Talk:Birmingham New Street railway station

message: As you will have no doubt noticed, all 17 stations controlled by Network Rail have been given their own little logo.  I have uploaded all the thumbnail images, but none of the articles for non-London stations have a suitable template with which to incorporate them.  Thus I have just left it right at the beginning as this is exactly how the station board reads:
::Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Birmingham New Street
The same format has been followed for every such station in the country, so if an alternative means of incorporating the logos is established, please change it for all.  Or let me know!  Deano 22:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 move. Discounting the anonymous vote without any contributions to speak of, it's 5 to 2 in favour. —Nightstallion (?) 08:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo

message: This article keep getting cut and pasted with Birmingham New Street by an editor. If you want to move the article, please do not resort to cut and paste again as it loses the edit history. MRSC 07:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you just stop pasting it back! You claimn it's destroying history when the article's history is clearly labelled by yourstruly with explaination. You on the other hand are not curing this fantasy loss of history, just reverting it back. Your edits have been revert ! Discussion on conventions and this page have come to the conclusion that BNS is to be called BNS. If you have any further queries, ask here. Captain scarlet 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fine. I've tried my best with you. Another editor will be along shortly to fix the cut and paste mess move you have re-created for the third time. MRSC 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mess whatsoever, the article is where it should be, as I've told you and I started repairing redirect links. The history is how it should be with a clear description of all the changes tha thave occured as it should be. Do what you feel needs to be so as long as you don't move it back to an erronous name since no changes are needed at this time. Regards, Captain scarlet 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why i reverted the article to user Duncharris' version since there was no justification to the move as the dscussion if you want to call it is ongoing. I am not endorsing this BNS article naming either since it is against what I have been saying for god knows how long but I felt that the move was unjustified and unappropriate. I find that correctness has slipt of late and a bit of a greeting fashion would be nice now and again. Regards, Captain scarlet 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is this article still located here? I can't see any agreement anywhere that station articles should have names that omit the word station. MRSC 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut and paste move

message: This has all gone quiet but the article is still here instead of at Birmingham New Street station or Birmingham New Street railway station. Comments? MRSC 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem solved.   Would everyone please move on. AlistairMcMillan 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone actually call it "Birmingham New Street railway station"? AlistairMcMillan 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And not all of the stations are at "X railway station" anymore.  Just so you know.  AlistairMcMillan 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is how and where it should be. No discussions continued as there was no concensus reached and there is isn't. Captain scarlet 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look above you will find that there was consenus as recently ago as 16 March that this page should be moved to Birmingham New Street railway station (along with some others). In the absence of consensus for a naming scheme, consensus must be reached on all the individual articles, and this was reached and then unilaterally breached (by a cut and paste move which I had to repair). Thryduulf 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought everyone agreed it should end with -station at the very least. Even Captain Scarlet (look at his comments above). Or are some people arguing for the sake of it? I'm not fussed if it gains a -station or -railway station suffix. But it definitely needs to end with one or the other as the current naming is absurd; it is a station, not a street! Railway seems to cause some offence so maybe it should move to Birmingham New Street station? MRSC 05:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are only two reasons to move this page.  (1) Its current name is causing confusion.  I don't buy that argument.  I think even before I added the disambig notices to the top of both pages that it was very unlikely that people would seriously be confused for any length of time.  Now that we have a disambig notice at the top of both pages the chance of any confusion is even more unlikely.  (2) People actually refer to the station as something else.  I don't know how we determine this accurately, but a Google Search backs up the name "Birmingham New Street station" (more than 45 THOUSAND results) as opposed to "Birmingham New Street railway station" (less than 5 HUNDRED).  Doing a search for "birmingham new street" -"birmingham new street station" brings up over 100 THOUSAND results and from a quick glance the results on the first few pages most (if not all) seem to be about the station and not the street.  AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2006

