Talk:Birmingham New Street railway station

Naming

Discussion moved from User talk: G-Man

Under naming policy, this should be at its most common name, i.e. Birmingham New Street. This also applies to London Euston, Manchester Picadilly etc. Also, if a station's name is duplicated by something else, it should be capitalised because it refers to a specific station, e.g. Derby Station, not Derby station. I appreciate the work you've done on the list of British railway stations, it still needs tidying. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Birmingham New Street is also the name of a major street in Birmingham. So removing the "station" may well be a recipe for confusion, especially amongst Brummies. Likewise Manchester Piccadilly may be confused with the Piccadilly area of central Manchester, so I dont think removing the "station" is very wise their either. G-Man 19:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

er, no. The name of the street in Birmingham is "New Street", and an article on it would be entitled New Street, Birmingham to distinguish it from other New Streets. Likewise Picadilly deserves its own article, but not as. Anyway, now you've really screwed it up by turning Birmingham New Street into an article on New Street, Birmingham. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You claim that "Birmingham New Street" is the common name: Do you have any proof of this?, I would say that "New Street Station" is just as common, that is certainly how brummies refer to it. Besides Birmingham New Street station is a station so leaving the "station" off the end is quite patently daft. I dont know why you have suddenly decided to move this page, it has been sitting quite happily at 'Birmingham New Street station' for well over a year and no-one has complained about it. Unless you can provide proof that "Birmingham New Street" is the common name. I will move it back and turn the latter into a disambig. G-Man 19:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A google search excluding several railway related terms still only generates links about the station http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Birmingham+New+Street%22+-station+-rail+-train+-trains+-railway+-railways+-%22Network+Rail%22+-Virgin+-+%22Central+Trains%22 Conversely, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Birmingham+New+Street+station%22&spell=1 brings up Wikipedia mirrors, whereas "Birmingham New Street" has 17,200 hits, less the 3,930 for "Birmingham New Street station" still gives 13270 hits for Birmingham New Street against 3,930 for "Birmingham New Street station". There is no problem with New Street, Birmingham being confused with Birmingham New Street. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes practically all of those are train timetables which are abbreviated, so that doesn't prove anything. G-Man 19:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But that's the point; there is *nothing* about New Street, Birmingham that could ever confuse it with Birmingham New Street. Similarly, London Paddington isn't going to be confused with Paddington. or Leicester City with Leicester, or for that why don't we start naming things Empire State Building Skyscraper, or Burton-on-Trent Town? No. Because it violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you actually seen where the examples you've just given actually link to. Leicester City re-directs to Leicester City F.C and London Paddington re-directs to Paddington Station.

The example you've given of the Empire-State Building invalidates your own argument, have you not noticed the "Building" at the end of the name. It would be rather silly if it was called the Empire State now wouldn't it. G-Man 20:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One problem is that local usage and international usage probably differ here. In London, Victoria Station (London) is commonly simply called [[Victoria]], but please don't move that article there! Andrewa 11:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Logo

As you will have no doubt noticed, all 17 stations controlled by Network Rail have been given their own little logo. I have uploaded all the thumbnail images, but none of the articles for non-London stations have a suitable template with which to incorporate them. Thus I have just left it right at the beginning as this is exactly how the station board reads:

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Birmingham New Street

The same format has been followed for every such station in the country, so if an alternative means of incorporating the logos is established, please change it for all. Or let me know! Deano 22:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Discounting the anonymous vote without any contributions to speak of, it's 5 to 2 in favour. —Nightstallion (?) 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed page move

Along with:

Birmingham Snow Hill station → Birmingham Snow Hill railway station

Cardiff Central station → Cardiff Central railway station

Clapham Junction → Clapham Junction railway station

Derby Midland Station → Derby Midland railway station

Euston station → Euston railway station

Exeter St Davids station → Exeter St Davids railway station

Glasgow Central station → Glasgow Central railway station

Glasgow Queen Street station → Glasgow Queen Street railway station

Manchester Piccadilly station → Manchester Piccadilly railway station

Manchester Victoria station → Manchester Victoria railway station

Newcastle Central station → Newcastle Central railway station

Nottingham station → Nottingham railway station

Sheffield Midland station → Sheffield Midland railway station

This has become the standard form for articles on railway stations in the UK; these articles were created before this was established. Only articles which cover both the railway station and a tube station should have the "station" format. Warofdreams talk 21:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

