Talk:List of closed railway stations in Britain

Listing by town or station name?

The title says it all really.

We currently have different styles, for example:
Kemptown (Brighton)
Aberdeen Ferryhill

The latter is easier to find, but the former is the station's actual name.

Personally I'd suggest the latter, always giving town name, is much more functional.

[Topic started by Kierant 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)]

I think that the latter is formed from that being the actual part of the station name, also with the former issues with it being located in a very rural area could be problematic. Maybe something along the lines of this:
Station name (County) Year of Closure
would be a more appropriate format? Stuey 182 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

An introduction to the page

Do people want to just have a list here, or would it be worth linking to pages about the various Railway Acts such as the so-called "Grouping" and "Beeching" Acts, to explain to readers why Britain is littered with closed stations? Kierant 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham Snow Hill / re-opening dispute

There appears to be a mild dispute regarding the inclusion of Birmingham Snow Hill station. The original station of this name did close, but there is now a station of the same name on roughly the same site. It would help if this page were better defined; a paragraph with links to Beeching et al, for example (see point above). Meanwhile, perhaps the page should be re-named, to something like List of railway station closures in Britain? Kierant 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There are more than one station that were closed but have reopened, in the same location or very nearby. This list concerns stations that have closed which is what Snow Hill did, regardless of it being open now. There is afterall an article for Snow Hill with the relevant station. Other stations that have closed but reopened that I know of:

• Meadowhall and Wincobank (1947) now Meadowhall Interchange (1994)
• Rotherham Central (195something) now Rotherham Central (1988ish)

No one would contest keeping the above stations in the list as they are closed, and now reopened. There is in brackets the mention of the current status of Snow Hill. Captain scarlet 16:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My main point is that's it's mildly ambiguous exactly what this list IS for; hence the (unanswered) point above which I made a while ago. As to the inclusion of re-opened stations, It looks like somebody (the user Mucky Duck, and possibly also somebody at 81.104.165.184, see the page history) does in fact contest keeping such stations in the list - that's what started this discussion. Kierant 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't contest anything of the sort! I've never (knowingly, anyway) removed anything from this list - All I've done is add a couple to it. Mucky Duck 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Blimey, apologies MuckyDuck, I'm going to have no more to do with this today as I seem to be getting garbled results from Wikipedia. Hopefully whoever it was at 81.104.165.184 (if that's correct) will have something to say. Kierant 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You're forgiven. ;-) Mucky Duck 16:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the list is "List of closed stations" and not "List of station closures", it makes sense that this should be for stations that were closed and are not now open (we have Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom and its constituent lists for that), and not for every station that happened to be closed and since reopened (I imagine this list would be considerably longer, and rather less meaningful), unless the list is arranged differently e.g. grouped by closure rather than alphabetically. As examples go, I can think of more that have closed and since reopened, and still currently open, than can be counted in decimal on two hands, and my knowledge of the subject is somewhat limited, so I imagine there are a good many more. 81.104.165.184 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. On closer examination, it seems the new Rotherham Central is not the same Rotherham Central as was closed in 1966. 18:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll remove every single station that has reopened then... Ridiculous, especially from un unregistered editor. Captain scarlet 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

... and therein you demonstrate the highest ignorance. This "unregistered editor" happens to have more history than you know. In the meantime, WP:NPA, please. 81.104.165.184 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

