Wikipedia

Talk:Northumberland Park station (Tyne and Wear)

Latest comment: 3 months ago by AlecCoates in topic Infoboxen
Learn more about this page


Clarification

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

'It was indirectly replaced' - which of the two stations is 'it'? Jackiespeel (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think my rewrite of the history section has removed this ambiguity. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Title

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion

A question. What will the title of the article be once the NR platform opens next year? Will it just be Northumberland Park station due to the modal change, with a hatnote to distinguish it from Northumberland Park railway station in London? Or will disambiguations of (Tyne and Wear) and (London) be added respectively? Or both? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think it would probably be wise to see what name(s) are actually used once the Northumberland Line platform is opened, and see how National Rail handles its 'real world disambiguation' problem before we try and disambiguate the article name. I think the current article names are fine until the Northumberland Line trains start stopping here. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to add to this my suggestion would be to move this to Northumberland Park station, which is currently a disambiguation page. "Station" serves well as this will continue to be both a railway and metro station, and is in line with the naming of Sunderland station. The London station can then continue to be at Northumberland Park railway station. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
As these two stations are separate networks, with separate entrances & share no platforms and, most importantly will be deemed separate by National Rail, T&W Metro & ORR, being given separate references codes (CRS etc), wouldn't it be factually accurate to have two separate wiki pages? --Dave F63 (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

2026 discussion

edit

With the opening of the railway station annoucned for 22nd February, we're now at the point where we need to make a decision. @Chris j wood: @Difficultly north:@Dave F63: you've previously commented so you may be interested.

As far as I see it there are two options:

  1. Northumberland Park station as the single page for both the metro and railway, in line with Heworth Interchange, Sunderland Station which integrate. My understanding is that cross-platform changes onto the Metro will be possible? If so I think that we should definitely go with this. If not, it's messier. There are other stations in the UK where it's all on one page despite there being seperate entrances and no direct interchange eg Manchester Piccadilly station. Conversely, we have separate pages for Newcastle railway station and Central Station Metro station.
  2. Northumberland Park Metro station and Northumberland Park (Tyne and Wear) railway station as two seperate articles. National Rail call this station "Northumberland Park Tyne and Wear". This would also raise the question as to whether Northumberland Park railway station should be moved to Northumberland Park (London) railway station

A reminder that there are five naming criteria:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
  • Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Northumberland Park station seems to win on naturalness and concision. Putting the (Tyne and Wear) and having two articles in is more precise. Consistency and recognizability are mixed - there are different precedents out there, and the more precise name is in some ways also the more recognizable, but recognizability also comes from naturalness. On those grounds combined, I still prefer having a single article and using 'Northumberland Park station' as it seems to win out more frequently than the other. But am interested in hearing opinions! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

These are not ideal options due to the clash with Northumberland Park railway station in London. My suggestions are:
This is being discussed at the moment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Northumberland Parks. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 11:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please also see WT:UKRAIL#Northumberland Parks.

Also Northumberland Park main line station in Tyne and Wear has been built on the LHS so in order to interchange with the Metro station, which is an island platform, you first need to go up to the bridge, across and down again. So no, tgere is no cross-platform interchange. I'm not sure how the platforms are numbered. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 10:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Whether there is cross-platform interchange is irrelevant to the naming. We have a single article for Lewisham station despite them being physically separate buildings with interchange from mainline to DLR involving passing though a gateline, exiting the mainline station, walking across the forecourt, down a set of stairs and entering a different paid area (although there isn't a gateline, card users need to tap in). The step-free access route is even longer. Stratford International station also has a single article despite needing to cross a road to get between the mainline and DLR stations. East Grinstead railway station covers both the mainline and Bluebell Railway stations, despite the entrances being about 150-200m away from each other and completely operationally separate.
In contrast Charing Cross railway station and Charing Cross tube station are separate articles despite the entrance to the latter being inside the former. Despite being very similar in layout to East Grinstead, Totnes railway station and Totnes (Riverside) railway station and Porthmadog railway station and Porthmadog railway station (Welsh Highland Heritage Railway) are separate pairs of articles. London Victoria station is ostensibly about both, but the LU station gets only a paragraph and a main article link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I agree with this. There is also a point about article size and duplication: these is a relatively minor station, which can be covered in one article.
The question then becomes whether we include the disambiguation in the title or just have it at Northumberland Park Station? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think a single article makes more sense, rather than two rather small and (inevitably) somewhat overlapping articles. As Northumberland Park station is already a dab page, I think it best to use Northumberland Park station (Tyne and Wear) as the name. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 30 January 2026

