Talk:Havant railway station

Gap too narrow for platform
The article says this.

There has been some discussion about putting a third (terminating) platform in the gap, however this would have to be very short and extremely narrow.

Looking at photo, the gap is possibly wide enough (perhaps 3m) for a terminating platform, provided that it is fenced on the wrong side, and provided that any stairs and/or lifts are at the extreme ends of the platform.

Tabletop 07:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The new diagram is good. But did you really mean to include both versions A and B in the main article??? Surely version A should be removed now.


 * Beg to differ, but Unisouth's version B has kinks in the main line where there are none, and therefore (except for labelling of the level crossing) Tabletop's version A is better!

Neilm 18:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New diagrams
For comparison:





Tabletop 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New diagrams 2
my new diagram is the best. It includes all the points and shows all the level crossings. Including the time when there were two - one for the mainline and one for the hayling billy line. the western manual lc hayling lc gate is still in existence as well as the mainline one.the southerner 13:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)



However, unisouth updated diagram still shows kinks in the platformless tracks, which are normally dead straight.

Tabletop 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Stations with platforms on laybys


Stations with platforms on laybys, with the two through tracks having no platforms, used to be quite common. These days the through tracks have often been removed.

A speed limit applies when going from the mainline through a turnout to the platform on the layby. This can be seen on user:Unisouth's diagram for Havant railway station at the left hand end, which look correct.

If the through road is removed, then the turnout can be replaced by a higher speed slew, as in Diagram D.

The right hand end of Havant railway station may well be drawn as it actually was in real life, however, because it appears to put a speed limit on the through platform-less track, it does not necessarily ring true.

Amongst other things, the slews should be drawn longer and have a higher speed and gentler angle than the sharp low speed turnouts that they replace.

Tabletop 10:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

New diagram
I have made a new diagram showing the new laout. i will redo it in june when the layout will be realised.

Down Fast is still in use at the time of writing
May I propose that part of the page be modified? I was thinking of modifying the page, but I felt my different terminology wouldn't keep a constant flow.

Anyway, in the article, it mentions the new track layout as it currently stands. The situation is that the old track layout (pre bi-directional) still exists. The only major changes are that towards Portsmouth, there is only one cross-over (permtting trains from platform 1 to use the down line) complete, it still remains un-eletrified. All the other crossings on the up line (curiously!) are all in, but nothing has been removed from the down line.

What actually happened is NR closed the down fast, grounded the third rail, removed the pots and the line was like that for 4 weeks. The line was then reinstated later and is still in use now! It tends to only see regular use from ECS, freight trains and tours, the latter 2 tend to "hang around" Havant for quite a while from my personal observations.


 * True, BUT the line has been unelectrified and from MY personal 'observations' the line will be removed for good. Lenny 14:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * strange that you say "uneletrified" (perhaps I haven't seen the cable at the end of the 3rd rail), but the 3rd rail is still in place! Anyway, the track is to be removed sometime between December and January.. (Oh boy! I'm going to enjoy commuting during those 2 months!). I should of added that NR then decides to put the 3rd rail in place.
 * Just out of cuiosity. Why did they A) decide to remove the 3rd rail, shut off the line and then reopen the line? And B) reinstall all the insulating pots and then install the 3rd rail? (unconnected?).
 * They shut of the line so workers could install a cable gutter next to it without fear of electricution (as long as they kept away from the other line (eastbound)). Apparantly its still not finished so they took the cable (did you know it is 2 inches thick?) away for a while. Lenny 14:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The southern fast line is now removed and looking at the new track layout east of the station, it seems to be permanant. Unisouth 18:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Diagram - historic issue
This is from memory, from what I read a while ago, but I believe a mistake exists in the diagrams with reference to the earliest-but-one Havent station. I believe it was located between TWO level crossings - that of New Lane, certainly, but also one on North Street. When a 'newer' havant station opened, it was because the platforms were too short, and the North Street level crossing was removed.

Until that point, for 2000 years Havant had been a town on a classic crossroad-plan (4 believed-to-be-roman roads, central church). North St was the first to be cut off, by the station extension. The existance of a very early "Havant Halt" is something I have no knowledge of, it presumably predating the 'wars' and the station I recall seeing photos of. Graldensblud 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal with adjacent station infoboxes for southern
Having looked at what station infoboxes say, I personally dislike how southern always say simply 'West Coastway Line' for stations on both the main line between Brighton and Havant (technically Bedhampton, but havant is the de facto junction because of how southern Southampton trains virtually always skip the station), Havant to Potsmouth Harbour, and Havant to Southampton Central. I think this does not make sense, because the lines to Portsmouth and Southampton are separate branches of the line. Therefore, I propose that for southern infoboxes only (not SWR or GWR infoboxes), for stations between Havant and Southampton, a notemid reading 'Southampton branch' should be added, and likewise for stations between Havant and Bedhampton, a notemid reading 'Portsmouth Branch' should be added. Any other stations can remain unchanged as they are on the common trunk (excluding Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on branch lines). Does this idea sound reasonable, and can anyone else think of better ideas? Lawrence 979 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)