Talk:Preston railway station

message: I've added a large section on the station history. In doing so I have removed most of the previous version's "Previously" section, as I couldn't find any easy way of seamlessly merging it with my own contribution. Part of the problem was that the material was undated and mostly unreferenced. Apologies to the editors who wrote that part. Feel free to re-add your contribution if you can. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on an excellent edit. Fantastic information. Worley-d (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further to my congrats, I've nominated this article as a Good Article. See above Worley-d (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite of station history 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 4, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Check
:2. Factually accurate?: Check
:3. Broad in coverage?: Check
:4. Neutral point of view?: Check
:5. Article stability? Check
:6. Images?: Check - These were very good. :)
Overall, a great article that's informative uses solid references which are reliable and verify the claims and it's got everything else needed. There are only a few things which I can see "wrong" with the article, these include:
*You may want to wikilink some words that are in the Station Layout and Amenities section.
*You may want to change the wording of the opening sentence on the 6th bullet point in the Usage and Services section. Currently, it doesn't make sense. To me at least. :)
*Try to use more of the you've already used by using <ref name=?>, but I'm sure that'll be done anyway.
*Try to convert some of the measurements, like in the history section you could convert the mph of the train crash to km/h using  and the same for 1225 feet which could be converted using . 
But that's not much to fail an article, so well done!  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div> Rt. 15:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: One addition that might be good - a plan of the station as it is today, as per the ones of the earlier appearances of the station? Worley-d (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this. Please report any significant errors or omissions on this talk page—I can get to visit the station only one or two times per year to check the accuracy. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Whoever added this, thanks - I've been meaning to do this for almost 12 months! Worley-d (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, and you're welcome! Beejaypii (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need something on royal dental decay? (;) Simply south not SS, sorry 16:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen's Plaque

message: There are a few errors with the platform numbers on the 1926 diagram.  Platforms 10, 11, 12 and 13 are incorrectly labelled.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.45.76 (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The platforms were renumbered at some time, unfortunately the article doesn't mention when.  If there is an error in the image, it could probably be corrected by either changing the numbers or the date. —Snigbrook 01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The image is based on http://www.ukrailarchive.org/lancs/rm05-1926-337.PDF – page 338 shows platforms 1–9 and the text on page 343 describes the layout of the other platforms, so it appears to be correct (please explain more clearly if it is still incorrect). —Snigbrook 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I've seen the explanation on .  Presumably the renaming was in or after 1926 or the text (of the document in the PDF link) had not been updated. —Snigbrook 01:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the diagram and the text from the source quoted by Snigbrook above. I know the numbers changed at some time but I have no references to state when. I've seen another diagram of the station with the revised numbers, but that diagram was undated! I think the article is clear in stating that the numbers were those that applied in 1926 and not later. (It's possible the source itself was out-of-date, but we have to rely on published sources. If 212.159.45.76 can provide a published and dated source, I'd consider updating the diagram.) By the way, Snigbrook, the talk page you referred to doesn't exist! --Dr Greg (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page was deleted, probably because the file is on Commons and not on Wikipedia. —Snigbrook 15:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Platform numbers

message: I was reading the local paper today, and as a combat trick to stop overcrowding in Preston, platforms 0 and 7 are meant to be re-opened as a possibility, as well as 3c and 4c being used, keeping the platform count at 17 (includes all the numbers, 0, and 7) however reducing traffic. The reason why Preston was such a major station was to link Manchester to Blackpool South or other stations to Blackpool North/Pleasure Beach/Squires Gate, making the station not only a major interchange, but needing another 2 open platforms to make 17 open active/semi-active platforms (don't forget most are placed like Bournemouth and the like) Is it possible this kind of information can be added, as well as the fact it has to link many other stations as an interchange such as Scotland to many other southern places? Tez011 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume the article you mean is Action to be taken on station overcrowding. It doesn't say those platforms may be reopened. It says Network Rail reports this to one of the 11 most overcrowded stations; a campaign group has suggested platforms 0 & 7 be reopened; but there's no indication that Virgin Trains has responded to that suggestion. No mention of 3c or 4c. If this story develops into something more significant it may be worth a mention in this WP article. I don't understand what you mean by "placed like Bournemouth and the like". -- Dr Greg  talk  22:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After talking with the bosses of Preston station, they have passed on the information to Virgin, and platform 7 cannot be used due to routing, Platform 0 is accessed via the Docklands, so this cannot be done. They have said that 3c and 4c may be used in the future more, this was a tidbit not mentioned on Twitter (@VTPreston). Tez011 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I've reverted your last edit because I don't think it's helpful to count 2a and 2b as separate platforms; they're just the front and back of a single platform, and as far as I know, you would never find two different trains on both of them simultaneously. And 0 and 7 shouldn't be counted either if passenger trains never stop there. To put it another way. I don't think you'd ever find more than 8 passenger trains stopped in the station at the same time. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens in Bournemouth, can happen in Preston. However, this is Preston, not Bournemouth. I also take credit for the Major Railway stations in Britain add, considering that talk is dead and Preston is probably the most significant station in the North West (bar Manchester Piccadilly, Liverpool L Street just doesn't get its wear) Tez011 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  is a navbox, and so should only be placed on articles which are linked from it. It doesn't link to Preston railway station, so doesn't belong on that article. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah right, but would Preston count as a major station due to it's sheer importance?..(however it goes) Tez011 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's best discussed at Template talk:Major railway stations in Britain, where I see you have already started a thread. If consensus there is to add Preston to the navbox, then the navbox may be added to this station article. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I have been sent Network Rail's RUS for Stations, where the Platform 7 "rumour" originated.  It's just an idea, not a firm proposal, and in any case, Platform 7 would need a lot of technical changes and improvements before it could possibly be used for passenger services.  doktorb wordsdeeds 11:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, it would only need a destination scrolling thing and them colour zones for Virgin Trains, it could just be like 3c and 4c, as it needs "special routing" for the north. So I'm guessing it would be used for terminating services from Birmingham/London or a possible extension of the Manchester-Bristol/Bournemouth lines? 80.192.157.6 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platforms 0 and 7 re-opening, 3c and 4c getting more uses? 