and that clearly means you know more on the subject that anyone else... two letter edits only up your edit count, not your stature Captain scarlet 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it not seem just as useful to put a section on the page of the new station giving the history of the station under the previous name, like I've personally done with Heswall railway station by using the # tag? {Stuey 182 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps the best way to go would be a List of reopened stations in Britain, etither as a separate article or as a section on this one? Thryduulf 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, and done. Captain scarlet 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: (edited whilst I was reading) The closed article is sufficient, and dosn't warrant yet another article, it this article needs is good editing... Captain scarlet 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:LEGS. The words "book" and "cover" come to mind. I will ask once more that you don't judge other editors by what you mistakenly believe to be their entire contribution history. Further sniping based on what you perceive to be my history does not magically make it true. Since you evidently missed it the first time, I'll use a larger font this time: WP:NPA. None of us are perfect, yourself included. 81.104.165.184 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You might want to make your comments are added to conversation they belong to, this seems slightly off topic. I can't say I've missed anything from unidentified editors in this discussion page or the attached article other than inflammatory comments, inappropriate comments and unfounded edits. This article now clearly states what the station is and what happened. The Snow Hill article itself clearly shows the station's history, which is enough to understand the situation. Try and not include a 5-minute search of Wikipedia policies whilst actually breaching them. Whether you like or not, since you are not identified for a reason or another, your history are solely the edits that show in your history, any other IP is irrelevant since unless you own a static IP, anyone having the same ISP will one day or another have your IP. Try and think a few seconds before lessoning others and see how insignificant the edit your edit was and how ridiculous it is to actually bash each other for something so small. Bless the Internet and inflated egos. Regards, Captain scarlet 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Who's got the inflated ego here? I'm not in any way trying to say that I know more about anything than you do, merely that you shouldn't be so quick to assume the opposite. Jeez, keep it WP:COOL please? Oh, and I'm undoing your move of this comment, so now it really is in the strand it belongs in :-) Can we at least try and talk this out? I'm not convinced by your argument, but thhen that's probably because your entire argument thus far has been to attack me rather than tackling my actual point, namely that stations that are open should not be on a list of stations that are closed, otherwise we'd end up including around a third of the still-open stations on the network. All this means is that stations like Snow Hill and Crewe are out, and the original Rotherham Central (not to be confused with the new one, which is on a different site using different trackbed). 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• ahem* Last section should read "original Rotherham Central ... is in." 21:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of which station you're talking about, but the current Rotherham Station is on the same trackbed, and in the same location as the previous station, using different access points (Bridge St instead of Main St). The best thing to do is stick to editing article of things you know about. You don't see me editing the Penzance article... Since the article is verfied, I'd suggest thinking of what you've just said for a while. Using your logic, I ought to add St Pancras station which was closed on 9 april 2004 and relocated to the International site, but it's the same station in the same place with the same trains. Regards Captain scarlet 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved comments back to their place after the ones they're actually in reply to, again) I'm not following your interpretation of my logic here. The new bit of St. Pancras is an extension to the current station, in use while the main section is renovated and rebuilt, on precisely the same site, so it's not closed. In much the same way as Snow Hill is no longer closed, and whatever other station I was thinking of when I mistakenly added Crewe (still not sure why that's there, though). If Rotherham is on the same site, then the article probably needs to make this slightly clearer (and not confusing the fact with mentions of "new" constructions all around), and it can probably come off the list, since evidently it too is no longer closed, this being a list of closed stations, not open ones. I'm now somewhat uneasy having found that the original list was pretty much lifted strraight from Disused Stations (though in fairness it seems that the resulting articles are original). Before you move this again, remember that discussions on Wikipedia are threaded, and replies follow the comment they're replying to, not some crazy chronological order that not only breaks the flow of the discussion, but also distorts the conversation somewhat. 23:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Breaking your logic I've once again repasted this discussion in chronological order so that the last comment is at the bottom of the page. I'm going to actually look for your erronous comments as well as trying to convince you of your error. regards, Captain scarlet 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. As long as you at least stop breaking the talk page. The last comment does not go at the bottom, it goes underneath the comment it was in reply to. See WP:LEGS... was in reply to and that clearly means, so it, and the ensuing discussion does underneath it. Not, surprisingly enough, under Perhaps the best way... or (edited whilst I was reading)..., with which it is entirely unrelated. I am struggling to sustain my assumptions of good faith, since if I didn't know better, I'd say you were almost deliberately trying to misrepresent me and discredit my opinions. Of course, you're not doing that, are you? 81.104.165.184 23:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly playing the bullied card. I am here, talking to you and you are systematically vandalising a collection or articles with unfounded comments. You are on these articles clearly lowering the tone, and this is not your Wikipedia: If you don't want your writings to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I for myself have nothing to feel guilty about other than wasting my time with you. I have assumed good faith by spending time on this chat. I have long left the good faith motto behind since you have shown nothing more than immature behaviour of what would seem to be of a 10 year old discovering the joys of the Internet. There are others in this community who happen to not agree with you and who take time to verify the information they put into Wikipedia. One should not assume he or she is being prosecuted by the mere disagreement of others but listen and maybe realise the error of his or her previous opinion or judgement. Now this is the last comment on this page and is staying at the bottom. None of your edits make any sense whatsoever and you are not productively contributing to Wikipedia. God knows where this discussion other than feel free to edit while I actually take some sleep in view of tomorrow and be reverted the morning come. This is not your Wikipedia, edit with caution and consideration. Regards Captain scarlet 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go again with the "newbie-biting" (though I am most definitely not a newbie). I am not vandalising the articles. I have no problem with the whole editing process. I've just noticed that in all of this, I have put forward a suggestion for this list, fixed up some station stubs, and trimmed some redundant info from a couple of articles, whereas all you have done is reject the suggestions out of hand, put redundant info back in, and continually launch personal attacks in your edit summaries and talk page responses. Remember, attack the argument, not the person. 81.104.165.184 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. I consider your idea as rubbish, not you. I disagree with what you are saying and am not going to agree with you to make you feel better. You are misguided in the fact that you consider this being personnal attacks when I am telling I think you are wrong. Please do not delete my coments on this discussion cards, you are blocking any outside comments and bullying me into accepting your changes. I will not. Regards, Captain scarlet 06:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet here you state:

