Talk:Nottingham station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Services info box[edit]

Updating the "services info box" for Nottingham railway station to reflect recent timetable and service-pattern changes raised a number of questions which I thought it would be worthwhile asking others to comment on here before I post the proposed revision (shown below) to the article.

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Beeston   Central Trains
(Cardiff – Nottingham) 		  —
Long Eaton   Central Trains
(Hereford – Nottingham) 		  —
Loughborough   Central Trains
(Leicester – Lincoln) 		  Carlton*
Langley Mill*   Central Trains
(Liverpool – Norwich) 		  Grantham*
—   Central Trains
(Nottingham – Skegness) 		  Radcliffe*
—   Central Trains
(Nottingham – Worksop) 		  Bulwell*
Beeston*   Midland Mainline
(London – Nottingham) 		  —
* Most, but not all, trains on this service call here
  • While I agree that the listing of all railway routes in GB that appears to be underway in Wikipedia is, in general terms, "a good thing" (as they say), there does seem to be a certain amount of unresolved conflict in a number of articles at present between lines and services.
    • In one station article discussion (I cannot remember exactly where now), I noticed that someone suggested that we ought to list the lines, not the services, since the former are more permanent while the latter may alter with each timetable change. True, but it would be impossible in many cases to summarize the service patterns from a station at all neatly in terms of physical lines alone, because so many lines are shared by different operators (and different services offered by the same operator) with distinctive stopping patterns.
    • For commercial marketing purposes, a number of operators brand some services as e.g. "The XYZ Line", even when other operators and other services use the same "line" (in the physical sense). I would say that it is potentially confusing to use these commercial names when listing the Bahnstrecken as opposed to the Bahnverbindungen (German makes the distinction more clearly!). In this "twilight zone" at present we have the Cotswold Line (a third of the route of which is also served by other operators and services) and the now defunct Ivanhoe Line, sharing the Midland Main Line between Leicester and Nottingham. Is there, BTW, one list in one place somewhere in Wikipedia of the GB rail routes so far "named" for the purposes of Wp articles? (I haven't found a consolidated list yet.)
Yes the full-list is at List of railway lines in Great Britain Our Phellap 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My proposed update to the Nottingham services names services (A to B) rather than route names (although I am trying out the idea -- see the last two entries -- of "piping" these services to railway route articles where they the service lies entirely within the compass of the route concerned).
  • The preceding and following stations information is another "very good thing" but we must take care to see that it is accurate and reflects the real service. The article as it stands, for instance, shows what looks like a Beeston - Langley Mill service. In fact, there were only three direct trains per week between these stations in the old timetable to mid-December 2005 -- and there are none at all in the current one!
    • I have taken a standard operating week (in a period without any weekend engineering work "foldirols") as my basis. Within that, I think it is useful to indicate for each service the preceding and following station called at by all trains (or by most, but not all, when that arises).
    • I would propose not using the word "terminus" in the preceding- and following-stations columns, as the current layout, where the word appears under the headings "preceding station" and "following station" has the potential to puzzle and/or mislead ("So the preceding station is the terminus? Where is that? Do you mean St Pancras?").

I await your comments! --Picapica 22:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have thought about this for a few days now, and have not come to any firm conclusions. I can see the benefit of both options, but having both is OTT. Ideally every station we have an article on should be linked to its adjacent stations by one of these boxes - even if most services don't actually stop there - so probably your solution would be best. I'm reluctant to lose the named lines though.
A thought has just come to me regarding this - perhaps we should group the services by line with a header, so all services along the Midland Main Line are grouped together, then services on a different line, etc. Thryduulf 14:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I do absolutely agree with is the replacement of "terminus" or "terminates" with "—", and as far as I'm concerned you can go around replacing them now. Thryduulf 14:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thryduulf. I appreciate the careful consideration given to the points I raised. I tend to favour classifying TOCs' services by itinerary rather than "line" (itineraries frequently use several lines, and lines are frequently traversed by several different services). Nevertheless your grouping-by-line idea might well work, but first of all:

A main concern of mine remains the validity of the currently existing Wp classification and naming of GB lines (and thanks, Our Phellap, for pointing me to the complete list). Now that I have that list I really need to map the lines as currently defined in Wp articles on to the GB network map before commenting more fully on this, but just reading the Midland Main Line article throws up a number of questions about methodology and consistency (working in the field of railway timetabling and cartography myself, I tend to get even more pedantic than is my general wont where matters of railway geography are concerned!). It'll be more appropriate for me, though, to put my detailed comments on the discussion pages of the list itself and individual line articles. --Picapica 20:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed page move[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Birmingham New Street station

Well actually the move of this page did not go against naming convention as it should include station street tram stop. Simply south 13:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited[edit]

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

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Nottingham Railway station → Nottingham station or Nottingham railway station — Per Birmingham New Street Station, capitalisation or includes tram stop Simply south 12:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes[edit]

  1. Support second option as the majority of articles are named this way. Keith D 13:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, yes. "Nottingham railway station" would be used as long as there aren't non-mainline rail services there (e.g. tram, metro, etc.).James F. (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Oppose votes[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments:
  • When we have decided which way it should go then the rest of the UK station articles should be brought into line with the chosen option. Keith D 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seperately, NET do not have their terminus in the station right now. It is on Station Street. However, it is projected that between 2010 and 2013, it could run into the station. Simply south 13:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

HFD - NOT / STP - NOT[edit]

  • The Hereford - Nottingham service is now split into separately worked HFD - BHM and BHM - NOT.
  • Taking the "fast" STP - NOT service to be that operating non-stop to Leicester, the preceding station is (for some, but not all trains) Beeston.

