Talk:Huddersfield railway station

Images

I've replaced the image into the infobox. The {{UK stations}} is a standard template designed to be put on all UK railway station articles, and is meant to include an image. I chose what I thought was the most appropriate image from those already on the page.

On a related subject, this article (and others about nearby stations on the Penistone Line) contains some very nice, but rather large images. What these articles need is more text (history, service descriptions, etc.) rather than just some nice photographs (and the photos could do with being made a bit smaller). --RFBailey 17:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Station layout

I've added a diagram of the layout of the station that I've drawn based upon observations and aerial photography. Please let me know your opinions on this and if anything needs changing about it. Adambro 22:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice diagram! There are a couple of additions that could be shown. Platform one extends out as far as the end of platform 5, the ends of both platforms are connected by a ramp at track level, which is used for wheelchair access with a station attendant escort, through locked gates. Platform 6 extends out about a third again past platform 5 ending in a point. To the left of the subway on platform 4b/8, is the signal room. The signal room extends the full length of platform 8 from over the top of the subway. The gents toilet is under the signal room and over the subway end, with access from platform 8 only. The other toilet in the main building on platform 8 is for women only. platform 4b extends out to about half the length of platform 2, as can be seen on this photo: [:Image:Huddersfield_Rail_Station_Platforms.jpg].The track crossover from platform 4b to 1 extends through to plaform 2, though this is within the edge of the tunnel. Hope that helps! Richard Harvey 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Richard. I've made a few amendments and uploaded it again. You'll probably need to bypass your browsers cache to see the new one. Regarding the toilets, since some recent refurbishment work, the gents are now in the main building on platform 8. I think the old ones are still there but no longer in use. Also, I think the junction between the platform 1 line and the platform 2 line isn't until the other side of the tunnel so its a bit far away to go on a diagram of the station. No doubt I'll think of more things to add or change. Let me know if you notice anything else. Adambro 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No Problem! The new diagram is much more descriptive. I believe you are correct about the Penistone line crossing over platform 1 to 4b further inside the tunnel. I am usually sat on it, reading, when it does so, on the odd occasion that it is redirected to Bradford or Leeds, instead of stopping on platform 2. I don't know how the diagram sat on your monitor; but on mine it overlapped halfway across the alphabetized list of the infobox. I have therefore moved it to the left of the page and dropped my two photo's further down the page with a pixel increase from 200 to 300. I think this new layout appears better, by allowing the station details to be grouped together better. Richard Harvey 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The newsagents isn't actually adjacent to platform 1. The stairs seperate it from the platform. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hstudent (talk • contribs) 09:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is the case, whilst I haven't been through the station for a few weeks the newsagents certainly used to be directly adjacent to the platform, indeed there is a door from the platform into the newsagents. I understand there was talk about building a lift to make it easier for passengers to access the far platforms and this could impact on the layout at that point but as far as I am aware this hasn't occurred yet. Adambro 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never accessed the newsagents via Platform 1. I don't often use it due to the expense of some of the products there. However, the last time I did I went in via a door to the left of the ticket barrier (facing the way out). This would suggest if it is accessible via Platform 1 that the newsagents must be a L shape rather than a square shape.

Future services

I very much agree that we shouldn't include the Grand Union Railway service in the article until the service is more than simply a proposal. Adambro 17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It could be given a brief mention but there is detailed information elsewhere on the web. Workbyagraduate 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of Platforms

There are 6 platforms at Huddersfield but there are numbered 1,2,4a,4b,5,6,8. Maybe someone could add why they are numbered like that. I would imagine it's because some of the platforms were lengthened, but could not say for certain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hstudent (talk • contribs) 11:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) and try to use the preview button to check the changes you make so you don't clog up the page history and recent changes.

Regarding the platform numbering, I can help with that if you would like to add this to the article. Looking at the diagram, previously, there was a bay platform, number 7, at the Manchester end of platform 8. There was another bay at the Leeds end of platform 1, called platform 3. I am pretty certain no platforms have been lengthened. Regards. Adambro 12:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the preview button. However, I have noticed mistakes after saving which I didn't notice at the preview stage. I wasn't aware of the signature, so thanks for pointing that out. Hstudent 13:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

An article in the April 23rd to May 6th issue of "Rail" indicated that there are plans, attributed to Northern Rail's October 2007 Strategic Business Plan, to build another platform at Huddersfield. "At Huddersfield, an extra platform (known as Platform 9) is planned and should accommodate trains of eight 23m coaches." Slightly curious as Huddersfield is, of course, managed by FTPE. Anyone know anything more? JohnB57 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found more on the above (Network Rail, not Northern, my silly error) and wonder if something along the following lines might find approval? Not a straight quote so I think it complies.

"Network Rail's April 2008 Strategic Business Plan outlines proposals for an additional platform at Huddersfield, platform 9. This will be capable of taking 8 x 23 metre vehicles and will allow longer and additional peak services to operate. It will also reduce conflicting train movements within the station at peak times. "Rail" magazine issue 600 of September 2008 gives a due date of 2013 for this project, also mentioning that, although WYPTE is "preparing a strong business case", this and certain similar projects within West Yorkshire have not yet been approved by the Office of Rail Regulation."

The following links to the NR SBP - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/Update/Strategic%20Business%20Plan%20April%20update.pdf JohnB57 (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Now added with minor revision and the link referenced.JohnB57 (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Although this is very interesting and a welcome service for the station, regrettably this information is not suitable for inclusion on the article page at this time. It is currently only a proposal and thus comes under the Wikipedia:Crystal guidline 1. Its four years away and until such time as its agreed and work has started it is only speculation. :( Richard Harvey (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but I think this falls within the remit - "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable (it is), and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred (it would). It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced (it was)." Shame you disagree as it is, as you say, of interest to railway enthusiasts and train users. JohnB57 (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, the Crystal guideline is aimed primarily at individual articles on speculative projects. My contribution contained factual, verifiable details of a project that will significantly affect the future of the main subject of this existing article, a 33% increase in express platform capacity at Huddersfield and a major endorsement of rail travel in the town. I believe on this occasion, your interpretation is too strict. I'll leave it for you and others to decide rather than getting into an edit war but I think this is within both the guidelines and the spirit of Wikipedia, which contains thousands of similar sections within other articles.JohnB57 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huddersfield 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/20121105155555/http://www.examiner.co.uk/multimedia/news/2012/09/11/st-george-s-square-down-the-years-86081-31812094/ to http://www.examiner.co.uk/multimedia/news/2012/09/11/st-george-s-square-down-the-years-86081-31812094/

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) 01:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)