message: Does this station have an undercroft and if so is it worth mentioning? I remember in my trainspotting days in the early 90's, there were private doors off to the side of the subway, looking South. These are no longer visible as the subway has been lined with white panels. I seem to recall the space was used for car parking with the now defunct motorail service? Can someone shed any more light and confirm I'm not going mad? :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.217.210 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undercroft? 

message: "The single London Midland service from Birmingham New Street to Preston that used to call in the evening was withdrawn at the end of the 2007-8 timetable." Where did this service call at? Leyland and Euxton? Or just Wigan Warrington and Crewe? Tez011 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From the December 2007-May 2008 timetable (table 65): Birmingham NS 16:51 Sandwell & Dudley 16:59 Wolverhampton 17:10 Penkridge 17:20 Stafford 17:27 Crewe 17:49 Warrington BQ 18:07 Wigan NW 18:17 Preston (arr.) 18:39. Euxton isn't listed on T65, but table 90 (which lists all stations between Wigan NW and Preston) doesn't show the train in question, so I expect that it ran non-stop between Wigan and Preston. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The same train is listed in the May 2008-Dec 2008 timetable. It's not in the Dec 2008-May 2009 timetable. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, did you ever find the stops between Preston & Bournemouth? Think I know them now but me needs check 62.30.137.52 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I'm concerned that this article may no longer meet the GA criteria. In particular, the lead is of insufficient length, and a large portion of the article lacks inline citations. If somebody is willing to put the work in to bring up to standard (which might be as simple as writing a few paragraphs for a lead and simply adding more citations, or it might require quite a bit of research), then I will gladly hold off on taking any action. Otherwise, I'll start a GA reassessment process. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  17:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been responding to the GAR request templates. I am glad to see someone of your experience looking into this article. All I would add is the Accidents and Incidents section seems quite WP:undue for an article on a railway station. I will ping a few editors who might be interested. Let me know if you need help with the reassessment.  AIRcorn (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try what I can, when I can :) doktorb wordsdeeds 21:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  - The accidents and incidents section is not WP:UNDUE for an article on a major railway station. I would also point out that it is fully referenced. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely is in my opinion (having references does not change that), but I will let H J Mitchel decide. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at that section, I'm wondering if we could consolidate the deaths into more of a paragraph than a list. Each and every single accident seems a bit much too, maybe have a catch all section to indicate that many accidents have occurred rather than a lengthy compendium?doktorb wordsdeeds 07:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a prose approach would work best too, That way the major incidents and deaths could keep their sentence and if you feel it is notable enough the minor ones can be combined (i.e. accidents also occurred in 1845, 1854..... etc). It is undue to give the same amount of coverage to incidents of differing notability. It also seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE, for example some are not even at the station,  but near Preston. AIRcorn (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status 

message: In the History section, I think the sub-section Preston's Railways (3.1), as detailed as it currently is, belongs in a separate article as it contains content above and beyond that of the railway station itself.  It also tends to alternate between using or not differentiate between routes and operators e.g. the Preston-Longridge Line and the Preston & Longridge Railway, and does not detail all the different operators over the operating life of some routes. Some operators are also missing i.e. the Fleetwood, Preston and West Riding Junction Railway (FP&WRR), as well as some routes that operated within the (current day) boundary of the City of Preston i.e the Whittingham Hospital Railway.  Nor does it mention of the companies that leased routes from existing operators, nor cover the full spectrum of mergers and acquisitions, and provides little or no information about the era of the "Big Four", nationalisation and British Rail, the impact of the Beechings cuts, and in the most recent decades, changes brought about by the franchises and the different companies that have services the different routes.  Again, much of this information, although relevant to Preston's railways, is, IMHO, outside the scope of an article about Preston station. 
Also, there are other former stations around Preston that have not been mentioned i.e. as Lea Road, Deepdale Bridge, Maudland Bridge, etc, or only mentioned without appropriate history i.e Oxheys. There is also very little content regarding the railways of Preston's docks, which have their own rich history, but these subject areas fall outside the scope of this article.
I therefore propose a new article, the "History of Preston's Railways", be created and the bulk of the information from this current sub-section be transferred to the new article, and the current content appropriately condensed.  I am happy to undertake this work, and have already started compiling information from a number of different sources.
Blammy1 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I love the idea GRALISTAIR (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new History article