message: I think this should solve the argument about the station name:
:Image:New Street Station entrance.jpg 
As you can clearly see the sign on the main entrance reads Birmingham New Street Station. Case closed. I'm moving it back to the correct title (where incidentally it was in the first place before this nonsense started). G-Man * 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://tom.acrewoods.net/files/images/IMG_0739.preview.JPG AlistairMcMillan 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. It defies logic for the article about Birmingham New Street Station to be called anything other than that. MRSC 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case solved

message: I hear they're going to be revamping this dingy shithole soon. Thank goodness for that! It gives visitors a terrible first impression of the city. Martyn Smith 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the article Birmingham Gateway which is the project to rebuild New Street Station. It still needs expanding and some rewording but when more info comes in, it will prove valuable and not take up considerable space on the New Street article. - Erebus555 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamp

message: I have put Nottingham sta up for WP:RM. This may relate back to earlier page move here but i am not sure. Simply south 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am i making a big deal out of this? 

message: Tivedshambo says, in an edit summary, "(Added OSGB grid ref. Whether long/lat co-ordinates are still required for a major location like this is debatable.". The use of coordinates ensures that the page is included in the Google Earth layer for Wikipedia. Using  (which will soon replace the coor family of templates) to display them adds a Geo microformat; and coordinates are better understood, than OS references, by readers outside the UK. Andy Mabbett 11:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordinates

message: I was visiting this article and noticed the citation requested. I Googled, and found these two links, which broadly support the statement, but I'd guess that the fire might not exactly have been of such a scale as to merit permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia article for all time - both the fire and the Samplesonic music being only of temporary interest to most people:
--PeterR 11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire in station 

message: I can't think of any other way to cite the fact there is a number of platform changes other than recording the announcements! I can't understand the reason for the citation tags! Mojo29 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not allow original research. Statements, and especially opinions, must be verifiable. Andy Mabbett 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it as uncitable.  I have left the statement about derision for the time being, as it's not unreasonable to suppose a cite for it may be possible.  81.104.175.145 01:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This week's Private Eye calls it "the country's most unpleasant station" or something similar - I don't have a copy so can't give the exact quote —  iridescent (talk to me!) 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Private Eye is a satirical magazine and is not a trustworthy source. However, we already have references that it is not very popular with its users. However, if you view the Live Departure Board, it is easy to spot last-minute platform changes. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but Private Eye is a source of derisory remarks about the station!  --RFBailey (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, Private Eye is a source of derisory marks about anything and everything.  And very little else, usually.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Platform changes

