Template talk:Major railway stations in Britain/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

What is a major station?

I think we need some criteria for what constitutes a major station, otherwise the template will grow and grow until it overwhelms the articles it is attached. At which point previous experience suggests someone will nominate it for deletion; and we may well lose it. I'd suggest only allowing the top 25 or 30 stations by passenger volume, except I've no idea where to get passenger volumes from. Any thoughts. -- Chris j wood 19:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the information is available, that would be a great idea. I initially intended to use the Network Rail list of major railway stations, but that is actually of stations which they manage; it excludes major stations such as Waterloo and includes some smaller stations such as Gatwick Airport. My best idea at present is to include stations which are capitalised as major stations on the Natwork Rail route map, however, this may produce an overly long list, and does not distinguish between multiple stations in cities outside London. Warofdreams 11:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the template to include only the stations capitalised on the National Rail Schematic Map, plus the second stations (not distinguished on that map) in Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester. A [list of stations by passenger volume is now available, but I am reluctant to use it as usage is very London-biased. For instance, a top thirty would exclude major stations such as Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield, while including smaller London stations such as Wimbledon, Putney and Richmond. Warofdreams talk 02:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely Crewe railway station should be included as a major station? Our Phellap 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about Crewe. I'm very suprised to see Bath Spa on the list though. In terms of number of services and destinations Bristol Parkway is a more important station - I'm also certain its more important for interchange than Bath is. Thryduulf 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've no problem with finding another measure of which are the major stations, but I'm not keen on just adding stations at random because they feel important. Is there a proposal for another approach? Warofdreams talk 17:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

annotated subjective list

(reset indent) I think a major station must either have a very high number of origin/destination passenger numbers, and or be a key interchange station. My subjective list for some of the key interchange stations would be:

• Birmingham New St (hub of the cross country network, Birmingham local services, major destination)
• Bristol TM (major destination, interchange between Cardiff-Portsmouth, Heart of Wessex, Cross country, London-Bristol, Bristol-South west and local services)
• Bristol PW (cross roads of South West-Midlands-North East/North West and South Wales-London services)
• Leeds (one of the busisest outside London, major destination, major interchange (XC, East Coast, Transpennine, local), West Yorkshire Metro hub)
• Reading (express/local services around London, major destination, Heathrow coach link, Key interchange for Not London routes)
• Cardiff Central (valley lines, major destination)
• Crewe (major interchange, I think you can get more places direct from Crewe than from ay other station?)
• Liverpool Lime St (major destination, this used to have the largest number of different operators (dunno if this is still the case), interchange with Merseyrail)
• Edinburgh Waverley (major destination, East coast/local/Scotland/Cross country interchange)
• Newcastle Central (major destination, East Coast/XC/Tyne and Wear Metro/local interchange)
• Exter St D (significant destination, local/XC/Great Western/South West Trains interchange)

• Major London terminals:
  • Paddington
  • Euston
  • Kings X
  • St Pancras
  • Liverpool Street
  • Charing Cross
  • London Bridge
  • Waterloo
  • Victoria
  • Marylebone?
  • Fenchurch St?

Other ones I'm less certain about:

• Plymouth (as per Exeter, gateway to cornwall)
• York (interchange, significant destination)
• Penzance (end of the main line, local/XC/London services)
• Swansea (gateway to West Wales, on the current list but not major like Bristol TM or Cardiff Central)

Stations/areas I don't know enough about but might be:

• Shrewsbury (gateway to Mid Wales?)
• Southampton and/or Portsmouth Harbour (Central south coast, isle of wight)
• Norwich
• Coventry
• Brum International/Snow Hill/Moor St
• Leicester/Derby/Nottingham (What is important in the East Midlands?)
• Brighton
• Glasgow (similar to Edinburgh?)
• Manchester
• Preston
• Peterborough (on the current list, wouldn't have been on mine)
• Clapham Junction (Similar to Reading?)
• equivalents of reading on East Coast, West Coast (Luton?), Anglia (Tottenham Hale?), South East, South Central and South West (Clapham Junction?) routes.

