Talk:Kimberley Park railway station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kimberley Park railway 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105065835/http://www.norfolkrailwaysociety.org.uk/news.html to http://www.norfolkrailwaysociety.org.uk/news.html

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) 02:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kimberley Park railway 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913045708/http://www.mnr.org.uk/visit/minor/ to http://www.mnr.org.uk/visit/minor/

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) 14:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Line open or closed

I'm not sure how a line open to regular non-passenger workings and periodic passenger excursions counts as "closed". Is there an actual policy involved in this edit, or is it another "opinion"? If the first, then Quainton Road railway station for starters also needs to be marked as closed. If the latter, then I advocate a reversion to the actual status of the line concerned. Neith-Nabu (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Routeboxes reflect normal passenger services. A line being used only for freight, or for passenger trains on an occasional basis counts as closed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The reference added in this edit says nothing about passenger services between Kimberley Park railway station and Wymondham railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia rule to say that your opinion over-rules the legal status of the line as open and operational. Discuss first, then we can come to a decision on moving forwards. Attempting to initiate edit wars every time another editor makes a change is not acceptable. Neith-Nabu (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's my idea of how the information should be displayed.

Preceding station	Heritage railways			Following station
Hardingham Line and station open		Mid-Norfolk Railway		Wymondham Abbey Line and station open
	Disused railways
Hardingham Line and station closed		British Rail Eastern Region Wymondham to Wells via East Dereham		Wymondham Line closed, station open (Breckland Line)
	Future services
Hardingham Line and station open (Mid-Norfolk Railway)		Norfolk Orbital Railway		Wymondham Abbey Line and station open (Mid-Norfolk Railway)

Which is an accurate representation of the situation. Mjroots (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't both the station and line in use, albeit as a heritage railway, in the same manner as Bewdley railway station on the Severn Valley Railway? A line being used only for freight is definitely not closed The Castle Donington line is not used by any regular passenger services, but is used extensively by freight trains, The stations on it are closed, but not the line. A line that is used by passenger trains on an occasional basis is not closed either. To be classified as closed, it needs to not be available for use at all. Rownchads (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As the line is not disused or closed, I remain unsure whether the template for disused lines should even appear on the page. Its use is simply creating confusion as the line is clearly not closed, as also noted by Rownchads. In fact, it is not only carry timetabled MNR passenger services, but mainline ECS movements and engineering moves.

Even if accepting the claim by RedRose that the box which states to be about the route is actually about passenger services (which opens another larger can of worms about whether or not it needs to be redesigned to meet Wikipedia standards on transparency for any readers), using his argument means that the line is open to Wymondham - but Wymondham main line station is closed (as it is not used by passenger services over this branch. I don't really see that as much of an improvement.

My personal view remains that it is better not to even add this additional data, which contradicts the actual facts as presented in the articles themselves - and that, as with the conversation that took place a long time ago, the number of these boxes on a page should be kept to a minimum. Maybe, in fact, limited just to the present operation of the line and historical context (despite my dislike of this) - but with the line status needing to reflect the active status of the branch on both as is the case on every other heritage line page I've looked at? Neith-Nabu (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Routeboxes have always been intended only for passenger services, since the information for goods trains is not so easily obtained - indeed, some of them run under the terms of the Official Secrets Act. Besides this, the ramifications of goods workings are complex - for instance, there are regular services from Merehead to several destinations; some of these run non-stop to Acton Yard - so should Merehead be considered the "previous" station to Acton Yard?

The templates {{Disused rail start}} and {{Disused Rail Insert}} are for where a route presently has no passenger services. The companion templates {{Historical Rail Start}} and {{Historical Rail Insert}} are for where a route currently has passenger services. They are mainly used on lines with a passenger service where some of the intermediate stations have been closed.

But you have my argument backwards. At no point have I claimed that Wymondham main line station is closed: it is most definitely open, since it has regular timetabled passenger services to Norwich and Cambridge (seven days a week). It is the line between Wymondham and Wymondham Abbey which is closed, since no regular timetabled passenger services run the whole length of this stretch. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It is very easy to discover whether a railway line is open or closed. That legal status has nothing whatsoever to do with the operation of passenger services over said line. If, however, the route box is being used to refer to passenger services only, then it needs a serious redesign as if fails the requirement for information presented on Wikipedia to be clear to all readers. A box which claims open lines are closed, based on criteria only understood by a small (a dozen, maybe) people in a Wikipedia editors group is not transparent for all users of this page - especially where the outcome is directly contrary to actual legal status.

I'm afraid I don't have you argument backwards. I'm simply applying it. If, as you say, these boxes refer solely to passenger services over the line, then in terms of services on this section Wymondham is closed as no services operate in or out of those platforms in this direction. Of course, that is blatantly daft. As dafty as trying to make out that the tracks are closed, when they are in regular use.

I'm sure that the original idea was made in good faith, but it is causing incorrect (and potentially dangerous) misinformation to be spread. I refer to one of the earlier rules of Wikipedia. Use of common sense in the application of any guideline. Common sense clearly would be that you don't indicate that an open railway is closed on an encyclopedia. Neith-Nabu (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)