message: I don't understand why User:XAndreWx insists on reverting this. Network Rail run the country's major stations, they publish statistics for how busy they are, and those statistics show New Street to be the busiest outside London with 35 million visits per year. Despite User:XAndreWx's apparent belief that these vistors have come to New Street to admire the beautiful architecture rather than catch a train, the statistics in the source show that more of New Street's footfall is passengers compared to other stations, not less.
Edit wars are boring, but the source couldn't possibly be more reliable, the information couldn't be less ambiguous. I don't really see what the problem is.
JimmyGuano 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From his recent edit history, it appears to be part of a campaign to aggrandise Manchester and denigrate Birmingham. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes perfect sense if you read the cited reference instead of deleting it. These are Network Rail's footfall figures tabulated in a like-for-like form . New Street has 35.1m visitors of which 87% are passengers, Glasgow Central has 34.9m of which 80% are passengers. JimmyGuano 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I right in thinking this station has a shopping centre rammed on the top of it? That would explain much of the footfall and they could be using the trains to move around the city to be included as passengers. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does have a shopping centre (The Pallasades) above it, although you wouldn't use the station as a pedestrian route into it (unless arriving by train).  It's more often the other way round: people pass through the shopping centre to reach the station.  I don't quite get the point about "they could be using the trains to move around the city to be included as passengers": can you clarify this?  --RFBailey 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't know Birmingham's transport system at all but in Manchester you can take a train from Manchester Piccadilly station to Manchester Oxford Road railway station and Deansgate railway station which is just a way to move around the city using heavy rail and small commuter stations the same way one would use a light rail system. I was pointing this out as they may not be using the mainline services and just going through the station to get to the shopping centre dumped on top of it and that would explain the higher footfall with a reletavly high percentage of them passengers. I was just trying to find a reason for such high footfall in such an awful station (yes I have been to it) I guess people have no choice though. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you might mean something like that; however, because what you suggest is not really feasible in Birmingham (not to New Street anyway) I wasn't sure.  As someone pointed out above, people generally don't go to New Street to look at the architecture: as you say, they don't have any choice, so they just have to put up with it!  --RFBailey 04:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following a case with edits, the reference is correct: Birmingham New Street is the busiest station outside London by people using the station. However, it is the third busiest by people catching a train (based on ticket sales). 41% of the users go to visit shops, etc (I don't know whether this includes the Pallisades). 22% go to accompany people who are leaving/arriving by train. I am guessing that is because New Street has a higher percentage of intercity (rather than commuter) railway passengers. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are these 'ticket sales' statistics actually? If it's just what's sold at New Street, it's meaningless, since people can come in from elsewhere. Even if it's all journeys starting or ending at New Street, that still leaves people changing trains. And even if it includes THAT, there will still be people who own local travel passes and thus use New Street either as a start/endpoint or to change trains without needing a specific ticket. New Street remains one of the few major stations to not have automatic barriers, so they can't track footfall numbers quite so accurately either (and there might be more fare-dodging too). I doubt people would go to the station shops unless the Pallasades _is_ being (erroneously) included in the statistics. 131.111.228.219 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ticket sales show the total tickets sold which start or end at the station. It does not matter whether the tickets were sold at New Street, another station or the Internet. The '35 million' is an estimate on how many people come in and out of the station. It is possible that people using the Pallasades may pop downstairs to use some of the station's shops. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Network Rail source breaks down the footfall by who is a passenger and who is a non-passenger - it's in the second table below the 35 million one. For BNS 87% are passengers and 13% are non-passengers. This means that a higher proportion of New Street's footfall is passengers compared to any major station other than Gatwick Airport (which is 92% passengers). The busiest major station claim (measured by actually counting passengers, not estimating from ticket sales) is thus clearly valid for passengers, not just random passers by. JimmyGuano (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Birmingham New Street should not be made an exceptional case for this, the Office of Rail Regulation publish figures for ticket sales and that's how Network Rail measure how busy a station is. That's how they decide to close a station, if ticket sales fall below targets. I use many of Manchester's stations every day but I will not show up in any of the ticket sales figures as I use an annual travelcard so no exception should be made for New Street. You are over complicating the "busiest station outside London" status by adding the highest percentage of footfall being passengers as clearly footfall is an estimate nobody stands there counting people in the station 24/7, it will be counted for a defined period of time e.g. an hour over various times of the day therefore the figure is not factual. Ticket sales are a factual figure as they will be recorded on a central computer. Wikipedia uses factual information when available and as it is in this case that's what should be used unless you wish to distort the truth. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not accurate but it is a good estimate. Wikipedia does use reliable estimates if accurate factual information is not available. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There's underestimating but there's also some overestimating in the figures. A lot of tickets are sold to station groups and traditionally those sold anywhere other than on a direct line to one station are allocated to the main station in the group. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Over 35 million people pass through New Street station every year, making it the busiest major station in the United Kingdom outside London.

