Template talk:Major railway stations in Great Britain

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q: What do I do if I want to add or remove a station? A: You should discuss it on this talk page first and wait for other editors' approval, rather add or remove it straight away without discussing. You should briefly outline your argument based on the criteria below and any other factors you feel may be relevant. Q: Are there any criteria for what counts as a major station? A: Yes and no. Stations are added to the template based on a number of factors but no strict figure. For example, we judge if a station can be classed based on (amongst many other things) its number of platforms, but there is no defined number of platforms that a station must have before it can appear on this template. Q: What factors are taken into consideration when deciding if a station should appear on this template? A: The number of platforms, its role as an interchange for other train services, its role as an interchange for other modes of transport, its annual passenger use, the number of train operators serving it, the range of destinations, the type of destination (e.g. major cities), national rather than local importance, its facilities, and whether it serves a major city or settlement of significant national importance should all be considered. There may also be other relevant factors. Q: Why isn't the addition or removal of stations decided on a divide and conquer basis? A: It is not decided on the basis that it must meet a certain figure because, for example, a major station may have a very high passenger use and have services to many national destinations, but not have many platforms compared to other major stations, and vice versa. Q: Can more than one station in a certain city be added? A: Certainly. In fact, many major cities will have more than one major station, look at London for example. However you should discuss your proposed addition here first. Q: Can I re-add a station that has been removed? A: Not immediately. You can discuss it on this talk page and explain why you think it should be added. The rail network is forever changing. When a new set of passenger use figures are released, they can show a considerable jump in use for a station and therefore it may qualify for re-addition. Q: Can I remove a station that has been re-added? A: The re-addition should have been discussed and approved by a majority of editors. In this case, no, but you can give your case on the talk page if you have new evidence. If a station has been added without any indication of intention or discussion, then it should be reverted. Q: What happens if I add or remove a station without discussing first? A: Your edit will be reverted, so there is no use in doing so. Discussions and consensuses help ensure accurate information. Q: I've suggested the addition or removal of a station, but no-one has replied or voted. How long should I wait? A: It has been suggested that two weeks is an appropriate time period. After this, if a majority of editors (even two against one) are against the edit, then it may be reverted. Q: I've suggested the addition or removal of a station, but only one editor has replied and is against my proposal. What should I do? A: A majority of editors (even two against one) must approve the edit. So as long as no-one else voices an opinion, you should not make the edit. Q: An editor keeps reverting an edit. What should I do? A: Firstly note that according to Wikipedia policy, an edit that has been reverted three times within 24 hours can lead to a block or ban on the editor responsible, see WP:3RR and WP:EW. Secondly, check this talk page and its archives to see if the matter has already been discussed and an agreement reached. If so, you should not have reverted the edit but you should outline your arguement on the talk page and may only make the edit with a majority agreement. If there has been no mention of the edit on the talk page, don't break the 3 revert rule, or edit war. Instead, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Stations / in UK Trains Portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject Stations. This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

Archives

Archive 1

Okay, I've just archived previous discussions and it seems we've agreed on the current template. As discussions have frequently involved the same topic, I've added an FAQ list. I've you'd like to make a revision to it (including myself), we shall discuss it here first or the edit may be reverted. The same goes for a proposed addition/removal and then see what the response of other editors is. Let's keep things more civilised from now on shall we? Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still concerned over the use of usage. Also, you must remember that figures jumped due to a change in methodology for 2006/07. Simply south not SS, sorry 18:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I share this concern, could we not use a British English word such as use instead of usage? Perhaps even patronage. Bare in mind Welshleprechaun mentions usage as one of the characteristics of a featured station Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise it wasn't BrE, I use that word all the time. No problem to change it to use though. Captain Scarlet, I don't understand your concern about it being one of the characteristics? Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the criteria... (moved to discussion below #Revision time as suggested) Andykn101 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the discussion below #Revision time. Simply south...... coming and going for just 6 years 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Moor Street with Snow Hill? Snow Hill has more platforms, tram connection and greater usage. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was changed last year [1] after a very brief discussion. It has higher usage statistics, but (i) they don't count PTE passes which are likely to be a significant factor in this case, and (ii) how tickets sold to "Birmingham Stations" are allocated to the figures is rather arbitrary and seems to vary, so the figures may not be accurate. But the tram connection and extra platform are an argument in favour of Snow Hill.

