Talk:Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations / 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 Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 17th July 2020. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by Snickers2686 (talk · contribs) on 27 January 2018 with the comment:
A page to solely list important railway stations with no notation of encyclopedic importance or sources
It was contested by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) on 2018-01-27 with the comment:
+ citation -tags &c.

On 15 August 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Special purpose UK railway stations to Special-purpose UK railway stations. The result of the discussion was moved to Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom.

Teesside Airport railway station

Should perhaps be added to the list? Teesside Airport railway station -Roxy the dog. bark 01:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teesside Airport is a Parliamentary train not a special service Richardh1976 (talk) 23:55 18 August 2020

Should this article be a list? Suggestion

I can't help but think that this article should be moved to List of railway stations built with a special purpose in the United Kingdom. As it stands, it is a standard article that seems to be close to WP:INDISCRIMINATE or perhaps WP:OR. The page title doesn't seem to have any notability. Derek Andrews (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this would be a List... article. I think the subject, whilst interesting, is open to interpretation: many stations have unique reasons why they were built, and their categorisation would be subjective. welsh (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather long title. It could be shorter, since we have Template:Special purpose UK stations, headed "Special-purpose UK railway stations", so this page could be at Special-purpose UK railway stations or even List of special-purpose UK railway stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specificity

Having withdrawn my nomination of this article for deletion, I'd like to try and improve it. My main point that led to the nomination was the definition of the list: "This is a list of UK railway stations that have been constructed or used for a special, notable or unusual purpose", which seems rather vague and subjective. Based on the AfD discussion, it seemed BlacknoseDace and Kj cheetham agreed, though felt the article on balance was worth keeping (and, in all honesty, I would have been sad for non-policy reasons to see it go). The discussion suggested that it would be possible to make the criteria clearer; I'm not sure what the definition should be, though (and I didn't want to simply copy-and-paste the suggestion made during the AfD without some sort of discussion).

Also pinging other discussion participants: Andrew Davidson, Timtrent. There was one other participant whom I have not pinged because I have already left them a separate message relating to this article on their user talk page, and I don't want to pester them; this is without any intended suggestion that someone who knows them better shouldn't ping them if they feel it would be appreciated. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, I recall one rail expert commented during the discussion about the fact that particular stations were for a particular purpose. But the actual purposes differed greatly. I suggest you distill that into a set of guidance bullets, such as (from memory)

Access only via private land
Access solely for special purposes
Only served a particular factory

You might enhance the article by stating which purpose a station is claiming. The project sounds like arcane fun Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, It does indeed sound fun! Thanks, that's a good suggestion. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, It seems to lend itself to a table, perhaps a sortable one, and should almost certainly include a column for a reference that shows why the station is part of the list membership Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Timtrent's list I would add

the trains do not appear in the public timetable, the service provided may be either or both of:
- a regular train making an additional stop, not generally advertised
- a special service run specifically to serve the station concerned

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, Thanks! I'll have a go at this when I have a moment, unless someone beats me to it. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking good. The presentation makes it easily understandable Fiddle Faddle 07:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, Thanks! Took me a while to make a start on it as real life got in the way; will hopefully copy things over to the table today or tomorrow. It's possible the categories need some small tweaking, and the majority will need citations adding (which I will look for). YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done moving the items. I'm not sure I've got all of the categorisation quite right, and I'm still unsure that the port stations ((Dover Western Docks, Folkestone Harbour, Newhaven Marine, Weymouth Quay) quite meet any of the criteria we decided on (I feel like, say, Ryde Pier Head might have a case to be added based on that, but I might be missing something). Anyway, at least every station now has a claim for why it's on the list: many sources need adding, I think, but I thought to minimise disruption it was best to get the big format-shift done before any research on that. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 19:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, Cracking job. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, that table order: why not put a full row above open and another above closed stations says what they are. Scope for doubt goes away. There are drawbacks when a station closes, but.....

I tried to do it but gave up! Fiddle Faddle 09:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, I like that idea, but according to Help:Tables, it's deprecated: Do not divide a table into sections by subheaders spanning several rows. Instead, an extra column can be made showing the content of these headers on each row, in a short form. That isn't a policy or guideline, though, and I can't find anywhere in say the MOS that repeats that claim, or explains why it's bad.