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago39 comments13 people in discussion
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Second proposal moved; other two not. Also, Northumberland Park Metro station → Northumberland Park station (Tyne and Wear) is moved. Thanks, everyone, for coming to a consensus at the end and for summarizing. For reference, it's as proposed by Pretzel Quetzal on March 10 and amended a few hours later. Another discussion regarding the length of the title of the result may be in order. I will implement the redirect of Northumberland Park railway station to Northumberland Park station. (closed by non-admin page mover) Iseult Δx talk to me 06:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

– With the incoming opening of the Northumberland Line platform on February 22nd, should this be renamed just to Northumberland Park station to reflect its multimodal status, should the "(Tyne and Wear)" be added at the end or which station should be the primary topic? Should there be no primary topic station and the disambiguation page stays as it is as well? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 13:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it's going to be easiest here to list all the possible titles and what I think they should lead to:
There is only one station that gets the "railway station" title under our naming conventions so I don't see any justification for moving the London station article. There isn't a clear primary topic though between the London and Tyne and Wear stations for the "(station)" search term though, or at least not yet. We should be absolutely open to reviewing whether the disambig should remain primary when we have some usage data after the new station has been open for at least six months or so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Edit: I forgot Northumberland Park station (London), but that should obviously be a redirect to the London railway station. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the above suggestion by Thryduulf - chris_j_wood (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Thryduulf – thank you for writing all that out! I think the correct name for the last redirect is {{R from subtopic}} as the railway station will be part of the new station. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 21:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am broadly content with this, but would have a minor preference for just having the article about this station (the former Metro) at Northumberland Park station, with a hatnote there. You then have one station at Northumberland Park railway station and one at Northumberland Park station, so both get simple titles without extra disambiguation. But I can live with ther proposal as per Thryduulf and apprecaite the way that they ahve set it out. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Note: WikiProject Rapid transit, WikiProject North East England, WikiProject Stations, WikiProject Trains, and WikiProject UK Railways have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 14:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support this cause of action Turini2 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support fully support the changes, we need to decide as the station has now opened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardh1976 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with this approach. There's no need to move the London station to Northumberland Park railway station (London), it has a perfectly good title which it sits at the moment and the hatnote at that page suffices. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It emphatically is necessary to move the London one because the tile Northumberland Park railway station is now ambiguous. Going forward, the one in Newcastle is also going to be a railway station serving National Rail services. The London one can't remain as is unless you also declare that it's primary topic, but I don't believe it is, and nobody has claimed that anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
The London station is the primary topic for the title "Northumberland Park railway station", because it is the only article than can be correctly located at that title. The station that is actually close to Northumberland will have the title "(station)", those who use the incorrect title when looking for it will have a hatnote making it one click away - exactly the same as if they'd landed on a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, 'primary topic' is only one, fairly minor, consideration in naming articles. The primary five considerations are: Recognizability; Naturalness; Precision; Concision; and Consistency. Northumberland Park railway station (London) wins only on one, maybe two of the five (Precision and maybe Recognizability), and the hatnote there quickly directs people to the Tyneside station. It is on these bases by the way that I still prefer moving this one simply to Northumberland Park station: both get their own title without unnatural and unconcise disambiguation, showing consistency with other stations in the UK. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Support, as neither the London or Newcastle station are the primary topic it's necessary to move the London station. Hopefully both are moved soon as it's been nearly two weeks since the rail station opened. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think maybe:
Northumberland Park Station (London)
Northumberland Park Station (Tyne and Wear)
Northumberland Park Station as a disambig.
Northumberland Park Metro Station maybe as either a former metro station OR as a separate article to the train station. ~2026-11397-44 (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is also one other option to split the multimodal station article into the Metro and NR stations and then the disambiguation would be easy. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

