Template talk:West Midlands railway stations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Template This page is a template and does not require a rating on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.

Contents


[edit] Disused stations

Sutton Town railway station
Sutton Town railway station

I've added the disused stations, for which there are articles. I'm also aware of (in Birmingham):

  • Bromford Bridge
  • Camp Hill
  • Castle Bromwich
  • Central Goods
  • Church Road
  • Granville Street
  • Handsworth Wood
  • Hagley Road
  • Harborne
  • Icknield Port Road
  • Kings Heath
  • Lifford
  • Monument Lane
  • Rotton Park
  • Soho Road
  • Streetly
  • Sutton Town
  • Sutton Park
    • An Historical Survey Of Selected LMS Stations Vol One Dr R Preston and R Powell Hendry (1982, Reprinted in 2001)
  • Winson Green

also:

and I'm sure there were more. Andy Mabbett 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


There were indeed. How about the following to start with:

The real trouble is that there are so many closed stations in the area that an attempt to get them all in one template will be a nightmare. Fingerpuppet 00:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed those which are now done. Andy Mabbett 13:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of template

I'm getting worried about the size of this template: it's starting to get far too big. (It's already taking up most of my 800x600 display....) Maybe the Metro stations could have their own template? Possibly even the disused stations should have their own as well, especially if all those listed above (and some in Coventry?) are going to be added. --RFBailey 09:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that, so long as each of those templates included links to the others (not least because some of the metro stations are disused railway stations, and vice versa). We could, if necessary, have separate "disused stations in..." for B'ham/ Black country/ Coventry; or "disused stations on the xxx line" or "disused [GWR/ LMS] stations" (including predecessor companies, of course) . Andy Mabbett 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty more where that lot came from - I haven't mentioned most of the ones located in Dudley MBC or Sandwell. The problem with the Birmingham/Black Country/Coventry idea is the definition of "Black Country", the missing Solihull MBC ones plus the ones just outside the Metropolitan County such as Wombourne and Codsall. How about one of those fancy templates that are in several independent sections (like "Places with city status in the United Kingdom")? That way you can have a section for "open", "closed" and "Metro". I'd also suggest that The top section is changed from Birmingham City Centre stations to the major West Coast Mainline stations - BNS, Birmingham International, Coventry and Wolverhampton High Level, as I rather suspect they're the busiest rather than Moor Street. Fingerpuppet 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Or just "mainline stations"/ "inter-city stations". can you provide a link to page with one of the "fancy templates", please? Andy Mabbett 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Template:UK_cities is the one I had in mind. It seems that it is made up of a group of other templates, which I feel would be a sensible approach here. Fingerpuppet 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put together here an initial draft of the sort of thing I mean, with a copy of the current template beneath for comparison. What do people think of this sort of approach? Fingerpuppet 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it - I was considerring doing something similar. I'd say be bold and use it. Windmill End can now be added to the list. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rail Around Birmingham

This regional map showing operational and disused railway station is a very good source and reliable at that. Some stations are outside the West Midlands boundary. - Erebus555 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rail Around Birmingham is a great source. As I undestand it, it shows ALL stations in the West Midlands conurbation, used or otherwise, as well as the others. I used it extensively for stations on the South Staffordshire Line, which, I think, is complete now. I would use the source extensively because reliability is good. Worley-d 14:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes; I'd be inclined to make sure that every article on a station links to the respective page on that site. Andy Mabbett 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've done this as standard on the South Staffs stations' pages already, so I guess it's something to continue with. We have to remember that while the smaller stations are maintained by a small group of followers, stations like Birmingham New Street have stupidly large bases of people who make edits. So perhaps we should just concentrate on the lesser stations and let the bigwigs have their say on New Street. Worley-d 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just be aware that it does not actually have information about every station. There are cases in which the station may have a page but not information or images. However, I am sure this is going to be rectified in due course. It may also be useful to note the amount of information it has on Midland Metro stations too. - Erebus555 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say about the Metro. It's not a heavy rail line so should it be included? Worley-d 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This is "West Midlands railway stations" not "West Midlands heavy railway stations". Andy Mabbett 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite, but are the Metro stations classed as rail stations anyway? If anything they should have their own template? Just throwing ideas in the ring Worley-d 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hence the separate sections in my "discussion template" above... Fingerpuppet 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll just shut the f**k up now :) Worley-d 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No need to do that - they're good thoughts that need discussion! Fingerpuppet 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

[edit] Be careful with boundary!