This is all very subjective, but I think these are the sorts of criteria we need to be looking at. Thryduulf 19:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Manchester Picadilly, Clapham Junction and Glasgow Central (and Queen Street?) should certainly be classed as major stations. They are major hubs and interchanges. Our Phellap 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool Central

I feel this should be included as one of the major stations. It is the main junction between the Merseyrail Northern Line and Wirral Line and carries just as many passengers (if not more) than the likes of Chester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Rawlinson (talk • contribs)

It might have more passengers than Chester (which imho isn't a major station, although I've never been there) but it isn't really a nationally important station, like Lime Street or Brimigham New Street. Thryduulf 11:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Chester is generally quite a quiet station on all services. Bath Spa isn't exactly a station of 'national importance' either. James R 15:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Bath Spa station and I completely agree with you - see my comment further up this page. What do you think of my list above? Thryduulf 15:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Using passenger numbers

I suggest that we use passenger numbers as qualifying criteria (see [1]). The top 60 (excluding London stations) are:

• Glasgow Central - 8
• Manchester Piccadilly - 11
• Birmingham N St - 12
• Reading - 15
• Edinburgh - 16
• Leeds - 18
• Brighton - 19
• Liverpool Lime Street - 20
• Gatwick Airport - 21
• Cardiff Central - 22
• Chelmsford - 24
• Guildford - 27
• Woking - 28
• Cambridge - 31
• Nottingham - 32
• St Albans - 33
• Bristol Temple Meads - 36
• York - 38
• Newcastle - 39
• Bromley South - 41
• Slough - 44
• Southampton Central - 45
• Leicester - 46
• Sheffield - 47
• Colchester - 48
• Milton Keynes Central - 49
• Ilford - 51
• Basingstoke - 52
• Oxford - 54
• Lewisham - 55
• Orpington - 57
• Haywards Heath - 58
• Peterborough - 59
• Bath Spa - 60

That's the data... what happens now is an opinion thing. My opinion is that we should include all of the above, up to and including Newcastle. On a separate issue, I think we should merge this template into the general UK railways stations one. That way, we'd have a single stations template with links directly to major stations, and indirectly to minor ones. Tompw 17:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This has a huge problem. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#usage. Besides, those are probably the 2002\2003 figures Simply south 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new version

(EDIT: corrected so it conforms to top 40 Tompw 14:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Using a cutoff at Newcastle (call it a top 40) feels good - it includes the ones that feel intuitively major and not those that are suprising to me. A combined template is a good idea as the current combination looks rather messy. If possible the design should coordinate the UK stations template, the previous-next template and a commons or commonscat template (not neccessarily the standard). This feels like something that could be a project of the UK railway wikiproject that has been proposed at Talk:List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom#Split.

Regardless of anything else I don't think the new template should be rolled out until someone writes at least a stub for Chelmsford so it isn't a red link. Thryduulf 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree... unfortunately I know nothing about the place whatsoever. I've edited the draft version for style, and added "&nbsp" to prevent names being split across lines. Also Belfast Central makes an apearence as the biggest NI station. (Though I personally feel that railways in the British Isles should be split on an Ireland/Great Britain basis, not Eire/UK basis, so it conforms to physical rather than political geography... but that's another story). Tompw 14:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Even with the bolding the Central London and Greater London entries aren't distinct enough from the actual station entries. I suggest moving those links to the last section. Thryduulf 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Like that? Tompw 13:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, or possibly on two lines. I'd add a non-linked title for the alphabetical section, but the only one I can come up with at the moment is "Nationwide" which I don't like at all. Thryduulf 13:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "A-Z", like now? Tompw 14:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes simple really is best! Now all we need to is get a stub for Chelmsford. I was about to see if there was anyone in Category:Wikipedians in Essex who might be able to help, but I've not got time. Also try the Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Thryduulf 15:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have created a Chelmsford stub. Our Phellap 16:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So, are there any objections to using the above version? Aafterwards, we will need to make sure it is only used in the articles linked from it, and to remove the separate A-Z template from such articles. Could people please say agree or disagree with implementing this draft? Tompw 09:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Thryduulf 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - but with the small point that it would be nice to remove the "|" from the front/end of each row. i.e. just put a break after Cambridge, Leeds etc. Our Phellap 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If we do that we need to force line breaks as Leeds is at the start of the third of four lines on my display. Thryduulf 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How about like this: Our Phellap 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• That leaves a bar after Guildford and puts Leeds City on a line all of its own. Thryduulf 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• How about now? Our Phellap 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• That works as intended, but that line reaches to the VERY edge of the box. Stylistically I think it would look better if Leeds and Sheffield were moved onto the following lines. Thryduulf 21:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • The reason it is so close is because the box shrinks to fit the contents (there is no width specified). I have added a couple of spaces to avoid this. Our Phellap 15:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This looks good to me. Warofdreams talk 10:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

