Talk:Eardington

There is a mix on this wiki of Eardington station and halt. When was the term "halt" officially used, and should we use Eardington or Eardington station more consistently?--Patrick Hearn (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It may have simply been "Eardington" (no "halt") throughout its time in GWR/BR days, with the BR 1963 summer WTT showing it as such (unlike "Northwood Halt" etc.): link. This page states that it became "request only" from 1974, so I would presume "halt" was appended in that year or later (note that the linked page has a lot of information we could add here). I might put out a call on Facebook to see if some contemporary evidence (e.g. timetables with the name printed on) exists showing such a change.

Regarding names, I think we generally go without "station" for other locations ("Bridgnorth" rather than "Bridgnorth station"), but I'm not aware of any definite choice of style having been chosen. --Danny252 (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a note that "Trains can not be crossed at Eardington or Linley" here and, unlike Northwood etc., it's not identified as a halt, which suggests it was classified as a station in 1948. And in 1962/63, tickets were issued for "Eardington" as against "Cound Halt".

Maybe just go for the generally accepted definition of a Halt as having no staff and no goods facilities and mention that it has never been officially downgraded (if that is the case) but is usually referred to as a Halt now that it fits that description.

Which suggests editing all "Eardington Halt" and "Eardington station" to Eardington, with a note on the Eardington page that "although sometimes in preservation referred to as "Eardington Halt", it was a full station before the line's closure and in preservation. No evidence has been found that it was downgraded to a halt after it became a request stop after 1974, or after its preservation era closure"? Let's leave that change a few days to see if anything else comes up. Dan, if you have other info to add do you want to include this amendment? Thanks--Patrick Hearn (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The part about "trains can not be crossed at Eardington" refers only to signalling, rather than the station's status -- whilst there was (is) a siding, it cannot be used to shunt one train whilst another passes. Is there a different between being downgraded to a request stop and to a halt? In my mind, the two have always been synonymous, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some subtlety. For the official name, I guess there is the fact that the SVR currently refers to it as "Eardington Halt" on the website... --Danny252 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Latest SVR Souvenir Guide refers to the station as 'Eardington' and states that it "...was reduced to unstaffed status (although never deemed a 'Halt') after 1 April 1949." It also states that Eardington was "deemed a 'Halt'" in its 'second life', although I don't know to what extent that was put into practice. The SVR guides for 1972/73 and 1980 both used 'Eardington', as does the running in board to this day. --Robin (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't really add anything new to the debate, but I thought it worth mentioning that we now have an example of the 1953 timetable which lists it as Eardington Halt.

Was Eardington actually renamed before preservation?

Some thoughts arising from Steve Downs’ article in SVR News 201:

• Steve states that the station lost its station master in 1931, coming under the control of Highley. Interesting that it was Highley rather than Hampton Loade or Bridgnorth, given its location.
• The SVR Guide notes that the station became fully unstaffed after 1 April 1949. Presumably the station therefore remained staffed between 1931 and 1949, but without a resident station master. The definition of a Halt usually equates to an unmanned station, so Steve's comment that the 1947 GWR timetable still referred to "Eardington" would be appropriate.
• Steve notes that the first mention of "Eardington Halt" found so far was in a 1952 timetable. It is possible that passenger timetables were amended at some point after 1947 to indicate that the station was now unmanned. However the 1959 BR Working Timetable still refers to "Eardington", while all the other halts such as Burlish, Cound etc. include "Halt" in the name. Also as noted above, in 1962/63, tickets were still being issued for "Eardington". As I remember, there is no mention of Eardington being renamed as a Halt in Butt’s ‘Directory of Railway Stations’.
• Steve is correct that the 1963 closure notice groups Eardington under halts rather that stations. That would appear to make incorrect the statement in the SVR Souvenir Guide that the station ‘was never deemed a halt’ before preservation. On balance, I suspect that that the station was deemed a halt but was not formally renamed as such.

I have tweaked the article wording to include some of the above. Any additional information or thoughts welcome.--Robin (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it worth asking Steve Downs if he can elaborate? I'm in contact with him re SVRLive--Patrick Hearn (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea.--Robin (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Done, response awaited--Patrick Hearn (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

On the first point, I have a suspicion that this must have been an error. I'm not aware of HL losing its station master, and can't see why Highley would have "hopped over" Hampton Loade to take responsibility for it if HL did still have an SM. --Danny252 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)