Talk:Worcester (North) Parkway railway station

Name

I think that this page should be renamed 'Fernhill Heath Railway Station'. I think this could allow information to be given of the former railway station as well as detailing potential future re-opening of the railway station. It should be noted that the proposed railway halt would likely be built on the former site of the Fernhill Heath station (where a footbridge is still in place) so this is accurate and acceptable to make it all part of the same article. It is also extremely unlikely that it would ever be referred to as Worcester (north) Parkway. The site would be unacceptable for a modern parkway proposal (Network Rail look at 500 car park spaces as a minimum). It would be more likely that the station would be a rail halt and would be designed to increase the sustainability of Fernhill Heath which currently experiences high traffic levels on the A38 and commuting into Worcester, Droitwich and the M5 (Junction 6).

Please add your views to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achilles85 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Wiki article has to be based on reliable sources, not personal opinion. You may prefer the station to be a halt for locals with no parking, but all sources about a proposed station indicate that it would be a parkway station - indeed, with the same "Worcester (North) Parkway". The likely location of the station is a few hundred yards south of the ex-Fernhill Heath station, in the fields adjacent to the A449 Worcester Ring Road, where a large car park would be built. In order for cars to be taken off the A449, A38 and M5, it would need to be a parkway anyway.

Regards, Btline (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I also feel that the article probably expresses too much speculation (see tags), and personal preferences for a new station. Getting the time frames right ('this decade'), and providing information on who is proposing and who is resisting the new station, and some reliable info on where it is likely to be, are more important at this stage than what name it might have. Otherwise, the whole article is possibly as speculative as an article in a local newspaper, and therefore might not not yet be notable enough for a mention in an encyclopedia.
If anyone feels strongly about the name of this article itself, they can always suggest renaming it to one or the other, leaving a redirect for the other name. Personally, I would suggest calling it Fernhill Heath, but I'm not sure from this or any other articles if we a re talking about a new Fernhill Heath station or the new proposed station to replace Worcester Shrub Hill.--Kudpung (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Fernall Heath is a completely separate station and it would be inappropriate to rename the article as such. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article as when I wrote it, only included details from reliable sources. I have just corrected and removed other speculation. The article does warrant an article, as the proposals appear in Network Rail documents regularly, as well as in the local press. If someone wants to do research about Fernhill Heath rail station, then I would create a separate article, as the new station will be several hundred yards south of the old station. The name of the article should therefore not be Fernhill Heath but the name mentioned in countless sources. The current name also keeps consistancy with other station articles, most notably, Worcester (Norton) Parkway. Regards, Btline (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I didn't annoy people by suggesting that the article should be renamed. I am very impressed that so many people have contributed to the discussion! I should point out that my comments were not a personal opinion, I don't live in Fernhill Heath and wouldn't use the station so I wouldn't have a preference what type of station was built. I agree with many of the points raised, though I still think it would be more suitable to call the article 'Fernhill Heath Railway Station', a seperate section could be added at the bottom stating that a future station may be built although the site hasn't been determined. But I'm not being critical, I think the current article is well written and I don't want to be the person to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achilles85 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion, and everyone has raised salient points, and Jenuk is probably right. I'll try and get some local info in Worcester when I am there, but this article does need regular follow up from railway fans who are close to offical sources for any new developments.--Kudpung (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

I've removed on of the two very large, almost identical tags. A reader probably only needs reminding once that a page is likely to be out of date ;) --Kudpung (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently discussion about a new train station for Worcester has been sporadically attempted for over 20 years, and according to my most recent web searches, it is still no closer to becoming a reality.. After waiting 8 months for some further development on this page,n the only thing that has happened is that except for a 5 year old newspaper report, all the other existing references are now dead. Maybe along with that, the Wikipedia speculation is also dead, and along with it, this article ;) A--Kudpung (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the dead links is a fairly recent NWM transport strategy, which has the station still as proposed. Btline (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the axiom Verifiability not truth, then so is the article dead; and if not a direct candidate for an AfD, then at least a PROD.--Kudpung (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)