Talk:Havant railway station

message: The article says this.
There has been some discussion about putting a third (terminating) platform in the gap, however this would have to be very short and extremely narrow.
Looking at photo, the gap is possibly wide enough (perhaps 3m) for a terminating platform, provided that it is fenced on the wrong side, and provided that any stairs and/or lifts are at the extreme ends of the platform.
Tabletop 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beg to differ, but Unisouth's version B has kinks in the main line where there are none, and therefore (except for labelling of the level crossing) Tabletop's version A is better!
Neilm 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap too narrow for platform 

message: For comparison:
thumb|right|300px|a diagram showing the layout changes of Havant station version A by unisouth/the southerner
thumb|right|300px|a diagram showing the layout changes of Havant station version B
Tabletop 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New diagrams 

message: my new diagram is the best. It includes all the points and shows all the level crossings. Including the time when there were two - one for the mainline and one for the hayling billy line. the western manual lc hayling lc gate is still in existence as well as the mainline one.the southerner 13:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New diagrams 2 

message: thumb|right|300px|the newest diagram - by me unisouth/thesoutherner
Stations with platforms on laybys, with the two through tracks having no platforms, used to be quite common.  These days the through tracks have often been removed.
A speed limit applies when going from the mainline through a turnout to the platform on the layby.  This can be seen on user:Unisouth's diagram for Havant railway station at the left hand end, which look correct.
If the through road is removed, then the turnout can be replaced by a higher speed slew, as in Diagram D.
The right hand end of Havant railway station may well be drawn as it actually was in real life, however, because it appears to put a speed limit on the through platform-less track, it does not necessarily ring true.
Amongst other things, the slews should be drawn longer and have a higher speed and gentler angle than the sharp low speed turnouts that they replace.
Tabletop 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stations with platforms on laybys 

message: This is from memory, from what I read a while ago, but I believe a mistake exists in the diagrams with reference to the earliest-but-one Havent station. I believe it was located between TWO level crossings - that of New Lane, certainly, but also one on North Street. When a 'newer' havant station opened, it was because the platforms were too short, and the North Street level crossing was removed.
Until that point, for 2000 years Havant had been a town on a classic crossroad-plan (4 believed-to-be-roman roads, central church). North St was the first to be cut off, by the station extension. The existance of a very early "Havant Halt" is something I have no knowledge of, it presumably predating the 'wars' and the station I recall seeing photos of. Graldensblud 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram - historic issue 

message: Having looked at what station infoboxes say, I personally dislike how southern always say simply 'West Coastway Line' for stations on both the main line between Brighton and Havant (technically Bedhampton, but havant is the de facto junction because of how southern Southampton trains virtually always skip the station), Havant to Potsmouth Harbour, and Havant to Southampton Central. I think this does not make sense, because the lines to Portsmouth and Southampton are separate branches of the line. Therefore, I propose that for southern infoboxes only (not SWR or GWR infoboxes), for stations between Havant and Southampton, a notemid reading 'Southampton branch' should be added, and likewise for stations between Havant and Bedhampton, a notemid reading 'Portsmouth Branch' should be added. Any other stations can remain unchanged as they are on the common trunk (excluding Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on branch lines). Does this idea sound reasonable, and can anyone else think of better ideas? Lawrence 979 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal with adjacent station infoboxes for southern