doesn't show anything except via Cirencester. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both. I really didn't think so but the wording of the item caused me wonder if I had missed a secret military branch line or something. I suppose if the objective is to abate the ever-increasing traffic on the A420, people might be persuaded by a Swindon – Oxford commuter service where they could get on the train, go back to sleep, wake me up when we get to Oxford (rather than have to stand on the Paddington train as far as Didcot and then wait on a wet and windy platform for a Dicot – Oxford service to turn up). Theoretically speaking of course, I have never tried it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the reference to a 'little used route' is just to that east-bound to north-bound chord at Foxhall Junction? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This "chord" (which is never described as such) is formally known as Didcot West Curve, and is 32 chains long, from Foxhall Junction (the zero point, itself 53 miles 55 chains from Paddington zero) to Didcot West Curve Junction, which is itself at 53 miles 51 chains along the Didcot-Chester line from Padd. Up is towards Swindon; down is towards Oxford. Far from being "little used", it carries a significant number of freight trains. There are infrequent passenger trains, I think one per week late evening. There are also ECS workings: once a day a train runs from Oxford sidings non-stop to Didcot station, where it reverses back to Foxhall Junction, and then runs forward to Oxford sidings. This and the once-a-week passenger working exist to keep drivers familiar with the route, because when there is engineering work affecting platforms 3/4/5 at Didcot, and all trains have to use platforms 1/2, there is no direct access to the Chester line and so a reversal at either Foxhall Junction or Didcot East Junction is necessary. I have experienced both, and observed the confusion of fellow passengers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Station masters?

I thought the consensus at WP:WikiProject UK Railways is that we don't have a station master section unless it is for a notable person. (See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 47#Lists of station masters.) Is there any reason not to delete the Station master section from this article? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed another example of the lists that were the subject of that April 2020 discussion. There are others, e.g. at Melksham railway station. Most editors in that discussion expressed disapproval, though there was no concluding decision. I support removal of this section, but if that is done the same removal should be done everywhere. -- Wire723 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed them from several Yorkshire railway station articles (York, Northallerton etc) as per a second discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 53#Stationmasters. At Northallerton I blanked the section first, and then removed it six weeks later as per WP:BOLD. Most of these lists are incomplete, and those I have removed do not have any wikinotable people within them. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)