-- Picapica 11:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very poorly written.[edit]

The last paragraph under the "Nottingham station today" section (below) is a state. Tokyo Underground (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As part of remodelling the station there are plans to redevelop the station and refurbish it. The first refurbishment is to reconstruct the railway bridge. It was refurbished with a new paint job and stronger supports. It can not be domolished because it is a Grade 2 listed building. Next was to consturct a first class lounge. It was constructed by Network Rail and funded by East Midlands Trains and Nottingham City Council. It was opened on the 14th December 2008 when the timetable change commenced. Nottingham City Council planned to construct a Multi-Storey Car Park. There were protests not to construct the car park because of taking it's natural history of the station. Plans were to reconsturct the whole station. This includes the ticket office, main concourse and the platforms. The council also want to call the station the hub. If the plans go ahead the construction will begin."

Nottingham Station Remodelling/Blockade[edit]

Is it worth taking all the blockade information on the page and creating its own section, with reference to the logistical operation that goes with it? Considering it's the largest line closure on the MML for years, it has very little mention on this article or on the East Midlands Trains article. Mike1901 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to avoid recentism. Will it still seem that important in ten years time?--Charles (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky balance, admittedly. I just think it can't be ignored seeing as the station will be almost completely out of action for over a month. Mike1901 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do have precedent. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! Will leave this discussion open for another couple of days just in case anyone else has strong feelings against my proposal, and then will start work on doing a similar section to the one on the Reading article. Mike1901 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there's enough material, go for it. We shouldn't limit our coverage of one aspect because we don't have sufficient coverage of another. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with tram stop article[edit]

As the station is now multi-modal, should it not be moved to Nottingham station and be merged with the Nottingham Station tram stop article? That is the usual procedure with multi-modal railway/tram stations, such as Birmingham Snow Hill station and Manchester Victoria station. G-13114 (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Bulwell station and Hucknall station I was expecting a merger, or move to Nottingham station to occur. —Sladen (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Nottingham_station. There doesn't seem to be much justification for two articles. I'll merge them unless anyone sees any reason to object. G-13114 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. I renamed the previous Station Street tram stop to Nottingham Station tram stop because it changed its name as well as moving a few metres, but I think a merger would be a better eventual solution. We need to make sure that we don't lose the history of the old Station Street tram stop in the process; I'm not sure if it is best to keep that as a separate article or merge that in too. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to merge the whole lot to be honest. The previous Station Street was just a temporary arrangement, it probably doesn't warrant an article on its own. G-13114 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed {{overly detailed}}[edit]

The article has had {{overly detailed}} at the article level for two years now. Looking at the article as it stands today, it is difficult to see what needs to be changed. Perhaps some of the details on the engineering of the tram bridge, or the rather long section on a footbridge, are tending this way, but not IMHO sufficiently to leave this template on. It may be that the offending over detail has already been removed. Unfortunately there is no discussion on the talk page to indicate why it was added, so it is difficult to know. I think the best thing to do is to remove the template and start a discussion here. Maybe that will lead to the template going back on, but at least then we will have a record of why. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms[edit]

On a similar subject, the article has a very detailed list of the normal usage of the station's six platforms. Trouble is that I'm pretty sure (and other bits of the article explicitly say) that the station has seven platforms now, and I rather suspect some of the described usages are no longer normal or, indeed, possible. Unfortunately most of the usual sources are equally out of date, and I'm too far away to take a look even if that wouldn't be OR. Could somebody take a look at this. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref, using a recent (2013) source that shows seven. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That sorts out the configuration, but I'm still very dubious about the normal usage. For example, the article has St Pancras trains leaving from platforms 3 and 4, but a check of live departures just now shows them on 5 and 6, which corresponds to what I remember from my last visit. I've added {{cite needed}} for now, but I'm pondering pulling that information altogether. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should consider WP:NOTTIMETABLE and WP:NOTTRAVEL - anybody who wants to get a London train from Nottingham should check with the information given at the station (or an authoritative website like NRE or that of the TOC) and shouldn't be using Wikipedia to find out which platform to go to. So I think we should be very sparing with platform usage information. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Section now rewritten with normal usage removed. - chris_j_wood (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nottingham station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nottingham station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nottingham station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nottingham station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nottingham station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nottingham station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nottingham_station&oldid=1220600394"