As there is much discussion about this standard I have created Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) to try and keep discussion in one place.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Support; prevents any potential confusion with tram/bus stations (especially ones such as Nottingham station). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I guess. I think we'll then need to shell a Clapham Junction article out of the current station article, since the area and the station currently are conflated into one. -Tagishsimon (talk)
• Support, but only in the case of National Rail-only stations. Newcastle Central, Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Victoria, Birmingham Snow Hill, and Sheffield Midland should keep their present names, by the same principle as combined railway/tube stations; Newcastle Central is shared with the metro, and the others are shared with trams. David Arthur 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - I've removed Newcastle; I forgot it had a metro station. Tram stops are not generally referred to as stations. The official names of the tram stops (as shown on the relevant route maps) are "Piccadilly", "Victoria", "Birmingham Snow Hill" and "Sheffield Station/Sheffield Hallam University". So I can't see that omitting "railway" from the articles titles will make them any more relevant to the tram services. Warofdreams talk 02:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - if tram stations are not to be included, then this would be a change from the custom which already seems to be in place for London; see East Croydon station, West Croydon station, Mitcham Junction station, Beckenham Junction station, and Birkbeck station. Since the major purpose of many of these tram stations is to provide a railway interchange (linking Piccadilly and Victoria stations was one of Metrolink’s major goals), it seems logical to me that they be covered along with the railway station in the same way as railway/metro interchanges in London and Newcastle. David Arthur 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Sheffield Midland Station article concerns both the railway station (which by all mean shouldn't have the word railway in it anyway) and the Sheffield Supertram stop of the same name as stated by David Arthur. If need be, redirect Sheffield Midland railway station to sheffield Midland station (as it currently is) since there is no other object or place in the world with that name, adding railway is both long and vaguely significant. Captain scarlet 03:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support but not for Euston. It has a tube station part. James F. (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - Euston tube station is a separate article. Warofdreams talk 17:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  But we're renaming based on what the things are. And the split into having a separate tube station is, well, one worth revisiting. :-) James F. (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  Euston is probably split from its tube station because the railway terminus interchanges with the tube not only at Euston tube, but also at Euston Square tube. David Arthur 17:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  I have never, ever met someone who lives in London and seriously considers Euston Square to have an interchange with Euston Station. It's as far from Euston as Marylebone is from Baker Street, and further than Liecester Square from Covent Garden (in terms of time to travel on foot between them, at least). The proper Wikipedia manner in which to split the article is to have "Euston station" as the parent article, mentioning both, with "Euston railway station" and "Eustion tube station" as sub-articles with greater depth. James F. (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Why make things more complicated for the sake of "consistancy". It's not as if anyone is going to confuse London Euston od New street for anything else. G-Man * 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose 86.141.197.242 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for making this your first edit. Would you care to explain why you oppose the move? Warofdreams talk 23:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Probably coz no one would mistake a STATION for a PETROL STATION... the whole reason why there is no need to add RAILWAY top any station article. Bit suspicious though... anonymous voting... I'm not complaining, but doubt subsist. —Captain scarlet 00:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm interested to know. It's not difficult to imagine a situation where it could be confusing - what's the station in Leeds? Yorkshire Television? Leeds City railway station? BBC Radio Leeds? Maybe Leeds Bus Station? Warofdreams talk 02:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support the defacto naming convention for train stations in the UK is clear:

Rail service	Name	Example
Mainline rail	x railway station	Swindon railway station
London Underground	x tube station	Pimlico tube station
Docklands Light Railway	x DLR station	Poplar DLR station
Tyne and Wear Metro	x Metro station	Pelaw Metro station
Trams*	N/A	N/A
Any two or more of the above	X station	Newcastle Central station

• Almost all tram-only stops are not notable enough for their own article.

  I am about to work out a suitable place to propose this as a general case, and will link to it when I do. Thryduulf 12:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've set it up now, please comment at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Thryduulf 13:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Hold on, isn't the general naming convention to use common names, not some contrived name which wikipedia has invented and no-one else uses, does this not contradict the station naming policy. G-Man * 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Common names, but also correct names. That part usually gets forgotten. —Nightstallion (?) 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dissent

Er excuse me but I dont think that this move has been properly discussed. This move appears to violate the principle of using common names. And I can find no evidence that "railway" is included in the title of the station. Looking up google hits we find that:

• "Birmingham New Street Station" gets 46,200 hits
• "Birmingham New Street railway station" gets only 536 hits
• "Birmingham New Street" gets 156,000 hits however many of these are false positives.

Therefore I contend that this move is in violation of the common naming principle. "Birmingham New Street railway station" appears to be a wikipedia neologism. Somebody above stated that this was the correct name, I can find no evidence of this. It appears to be incorrect, Network Rail's website calls it Birmingham New Street Station [1]. G-Man * 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Similarly: Glasgow Central Station - 48,000 Google hits Central Station, Glasgow - 875 Glasgow Central Railway Station - 501 86.144.36.159 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The rather large sign stuck on the main entrance of the station says Birmingham New Street Station, NOT railway station.

As seen here: Birmingham New Street Station image. I'm thinking of moving the article back, i do think in view of facts that it will be named Birmingham New Street Station.

Please do not move this article again until there is consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). In the mean time I oppose any proposed moves of this article. Thryduulf 14:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason there is no concensus is that every time there's a station article you're always there with your railway this and railway that. This isn;t used in the real world, this wasn't used by British Rail, it isn't used by TOCs and it isn't used in the stations themselves ! There is a concensus just that you are not part of it. Captain scarlet 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus either way. The debate needs more input and I'm trying to think of ways to get that. Thryduulf 16:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

~You're clearly stuck in a a totally inappropriate naming scheme, what more do you need than the official British Rail station naming scheme ? Captain scarlet 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence there is a consensus that Wikipedia should use it. Thryduulf 01:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is the evidence, if you are not part of a majority of editors that agree on a different naming scheme to your own, so be it. You beeing part or not of any kind of consensus does not mean there isn't one. I am in talks with members who do not directly participate in the stations articles but in local history of which these articles are part of and I have had agreement and already changed articles, removed railway and used official naming including capitalised S on Station as these stations were named like so. Regards, Captain scarlet 10:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I think the long-standing consensus practice that this convention was to formalise was one of the rare examples of consistency across a large-scale section of Wikipedia. David Arthur 14:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's great I have no problem with a Wikipedia wide scheme, just so as long as it involves using proper, correct and appropriate names! Captain scarlet 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem of simply using "Birmingham New Street" is that to the general public, this could mean "New Street in Birmingham" or the station. There are several reasons for adding the "railway station" to the end:

• Avoid any ambiguity what-so-ever
• Consistency of naming of all station articles. If say "Cheltenham Spa railway station" was renamed to just "Cheltenham Spa", would this mean the town or the station?
• By having a naming convention it is supposed to prevent arguments like this one!

