Talk:List of closed railway stations in Britain

Listing by town or station name?

The title says it all really.

We currently have different styles, for example:
Kemptown (Brighton)
Aberdeen Ferryhill

The latter is easier to find, but the former is the station's actual name.

Personally I'd suggest the latter, always giving town name, is much more functional.

[Topic started by Kierant 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)]

I think that the latter is formed from that being the actual part of the station name, also with the former issues with it being located in a very rural area could be problematic. Maybe something along the lines of this:
Station name (County) Year of Closure
would be a more appropriate format? Stuey 182 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

An introduction to the page

Do people want to just have a list here, or would it be worth linking to pages about the various Railway Acts such as the so-called "Grouping" and "Beeching" Acts, to explain to readers why Britain is littered with closed stations? Kierant 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham Snow Hill / re-opening dispute

There appears to be a mild dispute regarding the inclusion of Birmingham Snow Hill station. The original station of this name did close, but there is now a station of the same name on roughly the same site. It would help if this page were better defined; a paragraph with links to Beeching et al, for example (see point above). Meanwhile, perhaps the page should be re-named, to something like List of railway station closures in Britain? Kierant 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are more than one station that were closed but have reopened, in the same location or very nearby. This list concerns stations that have closed which is what Snow Hill did, regardless of it being open now. There is afterall an article for Snow Hill with the relevant station. Other stations that have closed but reopened that I know of:

• Meadowhall and Wincobank (1947) now Meadowhall Interchange (1994)
• Rotherham Central (195something) now Rotherham Central (1988ish)

No one would contest keeping the above stations in the list as they are closed, and now reopened. There is in brackets the mention of the current status of Snow Hill. Captain scarlet 16:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My main point is that's it's mildly ambiguous exactly what this list IS for; hence the (unanswered) point above which I made a while ago. As to the inclusion of re-opened stations, It looks like somebody (the user Mucky Duck, and possibly also somebody at 81.104.165.184, see the page history) does in fact contest keeping such stations in the list - that's what started this discussion. Kierant 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't contest anything of the sort! I've never (knowingly, anyway) removed anything from this list - All I've done is add a couple to it. Mucky Duck 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Blimey, apologies MuckyDuck, I'm going to have no more to do with this today as I seem to be getting garbled results from Wikipedia. Hopefully whoever it was at 81.104.165.184 (if that's correct) will have something to say. Kierant 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're forgiven. ;-) Mucky Duck 16:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the list is "List of closed stations" and not "List of station closures", it makes sense that this should be for stations that were closed and are not now open (we have Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom and its constituent lists for that), and not for every station that happened to be closed and since reopened (I imagine this list would be considerably longer, and rather less meaningful), unless the list is arranged differently e.g. grouped by closure rather than alphabetically. As examples go, I can think of more that have closed and since reopened, and still currently open, than can be counted in decimal on two hands, and my knowledge of the subject is somewhat limited, so I imagine there are a good many more. 81.104.165.184 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. On closer examination, it seems the new Rotherham Central is not the same Rotherham Central as was closed in 1966. 18:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll remove every single station that has reopened then... Ridiculous, especially from un unregistered editor. Captain scarlet 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it not seem just as useful to put a section on the page of the new station giving the history of the station under the previous name, like I've personally done with Heswall railway station by using the # tag? {Stuey 182 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps the best way to go would be a List of reopened stations in Britain, etither as a separate article or as a section on this one? Thryduulf 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, and done. Captain scarlet 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: (edited whilst I was reading) The closed article is sufficient, and dosn't warrant yet another article, it this article needs is good editing... Captain scarlet 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

... and therein you demonstrate the highest ignorance. This "unregistered editor" happens to have more history than you know. In the meantime, WP:NPA, please. 81.104.165.184 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