1. Ridiculous, especially from un unregistered editor. Why is that relevant to whether or not a station is closed? It's an attack on another editor.
2. two letter edits only up your edit count, not your stature Again, not relevant to this list, but yet another attack.
3. I can't say I've missed anything ... other than inflammatory comments, inappropriate comments and unfounded edits. Also irrelevant, and purely to attack another editor.
4. Using your logic, I ought to add St Pancras station This is called misrepresentation - presenting my argument as something it is not.
5. I am here, talking to you and you are systematically vandalising a collection or articles with unfounded comments. Accusing me of vandalism, when I am clearly not guilty. See what vandalism is not), where you'll find it says bold edits and mistakes.
6. On the other hand, you are guilty of vandalism - changing people's comments: by rearranging the page to your preferred order, not only do you change the context and therefore the meaning of my comments, it even ends up directed at the wrong person! - abuse of tags: you placed a test warning on my talk page, when it is clearly evident (though maybe only to everyone else and not you) that nothing of what I have done was remotely a newbie test.
7. you are blocking any outside comments and bullying me into accepting your changes.

Please explain how I am bullying you, when you are reverting all my good edits, labelling them as vandalism? Now, that, my friend, is bullying. More importantly, how am I blocking outside comments? You are the one who keeps moving this discussion out of threading order (talk pages should be in thread order, not chronological by individual comment), effectively blocking anyone from continuing the discussion below this. Before you start accusing people of bullying, perhaps you need a mirror to realise that you are trying to bully me into submission, in much the same way you've bullied people over the naming of other articles for which there is already clear consensus. Taking this to WP:AN/I. 81.104.165.184 00:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am exasperated by your behaviour and will only engage dialogue on WP:AN/I. I cannot reply to you if you systematically kill the edit order on this page, confusing at best. I will revert any vandalism you edit until your edits are proven to be valuable such the correction of my gramatical error on the P&O page which I thank you. Regards, Captain scarlet 06:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please maintain the editing timeline to preserve consistency DdW

Size of List

The more you look into this the more you realise that the number of closed stations is vast. If we had them all in here the list would be colossal. How about building some structure into it; by county, perhaps? Or line, railway company or region? Mucky Duck 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea; not only to make the list more readable, but to address the problem mentioned earlier of finding stations whose names do not begin with the name of their town or city. (e.g. "Lewes Road, Brighton"). Doing it by region or line might introduce problems with stations under joint ownership/management, so I'd prefer going by county. Unless of course there were stations straddling county boundaries ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tube stations

I've just added Shoreditch to the list, as I found there is an article about it - this is Shoreditch railway station on the Broad Street line. However the Tube station of the same name has also just closed. Should this list reflect tube stations (e.g. Aldwich, Ongar etc), or just ex-BR (or earlier) stations? – (Comment was added by Tivedshambo, 09:27, 10 June 2006)

Please, no! ;) There is already a suitable article: Closed London Underground stations – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But Ongar was part of the GER and LNER, only becoming part of LT after the Central Line extension in 1949.Romfordian 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The list could be longer...

You want the bad news? The stations I've added so far are just off the top of my head. I've just flicked through my copy of the book I added to the bottom of the article and think I could increase this list substantially. Oh Boy.Britmax 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to revisit the topic of organising the list then. The Closed London Underground stations article I've just mentioned, above, may be a useful example of something we might do here. Anybody got any other suggestions? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the time has come to properly re-organise the list? Maybe into sub-categories for lines and/or regions. I'm leaning towards the latter and any disputes/boundary problems arise I'm sure we're all civilised enough to work through them! (Stuey 182 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Definitely time. The method is gonna be a minor headache. Lines seems nice, but at what point in time - construction or closure? Layouts and ownership changed in some cases, and probably some stations in the list catered for more than one line. Anyways, when we come up with a solution I'd be happy to help if there's any checking / researching needed. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well with stations serving two or more lines I suppose they'd go into both, ordering them could be a headache too in that while there were many mainline stations closed there's many more branch lines to figure, maybe separating it into two lists, one with regions (North-West, North-East, Midlands, South-West, East, London, Wales, Scotland) and one with lines. I believe it's feasible anyway. (Stuey 182 17:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

Do you think, perhaps, we should make a start? The actual job is going to be huge, but if we set up headings for the regions now (while leaving the exisiting alphabetic listing there too for now) we could start moving entries into them gradually and it may not look so daunting. Mucky Duck 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a book (out of print I think) called "Clinker's Register" which lists closed stations in Britain (including date of closure). There are probably upwards of 7,000 of them - ie nearly 3 times as many as those that are open. However anyone who tries this for the USA is in for a long task - there are probably 80,000 closed stations and depots there!

