Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
End of through trains
Bristol to Waterloo?

 
Please sign our petition
(more information)
 
Campaign links here
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 02:55 27 Nov 2021
- Storm Arwen: Man dies as gale-force winds hit UK
- The African countries on the red list - and other UK travel rules
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 03/12/21 - TWSW AGM - online
09/12/21 - Award Event - CRN
19/01/22 - MTUG - regular meeting
08/03/22 - WWRUG AGM - B-o-A
Random Image
Train RunningNo cancellations or delays
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
November 27, 2021, 02:58:55 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[116] XC short notice alterations due to driver unavailability.
[86] Are the railways fit for their (future) purpose?
[56] Okehampton
[44] Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion
[36] Threats to bus and tube serviced in London.
[28] New station at Ruscombe??!! "Twyford Gardens"
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why was Swindon's original Platform 4 demolished?  (Read 2374 times)
southwest
Guest
« on: November 02, 2020, 09:13:04 pm »

Does anyone know why Swindon's original platform 4 and building was demolished and replaced by the horrible mess by BR (British Rail(ways))? When was it demolished and replaced?
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 34941



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2020, 02:18:38 am »

Does anyone know why Swindon's original platform 4 and building was demolished and replaced by the horrible mess by BR (British Rail(ways))? When was it demolished and replaced?

Swindon's original main line down platform was demolished in 1972, with all express trains from London headed west to Bristol via Bath, and to South Wales, crossing over and calling at the remaining island platform to the north of the high speed through running lines.  In those days, crack expresses were less frequent and made fewer stops as the railways battled for a thinner and in general longer distance traffic, and stops were more expensive with trains accelerating slower than IETs (Intercity Express Train) under electric power.

The crossing over and back of trains that called at Swindon, (virtually every passenger service in due course), became a significant issue that a new platform was opened on the down fast in 2003 (after BR days) to save conflicting movements.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Electric train
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3641


The future is 25000 Volts AC 750V DC has its place


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2020, 07:23:35 am »

Does anyone know why Swindon's original platform 4 and building was demolished and replaced by the horrible mess by BR (British Rail(ways))? When was it demolished and replaced?

In addition to Graham's post. BR during the 70's and 80's was under pressure to reduce costs and make "economies"  The singling of lines is the most obvious economy measure, reducing cost of maintenance and renewals, but even a platform had a running cost in terms of maintenance, lighting, staffing etc  so saving could be made.

Of course now many of the lines have been re doubled, platforms reinstated, hind sight of course has 20/20 vision
Logged

Neither a wise man nor a brave man lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him.     
Dwight D. Eisenhower
southwest
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2020, 11:26:49 pm »

Thanks to you both
Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 894


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2020, 09:33:30 pm »


From the old maps it looks like the station's emasculation was more connected with  development of the office block.

Signal Point (its name) has survived its own demolition proposal.

A pity they didn't keep the 4-track section with the South platform - looks like there was space even with the tower block.

OTC
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4050


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2020, 10:41:28 pm »

A pity they didn't keep the 4-track section with the South platform - looks like there was space even with the tower block.

There is an access road between the tower and the new platform which I think is deemed essential as such a large area must have more than one access. 
Logged
onthecushions
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 894


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2020, 05:31:55 pm »


Of course.

An extra, rear access road must always have precedence over a main railway line.

OTC
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 34941



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2020, 05:46:29 pm »


Of course.

An extra, rear access road must always have precedence over a main railway line.

OTC

Yes, still that sort of thing.  Billions for a tunnel under Stonehenge approved today against planning advise, and still a single track with just a few loops on The Mule, with electrification expired before Chippenham and even before the end of the outer suburban Service on the Berks and Hants.

How will the tunnel be when measured against climate targets?
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 34941



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: July 30, 2021, 07:16:33 pm »


Of course.

An extra, rear access road must always have precedence over a main railway line.

OTC

Yes, still that sort of thing.  Billions for a tunnel under Stonehenge approved today against planning advise, and still a single track with just a few loops on The Mule, with electrification expired before Chippenham and even before the end of the outer suburban Service on the Berks and Hants.

How will the tunnel be when measured against climate targets?

All is not certain - Stonehenge tunnel campaigners win court battle at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-58024139
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7462


GBR - The Emperor's New Rail Network


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2021, 09:13:50 pm »


Of course.

An extra, rear access road must always have precedence over a main railway line.

OTC

Yes, still that sort of thing.  Billions for a tunnel under Stonehenge approved today against planning advise, and still a single track with just a few loops on The Mule, with electrification expired before Chippenham and even before the end of the outer suburban Service on the Berks and Hants.

How will the tunnel be when measured against climate targets?

All is not certain - Stonehenge tunnel campaigners win court battle at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-58024139

My personal view is that we may look back on this judgment as a pivotal moment in UK (United Kingdom) transport and transport planning history.
Logged

I have been watching The Damned United, which is a lesson relevant for today.
Southernman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 110


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2021, 11:32:11 pm »

Doing nothing is not an option! Most of us have sat in a polluting queue for an hour or so on so many occasions. How inefficient, frustrating and environmentally damaging.

What are the alternatives? Even electric cars will run out of power and their drivers will continue to blow their tops if the situation continues.

Lovely to think that public transport will sort the issues but unlikely in my lifetime!

Another British example of inquiries, planning and considering followed by more inquiries and now....

Logged
Reading General
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 385


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2021, 08:06:36 am »

Could double the track from Salisbury to Exeter and reopen a few more of the stations.  Run passenger trains along the branch to Ludgershall. I think we are passed this moving traffic is better for the environment than queuing traffic argument. We are at the point where zero is the aim not slightly less. What are the start and end point of most journeys along that stretch? How can that be replaced with something more sustainable? Are we likely to simply put more cars on the road by making the road faster? The bottleneck will appear somewhere else no doubt.
Logged
Bob_Blakey
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 598


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2021, 11:24:34 am »

Having been a passenger in a car passing Stonehenge on the A303 countless times I formed the opinion ages ago that the repeated tailbacks were almost entirely due to drivers 'rubber necking' the ancient monument rather than concentrating on the road ahead.

(Last summer we encountered a driver (not a passenger) who momentarily stopped their vehicle to get a mobile phone picture of the aforementioned Stone Age Lego set.)

Just now both the Highways England & Google Maps (with 'Traffic' enabled) websites show slow/stopped traffic on both approaches to Stonehenge and 'green' traffic flows once past the site.

With this in mind I believe a reasonably wide and tall stand of trees / shrubs would have the same effect as a tunnel at a fraction of the cost. Actually I would prefer a suitable wooden fence but, given the recent experience of Liverpool, reckon the folks at UNESCO might take umbrage.

Logged
Reading General
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 385


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2021, 11:54:41 am »

You could even trial that to find out the impact on the site.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page