Talk:Shrewsbury railway station

Platforms 1 and 2 - just a query
Why are these out of action or why were they demolished? Simply south 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

They were used as carriage sidings when Shrewsbury had quantities of locomotive hauled trains (Class 25 hauled services on the Cambrian Coast line, York to Shrewsbury TPO, Shrewsbury to London Euston services). When the last of these trains finished in the late 1980s, the carriage sidings (located on the same side of the station of platform 3, the former platform 1 and 2 bays as was) were pulled and removed in a rationalisation, as the already extensive Abbey Foregate LMD south was very much all that was needed in terms of requirements. Alspittle 12:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But they were fully used platforms at one point - probably until the early 1970s. I think they were primarily used for trains on the Hartlebury/Severn Valley line. This line now no longer runs from Shrewsbury (only the section between Bridgnorth and Kidderminster is open, as a heritage railway). The platforms do still exist though, but with no track. David 14:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Severn Valley Railway
Could somebody please modify the Services infoboxes at the foot of the article to include the Severn Valley Railway in the historical railways section? CrossHouses (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a travel guide
I removed quite a bit of trivial travel guide information from the article; information such like the station has a ticket office, it has a supervisor's office, it has ticket barriers, it has a taxi rank, it has a British Transport Police office, it has offices for other railway-associated organisations and so on. This is all on the basis that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and that such information is really not relevant. Some of it keeps getting put back. If someone wants to know what facilities are available to passengers and other station users, they can visit the National Rail website's page on this station - which is linked from this article. Such travel guide information&mdash;which can soon become out-of-date&mdash;just doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. DrFrench (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that another editor has reverted my edit again on the basis that including a mention of the police office is 'useful' information. Unfortunately, whether something is 'useful' or not isn't a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.... and in fact the fact that it's deemed 'useful' support my view that it's travel guide information that shouldn't be here. cf WP:USEFUL DrFrench (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly i would like to point out the obvious spelling mistake you made above. And while i agree with you on these basis' I would like to know whether you are going to go through the pages on every single station in the King(Queen?)dom to bring them all up to your standards? CrossHouses (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to discuss the issue at hand, rather than resort to points-scoring about making a typo on a talk page. It's not about my standards, it's about Wikipedia's standards. Just because other crap articles exist isn't a reason not to improve this one. DrFrench (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove to me that you are improving it and i shall be satisfied. If you are merely being pernickety then just don't bother. CrossHouses (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove anything. The onus is on the person adding or restoring the information. DrFrench (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're the one REMOVING perfectly good and encyclopaedic information!! What is wrong with mentioning the BTP offices at Shrewsbury station? Frankly your removing of perfectly sound information from this article is verging on the ridiculous and even vandalism. I can just about accept not mentioning the various facilities at the station, but the BTP station needs inclusion. David (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, I will add more - you seem to be taking the position that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Why is the onus on us rather than you? Can I go and delete whole articles now and say that the onus is on the people who wish the information to be restored rather than on my reasoning why it should be deleted?? Utter nonsense. You say that a person reading this article can just go onto the National Rail website and find information about the station... well in that case what is the point of Wikipedia? Why bother? There's always Google. If people want to find information about something they can find a website with it on. Or look it up in a book. Etc. But the point of Wikipedia is that it brings together the world's information in one place. That's the point. Okay, not all random details and trivia should be on Wikipedia, but, for example, stating that the British Transport Police have offices at the station is relevant and notable. It's not like the number of steps up to platforms 4 & 7 are being mentioned. THAT would be deletable information! So frankly get off your high horse and allow at least some information to get through your overly-pernickety (non-)inclusion filter. David (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK David, you've been contributing to Wikipedia long enough to know how it works. Let's keep it civil, assume good faith, comment on the content and not on the contributor - then we can together work to build consensus.


 * I am not claiming that I am "right and everyone else is wrong". Like I hope all editors do - I am trying to help improve the encyclopaedia and I try to follow Wikipedia's principles, policies and guidelines. I said I don't have to 'prove' anything to you, because you don't own the article. I said the onus was on those to argue the case why the information should be included... rather than just simply revert my edit, I have explained my edits - both in the edit summary and again here on the talk page. I'll give detail the rationale behind my edits below. If you disagree, then please argue your case as to why you feel it important and notable enough that it should be included. That's how Wikipedia works.