Our Phellap 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Or, Birmingham New Street Station as its said at the station entrance; Leeds Station, Coventry Station, Chesterfield Station, Waterloo Station, the list goes on of how adding both railway and not capitalising S of stations is wrong. See at the photos, links that myself and G-Man have added to this conversation and you cannot support this scheme unless you live not in the UK and not go outside. Captain scarlet 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it is not wrong. If I said "Chestefield railway station" you would know exactly what I meant, without any possible ambiguity. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to make navigation easy without having lots of articles that use the same name. Taking things to the extreme, "Chesterfield Station" could mean the bus station, the railway station, the fire station, etc... The other advantage of adding "railway" to the article name is it easily allows the identification of different forms of transport, e.g. tram, railway, metro. At the end of the day, I personally don't mind which system is used, so long as just one system is used. Should you choose the "X Station" convention, there will be an awful lot of articles that need changing (since most were created under the present convention). Our Phellap 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but, well when one mentions station it is by default a train station. A particular station such as a fire staiton is always mentionned with the extension. As an encyclopedia the articles must have an appropriate name, the body of the article is there to explain what it is, almost all the articles have this intro "blah blah is a railway station in blah blah town". Then in almost most articles need a link name as well as the link to X Station, by simplifying naming it will make all our lives easier when editing articles. Regards, Captain scarlet 17:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment illustrates why "station" is ambiguous. What the introduction says is largely irrelevant to what the article title is, as it is the title that gets linked to not the introduction. The defacto standard is "x railway station" so that is what the links point to, removing ambiguity in the article and removing the need to hunt for what the article is called. Capitalising the S goes against the Wikipedia principle of unnecessary capitalisaion (i.e. using sentence case), as I've mentioned before. Thryduulf 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever man, you're just fighting losing battle trying to hang on to your project that is unlikely to see the light. wikipedia principle of unnecessary capitalisation is irrelevant here as the capitalised S is part of the stations' names as I've mentioned before. just like Tower of London/ Railway station is not and has never been the (defacto?) standard, it is only in your mind. Just let it go. Removing 'railway' from the stations' articles removes the need to hunt for the article. How funny would it be to have station articles named (example) Nottingham Victoria Station railway station...Captain scarlet 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As Thryduulf has already suggested, the names on the signs outside the stations should be used. If anyone, then the owners should decide what their stations are called. I regularly use Queen Street station in Glasgow, where the signs say "Welcome to Queen Street Station" and the equivilent in Gaelic (which I can't remember). Similarly, the signs all over Central Station carry the same naming convention, e.g. see photo on Central Station. 86.142.209.78 13:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[2] lists the stations as X station, not X railway station. This has clearly been suggested just as another argument on wiki. It seems that people are always requesting to change naming conventions although things are fine the way they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.209.78 (talk • contribs) .

But then, Network Rail only deal with railway stations, so there’s no possibility of confusion or overlap, whereas there are all sorts of stations which might be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Personally, I don’t see what the problem with the widespread descriptive convention currently in use is. David Arthur 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FAO 86.142.209.78, you seem confused when you say As Thryduulf has already suggested, the names on the signs outside the stations should be used since this whole convention is precisely not that and I've saying it ever Thryduulft came up with it. Use the names used on location not Thryduulf's scheme ! Plus if anyone wants to log off and post comments the user could at least using an IP that has not got his/her only contributions in this very talk page! It is an accepted convention in the real world where actual people speak to each that a Station is where trains go, Firestation is were firemen work, Bus station is where buses go to. People looking for information expect normal languaged used, not some random convention totally estranged from everyday life, n'est-ce-pas ? Captain scarlet 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very puzzled by this idea of removing -station or -railway station endings from things. Surely the article title should make it absolutely clear, especially to someone with no knowledge of the subject, what the article is about. Birmingham New Street sounds like it means an article about a street. Oh no, thats New Street, Birmingham. What clear article naming! MRSC 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes following discussions on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) to last version by Duncharris. Regards, Captain scarlet 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy and pasting is not the way to complete a page move. It destroys the history. I have repaired your copy and paste move. MRSC 20:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Captain scarlet, you really should consider what it is you hope to achieve by posting messages claiming to be me and secondly by persisting in using copy and paste moves. You need to take some time to think about if your contribution has any value. MRSC 07:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your comments rather cheekt since your changes go against the sedit summary you have added. You are not repairing anything just vandalising an edit that was agreed (for once) on both this talk page and UK station naming convention. Please refrain from vandalising a page that has (again, for once) reached concensus regarding its naming. Captain scarlet 07:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What does Cheekt mean? As for the suffix, this is breaking the guidelines. It should be 'railway station' not 'station', and it should have a redirect. When the Midland Metro extension is built to New Street, it should be renamed 'Birmingham New Street station'. If you think it should have been called 'station', then why not complain on the talk page on the page which shows how naming stations work? Anywikiuser (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

