Talk:Paisley and Barrhead District Railway

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK / in Scotland 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 Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

updated webpage

I've found some new photos for the webpage if anyone's interested (mainly on page 3).

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/paisley/railpage/pbdr.htm

--Eric144 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Station articles

What are people's thoughts on station articles for this line? The problem is that there is very little information available on any of the stations, for example there are no opening or closing dates since neither happened. We might be able to get a site photo, and some co-ordinates, but realistically there is never going to be any more information beyond that.

So the question is: is it worth making articles for each 'non-station' on this line? My answer would probably be no to be honest. --Dreamer84 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. There might be sufficient info to talk about goods traffic. Could possibly make one out of the Linwood branch (Pressed Steel), but there did not appear to be a passenger station associated with this one.Pyrotec 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - I suggest that redirect pages are created from station pages to the line article. This would ensure that in the event that a search for a station is made, it would send the searcher to the line article. It would probably be best to include the Linwood (Pressed Steel) information in the main article. --Stewart^(talk) 05:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have set up the station pages as redirects, and removed the links on this article (and the route template). --Dreamer84 09:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the links should remain as I can provide current photographs of the locations which is no more than exists for the Potterhill and Paisley West stations on the Barrhead Branch. I do understand the argument that something that never opened and never closed had no history !!! However the Glenfield station was rented out as a house which is about as interesting as a railway station ever gets (imo). Source CJ Gammell.

Is it possible to post historical photographs which I permission to show on my website in Wikipedia ? If not I can provide links to Ferguslie, Paisley East and Glenfield.

Here is a link to the location of Dykebar Station. Notice other features including what appears to be a siding and a railway bridge in the midddle of a field. Railscot mentions 'Hawkhead Sidings" - this is very close to Hawkhead Road.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sealed/paisley/dykebarstationgoogle.JPG

cheers

--Eric144 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While photos are good, we can't have articles that have nothing but photos in them. Any snippets of information about the stations could easily go on this page, along with photos of the stations (or links to photos of the station). --Dreamer84 12:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the location of disappeared stations is interesting as are the routes, bridges etc that made the landscape of that area of Paisley quite different from what it was today. My argument is simply that as much is known about the PBDR stations as the Barrhead branch ones and they have pages of their own. Paisley East station was demolished in 1932 and Dykebar in the early 1970s. I am more than happy to add links to the photos on the main page if that is the consensus view.

There was obviously a lot of railway related activity on that east branch from anecdotal evidence (e.g. Jenny's Well laundry sidings as well as the Hawkhead sidings) but I wouldn't class it as Wikipedia material. At least not on a page in which people obviously have an interest in strict accuracy.

cheers

--Eric144 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxbar

Does anyone have any concrete knowledge there was a station at Foxbar, Paisley apart from the reference to it on Railscot. Ewan Crawford didn't reply to my email on this. I haven't been able find anyone locally who has heard of it. Also, neither Alisdair Wham or CJ Gammell mention it.

cheers

Eric

--Eric144 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Dec 1979 article by Stewart M Little, In Scottish Transport, Vol. 33, states that (on that branch) stations were built at Ferguslie, Stanley, Glenfield and Barrhead (New) and (South), but they never issued a passenger ticket.Pyrotec 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jowett showns a junction and a short branch in the Foxbar area, could this be the elusive Foxbar. --Stewart^(talk) 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies.

There were sidings at the brick works at Fulbar Road, Chain Road Goods Yard and Meikleriggs Goods Yard, all of which might be described as the Foxbar area, so you might well be right. It is very possible that Stanely station could have been confused with a Foxbar station. It is worth noting that Railscot doesn't mention Dykebar station so the information about the PBDR couldn't have come from am impeccable source. I have a mind to remove Foxbar station from the text as I already have from my own page.

best wishes

--Eric144 09:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it might be another Fairie (Low), station names getting confused etc. I'm always hesistant to list Railscot as a sole source for anything: although its a great website with lots of info, there are the odd errors here and there. No better or worse than some published sources I suppose though (I'm looking at you Stenlake Publishing!). --Dreamer84 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connection at arkleston

Railscot says the connection was never completed, however this 1923 map (from Paisley wikipedia page) clearly shows that it was. We don't know which is correct so I was going to incporate both versions. What do you think ?

- Station is the black square in the centre above Glasgow Road (yellow)

cheers

Eric

--Eric144 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seedhillbridge.jpg

Image:Seedhillbridge.jpg 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 insure 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) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]