An alternative proposal

I agree that the template has grown too large, but I'm not sure about some of the stations which have been included in the proposed version above. Particularly, I don't think that Chelmsford, St Albans or Woking should be included; while they may occur quite high-up on the lists of passenger numbers, that's down to the fact that they are used by large numbers of commuters every day, rather than any sort of nationally-significant strategic importance. (Cambridge and Guildford could be regarded similarly; I don't think they are any more significant than, say, Southampton Central, which hasn't been included either.)

Which others to include is, of course, subjective, but I think the only ones I'd add would be Crewe (probably busier than it looks from the list, as it will have lots of interchanging passengers, which don't count towards entry/exit figures; also, how can you not have Crewe?) and Glasgow Queen Street (of those cities that I could think of with more than one main station, this was the only one in the top 100).

That would leave the template looking like this:

Incidentally, I support the proposal for a UK railways WikiProject: the lack of co-ordination is making the UK railways articles a bit of mess! --RFBailey 06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we ought to be including Belfast here - there's a GB railway system and two linked Ireland railway systems, there's little that NI and GB systems have in common. Morwen - Talk 00:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it is UK then Belfast needs to be included, but I do think that a split on all templates between GB and Ireland+NI would be better as they are very different systems. That said the only entry on the list that suprised me was Gatwick Airport - is it really that significant (Heathrow carries more passengers, but they'll be split between mainline rail, LU and the coach links to Reading etc). The design is good. Thryduulf 10:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree that Belfast shouldn't be included. Does anyone have objections to the above? If not, I'll transfer it over Monday evening (17th) unless anyone does. Tompw 12:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Belfast Central, it is a railway station within the United Kingdom, and is the most important in it Northern Ireland. But as the NI network is totally unrelated to the GB network, we ought to either emphasise this somehow, or just make it clear that this template is for Great Britain only (maybe move it to Template:GB Major Railway Stations or something.

Regarding Gatwick Airport, I think it appeared as it's a Network Rail managed station, and I think it ended up as such because of the large number of operators that use it (Gatwick Express, Southern, FCC, FGW, Virgin, Southeastern). As far as its importance as a railway station is concerned, its inclusion is probably borderline, but its status as one of those managed by maybe Network Rail strengthens its case (slightly).

Actually, I was hoping people would comment on me removing St Albans, Woking, etc. from the template..... --RFBailey 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not keen to have a list of the stations which "feel important" to people. I suppose all the stations in the Network South East area other than London termini could go, which would mean also removing Brighton and Reading, but then to add Crewe and Glasgow Queen Street at the same time really seems to remove it from the original idea of listing the busiest stations. Incidentally, the second stations are generally far lower in the rankings because tickets to group stations are counted towards the total of the busiest of them (e.g. "Manchester stations" tickets cover Manchester Piccadilly, Oxford Road, Deansgate and Victoria but all count towards Picadilly's total). Warofdreams talk 15:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Going on what "feels important" obviously isn't something quantifiable, but just going on numbers alone hides the full story: my point was that going on passenger numbers alone doesn't necessarily demonstrate a station's true importance (if that is what "Major" is taken to mean). Business and importance are two distinct concepts, which happen to overlap; we need to reach some sort of compromise between the two.