Given that there are arguments in favour of both of them, what would people say to including both? --RFBailey (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument for Moor Street? Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That in reality it's probably as busy as Snow Hill. If you look at the figures for 2006/07, the figures for Moor Street are 2.681 million, a considerable difference from the figures specified for other years (which are very likely to be wildly inaccurate, for reasons previously stated (e.g. PTE passes, journeys erroneously being allocated to New Street/Snow Hill, etc.). --RFBailey (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including both seems to be a good idea. Looks like what is needed is a definition of a major station. Any station with over 1 million / 2 million /whatever amount of users per annum? Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've sort of got some criteria, see the FAQ at the top of this page. But we need to condsider number of platforms, services, TOCs, connections etc. Saying that all stations just over 1/2 million would be crazy. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, previous discussions on this (which have gone round and round and round in circles over and over again) have indicated that a formal definition is essentially impossible. (Have a look in the archives for what I'm referring to.) Essentially, any additions need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. --RFBailey (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to this case, I don't think we should consider usage for the reasons above. However Snow Hill has more platforms and tram connection. Do you agree that this warrants the replacement of Moor Street? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any rule that says that you can't have both stations in the template? Mjroots (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't. --RFBailey (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does Moor Street have going for it? Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the addition of Snow Hill. I don't think both really deserve to be there, just Snow Hill. If there are no further objections, I'll carry out this edit. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to propose distinguishing between stations operated by Network Rail and those that aren't as it makes no difference. Instead, I think it would be better to sort by region, because at the moment, just showing London seperate is giving it undue weight. This is what I had in mind. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Network Rail: true, this doesn't make much difference, but it's something that can easily be indicated, so it doesn't do any harm to separate them.

Re London: at present, there are 17 London stations listed compared to 23 others, so separating those out seems sensible. It's not undue weight. There are not enough others to justify further splitting.

Overall, the layout is fine as it is. I suggest leaving it alone. --RFBailey (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well my suggestion makes more sense than the current template. Network Rail managed or not makes no difference so it might as well be disbanded, but keep London separate. But although there are many London stations, it still shouldn't be treated as superior to any other area of the UK. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you think your suggestion makes sense. The point of a discussion is to see whether others agree with you. I explained the reason for keeping London separate: there isn't some London-centric conspiracy going on here. And your choices of regions are somewhat arbitrary: they don't have any sort of official status. --RFBailey (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it makes sense because I propose getting rid of the ridiculous division (ie. Network Rail) and going with the other division (ie. regions). The regions are the 9 official English regions but I put Wales/Scotland/NI with their neighbours so the template wouldn't be too long. I'm just seeking to reform the current template for the better. What I have proposed is a suggestion, so feel free to suggest ideas and helping. (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expect this has resolved itself now, but if you would like my point of view (esp. Welshleprechaun), it is an unusual feature on the National Rail system for a station to be managed by some body other than a train operating company. Add that to the practical note - if person X has a bad/good experience at station Y, who do they annoy/thank - and I see good reasons for keeping the distinction. I know on one level it makes no sense - but the fault lies with the way the railways were privatized, not WP. --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham used to be there but it's not now. Was this discussed? Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it. Put it back if you like. --RFBailey (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nottinngham isnt really a major station if you want an east midlands station i would put use derby as has better connections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.77.135 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should East Croydon station be added to the London section. It's had more people enter the station than Clapham Junction not counting the tram users and is a important station on the Brighton Main Line.Likelife (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a busy and important station, but the same could be said for many London stations because of the shear size of the city and if we had them all on the template, it would get out of control. I'm thinking maybe we should limit the London stations to the termini with 1 or 2 others at most (e.g. Clapham). Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think East Croydon should be included. It has 20 million passengers a year, which is more than some the London Terminals. That makes three stations - Clapham Junction, Stratford and East Croydon - so then we can leave it at that and avoid opening the floodgates any further if we don't include Wimbledon, Richmond, Bromley etc. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't include Gatwick and exclude East Croydon. I think the criteria need to be more rigid. Andykn101 (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think MKC should probably be on this template. It's bigger than several of the stations here (7 platforms, eight trains an hour and serving a settlement of a quarter of a million people) and often serves as a transfer between different operator's services (onto Virgin services for passengers from smaller places and onto the Southern service to Croydon). Tom walker (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd grudgingly agree that if we have Doncaster and Crewe, we should probably have MK as well (although my personal preference would be to lose all three). The problem is that there's quite a number of stations far above MK's size and usage (4.5 million entries/exits, 181,000 interchanges) which have a better claim to be significant interchanges – East Croydon (20 million entries-exits/year, 6 million interchanges), Wimbledon (15 million & 1.3 million), Reading (14 million & 2.6 million), Cambridge (7.5 million & 300,000), Brighton (14 million & 1.4 million)… you get the picture. The station usage statistics make interesting reading; there are some that you'd never think of as major interchanges that get amazing volumes of traffic. (Lewisham above Glasgow Central, Manchester Piccadilly and King's Cross? Surbiton a busier interchange than Euston?) – iridescent 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crewe's a major station but I'm not sure about Doncaster. I know due to all the platforms and trains that serve there. That's just how it works, I guess. 80.192.157.6 (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Preston station should be included. Featuring 6 platforms at the edge of the station (1, 1a, 1b, 2, 2a, 2b) allowing transport on slower Northern line trains, and 4b for Ormskirk trains, and also Liverpool trains on these platforms, there's a Blackpool-Manchester line and Scotland-London line serving as a major link between Scotland and Manchester, this station is detremental to the train system in the UK. It serves many more stations than most other major stations, and definitely has the train frequencies

