Talk:Dore & Totley railway station

National Rail timetable link
The link to the National Railways timetable page, (via the station code in the info box) has been removed, twice, initially with the edit summary "(Rm stn art lnk, Wikipedia is not a timetable". The policy "Wikipedia is not a timetable" is refers to the fact that timetable information is not supposed to be entered onto Wikipedia, not that we should not link, where relevant, to it. Such links are included in the infoboxes for most UK railway stations, and I can see no good reason why they should not be. I propose to reinstate the link, unless there is demonstrable consensus against it. Andy Mabbett 11:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Other articles are of no significance in the discussion Pigsonthewing. You've demonstrated yourself in your dissertation above that timetable information is not suitable, it's been removed under those conventions. I propose you don't reinstate them. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've demonstrated exactly the opposite of what you claim. If you're arguing that your removal of the code is justified by a Wikipedia-wide policy, then other articles clearly are of relevance. And consensus here is clearly against you. Andy Mabbett 12:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A feeling of déjà vu; There is no consensus. QED. ;) Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On what grounds do you claim that there is no consensus in this case? Andy Mabbett 12:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
After reviewing the article, your arguments, and searching relevant policy, I find no reason the station code should not be included. This seems to me much like the ICAO codes for airports and a potentially useful piece of information in the infobox -- as is a link to a timetable itself. As for the claim that Wikipedia is not a timetable, that link is the only reference I can find to such a policy, and it has been clearly rejected by the community after no consensus could be formed in support of its adoption. --Selket Talk 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is in the infobox. Does the link also need to be in place then? No. Why duplicate information? It simply wastes space, leave it off.  L.J.Skinner wot 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dore &amp; Totley railway station → Dore and Totley railway station — "and" is used and not "&" —Year1989 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Can you provide evidence that the station has changed its name in the first place from Dore? Also, changing from ampersand to and would be classed as uncontroversial. Simply south (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The only proof I have is what I have seen with my own eyes. When I went past the other day the signs said "Dore and Totley". I would move the page myself but I am having problems as "Dore and Totley railway station" is used as a redirect page and it will not let me move it.Year1989 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After searching i cannot find sources but it does seem to be referred to as both. The current timteable still refers to as Dore. But otherwise, go ahead.

Simply south (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Island Platform
The original platforms were on either side of the line from Sheffield to Chesterfield. When the north to west chord was constructed, it was to the west of the existing station. So it was the western platform on the original station that became the island platform. That became the "southbound" platform for the new line, but was the northbound platform on the original line. The article wrongly stated that the original southbound platform became the island platform, and that is obviously wrong and I have changed it. 82.29.215.181 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The original text was correct. The Sheffield Illustrated for 1884 includes a picture of Dore and Totley station that has been reproduced in several books and the main building is recognisably the same as the surviving building. No footbridge appears in the 1884 picture but the OS 1:2500 of 1898 shows a footbridge at the south end of the platforms.

If you stand on Twentywell Lane bridge looking toward the station as in the main photograph, the light grey cabinet in the middle distance is on the original bridge that carried the line from Chesterfield over the river Sheaf and past the one remaining platform which is the original down (northbound) platform.

When the line between Dore and Sheffield was widened from two to four tracks the new lines were built to the east of the existing. This can be verified by examining the bridges, some of which show signs of having been extended over a second pair of tracks, and by comparing the position of the original double track line with buildings that still stand. It was easier to build the new fast lines to the east as that involved mainly widening cuttings and embankments. To widen on the west would have involved numerous diversions to the river Sheaf, modifications to mill dams and demolition of some buildings.

The original lines became the slow lines. Dore and Totley Station Junction was moved to the north of the station with the signal box on the west side of the line. The OS six inch map of 1923 shows the junction as permitting movements from only the Chesterfield line to the fast or slow lines. Perhaps somebody can confirm that it was also possible for trains from Chinley to cross to the fast lines at that point. Pmbarnes (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This looks to be correct, as can be seen from pre/post widening Ordnance Survey maps, and it is confirmed by the citation that I have added to the article. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hope Valley Line Singled
Does anyone know when the Hope Lines (through Dore Station) were singled ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSmith (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have managed to narrow down the dates of the singling to between May 1982 (picture of double track - Sheffield Railcentres [pt2] p79 - S R Batty) and 1988 (station singled -Quail Eastern region track diagrams). There is a possibility it was before Aug 1983 because the same Sheffield rail centres book has a picture of the MML through Heeley with "evidence of track reduction" on it. --JustinSmith (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was singled on 31 March 1985 (source: Weekly Operating Notice).– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  21:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dore and Totley 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/20110715150949/http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue221.pdf to http://archive.railwayherald.com/Issue221.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dore and Totley 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/20060623073140/http://www.heritagewoodsonline.co.uk/2.%20Archaeology%20and%20Industry.pdf to http://www.heritagewoodsonline.co.uk/2.%20Archaeology%20and%20Industry.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)