Getting rid of the stations in the NSE area is probably sensible, although Reading should probably stay, as it is a major interchange point and part of the Cross Country network as well as being a commuter station. Glasgow Queen Street could probably go too. However, I still think Crewe should stay in, due to a mixture of its history, its location as an interchange, the fact that it's probably busier than the statistics claim, and a small amount of sentimentality, which can probably be forgiven.

Another point about the second stations is that many passengers using stations like Birmingham Snow Hill, Liverpool Central, etc. will be using PTE-issued passes, which I don't think count towards the statistics either. --RFBailey 16:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As this debate has now reached the stage where the only stiking point is whether to include Glasgoq Queen Street or not, I have implemenetd the above version. If we concldue it shoudl eb taken out, then tha's a simple enough change. I am just about to make sure that all and only stations on the template use it, and remove the separate A-Z from those that do. Tompw 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Manchester and Salford | Merseyside and Wirral (or Liverpool and Birkenhead)

Whoever has designed this Template, Do you think there should be separate templates for the two mentioned above?

For example (in no particular order):

Manchester (and Salford)

• Manchester Victoria
• Manchester Piccadilly
• Manchester Oxford Road
• Deansgate
• Salford Central
• Salford Crescent

Merseyside and Wirral

• Liverpool Lime Street
• Liverpool Central
• Moorfields
• James Street
• Birkenhead Hamilton Square
• Birkenhead Central
• Bidston
• Liverpool South Parkway (under construction)

Simply south 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's really necessary, or would add any value to the existing articles. --RFBailey 22:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what would be good would be sperate {{Merseyside and Wirral railway stations}} and {{Greater Manchester railway stations}} templates that could be placed on relevant articles. Perhaps we could make it a sort of "plug-in" template similar to the way the route boxes work. If so other areas that would benefit would be Glasgow, Bristol/South Glos., Tyne and Wear, Cardiff, Birminhgam and possibly Leeds. My templating skills are nowhere near good enoguh to do any proposals related to this though. Thryduulf 23:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We already have Template:Glasgow railway stations and Template:Sheffield stations (one very large, the other very small). These proposed tables look at least as useful. Warofdreams talk 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to note i have only included the main stations in areas and not really suburban (or related) stations. Just a suggestion. I have not created these. Simply south 22:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually now i am attempting to create my first template to be created. This is on Merseyside and Wirral although it is far from completion (also how do i put a box round it?). Could you leave some suggestions as to which stations i should include? Simply south 11:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions: Template_talk:Merseyside and Wirral main railway stations

Now Liverpool and Wirral. Or should i change this to the whole of Merseyside? Simply south 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Name of template

Shouldn't this template be better titled as UK Major Railway Termini?

(above comment left by Simply south, 20:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC))'

First, you forgot to sign again. Second, many of the stations outside London listed in the template (e.g. Birmingham New Street, Bristol Temple Meads) are not termini (they are through stations), so the present name is more accurate. So, in answer to your question, no. --RFBailey 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Derby

Very surprised to see Derby _not_ on the template, since it has a strategic significance (join of midland main line and cross country toute) and historical significance very similar to Crewe. Linuxlad 21:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And nobody spoke! - I'll shall add if there is not a Strong consensus here to the contrary. Bob alka Linuxlad

This is the problem with having a list of stations which feel important. Derby seems to me just as important as some of the stations already listed, but then so does Doncaster or Leicester. Warofdreams talk 21:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the users discussing above decided to include both large stations and stations of large cities, using a conjugasion of elements. Derby, or Donny didn't qualify for these as, let's be honnest, Derby is a medium sized station in a medium sized location. Captain scarlet 11:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