This article keep getting cut and pasted with Birmingham New Street by an editor. If you want to move the article, please do not resort to cut and paste again as it loses the edit history. MRSC 07:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Will you just stop pasting it back! You claimn it's destroying history when the article's history is clearly labelled by yourstruly with explaination. You on the other hand are not curing this fantasy loss of history, just reverting it back. Your edits have been revert ! Discussion on conventions and this page have come to the conclusion that BNS is to be called BNS. If you have any further queries, ask here. Captain scarlet 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine. I've tried my best with you. Another editor will be along shortly to fix the cut and paste mess move you have re-created for the third time. MRSC 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no mess whatsoever, the article is where it should be, as I've told you and I started repairing redirect links. The history is how it should be with a clear description of all the changes tha thave occured as it should be. Do what you feel needs to be so as long as you don't move it back to an erronous name since no changes are needed at this time. Regards, Captain scarlet 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been cut and paste moved, meaning the edit history was split between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham New Street railway station. I have now fixed this. It was VERY BAD FORM to move the article in the middle of an ogoing discussion where there was no consensus for any move and especially not to Birmingham New Street. Thryduulf 07:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why i reverted the article to user Duncharris' version since there was no justification to the move as the dscussion if you want to call it is ongoing. I am not endorsing this BNS article naming either since it is against what I have been saying for god knows how long but I felt that the move was unjustified and unappropriate. I find that correctness has slipt of late and a bit of a greeting fashion would be nice now and again. Regards, Captain scarlet 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Birmingham New Street is a bad name, as i argued at the top of this page it is too likely to get confused with New Street, Birmingham. Birmingham New Street station/Station (whatever) would be best. G-Man * 19:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article still located here? I can't see any agreement anywhere that station articles should have names that omit the word station. MRSC 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That was original thought, my moves wer eonly done to not continue moving the article all over the place. station articles need the word station or Station at their end. Captain scarlet 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

May 2006

This has all gone quiet but the article is still here instead of at Birmingham New Street station or Birmingham New Street railway station. Comments? MRSC 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. [3] [4] Would everyone please move on. AlistairMcMillan 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I think the article should be at Birmingham New Street railway station to match the naming of other stations. This was also the outcome of a recent move request. Thryduulf 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually call it "Birmingham New Street railway station"? AlistairMcMillan 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And not all of the stations are at "X railway station" anymore. Just so you know. AlistairMcMillan 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is how and where it should be. No discussions continued as there was no concensus reached and there is isn't. Captain scarlet 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look above you will find that there was consenus as recently ago as 16 March that this page should be moved to Birmingham New Street railway station (along with some others). In the absence of consensus for a naming scheme, consensus must be reached on all the individual articles, and this was reached and then unilaterally breached (by a cut and paste move which I had to repair). Thryduulf 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought everyone agreed it should end with -station at the very least. Even Captain Scarlet (look at his comments above). Or are some people arguing for the sake of it? I'm not fussed if it gains a -station or -railway station suffix. But it definitely needs to end with one or the other as the current naming is absurd; it is a station, not a street! Railway seems to cause some offence so maybe it should move to Birmingham New Street station? MRSC 05:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are only two reasons to move this page. (1) Its current name is causing confusion. I don't buy that argument. I think even before I added the disambig notices to the top of both pages that it was very unlikely that people would seriously be confused for any length of time. Now that we have a disambig notice at the top of both pages the chance of any confusion is even more unlikely. (2) People actually refer to the station as something else. I don't know how we determine this accurately, but a Google Search backs up the name "Birmingham New Street station" (more than 45 THOUSAND results) as opposed to "Birmingham New Street railway station" (less than 5 HUNDRED). Doing a search for "birmingham new street" -"birmingham new street station" brings up over 100 THOUSAND results and from a quick glance the results on the first few pages most (if not all) seem to be about the station and not the street. AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think all this has to do with a change in people's language as a result of the 20th century decline in importance of the railways. I always thought of a "station" as meaning a "railway station" unless otherwise stated (when did the popular epithet "train station" come into being"?). But nowadays for many people, railway stations are peripheral to their world, so they feel a need to state that a station is a "railway station". With the new resurgence in railway use in UK, maybe we will go back to thinking in terms of a station as being automatically identifiable as connected with railways (as in "I need a taxi to the station, please")?--PeterR 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Case solved

I think this should solve the argument about the station name:

Image:New Street Station entrance.jpg

As you can clearly see the sign on the main entrance reads Birmingham New Street Station. Case closed. I'm moving it back to the correct title (where incidentally it was in the first place before this nonsense started). G-Man * 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

http://tom.acrewoods.net/files/images/IMG_0739.preview.JPG AlistairMcMillan 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It defies logic for the article about Birmingham New Street Station to be called anything other than that. MRSC 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Revamp

I hear they're going to be revamping this dingy shithole soon. Thank goodness for that! It gives visitors a terrible first impression of the city. Martyn Smith 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (Birmingham born and bred)

I've removed the reference to the station being renovated in 2006. It hasn't been, and probably won't be until it falls down. 195.92.43.117 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created the article Birmingham Gateway which is the project to rebuild New Street Station. It still needs expanding and some rewording but when more info comes in, it will prove valuable and not take up considerable space on the New Street article. - Erebus555 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another one

I know this page has been moved twice or more. Shouldn't it be moved again as articles around the UK generally have a small s instead of a large one. Or is this trivial? Simply south 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been talked about again and agian, look at the photo above and enjoy. Captain scarlet 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed the earlier naming discussions (above) – or not sorry, perhaps, given the intemperant language of one or two of the contributions! – but would just like to add the following thoughts:

While a case can be made for treating such examples as Birmingham New Street Station (a proper name in its own right) differently – and I am not necessarily opposed to that case – the evidence of signage ought not to dictate the naming of Wikipedia articles about railway stations in general.

