Talk:Workington North railway station

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Workington stations.

A fact from Workington North railway station appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a new railway station was built in six days in Workington to enable residents north of the river to access the town centre following floods which split the town in two?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/December.

Wikipedia

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Trains: Stations / in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

coordinates (longitude and latitude)[edit]

Will the station really be among the buildings of a company called Gravitom? I thought it was on waste land.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 25 November 2009

I would guess it was slightly to the south of those buildings, as it is just over half a mile north of Worthing Station, but someone else has just moved the coords north. Martin451 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, response to IP) You are of course correct, they won't be demolishing Gravitom's buildings. I've amended the coordinates slightly to improve their accuracy but I've deliberately only gone to three decimal places of precision to acknowledge the current uncertainty as the the exact location. Generally, coordinates on Wikipedia should be considered a guide to the approximate location, not a definitive location although of course the highest accuracy is aimed for.

In response the comments by Martin451, I think the half a mile figure is incorrect even though it comes from Network Rail's press release, it is contradicted in that same statement by a description of the location being "immediately north of St Helens Business Park, opposite the Plaza Cinema", that puts the station just north of Gravitom which is a lot more than half a mile from Workington station. I briefly saw some aerial footage of NR constructing the station this morning on the BBC which I thought confirmed this. I'll see if I can find it on their website. Adambro (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. This is helpful. Adambro (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the coords given, the OS Grid reference is NX 99633 30336. I'm not sure we need 1 metre accuracy, so have amended this to a 10 metre grid ref of NX 9963 3033 in the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram on this BBC article might be of assistance in pinning down the exact coords. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the diagram linked to above, I make the position of the new station 54°39′28.27″N 3°33′23.66″W / 54.6578528°N 3.5565722°W. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC video is probably the most helpful. Based upon that it looks like it will be a little bit further north than those coordinates but we shouldn't be overly precise. I've amended the coordinates slightly after consulting the BBC video. Adambro (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I consider 10-metre accuracy to be too precise, since it's unlikely that the platforms will be less than 50m in length, in order to accommodate a 2-coach train. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the distance to 0.5 miles north of workington which matches what the information within the entry for Workington railway station. If you disagree that please alter both entries to match.[[Steamybrian2 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

It is the other way around. Workington railway station needed amending to match this article. The distance mentioned in some sources of half a mile is incorrect and the distance can be determined to be 1 mile from maps and/or aerial photographs. Adambro (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I know there's not a lot to put in until the station is complete - just wondering if it would be a good idea to put a construction picture in as an interim measure? Mike1901 (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a freely available picture then it would be good to put it in. Even when the station is complete, IMHO a picture during construction would be valuable somewhere in the article. Martin451 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike1901: a photo would be great. Are you in the position to get one? —there isn't much light at this time of year. —Sladen (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not - I'm based in Kent so the complete opposite end of England! It was meant as a general suggestion rather than one aimed just at myself. There are construction pictures out there, I reckon it's only a matter of time before one becomes available that can be used on Wikipedia.Mike1901 (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of station being unstaffed/lack of ticket office[edit]

I think that people viewing this for information on the station might want to know what ticketing facilities there are, as yet there's no mention either way of this. I would like to propose that either it being unstaffed is mentioned or there is a mention of there not being a ticket office. I did insert an unstaffed reference but it got removed in a subsequent edit. Thoughts? Mike1901 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guesswork atm, but I wouldn't expect anything more than a PERTIS machine. I don't suppose that NR would be persuaded to allow free travel between Workington and Workington North, would they? Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I think in practice it'll be free a lot of the time anyway if a PERTIS machine isn't implemented, as the guard won't get round everyone between the two stations! Mike1901 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until the station opens it is difficult to say because it isn't unlikely that the parties involved have finalised all the details but Mike certainly makes a good point! Adambro (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there will be people who know more about this than me, but I don't think they'd be able to "create" the new station in the fares structure until the new fares come into force on the 2nd January 2010. And beyond that, well, I don't know if anyone knows how long they expect it to be there for. So they may just count it, from a fares point of view, as part of Workington station. But you never know really! Sven945 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram[edit]

I've moved the diagram into its own section within the article, rather than it being an afterthough in the "External links" section. The size of it made positioning it problematic, only partly cured by use to the "clear" template. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was moved back. I was wondering whether or not it would stay. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry, I hadn't spotted this section. It is certainly a little bit awkward, as are many templates when articles are short but it is perhaps useful to some readers. I moved it to the end because it doesn't interrupt the flow of the article as much, but to some degree I suspect its positioning will depend upon your screen resolution. Adambro (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, anyone know why the view/edit/talk links won't show on the template? - {{Workington stations}} Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, see this edit.

BTW, all that blank space to the left of the diagram could have been occupied by the References section - just lose the |2 from {{reflist|2}} --Redrose64 (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. Using single column refs would squash the refs up a bit IMHO. Maybe if the template was normally collapsed it could go under the map? Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done...[edit]

Although I haven't been involved with writing this article, I've been following its progress. Well done to everyone who's worked on it - I particlualrly like the diagram (wherever it ends up!). I can imagine the headlines: Wikipedia engineers construct a new railway station article in six days... — Tivedshambo (t/c) 11:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After all the newspaper coverage about "the death of Wikipedia" and "plunge in editor numbers", it's brilliant that an article like this comes along to prove that all is well after all :) doktorb _words^deeds 11:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tivedshambo, that could be a Signpost story! Mjroots (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the news of the opening of the station itself, I was prompted to check what had been done to document it here. I, too, would like to add my praise to everyone involved in constructing a page of this standard so quickly. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Transport section[edit]

I've hidden this section as it is preventing the article appearing on DYK. Can we please find some references for the info, at which point the section may be unhidden. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a reference for the first paragraph in the Services section too, please? Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railnews has quite an extesive article about it, which should reference most of it. I'm rather busy at present, so could someone else add the ref please. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, I suspect the existing refs will cover most of it. The articles from Railnews that I've seen regarding this seem to be derive a lot from BBC articles so probably better using those as sources where possible. Adambro (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current timetable Mjroots (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock - relevant?[edit]

Was just wondering if a mention should be made of the rolling stock serving the station - looking at other stations some do and some don't, not sure if theres a consensus amongst regular transport editors? Mike1901 (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the shuttle services, yes, it is perhaps worthy of note, for the regular services I think perhaps not. I note a mention of the rolling stock for the shuttle is made but it would be nice to see a source for what it says beyond there being three carriages which is all I can see is said in the sources. Adambro (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows four carriages (if it's another loco at the far end), although that's fair enough because the text says "at least three"). It's possibly worth a mention due to the scarcity of real trains on the British rail network these days, where just about everything is some undersized multiple unit. Riedquat (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]