Talk:Havant New railway station

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

withdrawn, 23 November 2012 (UTC), see discussion.
keep, 5 April 2006 (UTC), see discussion.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article lacks references.

Hampshire

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anticipated deletion

This section copied from Talk:Denvilles railway station in anticipation of that station article being deleted

I would like to see some reference for this. The only Denvilles I can find on the map is half a mile outside Havant and is suspiciously close to Warblington railway station. -- RHaworth 09:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denvilles is above Warblington. The station was aproximately located where some new houses have just been built which is about half a mile north of where the Portsmouth direct line joins the west coastway line the southerner 13:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is too low res to be able to see any trace of a station. I still want to see some reference. That is some document, preferably on the web, that indicates that this station ever existed. -- RHaworth 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the station has been closed for over 60 years there is no trace of the station left except a ballast house. the southerner 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC) (Originally posted to User talk:RHaworth.)[reply]

What is a ballast house? How many times do I have to tell you? Solid evidence please. -- RHaworth 16:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a ballast house is where they keep the stones placed under tracks. they are now used for track marshalls when they are working on the track - hence they now have windows. there are plenty of them around and like i said there is one where denvilles station was. the southerner 10:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on the picture you can see a clearing where the station building and platform foundations still exist. some of them blue bricks are still around. the blue bricks were common on the also disused section of the metropolitan line near amersham so it could have been designed by the same architech the southerner 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What picture? I am getting a bit fed up of being told what you can see on the ground. Just find me three articles on the web that mention this station. (You name me any other closed English railway station and I will give you half a dozen links to it.) -- RHaworth 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This station does not exist according to a Railatlas (OPC 10th edition) and Quail (latest Southern Region edition). Quail lists ALL old stations. I ride the line frequently and there is nothing of interest in the marked area. Tubechallenger 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible signal boxes

Are there any level crossings in Denvilles needing a signal box to interlock it. All things considered, under the Block Telegraph system of safeworking, such a box would allow a train to advance closer to the junction at Havant from the previous station at Rowlands Castle railway station, which is quite a long way away.

Tabletop 23:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

Denvilles railway station existed between 1858 and 1859 only, though there are remains there to this day. That might explain the paucity of sources on the internet, though I've found one and added it..Vizjim 08:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

halt

i have moved the page to denvilles halt as it is not a permanant terminus and had only 1 platform. it shouldn't get deleted as it is a important peice of knoledge. the southerner 09:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added extras

In aticipation on sister article Woodcroft halt I will provide extra proof of this stations once existence as soon as I get permission to enter the tracks to take photographs of the remains. Lenny 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tidy and Additions

Having tidied up the article and removed some repetition, I found during the work that after all this hoo-ha the LBSCR opened a Denville station to the east of Havant. It was renamed Warblington within the year (do you think someone realised?). Warblington continues to serve the people of the area as of 2007. Britmax 10:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Battle of Havant?

In view of the difficulty we are having finding references to this station, and the probability that it is only notable in the context of the Battle of Havant, I am considering moving the article to one with the title "Battle of Havant" and changing the emphasis accordingly. I would appreciate any thoughts anyone might have on this idea. Thanks. Britmax 11:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO! This article is olely about the station, not the battle, duh! Unisouth 14:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Location of disused halts on the portsmouth direct line.png

Image:Location of disused halts on the portsmouth direct line.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Existence?

I can't find a reference to this station in any of the "standard" works (Butt/Clinker/Quick/Croughton & others). Neither is it mentioned in Turner's books on the LBSCR. Whilst the Battle of Havant did take place and passengers were obliged to be transported by bus, this does not make the stopping place a "station". Unless a solid reference is found, this article should be merged into the LSWR article. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section in the Havant railway station article about the Battle of Havant, and I woould suggest that this information go there if anywhere. I say if anywhere because if you look further up the discussion page you will find that this is not a new issue and evidence that this station existed is at least very hard to find. It is as you say not in any of the established sources. Britmax (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; either there or the Portsmouth Direct Line. At best, the platforms were "temporary". Another thing- the reference to passengers travelling by bus to Hilsea is plain wrong as it didn't open until 1937. This means that File:DENVILLES NAME BOARD2.PNG is most likely from Warblington. Does anyone have Williams's books on the LSWR? Lamberhurst (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this "Denvilles" in any of:

Dendy Marshall, C.F.; Kidner, R.W. (1963) [1937]. History of the Southern Railway (2nd ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 101. ISBN 0-7110-0059-X.
Pallant, N. (1980). The Brighton to Portsmouth Line. Locomotion Papers. Salisbury: Oakwood Press. pp. 16–17. ISBN 0-85361-279-X. LP133.
Williams, R.A. (1968). The London & South Western Railway, volume 1: The Formative Years. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. pp. 145–6. ISBN 0-7153-4188-X.

although all three describe the removal of rails at the junction. There is implication in Williams that the "battle" has been inflated by those writing long after the event.

Of the four sources in the article, the "Map sources" one is useless since it provides a number of links for geographical coordinates, not to a specific map which depicts this particular station. Two others do not use the word "Denvilles" at all, whilst the Bygone Havant one does - once. It states:

The L.S.W.R. did, however, start a service from London but passengers had to alight at a temporary platform which was erected in Denvilles. They were then taken to Cosham by horse-drawn omnibus, for a fare of 6d., where they caught another L.S.W.R. train into Portsmouth;

It will be seen that this contradicts text in this article - namely the two sentences

Passengers would travel from Denvilles in a horse drawn omnibus to Hilsea, just south of the problem area. The passengers could then carry on into Portsmouth by train.

Then there is the sentence

After two years the companies came to an agreement and the L&SWR were allowed access to the disputed line.

Those sources which give dates (the three books, also Buriton Heritage Bank and Bygone Havant) agree that the LSWR goods train attempt was 28 December 1858, and that passenger trains began running through on 24 January 1859. That's four weeks, and not two years as claimed. Then there's the difference in stations - Hilsea or Cosham? There's a lot wrong with this article. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the only one actually used as an inline source ("Information Sheet No. 9: The Coming of the Railway". Buriton Heritage Bank. August 2001. Retrieved 2012-02-20.), states right at the top "Can you add or correct anything in these notes?" which suggests that it's WP:USERGENERATED. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested some time ago that even if this station existed it was so temporary that a footnote in the Battle of Havant article would cover it. This idea was shot down but I still feel it has some merit. Britmax (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely conclude from the above that this station did not exist. The single Bygone Havant source (now offline) is not enough. The station should now go the same way as Tarbrax and the page should be redirected to Warblington. The old deletion review (now linked above) confused the issue of the station's existence with that of the "Battle" of Havant which is documented. I would agree with Britmax that mention of the "battle" should briefly be made either in Havant or Portsmouth Direct Line. Shall I start the ball rolling? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant to both, but properly belongs on Portsmouth Direct Line I think. A brief mention at Havant directing readers to Portsmouth Direct Line would not be out of order. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

Dewick, Tony (2002). Complete Atlas of Railway Station Names. Ian Allen. ISBN 0-7110-2798-6.
Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M.

Just to put the cat among the pigeons, Tony Dewick's atlas shows a closed (before 1 January 1901) station near Havant Junction on the Rowlands Castle line, but called HAVANT NEW. It also lists DENVILLE HALT (N.B. without the S) as an alternative name for Warblington. According to the colour convention of the text in that book, the name is shown in black indicating it was in use into the 20th century. Butt lists Havant New as opened 1 Jan 1859, closed 24 Jan 1859, therefore I suspect this is the station this article refers to. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butt does list it, and the asterisk next to the entry refers to a station that does not appear in Jowett but appears in Wignall's British Railways Maps and Gazetteer 1825 - 1985 edition 1985 (OPC). So if anyone has one... Britmax (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Havant New" is also the name shown (with 1859 opening & closing dates) in Colonel Cobb's atlas (Cobb, Michael (2006). The Railways of Great Britain - A Historical Atlas. Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-3236-X.). - David Biddulph (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groan. Yes, this appears to be "Havant New", {{Quick-Stations}} confirms what has been mentioned above and adds in the details re the omnibus for passengers. Unless there are any objections, I'll propose the closure of the deletion request and move this article to Havant New. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Butt and didn't think of looking there either, so don't worry. No objections here. Britmax (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for bringing this to a happy conclusion, particularly Optimist. It would probably be a good idea in the future to run potential deletions by the project page before actually nominating them! Lamberhurst (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]