'Size is not the issue' - Derby's strategic role in the network (like Crewe or Cambridge) is more than enough to offset it's only 18th (from memory) in the size stakes. Linuxlad 14:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue with the stats that were used to form the basis with the list is that they count only count the number of people who start or finish their journey at the station. As this doesn't count interchange passengers it gives an impression that stations like Derby, Crewe and Bristol Parkway, and presumably Newport and Shrewsbury as well are less important than they actually are. Thryduulf 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case the methodology is flawed. Nottingham is listed (presumably because its larger population means that more people start/finish there), but it is no where near as major as Derby. For a start, you have to change at Derby to get to Nottingham from most places. Derby is also the national base of Midland Mainline and one of Virgin's hubs. Derby is certainly more important than a couple of the stations already listed. - Green Tentacle 13:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

template suggestion

There seems to be a lot of debate over which station to include. Do you think instead there shoulkd be another template like {{UK Major Railway Junctions}} or even {{UK Major Railway Junction Stations}}? Just a suggestion. Simply south 11:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No. That would create extra confusion. --RFBailey 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Central area

I've changed this from Central London as this is misleading. Central London covers a wider area and has many more stations than the scope the London railway station article.

I reverted your addition of area as the word is vague and misleading as the current list of (apparently) major central are in the centre of London. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

LondonStations

I've implemented the London Stations as an inclusion of {{LondonStations}}. I've also removed the Index, as this is now in the stations infobox, so already appears on all major stations Mtpt 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good thinkigng, but I've now done this more directly, by copying the relavnt wikicode... otherwise you have a box within a box, which looks bad. Tompw 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Manchester Victoria, Hull and Doncaster

These go included without any prior discussion on this talk page... do people think they should be included on the template? Tompw 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

More additions

As well as Manchester Victoria, Hull and Doncaster mentioned above, Inverness and Leicester have now been added without discussion. If the situation is not kept under control, then the template will end up overgrowing again and we'll have to have another major rethink, like we did in April 2006 (see above). Because the definition of "major" hasn't changed at all, I'd suggest removing Hull, Inverness and Leicester for a start, and possibly the other two as well. What do other people think about this? --RFBailey 17:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In my defence, I didn't add Leicester and Inverness lightly. I put some degree of thought into both of them - in my view (and it's purely a personal one), Inverness is the major rail gateway into the far north of Scotland, while Leicester is at the crux of a significant set of routes through the Midlands, connecting major centres in the East and West Midlands with routes to and from London. Looking at the others, Victoria appears to be the major commuter station in Manchester (as opposed to the major intercity station that Picadilly is). You could make cases for the other two being removed. If people are amenable, I'd like to make some suggestions as to stations that could legitimately be removed:

• Aberdeen
• Dundee
• Doncaster
• Hull

It does all depend on what the definition of a "major station" is. Hammersfan 07/05/07, 21.28 BST

Following your argument, Dundee and Hull could be removed, as well as Leicester and Inverness. Doncaster however, has a legitimate reason for being in this list; it is an importnat/major/historical, a station that cannot be ignored. the town is being considered, the station is. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest (and I suppose fortunately, given what a tenacious goit I can be if I have a bugbear!!), I really don't have much of an opinion either way. I've given my reasons for including the ones I've included, but it really isn't of significant concern to me if the ones I've included are removed. Having looked around the network, there are other stations that could legitimately be described as "major" stations, and I could go on and on. But in this case, it isn't really worthwhile, as there are just too many. Hammersfan 07/05/07, 21.55 BST

IMO Doncaster, (and Crewe & Clapham Junction) ought to be on the list due to the interchange volume — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Crewe is already included, largely for its historical significance, so on that basis, Doncaster (and, for that matter, Derby) ought to stay. If we're going to have Birmingham Snow Hill and Glasgow Queen Street, then that sets a precedent for Manchester Victoria to be included (although Hammersfan's assertion that it is the main commuter station for Manchester seems slightly dubious to me). Clapham Junction is a possibility, with its well-known claim to be "Britain's busiest station" (in terms of number of train movements), although as it is not a Central London terminal it doesn't appear on the template {{Railway stations of London}} at present. But Aberdeen, Dundee, Hull, Inverness and Leicester I think should go.