The vast majority of British railway stations, in any case, simply display a locality name:

Image:Mallaig station.jpg

I believe that it is entirely reasonable and in line with Wikipedia guidelines to entitle, for example, an article about the railway station at Mallaig "Mallaig railway station" – and one about the lifeboat station there "Mallaig lifeboat station", etc. This is, and has been, the practice for nearly all British railway station articles in Wp, and I think, a few exceptions apart, it should remain so. -- Picapica 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Am i making a big deal out of this?

I have put Nottingham sta up for WP:RM. This may relate back to earlier page move here but i am not sure. Simply south 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tivedshambo says, in an edit summary, "(Added OSGB grid ref. Whether long/lat co-ordinates are still required for a major location like this is debatable.". The use of coordinates ensures that the page is included in the Google Earth layer for Wikipedia. Using {{coord}} (which will soon replace the coor family of templates) to display them adds a Geo microformat; and coordinates are better understood, than OS references, by readers outside the UK. Andy Mabbett 11:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fire in station

I was visiting this article and noticed the citation requested. I Googled, and found these two links, which broadly support the statement, but I'd guess that the fire might not exactly have been of such a scale as to merit permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia article for all time - both the fire and the Samplesonic music being only of temporary interest to most people: [5] [6] --PeterR 11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Platform changes

I can't think of any other way to cite the fact there is a number of platform changes other than recording the announcements! I can't understand the reason for the citation tags! Mojo29 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research. Statements, and especially opinions, must be verifiable. Andy Mabbett 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed it as uncitable. I have left the statement about derision for the time being, as it's not unreasonable to suppose a cite for it may be possible. 81.104.175.145 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This week's Private Eye calls it "the country's most unpleasant station" or something similar - I don't have a copy so can't give the exact quote — iridescent (talk to me!) 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Private Eye is a satirical magazine and is not a trustworthy source. However, we already have references that it is not very popular with its users. However, if you view the Live Departure Board, it is easy to spot last-minute platform changes. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but Private Eye is a source of derisory remarks about the station! --RFBailey (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Private Eye is a source of derisory marks about anything and everything. And very little else, usually. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Over 35 million people pass through New Street station every year, making it the busiest major station in the United Kingdom outside London.

I don't understand why User:XAndreWx insists on reverting this. Network Rail run the country's major stations, they publish statistics for how busy they are, and those statistics show New Street to be the busiest outside London with 35 million visits per year. Despite User:XAndreWx's apparent belief that these vistors have come to New Street to admire the beautiful architecture rather than catch a train, the statistics in the source show that more of New Street's footfall is passengers compared to other stations, not less.

Edit wars are boring, but the source couldn't possibly be more reliable, the information couldn't be less ambiguous. I don't really see what the problem is.

JimmyGuano 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

From his recent edit history, it appears to be part of a campaign to aggrandise Manchester and denigrate Birmingham. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham New Street is not the Busiest outside of London, look at Network Rail's website. Birmingham has had 31 million last year, Glasgow had 34 million, meaning Glasgow Central is the busiest outside of London. Could you change the article to make it make sense?Mountain Sport 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense if you read the cited reference instead of deleting it. These are Network Rail's footfall figures tabulated in a like-for-like form [7]. New Street has 35.1m visitors of which 87% are passengers, Glasgow Central has 34.9m of which 80% are passengers. JimmyGuano 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking this station has a shopping centre rammed on the top of it? That would explain much of the footfall and they could be using the trains to move around the city to be included as passengers. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It does have a shopping centre (The Pallasades) above it, although you wouldn't use the station as a pedestrian route into it (unless arriving by train). It's more often the other way round: people pass through the shopping centre to reach the station. I don't quite get the point about "they could be using the trains to move around the city to be included as passengers": can you clarify this? --RFBailey 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know Birmingham's transport system at all but in Manchester you can take a train from Manchester Piccadilly station to Manchester Oxford Road railway station and Deansgate railway station which is just a way to move around the city using heavy rail and small commuter stations the same way one would use a light rail system. I was pointing this out as they may not be using the mainline services and just going through the station to get to the shopping centre dumped on top of it and that would explain the higher footfall with a reletavly high percentage of them passengers. I was just trying to find a reason for such high footfall in such an awful station (yes I have been to it) I guess people have no choice though. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might mean something like that; however, because what you suggest is not really feasible in Birmingham (not to New Street anyway) I wasn't sure. As someone pointed out above, people generally don't go to New Street to look at the architecture: as you say, they don't have any choice, so they just have to put up with it! --RFBailey 04:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Following a case with edits, the reference is correct: Birmingham New Street is the busiest station outside London by people using the station. However, it is the third busiest by people catching a train (based on ticket sales). 41% of the users go to visit shops, etc (I don't know whether this includes the Pallisades). 22% go to accompany people who are leaving/arriving by train. I am guessing that is because New Street has a higher percentage of intercity (rather than commuter) railway passengers. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these 'ticket sales' statistics actually? If it's just what's sold at New Street, it's meaningless, since people can come in from elsewhere. Even if it's all journeys starting or ending at New Street, that still leaves people changing trains. And even if it includes THAT, there will still be people who own local travel passes and thus use New Street either as a start/endpoint or to change trains without needing a specific ticket. New Street remains one of the few major stations to not have automatic barriers, so they can't track footfall numbers quite so accurately either (and there might be more fare-dodging too). I doubt people would go to the station shops unless the Pallasades _is_ being (erroneously) included in the statistics. 131.111.228.219 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The ticket sales show the total tickets sold which start or end at the station. It does not matter whether the tickets were sold at New Street, another station or the Internet. The '35 million' is an estimate on how many people come in and out of the station. It is possible that people using the Pallasades may pop downstairs to use some of the station's shops. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Network Rail source breaks down the footfall by who is a passenger and who is a non-passenger - it's in the second table below the 35 million one. For BNS 87% are passengers and 13% are non-passengers. This means that a higher proportion of New Street's footfall is passengers compared to any major station other than Gatwick Airport (which is 92% passengers). The busiest major station claim (measured by actually counting passengers, not estimating from ticket sales) is thus clearly valid for passengers, not just random passers by. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham New Street should not be made an exceptional case for this, the Office of Rail Regulation publish figures for ticket sales and that's how Network Rail measure how busy a station is. That's how they decide to close a station, if ticket sales fall below targets. I use many of Manchester's stations every day but I will not show up in any of the ticket sales figures as I use an annual travelcard so no exception should be made for New Street. You are over complicating the "busiest station outside London" status by adding the highest percentage of footfall being passengers as clearly footfall is an estimate nobody stands there counting people in the station 24/7, it will be counted for a defined period of time e.g. an hour over various times of the day therefore the figure is not factual. Ticket sales are a factual figure as they will be recorded on a central computer. Wikipedia uses factual information when available and as it is in this case that's what should be used unless you wish to distort the truth. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not accurate but it is a good estimate. Wikipedia does use reliable estimates if accurate factual information is not available. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Office of Rail Regulation figures are estimates too though and quite rough ones at that. The first sentence on the page linked to from the ORR figures says [8] - "Station usage data consist of estimates of the total numbers of people entering, exiting and interchanging at stations. The latest station usage information is based on ticket sales in the financial year 2005-06 and covers all National Rail stations throughout England, Scotland and Wales."