I've removed Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay: it's in Staffordshire, not the West Midlands. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the no more stations outside the county are added! --RFBailey 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it would seem really daft to miss out the former Wombourne station as it's the only station on the former line that's not inside the WM County boundary on the curving route. Fingerpuppet 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In the case of Wombourne, we could perhaps include it in (brackets)? Andy Mabbett 09:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. My bad. Just goes to show, you shouldn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia! Andy Mabbett 09:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Wombourne branch, the Penn station is also outside the boundary (it was in Lower Penn), as is Himley. Possibly Gornal station was too, but I'll need to check a map. --RFBailey 10:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gornal is in the Dudley Metropolitan Borough so is almost certainly inside the West Midlands Conurbation. Worley-d 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've checked against my 1927 OS sheet of the area, and Gornal station is inside the WM, though Penn is indeed as you say outside the WM area. The station that I think RFBailey is thinking of isn't Gornal, but Himley. Fingerpuppet 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I was thinking of Gornal, but was getting mixed up about where it could have been. (Mind you, it can't have been near where I think of as being in Gornal, but anyway...) Having looked at an OS map, it must have been in what is the Dudley borough nowadays. --RFBailey 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List format

I've applied {{flatlist}}, so that these list are marked up properly. Also sorted the tram stops alphabetically. Andy Mabbett 09:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't like that at all. The info-box now appears twice the size of the average article, rather than an addendum at the bottom. What do others think? – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Tivedshambo as well, sorry. I much preferred the template Fngerpuppet has made. - Erebus555 10:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Fingerpuppet's version could also use {{flatlist}}. Andy Mabbett 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Also with Tivedshambo, especially as it does not display correctly in IE6. Keith D 10:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please elaborate - how does it "not display correctly"? (A screen-shot would be helpful) Andy Mabbett 10:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Already mentioned this on your talk page yesterday with regard to Warwickshire change. The vertical bar is splitting multi word items when the item is wrapped over lines.
Thus '| Joe Simith |' when wrapped onto 2 lines comes out as -
| Joe |
Smith |
Keith D 11:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's perplexing. I've not heard of that from other ie6 users. Could you mention it on MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS for horizontal lists, where those who might know the cause can investigate it, please? Andy Mabbett 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added the problem to page as suggested. Keith D 12:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It's smaller than it was before. Andy Mabbett 10:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with it in IE6, but I'm concerned that any stub articles it appears in now run foul of WP:NOT#LINK. See Windmill End railway station for example - and imagine trying to print it. Can I suggest reverting it and getting a concensus before continuing? – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I certainly wasn't about to change anything massively (re: my draft alternative) without a vague consensus. Regarding the template as it currently stands, I preferred the previous version to the current one. Fingerpuppet 12:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Good to hear about ie6. WP:NOT#LINK is a sparate issues, nothing to do with the style one way or the other; as is printing. Perhaps the latter should be resolved by making this (and all such) box not print, using CSS? Andy Mabbett 12:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to KISS (with no meaning attributed to the final letter) - why make things complicated with css when there was nothing wrong with the old list? Added to which, doing too much with css rules out many editors (including me) who do not have the necessary programming skills. – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Because the old list wasn't marked up as a list - and that can cause problems for people using non standard browsers, such as mobile devices and aural browsers. The template exists so that you don't need to know CSS - just use {{flatlist}} and {{endflatlist}} Andy Mabbett 13:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused - it appears to have changed format without any further changes. When I saw it this morning it appeared as a very long list - one station per line. Now it's similar to the original, with a vertical bar between them. Could this be the IE6 problems referred to earlier? – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably had old CSS cached in your browser, and needed to refresh - just like looking at a cached page. Are you happy with it now? Andy Mabbett 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah - the curse of Wikipedia strikes! I'll switch my opinion to neutral - it doesn't look much better or worse than the original now, though I still think I prefer Fingerpuppet's version. At least hopefully you'll understand why I was so antagonistic at first - imagine every station in a single column. – Tivedshambo (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yuck. I can't say I'm keen on the "new look", even if it has technical advantages. I've looked at it on IE6 at home and IE7 in my office, and the spacing and size of the vertical bars just looks plain wrong (sorry, I can't offer a screen capture). Perhaps experimenting can be done in somebody's Sandbox until it has a more attractive appearance. (I see that {{flatlist}} has only existed for a couple of days anyway, and was created by Andy Mabbett too). --RFBailey 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template in IE6

Screenshot from IE6 - I've looked at it in more detail, and can see the problems discussed above. For example Jewellery and Quarter are split with a | between them. Also, some rows are indented, others are not. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. How odd. I've mentioned your screen-shot at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS for horizontal lists, where the the problem is being discussed (and, hopefully, fixed). Andy Mabbett 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I've created a new discussion page at Template talk:West Midlands railway stations/Layout discussion in order to discuss which of the suggested layouts should be used for this template. Please feel free to voice your opinions. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which stations should be where

The top section should not include simply the stations in Birmingham City Centre, as both Snow Hill and Moor Street have passenger numbers of less than 0.3 million. These should be replaced by Coventry, Wolverhampton and Birmingham International stations. The first named two have passenger numbers of over 2 million, and the last named is just under 2 million. This means that they are far more important stations, and should be given the most prominent places.