Manchester Victoria should be removed as the trains are less frequent than in Preston; the trains are all slow lines and Victoria is just a passing-through station, on the lines that take over an hour from Preston-Victoria, whereas Piccadilly takes 55 minutes (35 by Virgin) and is in general a bigger station. Victoria's essentially an overflow station.

Bristol Parkway is similar. It is right next to Temple Meads and I have seen small trains that stop at most small stations but skip this station. There are many pass-through tracks and for some reason, it serves XC to Taunton via Exeter. The station serves less trains than Manchester Victoria and Preston and the layout is just ridiculous. It's very similar to Stoke-On-Trent in layout and services so if Stoke gets it, then Parkway can get it.

Tez011 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Victoria has 5.8 million passengers per year. Preston has 3.8 million. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no comeback for that. But do we count stations as major by their traffic (where Preston is low) or the amount of trains that serve (Preston gets like 15-20 trains an hour and that's not counting the bus links and sleepers, where it is more significant) Anyway I was told it was 7.2 by some guy...no comment on that but I believe it should be actually 4.5million Tez011 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC) whoops, posted it offline[reply]

Redrose64 - there are two errors in your claim. One you've used out-of-date figures and the other is you've used entry and exit figures and ignored interchange figures. Preston is a more heavily used interchange station than Manchester Victoria. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that I used out-of-date figures. My comment above was made in September 2011: at the time, the most recent available figures were those of April 2009-March 2010 - see rows 1476 and 1814, column V. Since my September 2011 post, more recent figures have become available: those for April 2010-March 2011 were released in April 2012. See column V again, this time rows 1479 and 1814.

It is true that Preston is a more heavily used interchange station than Manchester Victoria; but at both stations, there are fewer interchanges than entries/exits. It is also true that I ignored interchange figures: this is because interchange figures, although available (see column X of the same spreadsheets), were not normally shown on Wikipedia station articles - it was only four weeks earlier, on 15 August 2011, that the infobox template was modified to allow interchange figures to be displayed; but such figures had only been added to a very few station articles. Manchester Victoria station and Preston railway station are two that did not have these figures (as I write, they still don't).

In the table below, I have shown: the entries/exits; interchanges; and a combined figure for the two, each being for both periods under discussion.

	April 2009-March 2010			April 2010-March 2011
	Entries/exits	Interchange	Total	Entries/exits	Interchange	Total
Manchester Victoria	5.87 million	0.276 million	6.146 million	6.361 million	0.305 million	6.667 million
Preston	3.88 million	1.025 million	4.905 million	4.169 million	1.126 million	5.295 million

Although Preston has nearly four times as many interchange passengers than Manchester Victoria, these figures are still significantly lower than entries/exits. I therefore uphold my claim that Manchester Victoria is busier than Preston. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, however you need to take note that Victoria does not have any intercity services and only serves one operator which the main destinations are like Blackpool, Preston and Leeds. Preston has many more destinations, as well as terminal platforms and sleeper platforms going nicely with the suburban platforms and intercity platforms. Manchester Victoria has nothing of the sort. Preston has many a bus service and a dedicated replacement terminal. Manchester Victoria has nothing like it. Preston is used for more lesuire than commuting, because Preston is only a small city. Manchester Victoria is a local commuter station.