Exactly as User:And-Rew explains, ticket sales are a very crude estimate for station usage because not everybody who gets on or off a train at Manchester Piccadilly (or Birmingham New Street) has a ticket with the station's name on it - many will have season tickets, travelcards, rover tickets, open return tickets etc - so the figures are likely to be considerable underestimates. Luckily Network Rail produce figures for the stations they run themselves that are based on actual passenger counts.

Where this information exists, surely we should use it?

JimmyGuano (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's underestimating but there's also some overestimating in the figures. A lot of tickets are sold to station groups and traditionally those sold anywhere other than on a direct line to one station are allocated to the main station in the group. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

Why is this article called BN station, when Wiki naming conventions say that it should be "Birmingham New Street railway station?"

Ok, it will be linked to the Metro, but until then, it should be BNS railway station. I might correct the title! Dewarw (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There has already been a VERY long discussion on this, which was agreed on much earlier in the year. Whilst i may agree, this does not seem to be the consensus of everyone else. See #Proposed page move, #Dissent, #Cut and paste move, #May 2006, #Case solved and #Another one. Simply south (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and #Naming. Simply south (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was put off from reading the discussions because they are VERY long!

However, the main problem is that Wiki policy is Wiki policy. Why should New Street be any different? Ok, that photo says that it should be called "Birmingham New Street Station," but there are signs at many UK rail stations which do not feature "railway" in them. This proves that the argument over the photo is irrelevant. Ok, people do not call it B N S railway station, but that is the convention. I do not like inconsistencies. Surly redirects can prevent confusion! Dewarw (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, consistency is key to providing a high quality encylopaedia. New Street is a railway station nothing else. I don't see any conensus, just a very long conversation which two equal sides. Policy should prevail when there is no clear consensus. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the fact that the approved proposal for the redevelopment of New Street Station involves the inclusion of a Midland Metro station on Stephenson Street for when it is extended into the city centre? - Erebus555 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Approved proposal doesn't mean much at the moment, as far as I know there has been no funding put on the table for the extension (except the £5m by local developments but that is nowhere near enough) and haven't heard the DfT are willing to cough up any money. There are lots of tram systems proposed in the UK, few are gaining funding as Ruth Kelly seems to have some love affair with buses. If the station was served by a tram then it should be called a station but as there is no stop there it really should stick with the policy and not just be an exception because it's a major railway station. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 11:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, when there is more than one mode of transport it should remain as "station", but this does not seem to be the case yet so i don't know. Simply south (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:06, 7 October 2008

Somebody decided to revert an edit I made on the grounds of inclusion of original research, and deletion of "useful information".

One of the problems facing the reader was that it was unclear exactly what the "redevelopment" means. That unclarity has been restored, courtesy of the reversion.

The material I removed hardly constituted "useful information". To give some examples:

(1) "The station covers an area of three hectares and was designed to serve 650 trains and 60,000 passengers per day. However, it is now running at overcapacity, serving 1,350 trains and 120,000 passengers (double the number it was designed to take)."

No authoritative source for the quoted design capacity of New Street station has been given. What are the documents containing these specifications, and who has seen them?

(2) "Passenger usage of New Street has increased by 50% since 2000."

Passenger usage, as opposed to what? Shopper? Trainspotter? How is this being measured?

(3) "At a launch for the chosen design held in Birmingham on 18th September 2008, it was revealed that a new glass atrium surrounding a concourse three and a half times bigger than the existing one would be the focal point for the new station. Platforms would be made brighter and easier to get to with 42 new escalators and 14 new lifts,"

The number of escalators and lifts, and the size of the concourse, were not "revealed" on 18th September 2008. They were in earlier descriptions of the project.

"Platforms would be made brighter" = repainted brilliant white? Extra lightbulbs?

(4) "whilst new entrances and exits to and from the station would help to make all parts of the city equally accessible."

More or less meaningless.

