Category talk:Unbuilt railway stations in the United Kingdom

This category is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles

Trains: Stations / in UK / By country series

Trains Portal

This category 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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This category is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This category is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.
	This category is supported by the By country series task force.

Name

Is "never constructed railway stations" the best name for this category given that the reference to Lullingstone implies that it will also cover constructed but never opened stations? What about "never opened railway stations" or "abandoned proposed railway stations"? Lamberhurst (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even two different categories - one for never constructed and one for constructed but never opened - I have at least 19 which could go in the latter. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for "Abandoned proposed railway stations", with the caveat that such a category could get out of hand. How many times was it proposed to resite Oxford station on the bypass - mainly for park-and-ride purposes (nothing to do with Water Eaton Parkway) - this was London commuters. We need some definition of what counts for inclusion. Where is the cut-off? Do we include or exclude those with a planning application granted but without any construction occurring? If include, do we also include those which failed at the planning permission stage; then there are those that didn't even get a planning application, usually only being reported in local newspapers (Headline: New station to serve housing estate) but not in the railway press. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Croughton, Kidner & Young's work on private stations, a distinction needs to be made between (1) "stations for which sites were selected but which did not get built" (of which there are "hundreds"), (2) those "which never got beyond the deposited plans", (3) those that were half built or had station hotels built in anticipation, and (4) those which were completed. There could be a case for taking only (3) and (4), plus those from (2) which appeared on official timetables or RCH maps. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be

Croughton, Godfrey; Kidner, R.W.; Young, Alan (1982). Private and Untimetabled Railway Stations. Trowbridge: Oakwood Press. ISBN 0 85361 281 1.

I say yes to 4, tentative yes to 3, but no to 2 (2 could include railway lines which were never built, you see). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - page 16 if you have a copy. So would you exclude for example Llangurig or would you put it in the "never constructed" category - assuming that we're going to have two different categories? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No passenger trains, one goods train. Um. I shall leave that one alone, and leave others to decide.

Should we perhaps first ensure that all stations that are verified to have had a service (pass or gds) have articles, before turning to more obscure matters? At some point, someone is going to shout WP:NOTABILITY - but of course, some (like North End tube station) already meet that. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Perhaps Llangurig makes the case for (2); I think notability could be proved by solid refs. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions would be "Partly constructed but never opened stations" or "Uncompleted stations". However it could rule out Bushey Heath because work never actually started on it and Elstree where the land was cleared ready to start but not a brick was laid for it. The criteria to be the construction work had actually started on the station concerned. steamybrian2

Text moved from category page

I have removed the following from the category page; text like this really belongs on the Talk page of the articles concerned, but there aren't any, so I've placed it here instead:

"Never constructed (or opened) Add- Lullingstone (Kent) Built in 1939 but never opened. Subsequently demolished Add- Swithland- (see Swithland Sidings entry on Great Central) Railway. Work was started, tracks were realigned. land levelled, entrance stairs constructed but work was then abandoned circa 1900." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steamybrian2 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 22 November 2009

That could also do with a signature, so I've put a suitable one after it. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this page

It was discussed 11 years ago about renaming this page to a different title such as "Partly constructed unopened stations" "or "Stations built but never opened". Any further thoughts.? Steamybrian2 (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]