Those changes had already been made, but Tivedshambo's recent revert overwrote them. I've changed back. Andy Mabbett 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I hadn't realised there was content change as well. I'll try to use the original template format (as per discussion) with the revised contents. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok - that should be it. Ive also added Windmill End to the disused. If I've missed any changes out, feel free to incorporate them , but please don't change the format unless some consensus can be reached. In particular, flatlist should not be used until it works with all browsers. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Should Moor Street and Snow Hill be included in that section? Their passenger numbers are no higher than most of the "local" stations, Fingerpuppet 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
They have direct services to London. Andy Mabbett 10:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) When I originally created this template, it was to replace a "Major stations" template, with the idea of side-stepping the issue of what constitutes a "major"/"important"/"main"/etc. station (see these discussions: [1], [2], [3], not to mention the infamous [4]). As has previously been discussed in various places, the usage figures for second and third stations in places such as Birmingham (and Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, etc.) are far lower than reality for two reasons:

  • tickets issued to "Birmingham Stations" (or "Manchester Stations", etc.) are counted towards the largest of the stations, in this case New Street;
  • usage figures don't include tickets issued by PTEs (such as Centro season tickets, Senior Citizens' passes, etc.), which are likely to contribute heavily at places like Snow Hill (although they will contribute proportionately at all stations in the county).

Direct services to London isn't necessarily a helpful criterion here: Chiltern Railways have regular direct services from Solihull and Dorridge to Marylebone, as well occasional ones from Stourbridge Junction, Cradley Heath etc. Also, thanks to the way things are timetabled, at present there are some direct services from places like Hampton-in-Arden and Tile Hill to Euston!

All in all, the "Birmingham City Centre" stations is a purely geographical descriptor, about which there should be no arguments. --RFBailey 11:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the arguments of people in Coventry, Wolverhampton, Solihull and the Black Country..! ;-) @Andy Mabbett 11:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I spent 18 years as one of them..... --RFBailey 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm completely neutral on the subject, but can I suggest replacing Main line with Large stations, defining large stations as those having four or more platforms. I think this would encompass the three Birmingham stations (including the Moor Street proposed platforms), plus Coventry, Wolverhampton and International without bringing in any others. Though I'm sure someone will be able to come up with an exception. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a sensible solution to me. It just struck me as very odd that quieter stations had "pride of place", due simply to their geographical location. One caveat, though. The "four platforms rule" needs to specifically mean four heavy-rail platforms, and should not include Midland Metro platforms. Otherwise, you'll get stations at the southern end of the MM included. Fingerpuppet 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Make that Five or more active or proposed heavy or light rail platforms. This will rule out the combined Metro/NR stations, but include Snow Hill, which otherwise only has three. I'm not sure about Coventry though. – Tivedshambo (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Coventry has 4 platforms. Keith D 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Would ["services to London" AND "terminating services"] perhaps be more straight-forward? Andy Mabbett 14:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That could potentially cause problems with stations on the edge of the WMPTE area. How about "At least four active heavy rail platforms, or at least five active platforms including light rail" Fingerpuppet 15:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Creating this sort of arbitrary criteria, and the associated petty pedantry, is what I was trying to avoid. I've seen more "what constitutes a major station?" debates on Wikipedia than anyone can reasonably expect to tolerate! Essentially people are trying to reverse-engineer a set of criteria that will uniquely determine the list of stations they want to include (New Street, Snow Hill, Moor Street, Birmingham International, Coventry and Wolverhampton). I stick by just separating the Birmingham City Centre stations: there are enough of them for this to be worthwhile, and it avoids the arbitrary size/traffic/destinations criteria.