How would two short articles about what is essentially a single station benefit readers? Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I cannot really back this up but in a recent YouTube video about the opening, the station(s) has/have 2 platform 1s. Regardless there are two separate entrances but there isn't much else. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 03:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't answer the question. Thryduulf (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
It would help make the location clearer. But I guess that can be done in future if necessary. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 05:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Why would two articles make the location clearer than Northumberland Park station (Tyne and Wear)? In terms of article content, it seems like having one article discuss the relative locations of the NR and Metro platforms would be clearer than having to reference two articles? Thryduulf (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that no compelling reason has been given for having two articles now, and it is not consistent eg with Heworth Interchange or Sunderland station. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Resolution?

edit

Given that the station is open and there has been no meaningful discussion on this for nearly three weeks, I propose that we close this debate and make the changes that are substantially accepted by consensus which is to:

This leaves the London station unmoved for now. I don't see consensus on it either way and so the default would be to not shift it. If users want to continue that debate, then Talk:Northumberland Park railway station is probably the place to have that discussion? The other moves can happen without that being resolved, and there seems no reason to delay thsoe further for now. I'm pinging all who have contributed: @Difficultly north:, @Thryduulf:, @Turini2:, @Richardh197:, @JacobTheRox:, @TarnishedPath:, @Amakuru:, @Pretzel Quetzal:, @2026-11397-44:, and proposing that we take these actions by Friday 13th March? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't agree that that is an acceptable resolution to this. Firstly, you are WP:INVOLVED and it's not your job to close this RM, per WP:RMCI. And secondly, the London station has to be moved, that is not an optional step here. It is no longer the only topic satisfying the "Northumberland Park railway station" name, and it is clearly not the primary topic. WP:AT is clear that we disanbiguate ambiguous names and that requires it to be moved. I think it does have consensus numerically too, as only Super Nintendo Chalmers and Thrduulf are opposing that move, and for reasons not grounded in policy. We need an uninvolved closer to come and assess this, but I don't see any avenue in which only the Tyne and Wear station is moved.
Incidentally, I've just noticed that Northumberland Park station → Northumberland Park station (disambiguation) has been included in the request when everyone agrees that should still be a disambiguation page. So I've struck that part of my !vote above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
OK, well can you participate in the discussion and propose a resolution then? I'm trying to find ways to move this on when it is sat here doing nothing for three weeks. Frankly your response is rude, insulting, and unehlpful. Offer practical suggestions please raher than just reiterating arguments. I don't know Thrydulff, have not communciated with them, and am not trying to do anything improper with anyone - hence pinging you and others to get discussion restarted! The proposed resolution is not in fact my preferred option, and I'm no opposing that move particualrly. I would rather this station move to Northumberland Park station than have the Tyne and Wear disambig - I think it's unnecessary, and it means both this and the London station are a primary topic. However, I am willing to compromise to try and get this sorted, rather than insult, presume bad faith, and be generally unhelpful. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
You know what, I'm really upset and hurt by the tone of your post Amakuru. Why did you come on the internet and speak to people like that? I refuse to participate further in this disucssion, and indeed in Wikipedia. Good day to you. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Super Nintendo Chalmers: I'm sorry if my tone came across as rude, that was not the intention, and I hope you will reconsider your decision to leave. FWIW, while I don't doubt that you made the above proposal in good faith, I must admit I wasn't too happy when I read it this morning, for the reasons I outlined above. In my view there is a clear consensus across the RM that the proposed moves should go ahead, including the London station, with six editors favouring that move now and only two against, and also clear agreement that the London station is not the primary topic for the title Northumberland Park railway station over and above the one in Tyne & Wear. We are simply waiting now for an uninvolved editor to evaluate the arguments made and close this discussion. The closer might determine there's a consensus for the London move, as I believe there is, or they may agree with your position that there's no consensus. But either way, that's not a matter for you or I to decide and we shouldn't be the ones making the determination or closing the RM. And like I say, I do hope you'll reconsider your decision to retire, you're a valuable asset to the project. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is no longer the only topic satisfying the "Northumberland Park railway station" name I provided the policy-based reasoning why this is not true in my first comment, and I stand by that. I will place a note at WP:ANRFC if there is not one there already. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree that a move needs to happen quickly given that the station is open and passengers may be looking for information on the station, but I disagree with leaving the current London station unmoved as that may cause more confusion. National Rail lists the stations as Northumberland Park London and Northumberland Park Tyne and Wear, and all the TOC websites have some variation of that (some put the location in brackets and some shorten Tyne and Wear to T&W - but they all seem to include the location).
I would keep all three of your current proposals but also add a move for the London station, so:
AlecCoates (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
That would make Northumberland Park railway station (London) WP:MISPLACED. Northumberland Park railway station can only be one of (a) an article, (b) a disambiguation page, or (c) a redirect to a disambiguation page. Given that everyone agrees the disambig should be at either Northumberland Park station or Northumberland Park station (disabiguation), (b) is off the table. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The 'Other exceptions' subheading of that page indicates that other naming conventions can take precedent over it, so I think we should be deffering to WP:UKSTATION - which seems to say the disambiguation should be at just Northumberland Park station without a (disambiguation) suffix and there should be no Northumberland Park railway station page at all, the same as it is for Monument station. Does that sound okay? AlecCoates (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Northumberland Park railway station should absolutely exist. The only disagreement is what content should be there.
Following the WP:UKSTATION conventions leads to the situation I described in my very first post in this discussion, which is why I made the suggestions I did, and why I believe that they are the best. I genuinely don't understand why people are trying to complicate matters with all these new suggestions now. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, then Northumberland Park railway station can be a redirect to the Northumberland Park station disambiguation page, I have adjusted my proposal accordingly.
I know you say that would would make it WP:MISPLACED, but I don't think it would because that guidance only applies to primary topics, which I don't believe there is in this case. WP:D says 
If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but there is no primary topic (per the criteria at § Is there a primary topic?), then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term.
which I think applies here. (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you @Super Nintendo Chalmers for trying to bring this discussion to a resolution. I think the three changes you've suggested have been largely accepted by everyone and should be implemented.
However, I do not think that the current London article should be kept at Northumberland Park railway station in the meanwhile. I think the safer option to avoid confusion, as there are now two "Northumberland Park railway station"s, would be to add (London) to the end of the article and make a disambiguation page. I think @TarnishedPath's suggestion earlier was the best, I'll repeat the relevant parts below:
Which I think causes the least confusion and least possible ambiguity, and then in the mean time a discussion can be held on Talk:Northumberland Park railway station (London) as to whether the name can be simplified further. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I mostly agree, except that I've now realised the second move you mention does not need to be made. Northumberland Park station is already a disambiguation page, and we want it to remain as one. Hence moving it to Northumberland Park station (disambiguation) is unnecessary per WP:MALPLACED. Then Northumberland Park railway station can become a redirect to the existing dab page at Northumberland Park station. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's correct, I'll change my proposal to reflect that. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
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.