message: Why is this article called BN station, when Wiki naming conventions say that it should be "Birmingham New Street railway station?"
Ok, it will be linked to the Metro, but until then, it should be BNS railway station. I might correct the title! Dewarw (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has already been a VERY long discussion on this, which was agreed on much earlier in the year. Whilst i may agree, this does not seem to be the consensus of everyone else. See #Proposed page move, #Dissent, #Cut and paste move, #May 2006, #Case solved and #Another one. Simply south (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and #Naming. Simply south (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, consistency is key to providing a high quality encylopaedia. New Street is a railway station nothing else. I don't see any conensus, just a very long conversation which two equal sides. Policy should prevail when there is no clear consensus. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the fact that the approved proposal for the redevelopment of New Street Station involves the inclusion of a Midland Metro station on Stephenson Street for when it is extended into the city centre? - Erebus555 (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Approved proposal doesn't mean much at the moment, as far as I know there has been no funding put on the table for the extension (except the £5m by local developments but that is nowhere near enough) and haven't heard the DfT are willing to cough up any money. There are lots of tram systems proposed in the UK, few are gaining funding as Ruth Kelly seems to have some love affair with buses. If the station was served by a tram then it should be called a station but as there is no stop there it really should stick with the policy and not just be an exception because it's a major railway station. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 11:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: IMO, when there is more than one mode of transport it should remain as "station", but this does not seem to be the case yet so i don't know. Simply south (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Somebody decided to revert an edit I made on the grounds of inclusion of original research, and deletion of "useful information".
One of the problems facing the reader was that it was unclear exactly what the "redevelopment" means. That unclarity has been restored, courtesy of the reversion. 
The material I removed hardly constituted "useful information". To give some examples:
(1) "The station covers an area of three hectares and was designed to serve 650 trains and 60,000 passengers per day. However, it is now running at overcapacity, serving 1,350 trains and 120,000 passengers (double the number it was designed to take)." 
No authoritative source for the quoted design capacity of New Street station has been given. What are the documents containing these specifications, and who has seen them? 
(2) "Passenger usage of New Street has increased by 50% since 2000."
 
Passenger usage, as opposed to what? Shopper? Trainspotter? How is this being measured?
(3) "At a launch for the chosen design held in Birmingham on 18th September 2008, it was revealed that a new glass atrium surrounding a concourse three and a half times bigger than the existing one would be the focal point for the new station. Platforms would be made brighter and easier to get to with 42 new escalators and 14 new lifts," 
The number of escalators and lifts, and the size of the concourse, were not "revealed" on 18th September 2008. They were in earlier descriptions of the project. 
"Platforms would be made brighter" = repainted brilliant white? Extra lightbulbs?
(4) "whilst new entrances and exits to and from the station would help to make all parts of the city equally accessible."
More or less meaningless.
(5) "...atrium surrounding a concourse"
The atrium is to surround a concourse?
(6) "Initial feedback to the chosen designs"
Designs? There's more than one?
(7) "has been positive with both press[26]" 
One article (which appears to do little more than communicate the contents of a media release issued by the promoters).
"...and passengers.[27]"
A forum thread on skyscrapercity.com is a useful measure of passenger opinion? 
(8) The principal architect is quoted as saying, "The station will be covered in reflected sheets of carefully crafted and finished metal and will incorporate three high technology digital displays which will make the entrances to New Street clear and easy to find."
How do digital displays score over a large non-digital sign saying "Entrance"? 
"Passengers will also enjoy the benefits of a redesigned atrium area which will flood the station with light."
If the station is going to be covered in "reflected sheets" of metal how would this cladding allow it to be "flooded" with light? From the information available, it appears the intention is to allow some natural light to reach a portion of the concourse (only). 
For this subsection to be useful, it really does need to be more than a repository of soundbites made by people associated with the project.
Haskanik (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the justifications you give for removing some of that material are good; but as your edit summary was empty, it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to have known them. In reverting to restore your edit, you've not only removed a cited quote by the principal architect, but also their name. You also removed the size and usage of the station, which were uncited, but plausible, and should instead have been marked with  or similar tags. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision as of 10:06, 7 October 2008