I rest my case. Tez011 (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why all the anger? Why the inaccuracies? Manchester Vic most certainly has terminal platforms; there are two at present, although at one time there were eleven. But why is the number of operators significant? Twenty years ago there was only one operator, and it's only the whims of the franchising authorities that has produced a situation where in some areas one operator has a local monopoly whilst in other areas competition is permitted. Why are commuters (who use the train 250 days a year) less important than tourists (who don't)? Manchester Vic doesn't have an adjacent bus station, this is true: but it's got a tram line running right through, which connects directly with the city's two major bus stations. Why is the provision of dedicated facilities for rail replacement buses of any importance at all? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not know what to say. I never really imagined a commuter station to be considered as 'major' unless it had intensive use (Vauxhall, Reading, Wimbledon, Richmond, Liverpool Central and Brighton in a nutshell if not more) Of course one ToC isn't bad for a station (Liverpool Central) but if more ToCs cross then this gives the impression of a major station because of all the routes they serve even if for example, TPE and Virgin branch off at Carnforth, the bulk of services call at Preston anyway. This is the same for Victoria, which however doesn't have shuttle services as well as intercity services and local services. Victoria does have trams of course for local services as well, giving a shuttle to the intercity station of Piccadilly a short while away from the station. I know that Victoria has terminal platforms and they provide structure and better service to the station, a bit like Preston where 3C and 4C allow services to Ormskirk, Hazel Grove, Colne, and Manchester (ironically Victoria sometimes)

Feel free to keep Victoria, it is Manchester's second station after all and has an array of services. The only catch is that it won't be having intercity services until the Ordsall Chord is finished, and that's if TPE operate fast intercity services to Leeds, York and whatnot. Preston has TPE, VT, and FSR already at its disposal, so therefore more intercity services and it seems there always will be. I will leave other people to argue for Preston and Victoria - should we keep one, both, or none altogether? It's in everyone else's hands now. 94.170.238.28 (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2.8 million people in 2011. It only links to an airport and is in the middle of nowhere. It should be removed immediately. Tez011 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't link to an airport (the bus link runs from Bristol Temple Meads), but it is the primary interchange between London-South Wales, South West-Midlands-North East/North West-Scotland, and South Coast-West of England/South Wales services. Yes, it's in the northern Suburbs of Bristol, but that doesn't mean it isn't a major station. The "Bristol stations" station group also means that usage figures for individual stations in the group aren't necessarily going to be accurate (I know they aren't in Manchester, for example, I don't know about Bristol).

A discussion about whether it should be on the template is certainly acceptable - the only previous one I can find (/Archive 2#Bristol Parkway and Cardiff Queen Street was in April 2008. Immediate removal is clearly inappropriate though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have used BP as interchange before, but you see very few people changing trains here, even during the holidays. It can be treated in a similar way to Wolverhampton because you change there for trains to Birmingham International when trains are terminating short. Most trains continue to other stations these days and as a result this station is not used for interchange, backing up my previous point nicely. Guess the same also applies to Glasgow QS. Tez011 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if a foreign railway enthusiast started his tour of "Major railway stations in Britain" at Bristol Parkway; what is he (or she) met with? A few raised paving slabs next to a branch of WH Smiths and a car park with a couple of bus stops. Andykn101 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You're talking about a station where local sprinters pass through on regular basis. Infact you know what sack it, let's add East Midlands Parkway and why not Leyland while we're at it? Bristol Parkway's just a busier version served by a few more intercity trains, there isn't much difference in hindsight. Tez011 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it speaks for itself. Although having very few platforms, it is the busiest station in Liverpool and if Lime Street's there Central should be there. It also serves numerous lines, like Lime Street and links to the airport. Tez011 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of recent comments - those about Liverpool Central and Bristol Parkway being the two most recent new threads - I think that it's time we reviewed the inclusion criteria. Taking those two stations as examples, and checking the most recent passenger usage stats (those for April 2010-March 2011) I find that Liverpool Cen had 17,958,028 entries/exits and 462,439 interchange whereas Bristol Pwy had 2,114,876 entries/exits and 442,901 interchange. The interchange figures are fairly similar; but the entries/exits for Liverpool C are more than eight times those of Bristol P. There is therefore a case for dropping Bristol Parkway in favour of including Liverpool Central.

It is opportune to consider which others could be added or dropped. For example, East Croydon - 20,100,638 entries/exits, 7,113,300 interchange - busier than Liverpool Central and yet also omitted; whereas Cardiff Queen Street is included, but with 2,411,438 entries/exits, and 617,247 interchange, is not much busier than Bristol Parkway.