How about "Stations in City Centres then??? ;-) Fingerpuppet 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(For the record, ["services to London" AND "terminating services"] would rule out Moor Street: no trains terminate there at present. I can be pedantic too.....) --RFBailey 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being pedantic (not more than anyone who prefers to be right rather than wrong is, that is!), and I have no pre-determined list of stations - if we agree a criteria which excludes Moor Street, so be it. I can't see how Moor Street is more important than Wolverhampton, for instance. Andy Mabbett 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just stick to "a rowful", and leave it as it is. At the end of the day, it's only a list of stations. It's not worth falling out about ;-) – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"a rowful" - sure. So long as you realise that I'm running a 21" monitor, at 1280x1024, with the window maximised... ;-) Andy Mabbett 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I was trying to point out that this discussion could be avoided if we decided that having a selection of major/main/important/large/busy stations was more trouble than it's worth. As Andy points out, a "rowful" is also not a helpful criterion, as screen resolution, font size, etc. will affect how large this can be. --RFBailey 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No offence taken here! However, by that criteria, there's absolutely no point in separating out the Birmingham city centre ones from all the others... Fingerpuppet 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose not. That would keep things nice and simple. --RFBailey 18:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Low}} template

Whilst I understand the benefits of this template and how worthwhile it is, it now makes the template look pug ugly. The pale coloured links don't work with the colour scheme and it really isn't too brilliant with my colour blindness. Other thoughts? - Erebus555 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it changed colours - please feel free to revert, unless someone fancies making a version with no colour change. Andy Mabbett 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Low}} turns internal links to external links. Is there any reason why "what links here" shouldn't link to this? – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried using various combinations of <font color=blue> to get the appearance of an inline link, without success. I suspect that link colours are non-negotiable. I've therefore reverted the template. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goods Stations

We've got one or two articles about goods stations in the area starting to appear. Should we add those to the template, or have a separate template linked off the current one, or ignore them completely? Fingerpuppet 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be incorporated into the template, but not under a different section. So, if they are disused, then put them in the disused section, or if they're in use, put them in the appropriate section. Would that be OK? - Erebus555 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I wasn't keen on including disused stations for a start, but goods stations is pushing the boat out too far, I think. Please, let's stick to passenger stations only. --RFBailey 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Widening-out the issue; I think we need separate templates for each section (excepting "heritage", which can be merged into one of the others); each referencing the others. I've set up {{West Midlands railway stations (disused)}} as a starter. It may need shorter name! Andy Mabbett 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Which was the point of my alternate version with the grouping which could easily have a "Goods" section added to it if so desired. It is pretty much the same size as Andy's alternate (especially if "heritage" is merged with "other") but has the advantage of containing all the items within. Fingerpuppet 05:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, my suggestion is for separate templates, linking to each other, rather than one, which is beciming over-large. Andy Mabbett 11:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is becoming excessively large - however, as I've shown, it can be shrunk to a sensible size whilst containing all items within. Maintaining a number of completely separate templates is more awkward than having one - and also means that people cannot move between all the different types of stations within the county boundaries. Personally, I find that navigational ability extremely useful. Fingerpuppet 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
While your version is an improvement, the template remains not only large in terms of screen size, but includes a large number - too many, I'd argue - of links; and seems likely to grow further. Also, as a bonus, sub-diving it would allow it to include categories, removing the need to add them to articles separatly. Andy Mabbett 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Andy's suggestion of having separate templates. I don't care much for templates with the "show/hide" button. I would suggest one for current stations, one for disused stations (such as the one linked to above) which could include disused goods stations if desired, and one for the Metro stations. I'm not sure where to put the "heritage" station(s). --RFBailey 12:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts? Andy Mabbett 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put together a temporary template for goods stations and railway works with extant articles in the area at User:Fingerpuppet/Template:West Midlands Goods stations. Fingerpuppet 12:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Can you add another line, linking to something like "West Midlands railway stations" and "disused railway stations", for links to the other two templates? Andy Mabbett 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template format

I know this has been discussed before (here), but I've been bold and reformatted the template. I've used the {{navbox}} template, so it should introduce some degree of consistency with other similar templates, e.g. {{Railway lines in Central England}}. If consensus is to keep it as it was, feel free to revert. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the change you've made. I'd suggest that as the template grows further, there's still perhaps a need to go to a collapsable layout. Fingerpuppet 18:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disused stations

Regarding this edit summary from Tivedshambo, I think the disused stations section is beginning to rather swamp the rest of the template, and would probably be better off in its own template. What do others think? --RFBailey (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, all the different options from Template talk:West Midlands railway stations/Layout discussion are still all available to us. I still think that the "template 2" is the best one, as it keeps all of the items together in one place, yet the nature of the template means that it takes up a lot less space. Fingerpuppet (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)