Talk:Railway stations in Newmarket

When did the old station close to passengers?

It says it was closed to passenger traffic in 1879 but then that it was used for race day traffic (presumably not all horses) until 1954. What was race day traffic? Presumably passengers— but if it means exclusively for horse boxes etc we should say so. SimonTrew (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk during creation of this article

Copied here for the record. SimonTrew (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of converting the current article into one covering all four railway stations in the town? Something similar to Railway stations in Cromer. Mjroots (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Four? OK so Warren Hill, Old newmarket station (i.e. high level), new newmarket station, and then when they shifted it 200 yards down the line? I don't see any harm in it; since the others (except the Warren Hill stub I have created) are not really mentioned at all, it is hardly going to conflict.

The only objection I would have is if it does the reverse, muddying the waters that we have just separated, between the different stations. I would think most readers would expect Newmarket railway station to take them (after dab) to the *current* newmarket station not a load of history blah. I suppose what I am saying is, if Newmarket was disused it would be clear cut to lump them all together, but since it is in use and those around it disused, it could cause confusion, perhaps, which is exactly what we've tried to avoid.

Did you see that nice new reference I put on? Nice pictures there, also confirmed what we had deduced. I am sure it has been accessed by others working on the articles but they never left a reference to it.

I do prefer my diagram with the straight vertical Ipswich-Ely line rather than yours with the kink in it

I was hunting around for an interconnection symbol between the two stations but Wikimedia.org has been dozing all night so I was getting nowhere.

Should we take this to maybe the Newmarket railway station talk page? SimonTrew (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case of being bold and just going ahead and doing it. Would you like to move the page to Railway stations in Newmarket or shall I do it? Mjroots (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind; you can do it— but what page are you proposing to move? I was kinda expecting to create a holding stub page and then stuff things into it. SimonTrew (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW I am just about to rename the Newmarket and Chesterford Railway Company to Newmarket and Chesterford Railway, or rather, one redirects to the other, so I will just copy and change the redirect, then fix the links (which are few). Can't see that causing much trouble, except perhaps for yourself. For a few minutes it will probably be duplicated on both, while I do it. You're either not in GB or an insomniac like myself. SimonTrew (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, simply move the N&C article to new title. Creating a new page and redirecting the old title will lose the edit history (been there, done that). If you have done this please say so as it can be fixed, but needs an admin to do it. You obviously haven't looked at my User Page yet! I do get insomnia sometimes, hence early morning editing. I'll move the Newmarket station article. Mjroots (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(added ex post facto): Yeah I got an admin slap me lightly around the wrist for that, and kindly moved the history over. SimonTrew (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case it is easier than that. "Newmarket and Chesterford Railway" was already a redirect. So I simply lumped the content from one to the other and put the redirect in the "Company" article. I am now just going through the few references to it (and, surprise, they become simpler cos most pipe to avoid having to say Company anyway). I will leave those in user space alone, but nearly done. I can't see this being problematic since hardly anything links to it, it was way too verbose (some infoboxes are now narrower) and the redirection still works, just in the opposite direction. SimonTrew (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fiished the switch-- those redirecting via the "Company" article now are all user pages and, bizarelly, Warren Hill, though I can't find any reference to it on there-- I guess it comes from an incomplete update in Wikipedia when I changed the template over. SimonTrew (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done the rewrite of the Newmarket stations - see Railway stations in Newmarket. If you can improve it, feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed; I was leaving you to it. Perhaps that's why the Warren Hill was giving me a false link, I noticed you'd moved it in there. I will have a look, and either tidy it up if I think you won't object, or put comments on its talk page. Thanks for doing this, I am sure it is a lot better. (Haven't looked yet!) [SimonTrew forgot to sign]

Newmarket and Chesterford Railway redirects have now all been swapped i.e. article ast stated and "company" redirect there. "Newmarket Railway" also redirects there. In doing so, I removed some unnecessary piping from other articles, and other cleanups (e.g. in one diagram it was "Formerly to Newmarket (1848-1851)" in text, well it's coloured that way, and if you're colourblind you'd still tell the difference because it's lighter, and if not you have the dates there, and if not you have a link there. You don't have to say "Former". Which, incidentally, made the infobox wider by the width of "Former ".)

What a team! I enjoy working with you. SimonTrew (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found a photo showing the site of Warren Hill station which we could use if you think it's worth having.

Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that would be good. What do you think about the ones on the Newmarket Racecourses site? I would think they are Public Domain because of their age. If they are pre 1957 (or somewhere around that time) then they are not covered by copyright. Even if some copyright has since been taken out (and that would be very dubious) for myself I would risk it, it's not as if people are going to be pinning them up on their walls or dartboards, and we've referenced the source. What do you think? They are really nice pics the first one a colourtint I guess, both postcards. I could phone up the Archive and ask but my experience of this is that the archivists have less clue than you do. (I've put quite a lot of stuff into the Cambridgeshire archive.)

I've done a first pass of the article, looks nice, you had a few little typos and I've rephrased a couple of things. I also added a redirect Newmarket station, to the dab page Newmarket railway station. A bit surprised it did not already exist.

I am still a little uneasy that a casual user wanting to find Newmarket station immediately gets bombarded with its history.

Thinking of Cambridgeshire, that does remind me— I doubt this is relevant but just on the radar— Newmarket is kinda an enclave in Cambridgeshire, and was once part of Cambridgeshire. I am not sure at what date it changed, one gets so many fake maps that are "old" but have modern boundaries. I *think* it was earlier than that but may be worth checking, or, more likely, entirely irrelevant.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Images have to be a lot older than 1957 before the are anywhere near PD. We may be able to use later images under "fair use" criteria, but there has to be strong justification for use. The picture on Sub Brit showing the original Newmarket station would probably qualify as a "fair use" photo.

I've redrawn the Ipswich to Ely diagram again. I've removed the connections south of Cambridge as the are better dealt with on the WAML diagram. Grr, just realised that the diagram still needs redrawing to include Ely - St Ives line. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed, I got an edit conflict (again). Sheesh you encourage me to edit the diagrams then you get there first!

I was editing it to add the Cambridge junction llike it is in Fen Line etc. Have a quick look, "Fen Line" is larger than the one immediately below it, I know why, but not sure how it *should* be.

As for copyright, it depends on the autor and all kinds of stuff it is 70 years after death but with corporate holdings it gets complicated I agree, this is held by a public archive which doesn't explicitly claim copyright, of course they don't disclaim it either. I think it would be reasonable to reproduce it under fair use. It's 9am now I will give them a call in a few minutes.

BTW I don't think I got round to saying thanks for the dead stations intersection symbol. wikimedia was playing up there was no way I could have found it if I tried. I do think that works nicer, though, to keep the vertical, and (I would think) is easier to incorporate into other diagrams that way? Or are you regarding it more as a stop-gap until you get your icon? SimonTrew (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oi! you got rid of my branches at Cambridge! Put them back! SimonTrew (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

<g> Don't panic, they're back, with links to correct lines! :-p Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

ooh miaow. Okay okay I put the wrong line in one place. I was quite proud of myself getting them all the right way round considering I have to parse them by hand you probably have the diagramming tool. I should have asked for it I guess but I was only expecting to do Chesterford to Newmarket sheesh. :) SimonTrew (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Any comments on my comments/changes on the new Railway Stations in Newmarket article? It's pretty good I think. I'm glad I got that quote from Newmarket Racecouses, I am sure somebody else must already have got it (not all the info there is in the Sub Brit article), a pity they never ref'd it themselves. No matter. I think I will go get that Fen Line book today I can guarantee I am gonna need it in a day or so and it's only a quid. I am not particularly a railway nut but it's part of our history. Unfortunately these days it is only history. SimonTrew (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this comment is in the right place as I am new to Wikipedia. Good updates my only question is I think there were only three stations in Newmarket and that the 1879 station was a remodelling of the 1848 station. Or have I missed something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlwiki1234 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It is exactly the right place. According to Butt 1995 (p. 170) there were three stations: Warren Hill (1885-1939) plus those of 1848 and 1902. He does not describe anything occurring in 1879. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS —UY Scuti ^Talk 06:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Railway stations in Newmarket → Newmarket (Suffolk) railway station – Why should this page about a seemingly-ordinary railway station in Newmarket need such a generic title which does not conform to the "X railway station" convention defined by WP:UKSTATION? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Some Gadget Geek: See thread immediately above. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Railway stations in Cromer § Split to Cromer railway station

• Support - this largely unreferenced article is a mess and refers to numerous stations on different lines built by different companies. It refers to one closed station which I have doubts existed. It is the only station on the network apart from Cromer not to have its own article. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
• Against - improving this article is on my list of jobs and I am sure there are some articles in the Great Eastern Journals on this subject (though when I get round to it who knows). I like this format because the history of the stations (or at least some of them) is quite closely linked. If anything I would separate the Warren Hill article. Which station do you doubt existed? #Lamberhurst--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Davidvaughanwells: David, I think we're on the same page here: the original 1848 station and its 1902 replacement form part of the same article. However, I don't think "Railway stations in Newmarket" would be an appropriate title for this article, if - as we seem to think should be the case - Warren Hill is hived off into a separate article as it has a different history and focus. The station which did not exist is the 1879 one which was in fact a simple remodelling of the 1848 one to add another platform for the Ely line which was locally referred to as the "lower platform". Lamberhurst (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