The present template has 40 stations, I don't see why that shouldn't remain unaltered: so I suggest that the inclusion criteria be based upon the sum of the figures for entries/exits (column V) and interchange (column X) - those in the top 40 should be included, otherwise not. On that basis, the following should be removed:

Bristol Parkway; Cardiff Queen Street; City Thameslink; Crewe; Doncaster; Manchester Victoria; Moorgate; Newcastle; Nottingham; Southampton Central; York

and the following should be added:

Cambridge; East Croydon; Finsbury Park; Lewisham; Liverpool Central; Putney; Richmond; Surbiton; Vauxhall; Wimbledon; Woking

Comments please. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why add Richmond, Finsbury and Lewisham but remove Manchester Victoria, York and London Moorgate and then keep Waterloo East? Lewisham (not incl. DLR) had less/the same amount of people use the station when compered to Manchester Vic (not incl. Metrolink), York and London Moorgate (not incl. LU). Waterloo East had only 6 million which Man Vic had nearly 7 million. Also does usage solely determine if a station is 'major' or not? I'd say Nottingham is a 'major station' because it serves a city with 306,700 people, and you could argue that Putney is a major suburban station, but not one of national importance like Birmingham New Street or St. Pancras International. I already argued for East Croydon to be added and I agree that Cambridge, Liverpool Central and Wimbledon should defiantly be added, but I'm reluctant for the others. Furthermore I disagree that Manchester Victoria, York, London Moorgate and Newcastle Cen should be removed. Likelife (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake with Waterloo East: I had assumed that its figures were included with Waterloo, but it's got a separate row. This means that it ranks outside the top 40, so my suggestions should be amended to suggest that Waterloo East should also be in the "removed" list, and to balance this, Guildford should also be in the "added" list. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be very careful about London stations (and the vicinity) as we could easily add dozens. Let's keep it simple by having the busiest termini and the odd other London hubs. When judging inclusion, we should look at a number of factors (incl. usage, size, # services, # operators, etc.) to see if a station serves as a hub for a large regional area. If so, we can generally judge it to be a major British station. Welshleprechaun 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right that an easy mistake. I do agree with User Welshleprechaun. Seeing as most rail journeys start or end in London, we run the risk of having a load of stations in 'Southern England' (say everywhere south of Corby, Peterborough, Rugby etc) and not much in the North even if they are considered 'major stations' by most for example Newcastle. Likelife (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lifelike that usage alone cannot be the sole criterion for inclusion. Just to take one example, it would seem really wrong to leave readers with the impression that York is anything other than a "major railway station in Britain". This may have as much to do with its history and the significance of its position on the network as with the number of people who currently get on or off trains there. It is a quite different kind of entity from Liverpool Central or Vauxhall, let alone Finsbury Park. I should have thought the same must apply to Newcastle and Nottingham, which are both, on any view, major cities whose main station must almost by definition be major; and probably also to Crewe, famously *THE* archetypal long-distance interchange station even if not that many people actually live there. -- Alarics (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so could you suggest a list? So far, I'm the only one who has offered one. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the present list is all that off the mark. If you press me on the point, I am not sure that I would have included Bristol Parkway or Moorgate, neither of which "feels like" a major station, but I don't feel very strongly about it. I am surprised not to see in the list Aberdeen, Leicester, Norwich and Plymouth simply because they are all big cities that are also significant nodes on the mainline network; but I admit I haven't looked at the passenger figures for any. (If you want a longer list, I should have thought it quite justifiable to include Preston, Derby, Oxford, Cambridge, Peterborough, Milton Keynes Central, Carlisle, Dundee, Hull, Darlington, Stockport, Rugby, Exeter St Davids, Bournemouth, ....). My approach is of course more subjective than yours and I do understand that having a purely objective (statistical) criterion has the advantage of forestalling any further debate. I just think that if that is your only criterion, it produces results that seem weird. -- Alarics (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right let's sort this out. A recent discussion here states Bristol Parkway, Cardiff Queen Street and Southampton Central must not be there, and I fully agree as the reasons are obvious. A lack of passengers sums everything up in these stations.

I would also delete Crewe, Doncaster and everything else proposed. Adding Putney, Lewisham, and the like is just stupid as they serve no purpose apart from commuters and rail enthusiasts. But what strikes me most is Cambridge - one of the most insignificant stations proposed, so hey why don't we just add Crewe, Doncaster, Preston, Manchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road, Stockport, Stafford, and the whole nine yards while we're at it? Preferably, no.