One option might be to create an "Open"/"Closed" column straight after the name; the "Still open" entries could then be changed to "n/a"? I think you can use multirow to create, effectively, "open" and "closed" sections, and the sorting function can cope with that. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, how... strange. The real world and WP often have good sense conflicts. A way, of course is to have two separate tables Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, Yes, indeed. I'll explore some options! :-) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, Beyond my skills, but a cell that changes to red if the station has a closing date, and green if it is open might fun. I can do it in a spreadsheet! Fiddle Faddle 14:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, So I'm not sure if you can do that sort of conditional formatting on wikitables (or, at least, if you can it's beyond my skills too!). But I've tried adding a multi-row column with green for open and red for closed, to see how that looks. As I've noted in the HTML comment, this does have the disadvantage that, whenever you add a new row, you have to remember to update the "rowspan" for the corresponding section. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, Tempate syntax can probably do it. Have a look at {{Source assess}} which appears to achieve it Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ampress Works Halt railway station

Was Ampress Works Halt railway station (on the Lymington Branch) a special service station, cant find much info on it other than the wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardh1976 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richardh1976, apologies; I thought I'd replied to this when I rearranged the page, but something went wrong. When I made the table, I based it almost entirely on what other Wikipedia articles said, which is why much of this is unsourced! But the article on Ampress Works Halt says, with a citation, that it never appeared in the public timetable, so that means it falls until the fifth criterion for inclusion in the list. Thanks for spotting it. :-) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 13:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denham Golf Club

Was Denham Golf Club railway station for users of the golf club only when it first opened, not sure on this one?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardh1976 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, access was from the public road, Slade Oak Lane - as it still is. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates:

This could get messy. If we aren't sure, so why not suggest candidates here?

Britannia Halt railway station looks borderlne but possible Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cornbrook tram stop on the Manchester Metrolink was from opening on the 5-12-99 until 3-9-05 was interchange only with no street access from the elevated platforms (except in emergency) however it now has full access (talk)

Are we including tram stops? YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 14:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, when is a railway a tram line? Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, how many grains of sand make a heap? (A fair point, though; I didn't have any opinion on the inclusion or otherwise of tram stops, just wanted to clarify. I'd be inclined to say anything on this map deserves inclusion if it meets the other criteria. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, If the line is long closed, of course, it may not appear on that map. Some narrow gauge lines may have that quality. I think one needs to construe the title broadly, and knew that the time may come to split some classes off Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, Sorry, yes, I realised that soon after sending it and hoped nobody would notice. ;-) I suppose I meant that for current lines, and something equivalent for old ones. (I suppose the rough standard is whether or not there's any physical infrastructure beyond a flag and maybe a shelter—i.e. excluding old tram stops that were the equivalent of today's bus stops.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newbury Racecourse looks like (from the wikipedia page) that it didn't appear in the timetable until 1912 was was for the racecourse only, cant find any other eveidence to back this up (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The station was originally not publically accessible, its only entrance was on the south side of the line, on the private road that runs along the northern perimeter of the racecourse. Another entrance on the opposite side of the line was added later, opening on to Hambridge Road, which is public. Until 1988, the station was only open on race days; since then, local trains have called hourly on weekdays. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Longcross railway station seems as if it was once special and is now unspecial Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
London Necropolis railway station A prime closed candidate Fiddle Faddle 12:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Associated with that were the two stations within Brookwood Cemetery. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The staff platform at Northumberland Park Depot would seem to count (accessed via "secret trains" from Seven Sisters). Though it's not currently described on Wikipedia and I can't find any RS, so it may be difficult to include: the best I can do is the London Reconnections blog for evidence that it exists. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many depots have a staff platform. I don't think we should include these. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heysham Port railway station, would this be classed as a special service, it only operates once a day in connection with the Isle Of Man Steam Packet sailings to Douglas. Richardh1976 (talk) 23:05 17 August 2020