Exile 20:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Private stations

The stations on the closed GNR line between St Albans Abbey railway station and Hatfield are missing.

However, while looking into this, I read here - Subterranea Britannica: Lemsford Road Halt - that "Lemsford Road Halt was a late addition to the line being opened for workmen in August 1942. It was a private Halt and did not appear in public timetables and was not shown on maps."

So should it (and other private stations) be included or not? --David Edgar 11:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes; for one thing, they remain an interesting part of railway history. Additionally, I don't imagine there are vast numbers of them (so long as we don't start naming goods sheds as stations! ;) so it shouldn't pose much trouble here. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Maiden Lane railway station

Could i have help with this article? As indicated in it, there were not one, but two stations with the same name and in roughly the same location. However, one station was built sometime in early history when the ECML was being extended to London. It was only temporary. The second station was built on what is now the North London Line and closed many years later. Probably some clarification on dates and just general expansion of the article. Or should i split this article? Simply south 13:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Maiden Lane, GNR. Temporary terminus from 8 Aug 1850 to 14 Oct 1852, when King's Cross opened.
• Maiden Lane, North London. (Originally East and West India Docks and Birmingham Junction). Opened 7 Dec 1850. Closed 1917 (exact dated not stated).

Source: Jowett's Railway Centres volume 1, Alan Jowett. Published PSL, 1993. Invaluable if you can get hold of a copy. Hope this helps.--Tivedshambo 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case were they two seperate stations on 2 different sites? Simply south 20:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's how the map shows it - the EWIDBJ station was north-west of the GNR terminus, though the maps are hand-drawn without scale, so it's impossible to jusge how far apart they were.--Tivedshambo 20:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, should i split this article, or should i make two seperate sections on it in the same article?

I think i will probably rename to Maiden Lane railway stations. It has an s on the end to show there is more than one station. What do you think? Simply south 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You could always have it as a direction page to one giving the link to a separate page for each, maybe giving each a bracketed section such as "Maiden Lane (GNR) railway station" and "Maiden Lane (North London) railway station", I'm not entirely sure as to how that's exactly done but I'm sure some of the other users on here would help with that. If that idea doesn't float your boat you could include them both on the same page with separate sections for each station. I'd imagine neither of them would be incredibly long so maybe this method would be more suitable? (Stuey 182 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm more inclined to go with Simply South's idea of renaming the article to the plural. The stations are in similar locations, opened around the same time.--Tivedshambo (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't really work calling it North London, as both stations are in North London. Simply south 10:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead with the page move, although keep make suggestions Simply south 11:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Station reopening

What do we do when a station closes for some years and then reopens. The example I can think of is Ardrossan Town. When it first operated it was a large red sandstone building with four platforms. A double line main line and a single branch to a terminating branch, as well as sidings. When it was closed, it lay derelict for about 15 years and then reopened, albeit in a much reduced capacity, basically as a single line, with platform and glorified bus shelter. It still operates as such. Douglasnicol 22:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

List it in the closed stations list as it was closed, and should be listed as such. So long as the list points to the station's article name and that the article does hold information on its closure and reopening then all's fine and dandy. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For clarity, this list should also say that it was re-opened. Someone could easily be reading this article without access to the linked article. For example:

• Baillieston CR (Closed to passengers 1964. Reopened 1993)
• Bargeddie Wifflet Line closed 1964. Reopened 1993
• Birmingham Snow Hill (1972) (reopened 1987)
• Bitton MR (1966) (re-opened Avon Valley Railway)
• Farlington (Proposed re-opening: 2007)

and several more. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-passenger locations.

What is the best way of representing closed non-passenger locations?

I note that Wenford Bridge is included as a closed station (although passenger trains never ran between Boscarne Junction and Wenford Bridge), but nearby Ruthernbridge is not listed (both had their origins in the Bodmin & Wadebridge Railway). Should locations which were at the end of freight-only lines, such as those above, be handled differently to intermediate locations which were only used for freight such as Dunmere Wharf or the old clay dries on the Down side of the Liskeard - Bodmin Road line (whose name I have forgotten). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Romfordian (talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Which railway company?

Is there a convention for which railway company is shown (if any) after a station's name, bearing in mind that there may have been several operators over a station's lifetime? --Dr Greg 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The one that built the station!!! Things are sometimes simpler than you think!! Canterberry 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If that's the agreed convention, it's worth stating it at the top of each page. I've seen some entries which don't follow it — can't remember which, now, but I'll correct any I notice in the future. --Dr Greg 11:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Closure Date

could some kind person please explain the year of closure? Does it mean closure to passengers or complete closure of the station? An example of a station where these two dates are considerable years apart is Whitegate railway station, which closed to passengers in 1931 but remained open for general goods until 1963. Best Witchwooder (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)