(5) "...atrium surrounding a concourse"

The atrium is to surround a concourse?

(6) "Initial feedback to the chosen designs"

Designs? There's more than one?

(7) "has been positive with both press[26]"

One article (which appears to do little more than communicate the contents of a media release issued by the promoters).

"...and passengers.[27]"

A forum thread on skyscrapercity.com is a useful measure of passenger opinion?

(8) The principal architect is quoted as saying, "The station will be covered in reflected sheets of carefully crafted and finished metal and will incorporate three high technology digital displays which will make the entrances to New Street clear and easy to find."

How do digital displays score over a large non-digital sign saying "Entrance"?

"Passengers will also enjoy the benefits of a redesigned atrium area which will flood the station with light."

If the station is going to be covered in "reflected sheets" of metal how would this cladding allow it to be "flooded" with light? From the information available, it appears the intention is to allow some natural light to reach a portion of the concourse (only).

For this subsection to be useful, it really does need to be more than a repository of soundbites made by people associated with the project.

Haskanik (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the justifications you give for removing some of that material are good; but as your edit summary was empty, it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to have known them. In reverting to restore your edit, you've not only removed a cited quote by the principal architect, but also their name. You also removed the size and usage of the station, which were uncited, but plausible, and should instead have been marked with {{fact}} or similar tags. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Name

This hasn't been mentioned in a while. Why is this Birmingham New Street station instead of Birmingham New Street railway station? Other NR 'Major Stations' such as Edinburgh Waverley railway station and Gatwick Airport railway station are so called, but not New Street? Unless the names of every other station are changed (and the overwhelming majority end "railway station" (unless they're multimodal)) then I can see no reason why someone would only call this Birmingham New Street station. 78.33.52.101 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur, and I would move it myself, but I'm not an admin and can't move over redirects. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage

I've updated the Network Rail footfall figures to use the 2007 figures. I've also deleted the "ticket sales" figure, as the Office of Rail Regulation report itself [9] makes it clear (see pp 7, 10 & 17) that these Station Usage figures are unreliable for PTE conurbations outside London, as they do not include tickets and travelcards sold by the PTE.

JimmyGuano (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Office of Rail regulation have changed the way that they measure station usage and now include an estimate of passengers using PTE travelcards, (see [10], pp 4 & 19) which means that they are no longer as ridiculously misleading for stations in Metropolitan counties and the article ought to probably reflect the fact that these figures show New Street to be slightly behind Glasgow central for usage. The Network Rail figures still show New Street to be slightly ahead, though, so I've rewritten the lead to reflect this ambiguity. I'll try and put a mirror-image paragraph on the Glasgow Central page too. JimmyGuano (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

The previous "pebbledash" image is far from perfect, but the image it was replaced with - the glass doors one - fails the most basic requirement of a lead image: it doesn't show you what the subject of the article looks like. Focussing in on details, particularly highly generic details like glass doors, seems an inappropriate tactic for lead images in general.

Looking through commons:Category:Birmingham_New_Street_railway_station there seem to be a few alternatives that would give a suitable overview of the subject...

• 
• 
• 

All of these seem to have problems of their own, but do any seem preferable? Does anybody have any better ones that aren't on Commons yet?

JimmyGuano (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

'Train services' section

I've just edited all the train services - each destination station was linking to the page for the town/city rather than the station - e.g. linking to Wolverhampton not Wolverhampton railway station. I've fixed these.

I'm curious about the fact that train times are actually included in the services section. I haven't checked these for validity, but I'm sure it's possible that even if they aren't wrong right now, they could well become inaccurate whenever the timetable changes - I'm inclined to remove them for this reason. I haven't seen any other major railway station article that includes train times. Opinions?

Also, how do people feel about the type of train used being included in the 'train services' section. I feel it makes the section look a bit cluttered, and I'm tempted to delete these too - though I'm not 100% sure about this one. Again, opinions?

Thanks, ladies and gents :) jdan (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, and one other thing. In the services section, it says things like '1tph to Northampton' then a few lines further down, '1tph to London Euston via Northampton'. Do people think this is the best way to do it, or do we prefer '2tph to Northampton, of which 1tph continues to London Euston'? This problem also occurs for Walsall (continuing to Rugeley), Wolverhampton (continuing to Shrewsbury or Liverpool), and a few others. jdan (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Showing the minutes past each hour does have the advantage that it shows the services are regular-interval, i.e. a repeating pattern past each hour, which is not a negligible fact in itself. But it might be better just to mention that in the text somewhere. Is there a recommended standard for how to show service patterns in individual station articles? If not, perhaps the Trains Wikiproject should devise one in the interests of consistency across similar articles. -- Alarics (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be very limited consensus in how to actually display services. I did a quick and very unscientific survey, but it seems some stations have bullets like in this article, some have the services set out in prose, some (smaller stations, generally) have the services listed according to which platform they use. However, they all seem to use the "...with 1tph continuing to" formula when there are trains both to and through a particular station, though the phrasing is different - some say "...with 1tph continuing to...", some say "...with 1tph extended to...", etc. But none of them include the two different trains in the list separately. I think I'm inclined to use the format used on Birmingham Snow Hill - where the extensions are shown indented on the line(s) below, which seems to me most suited to stations with commuter services and long-distance services like this.

