Talk:Bristol Parkway railway station

Bristol Parkway railway station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 30, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Bristol Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has an infobox

Trains: Stations / in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 17, 2015

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bristol Lines.

Sponsorship

Added section on Sponsorship of the train station and photographs. Relevant content as it is an important first time the station has been sponsored in such a way. Added citations to the sponsorship text too. Deejayone (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Bristol Temple Meads railway station is relevant to this – once a concensus has been reached there I would suggest that this article should be edited in the same style so as to avoid the advertising. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The most important thing is completely missing on this page - a map showing the station's location..!

As I'm trying to get to it by road this page is useless and I can't find any other website that shows the station's location either.....

Ian Lyman.

Will this do? --rbrwr

...or in words, M4 to J19, M32 to J1 (less than a mile), west on the A4174 for about a mile to a big roundabout, turn right and you should be able to follow the signs from there. --rbrwr

Platform 3 / 1

Lets discuss the whole constant battle between those who refer to the current platform 3 as it's former platform 1 designation. Although the signage hasn't been updated it was officially renamed when the 4th platform was opened although for some reason they haven't started using it yet!

Orphaned references in Bristol Parkway railway station

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bristol Parkway railway station's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nrfacilities":

From Clifton Down railway station: "Clifton Down (CFN)". National Rail. Retrieved 18 July 2012.
From Nailsea and Backwell railway station: "Nailsea & Backwell (NLS)". National Rail. Retrieved 1 April 2012.
From Yatton railway station: "Yatton (YAT)". National Rail. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
From Redland railway station: "Redland (RDA)". National Rail. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
From Parson Street railway station: "Parson Street (PSN)". National Rail. Retrieved 9 May 2012.
From Montpelier railway station: "Montpelier (MTP)". National Rail. Retrieved 7 July 2012.
From Bedminster railway station: "Bedminster (BMT)". National Rail. Retrieved 5 May 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surrounding development

Responding to this edit. At the time the station was built, it was essentially located in open countryside, with relatively easy road access, etc.. However, since the 1970s there has been massive and comprehensive urban development - of housing, and retail and office parks - within the Bristol North Fringe area in the M4/M5/M32 box which surrounds Parkway station and which has generated substantial traffic congestion across the area. This has, to a large extent, destroyed the original planning rationale for the station (and other Parkway-type stations) - which was to promote rail travel by opening up new "park and ride" stations easily accessible by road. This is an important component of the Bristol Parkway story - not in terms of rail engineering, but in terms of development planning. I encapsulated the changes by simply inserting the word "now", but can find sources to write a longer paragraph on this. (I used to be a town planner in the area, for what it's worth.) The article is not just about the station as it is "now" - it is about its history as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Description section is pretty much as-is, though minimal historical details can be included. I like the idea of surrounding development, but I have no idea where to find information from. If you can cite it, add it. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ghmyrtle, the station was built as a Parkway but seems to have become more of a Bristol North station. Mark999 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a useful source here, pp.17-19, with statements like "Bristol Parkway has grown beyond the original Parkway station, as many employers have opened offices nearby (e.g. Axa, the MOD and the University of the West of England (UWE)....Growth in passengers using Parkway station and growth in employment and housing in the North Fringe has led to congestion around the station, particularly at peak times and pressure on the station car park. The car park reaches capacity between Tuesday and Thursday during the day and there is pressure on local residential streets from overspill parking." Some more information on relieving the congestion here and here. I'll scour the loft for old offline sources... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was already cited (non-PDF), but I've used it and a few maps/photos to cite growth of Bristol. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "city" is the administrative area, which Parkway is still outside. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is certainly better, though I would say city is used more loosely here. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but we need to be as clear as we can be, and many people in S Glos get quite upset at their area (or any part of it) being described as within "the city" of Bristol. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it. Anyway, are we good to go with a GA nom? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be clearer about (a) what is the linespeed ("over 110" is vague - how much over 110?) (b) why is the standard journey time to Paddington 90 minutes, when it was 75 in the mid-70s (c) what is the new Park and Ride scheme (isn't the whole station a park-and-ride scheme?) (d) where the new platform will be - will it be Platform 1, forming an island with platform 2, for example? See http://www.networkrail.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=30064778689, p79, but there may be more up-to-date sources. An illustration showing all 3 present platforms, and the location of the future 4th, would be helpful. Also Services, para 3, and Future, para 1, don't seem to have anything specifically to do with Bristol Parkway. Winstonsmith99 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) - No idea, the reference says 110-125.

