Talk:Rotherham Central railway station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. |
From the text:
- In order to provide a more convenient service, a link line was constructed from the Midland Line from Sheffield south west of Rotherham Masborough to the Great Central south of Rotherham Central, and a brand new Rotherham Central station was opened in 1986.
Thus, this Rotherham Central and the original Rotherham Central are different stations, at different locations, so it would not be correct English to suggest that it was "re-opened" given it was new and was not open previously. 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- The current Rotherham Central station is a new build station built on the site of the previous one. It is the same station reopened. None of the former buldings were reused but the station is the reopening of the old one. Captain scarlet 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the article isn't entirely clear about that fact, with references of things being built to the south and southwest (and if it's got me confused, then it's probably got a few others confused too). I'll look further into it to see what I can see. In the meantime, I'd ask that you remain civil, and not insult fellow users with your edit summaries. 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I remain civil and usually sign my comments with a regards, wich i believe is a sign of civility. the difficult thing is that unsigned edits are nothing and cannot be replied to knowing who or what will answer in there place. Please keep your advice to yourself and consider your past actions before judgin others. the article is well documented and sourced. Regards, Captain scarlet 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- They are not unsigned. You see that lovely timestamp on the end? That's the signature. I still can't see how you can accuse me of being uncivil, when you have no fewer than three times tried to discredit my opinions purely on the basis that I am editing from an IP address, without making any attempt to actually respond to the points elsewhere (though I admit I might be wrong about this one). There's a world of difference between dismissal and response. 81.104.165.184 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- so you're telling me that I am uncivil because I dissagree with you ? Get over yourself ! I'm a not dismissing your comments as I am taking time to answer and giving you a correct answer, you'r egoing back to your square one at everyone of your edits. and leaving the timestampa lone still don't tell who the hck you are and I find it extremely frustrating if not unproductive to speak to a wall. I wouldn't be taking time to edit articles if i wasn't sure of facts, there enogh badly composed articles on wikipedia not to knowingly add some more, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm staring at the bok now and I can assure you that data on this article is correct and accurate. I wil leven go on location, disturbing my driving pattern to work and take photographs for you as gesture of my good will. egards, Captain scarlet 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, I'm saying you're being uncivil because you've responded to almost every comment with tone to the effect of "That's rubbish, you're not even logged in, what do you know!?". You've reverted just about every good edit I've made in the last few hours for no apparent reason other than the fact that I'm not logged in, and that maybe it's changing one of your edits. If there are any other reasons, you're not communicating them effectively. Still, thank you for taking the time to check the facts in this article, it does seem that I did misread it. I'll see if I can make the paragraph about the closure and reopening a little less ambiguous about what went where and when. Now, can I at least get this page back into thread order? :) 81.104.165.184 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- so you're telling me that I am uncivil because I dissagree with you ? Get over yourself ! I'm a not dismissing your comments as I am taking time to answer and giving you a correct answer, you'r egoing back to your square one at everyone of your edits. and leaving the timestampa lone still don't tell who the hck you are and I find it extremely frustrating if not unproductive to speak to a wall. I wouldn't be taking time to edit articles if i wasn't sure of facts, there enogh badly composed articles on wikipedia not to knowingly add some more, I'm sure you'll agree. I'm staring at the bok now and I can assure you that data on this article is correct and accurate. I wil leven go on location, disturbing my driving pattern to work and take photographs for you as gesture of my good will. egards, Captain scarlet 23:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- They are not unsigned. You see that lovely timestamp on the end? That's the signature. I still can't see how you can accuse me of being uncivil, when you have no fewer than three times tried to discredit my opinions purely on the basis that I am editing from an IP address, without making any attempt to actually respond to the points elsewhere (though I admit I might be wrong about this one). There's a world of difference between dismissal and response. 81.104.165.184 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I remain civil and usually sign my comments with a regards, wich i believe is a sign of civility. the difficult thing is that unsigned edits are nothing and cannot be replied to knowing who or what will answer in there place. Please keep your advice to yourself and consider your past actions before judgin others. the article is well documented and sourced. Regards, Captain scarlet 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the article isn't entirely clear about that fact, with references of things being built to the south and southwest (and if it's got me confused, then it's probably got a few others confused too). I'll look further into it to see what I can see. In the meantime, I'd ask that you remain civil, and not insult fellow users with your edit summaries. 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting discussion! I should point out that the current Rotherham central is just a couple of hundred metres north of the original one and the platforms of the old one overlap slightly with the new alignment (although nothing from the old station was left to re-use when the new station was built). Therefore they are the same station.BaseTurnComplete 10:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Rotherham central is served with a very limited amount of service. Why cant all passenger trains (except maybe HST's) pass through Rotherham central to open it up? Ledgero2 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Proably because Rotherham Central is a complete waste of time and trains be rerouted bia Masbrough which is on a main line, has 5 platforms... Central is on a rather pityful branchline, is a terrible bottleneck, and is only useful is services via Centertainment were resumed. Rotherham is not on the national network but on the regional one, regional trains stop there to provide corresponding service to large stations such as Sheffield and Doncaster, for national destinations. Captain scarlet 17:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
but surely the lines could be updated, to make it more accessible. or they could rebuild Masboro station to open Rotherham up Ledgero2 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- SYPTE is aware of the problem. Basically Central was only built with the local stopping service in mind, so its platforms are very short (4 coaches) and the Holmes chord that connects southbound trains with the Midland line into Sheffield is a single line so can only have 3 trains per hour in each direction. SYPTE wants to extend the platforms for 6- or 8-coach trains and double the Holmes chord to relieve this. Whether they'll get the money to do it is anyone's guess, though. btw Masborough only ever had 4 platforms, the fifth line was a goods line to Masboro sidings.BaseTurnComplete 11:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- could have been especially useful since Rotherham Central is now closed as a result of recent flooding... Spike iron 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