 * So this article is about Shrewsbury railway station. It shouldn't include every single known 'fact' about the station only what's notable, verifiable and encyclopaedic. Just becasue something is true or 'useful' does not make it worthy of inclusion. What sort of information should it include - what would people expect to be here? Well the station is over 160 years old, so you'd expect to see quite a bit about its history; when it was built, who built it, how the station changed over the years, how changes in ownership have affected it and the traffic passing through, the impact it had on the development of the town, etc. You'd expect to see information about any notable events that have taken place; was it bombed in the war, was a notorious murder committed here, have any notable railway 'firsts' happened here. Is there something unique about the station; so the number of steps could be notable if it was the most number of steps up to a UK station platform, or if the architect had a superstition about a particular number and always built flights of stairs with that number of steps (subject of course to it being verifiable in a reliable source). You'd expect to see information about who owns and operates the station today and the general pattern of services - but not timetable information, as that's ephemeral and would fall foul of WP:NOTTRAVEL. Similarly detail about various facilities for station users doesn't belong here, as it's constantly changing and not encyclopaedic. (It might belong at Wikitravel, but not here.) That's why we include a link in the infobox to the station's page on the National Rail website. Finally you might expect information about future plans; new services, expansions in capcity - but (bearing in mind WP:NOTCRYSTAL) only when we can verify that information with a reliable source. Of course, information about the British Transport Police office might be suitable for inclusion in a different article; e.g. one about the British Transport Police's operations, or a list of police facilities in Shropshire.


 * Therefore the question we should ask ourselves is this; in the 160 year history of this atation, is the fact that there are offices used by the station supervisor, train crew, the British Transport Police or the Dalai Lama really notable and worthy of inclusion. Well, if the latter were true, then clearly it would be. But the others? No. DrFrench (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of platform layout diagram
Three times recently, CrossHouses has removed the platform layout diagram and replaced it by the text string "|}". Does this have the agreement of other editors? David Biddulph (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there's no reason why the platform layout diagram should be removed. It's a useful aid. David (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but why is the platform layout relevant to the article? The layout is mentioned in the text and adding a confusing and incomplete diagram is not helpful to anyone. --CrossHouses (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So the platform layout isn't relevant to an article about a railway station? Okay. Whatever. (How is it "confusing"? And it's only "incomplete" in that a few of the non-platform faced railway lines are missing, but they can be added - shock, horror.) Anyway, I've removed the "|}" you left behind as you went about removing the diagram.


 * And as for the German article link - before you get ever more cocky, I did check and yes I found that there was no German article at the other end of the link. However, I thought the link might as well remain as it wasn't doing any harm (red/deadlinks are not to be avoided if the article linked to is going to be created one day).


 * Honestly, I'm going to give up with this and a whole raft of other areas on Wikipedia, as there are some right anal people out there, removing stuff rather than putting stuff onto Wikipedia. David (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Planned 1960s signal box?
The large 1960s concrete office block adjoining Platform 3 (Cambrian House, now converted into flats) used to be British Rail property - is it correct that some of the upper floor space of the building was earmarked for interlocking and control rooms to oversee a colour-light resignalling scheme that never actually happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:301:1140:4018:83b6:49e7:66ac (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2016‎ (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shrewsbury 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/20131231001446/http://www.shrewsburytowncouncil.gov.uk/live/images/cme_resources/Groups/gF179CC61-3130-4AFF-94E9-0D7E7CC41132/documents/Planning%20Reports/Shrewsbury-Place-Plan-2011-2012.pdf to http://www.shrewsburytowncouncil.gov.uk/live/images/cme_resources/Groups/gF179CC61-3130-4AFF-94E9-0D7E7CC41132/documents/Planning%20Reports/Shrewsbury-Place-Plan-2011-2012.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) 00:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Avanti services between Shrewsbury and London withdrawn on 14/8/22
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-62520116.amp Anamyd (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)