I wasn't suggesting that no thought had gone into Hammersfan's most recent additions; it was the lack of discussion that concerned me. --RFBailey 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I just say that I never said Manchester Victoria was the main commuter station. I merely said it appeared to be, given the number of Northern Rail commuter routes that seem to use it. Both Snow Hill and Queen Street are major termini that serve locations not served by the very big stations in Birmingham and Glasgow. In these terms, I do believe that Clapham Junction should be included on the London stations template. Hammersfan 09/05/07, 16.36 BST

In addition, including every terminal station in London should lead to stations such as Snow Hill, Queen St and Manchester Victoria - can Moorgate or Blackfriars be described as "major" stations in those terms? People may point out that those London stations have passenger numbers in the millions, compared to the hundreds of thousands for the ones outside London, but you musn't forget that the south-east is the most populated part of the country, and most of the people living in the SE work in London. Hammersfan 09/05/07, 16.51 BST

I'd be in favour of dropping Moorgate & Blackfriars from the list - with the imminent cessation of FCC services on the widened lines, the only NR services to Moorgate will be the commuter line on the old Great Northern & City route, and while some trains terminate at Blackfriars, plenty of others carry on straight through. I realise it's generally bolded as a terminus on maps, but we don't treat Gatwick or Tisbury as termini just because some runnings terminate there — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to my last it's just plain odd (to me) that Heathrow isn't on there whilst Gatwick is — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one is claiming that "Terminus"="Major". In an earlier discussion (see above), the inclusion of Gatwick was down to the fact that it's an important railway station in its own right: comparitively few travellers use rail (as opposed to London Underground) services to reach Heathrow, and Gatwick station is also a significant rail-rail interchange point, and a commuter station. Remember that this is a list of major railway stations, not the railway stations of major airports.

The origin of which London stations are included is that it was originally just a transclusion of {{Railway stations of London}}, which lists pretty much all the centrally-located stations. --RFBailey 17:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In which case, perhaps it would be better not to use the {{Railway stations of London}} template as the basis for use on here? This would certainly be much easier if there was a concrete definition of what constitutes a "major railway station" that everyone agreed on!! Perhaps, rather than deciding in a somewhat arbitrary manner, some form of criteria could be adopted, such as population for example. Now I'm not saying I have a concrete idea on how this would work, merely floating a suggestion. Hammersfan 15/05/07, 13.38 BST

This discussion has gone quiet, but I think the consensus with the non-London stations was to remove Aberdeen, Dundee, Hull, Inverness and Leicester, so I made this change. As far as London goes, I've added Clapham Junction, but removed Moorgate. --RFBailey 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think anyone would object if i added Stratford (as in in Stratford, London)? Simply south 21:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tricky one - since International's so far from the existing station, it's effectively two separate stations, in which case it's just an interchange station of no more significance than Highbury & Islington or Richmond. I agree it probably should be on there though, at least once the Eurostars start stopping there, given the prominence the area's going to get in the next few years — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It does however have long-distance trains stopping (as in Great Eastern Main Line intercities to Norwich) there as well as trains to Stansted Airport. Simply south 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO I don't like long-distance trains stopping as an inclusion criteria as it opens up a potential floodgate - Tottenham Hale, Kensington Olympia, West Hampstead, Wimbledon et al - but as I say I think it ought to be on there as a Eurostar station (and also, will be a unique NR/LU/LO/DLR interchange come the Great Reorganisation) — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

At present, I'd say leave Stratford out. But the situation could be reviewed once the International station opens. --RFBailey

Chelmsford/St. Albans

I think these should be removed. They may have high pass. numbers but that's probably because of commuters to London. They're not exactly major destinations or served by many operators. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr....that discussion was two years ago, and those stations have not appeared since then! --RFBailey (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd better look at the dates next time. Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2