and that clearly means you know more on the subject that anyone else... two letter edits only up your edit count, not your stature Captain scarlet 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:LEGS. The words "book" and "cover" come to mind. I will ask once more that you don't judge other editors by what you mistakenly believe to be their entire contribution history. Further sniping based on what you perceive to be my history does not magically make it true. Since you evidently missed it the first time, I'll use a larger font this time: WP:NPA. None of us are perfect, yourself included. 81.104.165.184 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to make your comments are added to conversation they belong to, this seems slightly off topic. I can't say I've missed anything from unidentified editors in this discussion page or the attached article other than inflammatory comments, inappropriate comments and unfounded edits. This article now clearly states what the station is and what happened. The Snow Hill article itself clearly shows the station's history, which is enough to understand the situation. Try and not include a 5-minute search of Wikipedia policies whilst actually breaching them. Whether you like or not, since you are not identified for a reason or another, your history are solely the edits that show in your history, any other IP is irrelevant since unless you own a static IP, anyone having the same ISP will one day or another have your IP. Try and think a few seconds before lessoning others and see how insignificant the edit your edit was and how ridiculous it is to actually bash each other for something so small. Bless the Internet and inflated egos. Regards, Captain scarlet 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Who's got the inflated ego here? I'm not in any way trying to say that I know more about anything than you do, merely that you shouldn't be so quick to assume the opposite. Jeez, keep it WP:COOL please? Oh, and I'm undoing your move of this comment, so now it really is in the strand it belongs in :-) Can we at least try and talk this out? I'm not convinced by your argument, but thhen that's probably because your entire argument thus far has been to attack me rather than tackling my actual point, namely that stations that are open should not be on a list of stations that are closed, otherwise we'd end up including around a third of the still-open stations on the network. All this means is that stations like Snow Hill and Crewe are out, and the original Rotherham Central (not to be confused with the new one, which is on a different site using different trackbed). 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• ahem* Last section should read "original Rotherham Central ... is in." 21:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of which station you're talking about, but the current Rotherham Station is on the same trackbed, and in the same location as the previous station, using different access points (Bridge St instead of Main St). The best thing to do is stick to editing article of things you know about. You don't see me editing the Penzance article... Since the article is verfied, I'd suggest thinking of what you've just said for a while. Using your logic, I ought to add St Pancras station which was closed on 9 april 2004 and relocated to the International site, but it's the same station in the same place with the same trains. Regards Captain scarlet 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved comments back to their place after the ones they're actually in reply to, again) I'm not following your interpretation of my logic here. The new bit of St. Pancras is an extension to the current station, in use while the main section is renovated and rebuilt, on precisely the same site, so it's not closed. In much the same way as Snow Hill is no longer closed, and whatever other station I was thinking of when I mistakenly added Crewe (still not sure why that's there, though). If Rotherham is on the same site, then the article probably needs to make this slightly clearer (and not confusing the fact with mentions of "new" constructions all around), and it can probably come off the list, since evidently it too is no longer closed, this being a list of closed stations, not open ones. I'm now somewhat uneasy having found that the original list was pretty much lifted strraight from Disused Stations (though in fairness it seems that the resulting articles are original). Before you move this again, remember that discussions on Wikipedia are threaded, and replies follow the comment they're replying to, not some crazy chronological order that not only breaks the flow of the discussion, but also distorts the conversation somewhat. 23:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Breaking your logic I've once again repasted this discussion in chronological order so that the last comment is at the bottom of the page. I'm going to actually look for your erronous comments as well as trying to convince you of your error. regards, Captain scarlet 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. As long as you at least stop breaking the talk page. The last comment does not go at the bottom, it goes underneath the comment it was in reply to. See WP:LEGS... was in reply to and that clearly means, so it, and the ensuing discussion does underneath it. Not, surprisingly enough, under Perhaps the best way... or (edited whilst I was reading)..., with which it is entirely unrelated. I am struggling to sustain my assumptions of good faith, since if I didn't know better, I'd say you were almost deliberately trying to misrepresent me and discredit my opinions. Of course, you're not doing that, are you? 81.104.165.184 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly playing the bullied card. I am here, talking to you and you are systematically vandalising a collection or articles with unfounded comments. You are on these articles clearly lowering the tone, and this is not your Wikipedia: If you don't want your writings to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I for myself have nothing to feel guilty about other than wasting my time with you. I have assumed good faith by spending time on this chat. I have long left the good faith motto behind since you have shown nothing more than immature behaviour of what would seem to be of a 10 year old discovering the joys of the Internet. There are others in this community who happen to not agree with you and who take time to verify the information they put into Wikipedia. One should not assume he or she is being prosecuted by the mere disagreement of others but listen and maybe realise the error of his or her previous opinion or judgement. Now this is the last comment on this page and is staying at the bottom. None of your edits make any sense whatsoever and you are not productively contributing to Wikipedia. God knows where this discussion other than feel free to edit while I actually take some sleep in view of tomorrow and be reverted the morning come. This is not your Wikipedia, edit with caution and consideration. Regards Captain scarlet 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)