(b) - 75mins was the quickest journey possible, not the average

(c) - That should be fixed

(d) - the refs I had didn't specify, but that would seem to be the obvious conclusion.

(e) (i) - I've included that in a load of other GAs, it seems reasonable to say what trains you'd see at a train station

(e) (ii) - As above, it seems sensible to say who will be running trains from there. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed (c), and restored the cited statement that was deleted (re BRI-BPW-PAD - see RAIL696, p53, rightmost column). -mattbuck (Talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke Gifford IEP depot

Is it ok to add info about the new "Stoke Gifford IEP depot" on this page - or should it go somewhere else?83.100.174.82 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should really be on this page - it probably needs its own article. I added a mention of it on this page because it seemed of interest, but this isn't the place to add large amounts of detail. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Started the article Filton Triangle depot, Stoke Gifford, added links to this page, IEP, also to 21st-century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line

If other articles could be linked, or if anything else needs updating please do this - I'm not familiar with the Bristol rail area, so I'll leave that to others.

As for route diagrams - the depot connects to the east-west line to the Avonmouth docks, as well as to the north-east chord to the severn tunnel and wales at the easternmost corner of the "filton diamond" - a connection to the NE chord near to patchway station is also proposed...

Some on Network Rail websitewhere I read that the connection will be made at the same time as the electrification.. but I can't find that now. If anyone notices that please let me know so I can update the article.Prof.Haddock (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose there's a layout anywhere we could see? I've added a few comments at Talk:Filton Triangle depot, Stoke Gifford on reference issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per the problems with links mentioned elsewhere - try this link [1] (it might be slow, wait a few secs)

then visit this (it's the 3rd document down, 23 May 2013) called "planning statement" [2] - the 2013 modifications are shown - the original plan is shown in http://www.railtex.co.uk/_downloads/presentations/Railtex_hitachi.pdf p.11

Overview here [3]

There's a full 2013 site plan here [4] - it's the "LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGY MASTERPLAN" (4 Jun 2013) - if the link doesn't work try here first http://developments.southglos.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MN5O1BOK02R00 (about 14 from the bottom).

again let me know if the links don't work - there seems to be a problem with some.Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I might make a map for the article at some point - but will at least be waiting until the final design is built.. if someone else does it first I won't mind)Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the look of the RailTeX presentation, it doesn't connect to the Avonmouth Line, I think those are the existing civil engineering sidings. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of

Yonge, John; Padgett, David (2010) [1989]. Bridge, Mike (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 3: Western (5th ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 16B. ISBN 978-0-9549866-6-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

shows the CE sidings as having just one connection: to the Avonmouth line, facing Avonmouth. There are no tracks coming off the portion of the Tunnel Line which constitutes the curve connecting Stoke Gifford No. 2 Junction with Patchway No. 2 Jc. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Re: Railtex) I agree - there's no connection to the depot shown on the railtex image.. However there is one on the 2011, and 2013 planning documents. The railtex image is more like the 2011 plans and not like the 2013 plans - I expect it's an old image or something. Clarify - none of the other plans show anything of the current sidings surviving, though there is a connection from the Avonmouth line to the depot on the planning documents - but at the other end.

As I mentioned elsewhere - I recall it being stated somewhere that the connections would be made as part of the work to electrify the GWML - I can't give a definative answer on what will happen but it may be worth checking the Network Rail site for their GWML plans periodically.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bristol Parkway railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/winnernewcrosscounty

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol Parkway 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/20120314050333/http://www.walesandwest.co.uk/ to http://www.walesandwest.co.uk/

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) 18:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bristol Parkway 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bristol Parkway 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]