I'm still very inclined to remove the train times - I take the point about demonstrating the clockface nature of the service, but I still haven't seen any other station that does this, I'm worried about it easily becoming inaccurate, and it clutters the list. jdan (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, go for it. -- Alarics (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fast and stopping services: When I edited the services section, I split services to Wolverhampton and Walsall into 'all stations' and 'fast' services, stating the tph of all stations services and the tph of fast services. In the latest edit, the IP address editor has changed Walsall by merging the services, which I find a bit confusing... but has interestingly left Wolverhampton as it was. I'm inclined to restore Walsall to the original arrangement. Opinions? (P.S. I'm very grateful to the anonymous editor for correcting the errors I made, by the way... and I'm kicking myself about a couple of them *embarrassed*) jdan (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is debatable how much detail we really need. The challenge is to give an overall impression of the general pattern of services without getting bogged down in too much detail. But at least the presentation should be consistent between lines. -- Alarics (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I felt a need to split stopping and fast services though, as I think they are substantially different in character - one is a suburban commuter service, the other is a bit more regional (or even national in the case of the Liverpool) service. I agree consistency is paramount - which option would you prefer, do you think? jdan (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am quite happy with restoring what you had before re Walsall i.e. separate entries for fast and stopping. But for consistency we should perhaps mention the nature of all the other services listed -- unless we think it goes without saying that the long-distance services are all "fast". (But then again, maybe some of them -- Bristol and Newcastle, perhaps -- are only "semi-fast"? One of the problems is there is no rigid definition of any of these terms.) -- Alarics (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I don't necessarily think that all services need to be described as slow/fast - I was merely using the description to differentiate when there were trains going to the same place with substantially different service patterns.jdan (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tinkering?

I've noticed many edits have been made to the article today, a lot of which seem to be minor rephrasing of sentences which really don't change their meaning, and in some cases make it a lot less clear. Is this level of slightly pedantic 'tinkering' really necessary? Some grammatical errors have also been introduced - I got bored reviewing *all* the changes, but of those I did look at, for example 'platform' has been changed to 'Platform'. jdan (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

For some odd reason, UK railway stations are a target for a lot of senseless editing. Revert them by using 'undo' (see the edit history), using an appropriate edit summary such as 'irrelevant good faith edit' , Sometime 'undo' is no longer possible because it may affect later edits; if you have rollback enabled, use the 'Good faith one' so that the revert is not confused as vandalism. Check the user's contribution history, and if the user's superfluous edits are prolific, issue a Level 1 vandalism warning (it does not mention vandalism). If it still persists, escalate the warning levels. The very last recourse is blocking the editor - either make a report to WP:AIV, or ask an admin directly. However, always check first before issuing a warning fo any kind - it may concern an established user who is editing with the best of intentions, or one who uses American English and is not aware of WP:ENGVAR.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now reviewed the recent edits and I find none that are a cause for concern. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor responsible for all but one of the edits complained of. If anybody can find any grammatical errors in any of my work, I should very much like to hear about it. -- Alarics (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See my comment immediately above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course I had already seen your comment immediately above, but that doesn't stop me being, to put it mildly, taken aback at being accused by jdan of introducing grammatical errors and making the meaning of sentences less clear. -- Alarics (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My first post was a personal template I use before I do further research. When I looked into it, I couldn't figure out what the fuss was (I've been teaching English for nearly 40 years). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not objecting to the correction of mistakes, and I'm pretty confident you did correct plenty of mistakes - I just don't see why you *bothered* yourself with making so many minor rephrasings which don't change the meaning of the text at all. It seemed to just pepper the article with so many edits it's hard to go through them all, which might mean, if, heaven forbid, you did make a mistake which I might have picked up on, I wouldn't have actually seen it. I'm referring to changes like "New Street station was constructed as a joint station" to "New Street station was built as a joint station". I (personally) don't really see what that adds to the article, and that's what I mean when I use the word 'tinkering'. However, it seems consensus is against me, so... I'll just go ahead and drop it. Thanks. jdan (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy-editing, whereby one goes through the text making improvements however minor, is a standard procedure in Wikipedia. One might not bother to go into edit mode *just* to change "constructed" to "built", but if one is editing that section anyway, why not improve it while there? This edit was partly because the word "construct" occurs again in the following paragraph, so I changed it to avoid repetition, but is is also an (admittedly fairly marginal) example of replacing a longer and unnecessarily formal word with a shorter and more direct one, in accordance with WP:COPYEDIT, which says: "Words and phrases such as due to the fact that and utilize are unnecessary in an encyclopedia; instead, use because and use, respectively. (....) Vigorous, effective writing is clear and concise." "Construct" seems to me to be a bit of a "utilize" sort of word, a word that poor writers use because they think it sounds smarter; it is hard to think of a case where "build" will not do just as well. "Commence" is a similarly pompous and pointless word, which always benefits from being replaced by "start" or "begin". Some of my other edits simply make the text tighter and more concise so that it reads more easily: why say "There are currently three escalators providing access ..." when we can have "Three escalators currently provide access ..."? Such changes are normally regarded as an improvement in English writing; I'm surprised that you seem not to have encountered this concept before. Another word that I usually strike out is "located". "Located in" just means "in". "A car park is also located on top of the station" becomes the sharper and clearer "On top of the station is a car park". By the way, I note that you still haven't quoted any examples of my introducing grammatical errors, or making the meaning less clear, which are the two things you accused me of in the first place. -- Alarics (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Can someone explain what "tph" means? It is not a well-known abbreviation in English. This info can be of interest to someone who wants to move about in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.35.72 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

TPH = trains per hour. I'll edit it to make it clearer. G-13114 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Move some content?

Should the information on lifts, barriers and disabled access be moved from where it was (mixed in with 1960s history) to a new section before operation / services?

It doesn't really fit right now where it is.