Discussion should take place on the thread I posted, they are experts on the railway industry and will be able to determine the best of the stations, and half of them think this place is too dreadful so if we want the best stations to go on here, we should post there but that's my opinion or just leave it to the crew :/ Tez011 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should outside discussions have any bearing on Wikipedia policy? If these people wish to steer the direction of Wikipedia, let them contribute here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With great respect, I am not sure that Tez011's contribution adds much to the debate. We are trying to decide here what we mean by "major" station. Is that a purely statistical concept or is it a more complex question than that? -- Alarics (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want "Britains Major Stations" or "Britains Busiest Stations" like (List of railway stations in Belgium)? I've moved my draft criteria suggestion from FAQ above.
I think the criteria should be more definitive. For example, to be included a station must meet the following criteria:

• At least 6 physical platforms in use (single tracks with a platform either side to count as one; island platforms, provided trains stop on both sides, count as two)
• At least x million passenger movements
• Fewer than 10% of timetabled passenger trains pass through without stopping
• At least 4 separate routes into the station (except Termini). A line through the station counts as two routes.

Andykn101 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the same lines

Here is an alternative although maybe we can combine them or something.

To be considered a major station, the station must have at least x of the following critereon:

• High passenger usage (excluding London suburban stations)
• A range of national destinations
• A major junction, number of platforms may play a role but not necessarily
• Serve a major city, although again this may not always be the case
• Possibly serve a range of different transport modes
• Is considered to be a major destination
• Is a terminal station

Simply south...... coming and going for just 6 years 21:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do find myself asking what is the point of this template? No matter how it's addressed it's always going to be an artificial, arbitrary construct and for me it doesn't really add anything to any of the articles it's attached to. We have an article List of busiest railway stations in Great Britain which covers usage, there is Network Rail#Stations that covers those and stations managed by each TOC can be picked up from the TOC article. Alongside that are numerous geographical templates about stations as well as {{UK railway stations}} and categorisation by DFT category, so how does this one add anything? NtheP (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with Simply south. The station should meet like, 3 or 4 of the criteria then we have to decide what are the best candidates. I believe that Liverpool Central may be an exception to the criteria however. So is it time to create a list? We could do with going on a live chat or something to decide this and many other rail-related templates. Tez011 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why must discussion of this be held off-wiki? Off-site discussions do not contribute to "consensus". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of us are on IRC anyway and I agree with Redrose64 anyway. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 16:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say we can't hold it here. Of course there are benefits of live chat but we can have a fair discussion here, there is no problem with that and I haven't even mentioned a problem with that. So now we must decide what to keep, add, or delete. Can somebody make a list or even seperate forum as to all the stations mentioned here and their arguments, and all the potential stations which could be added. From that we will decide what stations will make the final list. :) Tez011 (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NtheP. What's the point of having template with a small, arbitrary subset of railway stations in Britain, and then haggling over exactly which criteria to use? If we were to stick to Network Rail's list of "major stations", and frame the template accordingly (making it clear that the template is a list of big busy stations run by NR) then I could live with that. bobrayner (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that list is that it is not a list of Britain's major stations, but Network Rail managed stations. Welshleprechaun 17:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two are closely correlated, but I will agree that Network Rail's list of their "major stations" does not perfectly fit any of the other possible lists of major stations that we could pick according to other criteria. bobrayner (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just firstly take the obvious major stations like Birmingham New Street, Leeds, Manchester Piccadilly etc. and add them to the list. After that every time we want to add a new station we just have a vote here. Blanking the template and starting over will work and I will ensure that it works properly. Now we should come up with the obvious list - it doesn't have to be perfect as we will propose and argue for other stations later on. It seems like the way to go. Tez011 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then each person would vote for their favourite station, and we would have a template whose contents reflect the locations of a small subset of wikipedia editors. bobrayner (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each person would nominate their favourite station but nobody would vote unless it deserves to be here (let's say my mate nominated St. Denys - nobody would vote for it of course and that's where you've misunderstood. So should we just wipe the template and start over? Tez011 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The question remains: What's the point of having template with a small, arbitrary subset of railway stations in Britain, and then haggling over exactly which criteria to use? In the meanwhile folk have been adding other stations which they think are notable: [2]. I don't think they're "major", and Network Rail doesn't think they're "major", but there will always be an editor somewhere who believes that any given station is "major". So why do we have a template with an arbitrary list which will never be agreed on? bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with Bobrayner. What use is the template to our readers? After reading one of the articles listed here, how likely are they to want to read another article in the list?

It seems to me we have three options:

1. Find a reliable source that defines or lists major stations and use that
2. Decide on an unambiguous and easily understood criterion and then rename the template to reflect that criterion, e.g. "Busiest stations...", "Stations with most platforms...", or whatever, and avoid the use of "major" at all. Inventing our own definition of "major" would be original research, surely?
3. Delete the template.