I'd tend to say "no", admittedly without reference to sources. It's a rare service, but it's definitely included in the public timetable (this is WP:OR, but I've seen regular trains in Leeds station advertised as going to Heysham, and it's mentioned on, e.g., p10 of the pre-COVID timetable; service seems to have been suspended for the time being), and doesn't appear to be on or surrounded by private land. It's also accessible to the non-sailing public: granted, the road serving it is pretty inhospitable, but so is the one serving Teesside Airport, and at the AfD it was convincingly argued that that wasn't special-purpose. Indeed, I think there's a marginally stronger case that Teesside would count for one of the criteria, based on the fact that the only access road is signed as not a public highway, but we're very much into WP:OR territory here. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 23:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Riverside^[1] I believe this station was only built to serve the trans atlantic liners going from the Landing stage Richardh1976 (talk) 00:08 30 August 2020
Several ports, not just Liverpool, had special stations close to one or more of the quays used by the more important passenger and mail ships. In many cases the trains were only run to meet the ships, but sometimes either the quays were close enough together or the ships were frequent enough, or the station was also close to the town centre, so that they could justify a regular rail service, as with New Holland Pier, Southampton Terminus and Tilbury Riverside. Have a look at this junction diagram to see the large number of stations within Liverpool. Even if you ignore the black-and-white dashed lines (Mersey Docks lines), there are still well over a dozen stations along the docks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ryde Pier Head railway station if only serves as an interchange between the island line and the Wightlink Ferry terminal, any rail passengers not using the ferry would use Esplanade or St John's Road stations, therefor only serves one venue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardh1976 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same at all. Not only is this station served by every single train on the line, it may be reached on foot from Ryde town centre by walking along the promenade pier; it's possible to drive a car most of the way along the promenade pier and park near Ryde Pier Pavilion. A few seconds is all it takes to walk from there to Pier Head station. A lot of people walk out along the prom pier and take the train back. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kensington (Olympia) station, but only the then London Transort part. It used to service the Olympia exhbition centre but only during exhibitions. I think it is now ageneral station in the tube network Fiddle Faddle 11:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It always had general access, since to get from the station to Olympia you need to cross a public road on the level. So it wasn't dedicated to the venue. For a number of years, the District line service was only run when exhibitions were being held at Olympia; the Underground diagram showed the branch in dashed (instead of solid) green accordingly. Besides the District line, the station is on a local line connecting Clapham Junction with Willesden Junction, the service over which has varied considerably over the years, and for a few decades was completely absent, although in the 1990s there were long-distance trains between the south coast and north of England using the route which called at Kensington (Olympia). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64, This is why I started the candidates section! I was close, but not close enough! Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wadsley Bridge railway station, Lost its regular service in 1959 but continued to be served by football specials until 1996? due to be being near the Sheffield Wednesday F.C. ground at Hillsbrough ^[2]^[3]^[4] (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 January 2021
Muirton railway station It primarily served St Johnstone FC's football ground and was only served on match days (talk • contribs) 21:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Melton Halt railway station ^[5] was built for workers of the Humber Cement Works but not sure if the was access to if for the general public (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References for candidates

References

Requested move 15 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom per consensus. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special purpose UK railway stations → Special-purpose UK railway stations – The relevant template and the lead of the article both use "special-purpose", hyphenated, which I think is more correct. (Disclaimer: I most-recently revised the lead, but I think it was hyphenated before.) The book that was mentioned at the AfD also hyphenates it. I'd advocate that this article should be moved to match. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 15:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have no issue with your making a WP:BOLD move of both. There is no scope for confusion. I am content with either title. If you feel the need to build consensus for this first no-one will argue with the consensus building process. Fiddle Faddle 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ah, it seems I have to support it there in a few moments! Fiddle Faddle 15:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)~~ Not so. That links back to here! Who knew? Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC):::[reply]

This whole process is confusing—and, indeed, I regret opening it, when I could have just started an informal discussion on here, because it seems I now have to wait seven days for an uninvolved person to close it. :-/ Though I suppose that gives the other people commenting on here chance to object. I guess I'll just have to live with the annoying lack of hyphen a while longer! YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 21:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Special-purpose railway stations in the United Kingdom would be a better title, and would match the naming structure of the page's category (Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lugnuts' alternative proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inclined to agree that Lugnuts' proposal is better than mine. Tbh, I'd support any proposal in which "special-purpose" is hyphenated. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 23:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The list of candidates

Is there a chance that someone who understands far more than I do can start to move the good ones to the table and mark then as {{done}}, and maybe mark thse declined with {{not done}}, please? Ideally citations are required to prove that they are members of the list. Fiddle Faddle 12:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, might not have chance before the weekend but I'll have a go then if nobody's beaten me to it. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YorkshireLad, there is no deadline. I could do it, but I'm not a railway buff so could easily make incorrect assumptions Fiddle Faddle 11:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/liverpool_riverside/index.shtml

[2] ttp://www.disused-stations.org.uk/w/wadsley_bridge/

[3] ttps://www.sheffieldhistory.co.uk/forums/topic/16872-wadsley-bridge-railway-station-then-now/

[4] ttps://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/267952-wadsley-bridge-railway-station/

[5] ttp://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/melton_halt/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]