message: This hasn't been mentioned in a while. Why is this Birmingham New Street station instead of Birmingham New Street railway station? Other NR 'Major Stations' such as Edinburgh Waverley railway station and Gatwick Airport railway station are so called, but not New Street? Unless the names of every other station are changed (and the overwhelming majority end "railway station" (unless they're multimodal)) then I can see no reason why someone would only call this Birmingham New Street station. 78.33.52.101 (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and I would move it myself, but I'm not an admin and can't move over redirects. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I've updated the Network Rail footfall figures to use the 2007 figures. I've also deleted the "ticket sales" figure, as the Office of Rail Regulation report itself  makes it clear (see pp 7, 10 & 17) that these Station Usage figures are unreliable for PTE conurbations outside London, as they do not include tickets and travelcards sold by the PTE. 
JimmyGuano (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Office of Rail regulation have changed the way that they measure station usage and now include an estimate of passengers using PTE travelcards, (see , pp 4 & 19)  which means that they are no longer as ridiculously misleading for stations in Metropolitan counties and the article ought to probably reflect the fact that these figures show New Street to be slightly behind Glasgow central for usage. The Network Rail figures still show New Street to be slightly ahead, though, so I've rewritten the lead to reflect this ambiguity. I'll try and put a mirror-image paragraph on the Glasgow Central page too. JimmyGuano (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: The previous "pebbledash" image is far from perfect, but the image it was replaced with - the glass doors one - fails the most basic requirement of a lead image: it doesn't show you what the subject of the article looks like. Focussing in on details, particularly highly generic details like glass doors, seems an inappropriate tactic for lead images in general.
Looking through commons:Category:Birmingham_New_Street_railway_station there seem to be a few alternatives that would give a suitable overview of the subject...
File:BNS Panorama.png
File:Birmingham New Street stn building.JPG
File:BirminghamNewStreetFromWest.png
All of these seem to have problems of their own, but do any seem preferable? Does anybody have any better ones that aren't on Commons yet?
JimmyGuano (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: I've noticed many edits have been made to the article today, a lot of which seem to be minor rephrasing of sentences which really don't change their meaning, and in some cases make it a lot less clear. Is this level of slightly pedantic 'tinkering' really necessary? Some grammatical errors have also been introduced - I got bored reviewing *all* the changes, but of those I did look at, for example 'platform' has been changed to 'Platform'. jdan (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For some odd reason, UK railway  stations are a target for a lot of senseless editing. Revert  them  by  using  'undo' (see the edit history), using  an  appropriate edit  summary  such  as 'irrelevant  good faith  edit' , Sometime 'undo' is no  longer possible because it  may  affect  later edits; if you  have rollback  enabled, use the 'Good faith  one' so  that  the revert is not  confused as vandalism. Check  the user's contribution  history, and if the user's superfluous edits are prolific, issue a Level 1 vandalism warning (it  does not  mention  vandalism). If it still  persists, escalate the warning levels. The very last  recourse is blocking the editor -  either make a report  to  WP:AIV, or ask  an admin directly. However, always check  first  before issuing  a warning  fo any  kind -  it  may  concern an established user who  is editing  with  the best  of intentions, or one who  uses American English  and is not  aware of WP:ENGVAR.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I  have now reviewed the recent edits and I  find none that  are a cause for concern. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the editor responsible for all but one of the edits complained of. If anybody can find any grammatical errors in any of my work, I should very much like to hear about it. -- Alarics (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See my  comment immediately above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course I had already seen your comment immediately above, but that doesn't stop me being, to put it mildly, taken aback at being accused by jdan of introducing grammatical errors and making the meaning of sentences less clear. -- Alarics (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My  first  post  was a personal template I use before I do further research. When I looked into it, I couldn't  figure out what the fuss was (I've been  teaching English for nearly 40 years). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certainly not objecting to the correction of mistakes, and I'm pretty confident you did correct plenty of mistakes - I just don't see why you *bothered* yourself with making so many minor rephrasings which don't change the meaning of the text at all. It seemed to just pepper the article with so many edits it's hard to go through them all, which might mean, if, heaven forbid, you did make a mistake which I might have picked up on, I wouldn't have actually seen it. I'm referring to changes like "New Street station was constructed as a joint station" to "New Street station was built as a joint station". I (personally) don't really see what that adds to the article, and that's what I mean when I use the word 'tinkering'. However, it seems consensus is against me, so... I'll just go ahead and drop it. Thanks. jdan (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinkering? 