I am swayed towards option 3. I am opposed to a station-by-station vote as that really would be original research, little more than a beauty contest with no logic at all. -- Dr Greg  talk  15:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike on the matter of the editor who wished to write "line has the most stops of any service" which was only dubious due to the vacillation (fickleness) of the operators and government tenders, where I largely disagreed that would constitute Original Research this plainly is without clear criteria so also uses major as a weasel word. Someone needs to do more research as to what unites these, it is probably "with more than 8 tracks in use served by platforms" or similar. It is nice to see that purely current quantitative trends which in this country are deprecated: few want to see motorways ranked by usage nor airlines. Also that amounts to current advertising. I therefore agree with Dr Greg that we must find something to unite these and now quote this fact or the only way forward is the bin. Adam37 (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of these edits, what counts as a "major station"? bobrayner (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IkbenFrank, what were your grounds for adding Aberdeen; Ayr; Chester; Dundee; Haymarket; Inverness; Kirkcaldy; Motherwell; Paisley Gilmour Street; Perth; Portsmouth Harbour; Stirling? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volumes of customers and interchange stations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 May 2014‎

More puzzling additions by IkbenFrank (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we ever came to any conclusion what the inclusion criteria for this template should be. Perhaps it should contain just the DfT "Category A" stations (28 of them according to the article United Kingdom railway station categories, or 21 according to Category:DfT Category A stations)? And change the displayed title of the navbox to match. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy (28 or 21) is partially down to differing sources - the doc showing the figure 28 (see p. 17) does not have a list of stations in that category, whereas the doc that lists stations (see p. 98) not only has a count of 25 (instead of 28), it also lists 22 stations, also stating "Scottish stations have been excluded from the list". The discrepancy between the 22 here and the 21 at Category:DfT Category A stations is down to the fact that St Pancras is listed twice in the former, our cat system won't allow a page to be listed twice on a cat page. So subtracting 22 from 25 means that there are 3 Scottish cat A stations, presumably two are Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley - but I have no idea if the third is Glasgow Queen Street or Haymarket. Since we don't know the category for any Scottish stations (apart from those two virtual certainties), we cannot use the DfT category as the inclusion criterion for this template. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would the list look like if every station meeting one or more of the criteria below were inlcuded?

• DfT Category A station
• Managed by Network Rail
• One of the top 10 busiest for entries and exits in GB
• One of the top 5 busiest for interchanges in GB
• One of the top 5 busiest in England, top 5 busiest in Scotland or top 3 busiest in Wales (all per entries and exits)
• Has 8 or more platform faces in regular use

While at first glance that might look like a huge list, there will be a lot of overlap between them e.g. Birmingham New Street probably qualifies on every bullet point. This is intended as a starting point for discussion rather than a final set of criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, the list would be rather larger (see below). If platform faces were to be a criteria then it should be higher than 8 as I don't think stations like Blackpool North should be on this list - I don't know how to extract the number though and couldn't find a list so there are probably stations with 8+ platforms missing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

While you were doing that, I was doing this:

--Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we use "busiest" statistics, those figures change from year to year so we'd have to keep recalculating the list each year. And having 8 criteria does make it rather complicated.

Looking at the table above:

• (Dft Cat A) OR (NR managed) gives us 24 stations
• (Dft Cat A) OR (NR managed) OR (8 platform faces) gives us all but 5 in the table

So either of those sounds reasonable to me, depending on how large or small we want this template to be.

Even though we don't appear to have a definitive list of Category A stations (for the whole of GB), we can use the list we have and if anyone can find a reference to prove that another station we've missed is also Cat A, we can add it later. -- Dr Greg  talk  12:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see a problem with editing the template every year, but a way to smooth out changes would be to do something like average the figures for the last n years (3 or 5 perhaps). However I think the next step is to create mockup templates using the various suggested criteria and see if they feel too large/too small and if any subjectively big or small stations are being excluded or included. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G-13114 (talk · contribs) has added and re-added both Coventry and Wolverhampton, neither of which are listed above. Unless some significant change has occurred, they therefore don't meet any of the suggested criteria. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to hearing your explanation as to why you think stations like Ayr, Birmingham Snow Hill, Bradford, Haymarket, Cardiff Queen Street, Chester and Leicester can qualify to be included as major stations, but Coventry and Wolverhampton don't! G-13114 (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add any of those, so please don't ask me to justify their inclusion; and see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Please note, with the exception of Cardiff Queen Street, I was not arguing for their retention.

Ayr was added by IkbenFrank (talk · contribs)

Birmingham Snow Hill was added by Sammich28 (talk · contribs)

Bradford and Haymarket are not in the template: both link to dab pages.