Infoboxen

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Why are there three infoboxes? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article can't decide if it's one station or two so we have both options simultaneously, which is the worst of both worlds. I think there is consensus above that it's a single station but I'm involved in that so someone else should make the final call. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
The infoboxes are my doing, and mainly due to the fact that it's incredibly hard to say whether these are two separate stations or one cohesive station. The third infobox was created to house all of the duplicated info between the two stations (previously both had location, coordinates, and maps duplicated on both - with parking/fare zones/transport authority being applied to one when it actually effects both.
So are they one station or two? Well there is multiple arguments on both sides -
One station:
  • Both stations use the Pop smartcard system for integrated ticketing
  • The Pop zone map marks it as one interchange, like it does for Heworth [Heworth is the closest to the layout of Northumberland Park, I will get to this later] (though it also does this for Manors and Central, but Wikipedia currently classes those as separate stations)
  • It was marketed as an interchange station with the Metro, and has been used by passengers as such.
  • The platforms are almost adjacent with tracks running side-by-side
  • It takes equally as long to get to the other platforms as it would at a regular station, as both staircases/lifts are adjacent on the same road
  • The share common facilities like the park and ride and bus stops
  • They are called the same name
Two stations:
  • It has technically separate gatelines
  • While both use Pop, you have to tap out at one station and back in at the other when changing trains
  • It was designed in two separate phases, not as one cohesive package
  • They use different rolling stock
  • Metro station is owned/operated by Nexus, while rail station is owned by Network Rail and operated by Northern
  • They use physically separate tracks. A Metro can't get to the rail tracks or vice-versa.
  • They have separate platform numbering. Metro has a platform 1 and 2, rail has a platform 1.
All of this is similar to Heworth, except that Heworth was planned as one cohesive project and Heworth rail platform 2 has an internal link to the Metro station (not platform 1 though). Heworth also brings to conversation the abysmal state of ticketing in the region - the Northumberland Line is part of the Pop system, but a metro ticket from Newcastle Central to Northumberland Park (A+B) is not valid on Northumberland Line trains. Conversely, Metro tickets from Newcastle Central to Sunderland (A+B+C) are valid at Heworth and Sunderland on both Metro and rail [but (A+B) tickets are not valid from Newcastle to Heworth, despite Heworth being in zone B], and Pop is not valid on rail services between the stations (even though it is valid on Metro services).
Sunderland, Newcastle Central, Heworth, Northumberland Park, and Manors are on a sliding scale from (1 station <-> 2 stations) and have a lot of options r.e. Wikipedia pages and none of them will be controversy free.
Separate subsections/infoboxes on one wiki page seemed like the best solution for stations where the one/two station debate can't be settled.
AlecCoates (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I don't see they use different rolling stock as an argument. There are innumerable instances of interchange stations where the two (or more) routes use different rolling stock.
Ealing Broadway station has one infobox. It has one gateline and one series of platform numbers (NR 1-4, Central line 5 & 6, District line 7-9), but people using Oyster card who transfer between the systems should touch a pink validator. It was designed as separate stations, which were later partially amalgamated: there is one ticket hall, but the Underground tracks and platforms remain under separate ownership. All three systems use physically separate tracks: a District train cannot reach the Central tracks; a Central train cannot reach the NR tracks, etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
None of those are good reasons for multiple infoboxes. Other useful comparisons include
  • Lewisham station: one infobox. It has two gatelines, one set of platform numbers, two buildings on opposite sides of a road, it was designed as separate stations. There is no physical connection between either the buildings or the tracks - the two systems use incompatible rolling stock with incompatible electrification systems and different loading gauges (similar size but different profile) and they are managed by separate organisations.
  • Minffordd railway station: one infobox for "a pair of adjacent stations on separate lines", the lines use different track gauges, are operated by independent organisations, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
You can't just list a couple of articles that happen to be one way over the other, because there are examples of almost everything.
Want examples of stations like this with completely separate pages? We don't have to even look further than the same system.
If you want everything in one infobox in one article then surely these two should be combined too.
Want examples of stations with more than one info box?
Maybe these are just wrong too, that's not my call though. AlecCoates (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm not doubting the existence of those. But none of them - nor any other such cases that I can find - has three, which is what this thread was initially about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Let's just merge the infoboxes. Having 3 is already causing large gaps in the article. One should be sufficient. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 09:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to be the sole dissenting voice, so this is fine by me - so long as all the station differences are covered in text. (It should be clear to the reader that there are 2 metro platforms and 2 metro tracks, and only 1 rail platform and 1 rail track) - it should also be clear that Metro is step-free from entrance-to-train, while Network Rail is step-free from entrance-to-platform.
And so long as other stations follow the same maxim. AlecCoates (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northumberland_Park_station_(Tyne_and_Wear)&oldid=1343897913"