Talk:Reading Southern railway station

References

10 references for a single sentence? This article really needs some beefing up.--RadioFan (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, steady on. I've only just started; and per WP:YFA it's better to get the refs in first rather than risk WP:SPEEDY. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense now, it was a bit odd looking at first You'll understand that other editors aren't WP:MINDREADERs. Next time consider creating the article until your userspace or add {{underconstruction}} to let others know you aren't done.--RadioFan (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Text removed

I have removed the following from the article: "{{www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations-web site photo of 1967 shows station with track removed and 1968 photo with bridge removed so cannot have been used for freight!!!!!. I remember the site about 1969 and recall there was no track there then. Freight services referred continued to Reading General. }}". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The bad URL there has been resolved and placed in the "External links section". Regarding the rest, judging by maps of the station complex, the freight facilities were all to the east of Vastern Road, so the removal of the tracks from the passenger station, and also the bridge, would not have been a problem for freight. Freight is not likely to have been diverted to General, but to Reading Central (aka Coley). I did not add that to the article, because I have no source for it. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am still learning how to add comments, etc. Thank you for researching into this. Noted with thanks.(Steamybrian2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamybrian2 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Some issues

The infobox is meant to serve as a summary but only should be that. There is hardly any mention in the text as to why the station was closed and what caused the decline, if there was one. Also, why was what is now Reading's main station expanded over the remains of this station? Why were the trains diverted? Also at least one of the companies which have their names shortened to just their initials do not even have their names spelt out e.g. RG&RR. Also the diesel service was short-lived should be mentioned and why. Simply south (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The infobox does summarise - I don't know of anything there which isn't also mentioned in the article.

I thought that the subsection Later years and closure covered why it was closed, and why the trains were diverted. There was no decline as such: the service level along the line was pretty much the same after closure as it had been before.

RG&RR - sorted.

Diesel service was short-lived, yes, but that was because the station was closed less than a year after their introduction (not any failing of the trains).

--Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the infobox in this article represents a good example of how an infobox should be used, i.e. more than just opening/closure dates. Although it's not explicitly spelt out in the article, the station's closure seems to be attributable to rationalisation. If there was no decline in the service level in terms of Reading Southern-bound services, had Reading General seen a general reduction so as to allow it spare capacity? Wasn't Reading General itself rationalised around this time so as to create the bottleneck which the current rebuilding is seeking to remove? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Into this article I did put

services being diverted into Reading General; most (including all the electric services) then used a newly-built platform 4A at the latter station

and Reading railway station also states

From 6 September 1965, services from the former Reading Southern station were diverted into a newly constructed terminal platform (4A) in the General station. This was long enough for a single eight coach train, which was later found to be inadequate, and so a second terminal platform (4B) serving the same line was opened in 1975

so rather than being rationalised, Reading General was given additional capacity.

I read in one or two books some sentences which implied that before 4B was built, the Diesel services on the Guildford line used an up bay platform during peak hours when a 6- or 8-car train occupied 4A; the implication was that these trains crossing the main lines (platforms 4 & 5 presumably) caused delays unless everything ran to timetable - which as peak-hour commuters at Reading know, simply never happens. Presumably this up bay was platform 6 (between 5 & 8), but could also have been plat 10 (but that would have meant additional lines to cross); but the sources were vague and not entirely in agreement, so I omitted all mention because to favour just one would be too scanty, and to fill in additional consistent information could be construed as WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)