My update is largely complete. On reflection I would like to see the page remain as is, as there is a racing day connection between Warren Hill and the 1848 station. I have however added some text to cover that if you do go ahead with the split. I would appreciate someone to go through and improve readability (never my strongpoint). Also has anyone got a copy of July 1993 Railway Magazine and its material on Warren hill? Love to see it. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: I see your point about the 1879 station. It could I suppose be presented as one station entry but emphasising the change of focus (terminus to through in normal operation).--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Tentatively against. If the stations are geographically separate (which seems to be the case judging from the coordinates), they might be worth separate articles, and the current one could be reworked into a "History of the railway in Newmarket" or some such title. In that case, a subcategory with the current title of the article would make sense. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose disambiguator in the middle. National Rail does not call it "Newmarket (Suffolk)" - [1] - they just call it Newmarket. So if we were to have an article specifically for the modern station (which we probably should), then it would be Newmarket railway station (Suffolk), not the proposed form.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split

With the above move discussion now closed, I agree that the current page about the historical stations should stay as is. Now, I am asking that the information about the currently operational station, including services to it, be split into an article with the proposed target title, so that it could fit the WP:UKSTATION conventions. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

As there's been no support for this proposal in eight months, I've removed the {{splitto}} template.Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Split revival

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent discussion on Talk:Railway stations in Cromer involving Blue Square Thing, Lamberhurst and Mock wurzel soup has reached consensus to split the single article into individual station articles that follow WP:UKSTATION conventions. Can we say the same for Newmarket, considering the town is much larger than Cromer and its stations likely have a longer history than that of Cromer? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I support this. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support as previously. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Against as previously - I fear the complexity between the stations and their changing use could be lost in separating them out. I appreciate its non-standard. I would support retaining this and having separate articles.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will retain this and create separate articles. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have created a new article for Newmarket (Suffolk) railway station, the one that is still in use. Does anybody want separate articles for the two closed stations or is Railway stations in Newmarket sufficient for these? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mock wurzel soup: So now we have duplication. Please revert until you have consensus. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus. I have now removed the duplicate text from Railway stations in Newmarket. We now have one article for the working station, Newmarket (Suffolk) railway station and one historical article for the two closed stations, Railway stations in Newmarket, which we could rename Closed railway stations in Newmarket. I think this is a reasonable compromise but, if you have a strong objection, you can revert my edits. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Two support one against? No way is that consensus. Please restore the articles to how they were before, instead of leaving disjoint bits here and there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody was against it. Davidvaughanwells said "I would support retaining this and having separate articles" and this is what I did. You, Redrose64, are the only person who has objected. If you want it changed back then you do it. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What?? They wrote "Against as previously" - what part of that suggests that they were not against it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I took Davidvaughanwells' statement to mean that, although he was against it, he would support it provided that the original article was retained as well, and that is what I did. Redrose64 has apparently put a different interpretation on it but only Davidvaughanwells can say what he actually meant. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• There certainly needs to be a split: the modern-day railway station should be its own article. How the historic ones are dealt with is a bit more complex, but my choice would be individual articles for each and then an overview article which weaves them into a single narrative. I believe that is what Davidvaughanwells advocated. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I would rather people spent time improving the poor quality of a lot of individual railway station articles rather than splitting up existing articles. Other than a few Wikipedia contributors I doubt anyone out there really cares. Currently I am working on improving the history section of the Great Eastern Railway and Southend East railway station. Help welcomed! For the record mattbuck sums up my view on this (not that it particularly counts) and I will write no further on this matter.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

So, are there any objections if I create new articles for Newmarket (1848 station) and Newmarket Warren Hill station and re-write Railway stations in Newmarket to "weave them into a single narrative". Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2024 split discussion

There doesn't appear to be a reason or precedent for this article which encompasses three different stations. Newmarket railway station (Suffolk) was already split following the 2017 discussion. @Davidvaughanwells: You seemed to be the only editor strongly objecting to this last time. Do you still believe that Newmarket High Level railway station and Newmarket Warren Hill station should not be at their own article? 162 etc. (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No objections, done. 162 etc. (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

So much for any form of debate then - looks like you'd made the decision and imposed your own deadline. I do object and for the same reasons as the history is so interlinked. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)