Talk:Bourne railway station

Services

Were the GNR routes really operated as two separate branches? Running a train through from Sleaford to Essendine would not have required reversal. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the line to Sleaford was laid to a higher standard, with bigger radii so it could have been worked differently. My copy of Bradshaws shows separate timing, as do the examples here. Railways were very conservative organisations, not given to tearing up or rationalising services that already had an established clientelle. Perhaps they should have done.

There wasn't even a through stamford-Bourne service: one had to change at Essendine.

Were I a billionaire I'd like to relay the whole Stamford-Sleaford route and operate it with some of these: http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/ --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Station name

The infobox shows the first name as Bourne rather than Bourn. I believe that to be an error. Have a look at http://boar.org.uk/abiwxo3Bournedoc005.htm . at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/mapsheet.aspx?sheetid=5106&compid=55127 . and http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/bourne2.htm . Or Bartholomew's Gazetteer of 1887:

Bourn, par., town, and ry. junc., S. Lincolnshire, 9½ miles W. of Spalding

or even http://visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/results.jsp?xCenter=3328255.4368&yCenter=2930109.44312&scale=633600&mapLayer=nineteenth&subLayer=smith_1806&title=C.%20Smith%20New%20Map%20of%20Great%20Britain%20and%20Ireland

--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This gets odd. http://boar.org.uk/abiwxo3Bournedoc006.htm is the opening timetable for the Essendine line, dated to 1860, and it has the town spelled Bourne. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Hall

In the History paragraph opening 'The original station....', is there a confusion about the occasion of the doubts about the Red Hall's future? Was the contributor thinking of the petition at the time of the rebuilding of the station prior to the opening of the Saxby line, in 1894? See Bourne Archive. (RJPe (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC))

Accident in the railway station

On this week's diary from the local web site:

From the archives - 140 years ago: The return excursion train which was due to leave London at ten minutes before twelve on Saturday night last arrived at Bourne between three and four o'clock on Sunday morning. When near the platform at Bourne station the engine came into violent collision with two empty carriages which were standing upon the line, driving them completely through two very strong gates at the South Street crossing, one of the gates being smashed to splinters, and the carriages considerably damaged. There were nine passengers (including two ladies) in the carriage attached to the engine and we have not heard of anyone sustaining greater injury than a severe shaking. One gentleman's hat was smashed to such an extent that he has put in a claim for a new one. - news report from the Grantham Journal, Saturday 5th April 1873.

I suppose this alleged through working would have been via the Bourne and Essendine route.

Currently this is http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/diary.htm but by next week it will be archived in a page linked at the bottom. Should we put this in the text, or as an article like Wigan rail crash? I would like to have some accessible references to it - I don't suppose every wikipedian can go to Grantham to look at the microfiches. Verification is not always easy.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say to put it as a section in this article to start with, it can always be spun out into a separate article later if desired. It would also be good to put a summary at List of rail accidents (before 1880)#1873. Online references are good but not required - there is no prohibition against offline ones at all. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Done both of those - lets see what happens!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Although, some people consider books to be unreliable sources. Beware. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing actually matters, does it? Adding the story makes the entry more interesting, but deleting only takes us back where we were last week. And last week wasn't so bad.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an accident capable of sustaing a separate article. Placing it in the station article and list is the correct way to deal with it. May I remind all UK-based editors that a local library card is a very useful thing to have. There are many newspapers from the C19th available online via the British Library when accessed via your library's website with no subscription required. Mjroots (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bourne 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/20081019095000/http://homepages.which.net:80/~rex/bourne/railway.htm to http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/railway.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930002506/http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1365028 to http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=1365028

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)