message: Can someone explain what "tph" means? It is not a well-known abbreviation in English. This info can be of interest to someone who wants to move about in England.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.35.72 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: TPH = trains per hour. I'll edit it to make it clearer. G-13114 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation 

message: Should the information on lifts, barriers and disabled access be moved from where it was (mixed in with 1960s history) to a new section before operation / services?
It doesn't really fit right now where it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.55.133 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hold off for now. The station is in a period of flux at the moment because of the redevelopment, so a lot of the info there currently will soon be obsolete and historical. We'll have to think about reordering it when the redevelopment is finished. G-13114 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even then, we should not include excessive detail - Wikipedia does not give travel advice. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts I did move it. Is there a template which denotes that the subject is in a state of change? It's rather tricky writing articles about things which are in a state of flux! G-13114 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Try  or . --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move some content? 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.railway-technology.com/features/featurenetwork-rail-birmingham-new-street-video/
*:Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Birmingham New Street railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051218030002/http://www.renewstreet.co.uk:80/default.asp to http://www.renewstreet.co.uk/default.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Midland Metro extension to New Street is due to be up and running before the end of this month. So will this article be moved to Birmingham New Street station once it becomes multi-modal? G-13114 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Birmingham New Street 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/20130301092209/http://www.centro.org.uk:80/metro/CityCentreExtension.aspx to http://www.centro.org.uk/metro/CityCentreExtension.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there really any point in adding the interchange stats to the infobox? The latest figures are already included in the main text in the top portion, so it is duplication. It looks messy. And surely we are supposed to be reducing the unnecessary clutter in the infoboxes? G-13114 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; remove it. They are there for previous years and there was a parameter for the 15/16 stats unfilled, so I populated it. If you revert, I promise I won't cry about it. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

text: We are already reducing infobox clutter by showing only the most recent five years, rather than the 12 or so which could be shown. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interchange stats 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Birmingham New Street 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  tag to http://80.86.36.120/vault/XDDocStore_6/0189037_m%2030112006public.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311101751/http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/2008/02/12/new-street-station-rebuild-gets-go-ahead-65233-20463509/ to http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/2008/02/12/new-street-station-rebuild-gets-go-ahead-65233-20463509/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120803214416/http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/02/16/128m-birmingham-midland-metro-extension-from-snow-hill-station-to-new-street-station-set-to-create-1-300-jobs-gets-go-ahead-97319-30343973/ to http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2012/02/16/128m-birmingham-midland-metro-extension-from-snow-hill-station-to-new-street-station-set-to-create-1-300-jobs-gets-go-ahead-97319-30343973/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.centro.org.uk/metro/CityCentreExtension.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Birmingham New Street 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/20130519133010/http://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/tickets-timetables/routes to http://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/tickets-timetables/routes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402093709/http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrbns_str404.htm to http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrbns_str404.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921040045/http://www.newstreetnewstart.co.uk/ to http://www.newstreetnewstart.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921040045/http://www.newstreetnewstart.co.uk/ to http://www.newstreetnewstart.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The disambiguation page Platform 0 implies that there is a "Platform 0" at this station, and a recent video on YouTube suggested the same, but failed to find it.
Can anybody confirm or deny this story?
—Phil | Talk 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No platform 0 in Quail (nor on the diagrams at https://www.opentraintimes.com or https://railcam.uk), & that YouTube video failed to find it.  That was an unsourced & unexplained edit so I've reverted it.  --David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform 0? 

message: Should the Birmingham New Street, to Liverpool Lime Street - London Northwestern Railway Services, be edited on this page, due to the train service, being connected with the Birmingham New Street, to London Euston Service, now being operated as one whole through train? Please could someone look into this further, and if nessercery, check the stations timetable for evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.184.234 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever is looking at this needs to bear in mind that there are three services to be taken into account: EUS-LIV via BHM, EUS-BHM only (some continuing to , and BHM-LIV (only). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Northwestern Railway Service Changes