Cardiff Queen Street was added by Welshleprechaun (talk · contribs). This one is fine to retain, as it satisfies the criterion "top 3 busiest in Wales (all per entries and exits)" described above.

Chester was added by IkbenFrank (talk · contribs)

Leicester was added by Prof.Haddock (talk · contribs)

In each case, the linked edit is the most recent addition of that station - it might be a reversion of a removal. As regards Coventry and Wolverhampton, they don't satisfy any of the criteria described above. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G-13114 does make a valid point, even if it's not the one intended; we really do need to settle on some firm criteria for inclusion and stick to them, or people will continue to add and remove things on the grounds of what they consider important. There's no way something like Haymarket—which is both smaller, and sees less than half the usage of, relatively minor stations like Slough or Ealing Broadway—could ever be considered "major". ‑ Iridescent 20:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so why was my edit reverted and not those ones? Also, would it be an idea to have a separate section for Scotland and Wales, as stations that are locally important (Like Haymarket or Cardiff Queen Street) are not likely to be nationally important on a UK scale? Also, I don't get why Coventry with nearly seven million passengers annually is deemed less important than say Derby, which has less than 4 million, or Hull with 2.2 million, if the criteria allows this, then the criteria seem very arbitrary to me! G-13114 (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time that you're asking me - or the watchers of this page as a collective - to justify the actions of single individuals; this is WP:OTHERCONTENT again.

Hull was added by Prof.Haddock (talk · contribs) in the same edit that added Leicester

Derby was added by 86.181.77.135 (talk)

Each of your examples (Ayr, Birmingham Snow Hill, Cardiff Queen Street, Chester, Leicester, Hull, Derby) was added before the discussion above was initiated. Coventry and Wolverhampton were added by you after that. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G-13114 (talk · contribs) has now removed thirteen stations, seven of which (Ayr, Birmingham Snow Hill, Cardiff Queen Street, Chester, Derby, Hull, Leicester) are stations that we have discussed recently; of these, I have shown that Cardiff Queen Street should be retained. Three more (Bradford, Exeter St Davids, Haymarket) do not qualify according to the criteria mentioned in the discussion above. This leaves three which I feel were removed unjustifiably:

• Doncaster - qualifies for inclusion as having 8 or more platform faces in regular use
• Paisley Gilmour Street - qualifies for inclusion as one of the top 5 busiest in Scotland (per entries and exits)
• Preston - qualifies for inclusion as having 8 or more platform faces in regular use

So, let me turn the tables: @G-13114:, on what grounds do you feel that removal of Cardiff Queen Street, Doncaster, Paisley Gilmour Street and Preston was warranted? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion above seems to have fizzled out before agreement was reached. Looking at the table a couple of sections up, the combination of all the criteria except the last (8 platform faces) doesn't throw up any station I'm opposed to seeing on this template. There are 16 stations that make the table only through that one criterion:

• Barking
• Blackpool North
• Brighton
• Carlisle
• Crewe
• Doncaster
• Ealing Broadway
• Inverness
• Orpington
• Perth
• Preston
• Sheffield
• Sterling
• Vauxhall
• Watford Junction
• Wimbledon

Of those, I think Crewe really should be on the list. Brighton, Watford Junction and Sheffield I'm in favour of but less strongly, Preston, Carlisle, Doncaster and Vauxhall I can go either way about. Inverness and Perth I have no opinion about. Barking, Orpington and Wimbledon I really don't think should be there. The rest I'm moderately against. This is all subjective though - what are other people's thoughts? Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the info in the table on number of platforms in regular use come from? I haven't checked them all, but as 2 examples, Perth and Stirling each have 7 according to their respective articles. The table also seems to have been inconsistent about whether to include non-NR platforms (see the collapsed section "Stations that would be on the template based on the criteria suggested above"). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I compiled the information in the collapsed section, but I can't remember now how I did so. Most likely it was just reading lots of articles found categories plus whatever happened to appear in searches. Redrose64 compiled the table, perhaps he remembers more. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went by published track diagrams. Of course, we can't tell from those which ones are in regular use, but I wasn't going to sit down with the WTT and check every column on every page. Stirling has nine platform faces, of which four are through and five are bays. Perth is probably a mistake: it has only seven platform faces, but as two of the through platforms (4 & 7) are signalled for two trains at once (rather like all twelve through plats at Birmingham New Street), I may have counted them as four, giving nine in total. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the main point, does anyone have any thoughts on what the criteria should be? Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]