This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
It was Tonbridge NOT Tunbridge Wells served by trains; and the timetables do not show any trains beyond Horsham: trains to Chichester/Portsmouth Hbr do not call here. I think it easier to understand if the services which pass through a station are named in that way: ie "Services to and from etc" and not as if the trains going in one direction have no connection with the same trains the other way. Peter Shearan14:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Chichester/Ports Hbr trains DO call here (xx.02/xx.32 ex Victoria). Joe Sharples —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.32.9 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 7 June 2005
Be careful about going around this station after about 9PM. Chavs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophile (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 28 March 2006
That's useful to know. Also worth noting that I was going to take some photos of the platforms using my SLR but a station attendant told me that on that private land photographs are not permitted (September 2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.152.156 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article in The Railway Magazine a year or two back regarding where it's legal to take photographs on and around Britain's railways. Basically, you can unless there are specific byelaws against it. The London Underground has such a byelaw - Network Rail generally does not. Current information may be found at Railway enthusiasts - Photography at the NR website. So, unless you were being silly with your flash or tripod, or taking a keen interest in the security cameras, that station attendant was being a jobsworth. Print off that page and show it to him next time he complains. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The chronic congestion at the station was however eased after 1 May 1868 when Redhill ceased to be on the South Eastern Main Line to Dover following the opening of the 'Sevenoaks cut off' line between St Johns and Tonbridge railway station.
Maybe the station didn't open until 1873, but the line was certainly extended from the junction southwards, with the final bit between Sevenoaks and Tunbridge (1868 spelling) opening in 1868. At that point, the Redhill-Tonbridge line became a branch line, and SEML trains took the new line, saving about 13 miles to Tunbridge and points south and east thereof. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is rough consensus in favor of using image 3 as the infobox image. There is clear consensus against using #2 as the infobox image, but no consensus as to whether it is appropriate for use elsewhere in the article. Colin M (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 2. I personally think Image 1 does a very poor job representing Redhill station. Firstly, the photo is not of great quality: even the word "Redhill" is blurry/pixelated, despite being right in the foreground. Secondly, the Network South East signage is out of date − it was replaced with Southern's green signage a long time ago, as can be seen in this image from Google Street View. The café adjacent to the station has also changed branding and looks different now. Thirdly, the station building is partially obscured by the two cars and the people in front; in fact, when looking at this photo, my eyes are immediately drawn to the three people looking into the boot of the car, and away from the station building. That's not the impression I want the "main" photo of the station to give.
By contrast, Image 2 shows a larger portion of the station premises than most other photos. It clearly shows three out of the four platforms of the station (including the recently-built platform), as well as the two through tracks without platforms. The fourth platform is occupied by the train on the left so it cannot be seen; however, this isn't an issue, as this way the picture also shows two of the three TOCs that serve the station, which is a good thing.
Furthermore, I believe that the reasons for reverting the edits given by User:Djm-leighpark and User:Dubmill are not convincing:
"[Image 2 is] more about trains than the station" − again, this picture shows a considerably more significant portion of the station than Image 1. I also do not agree that the trains are the dominant feature of this photograph − the island platform in the foreground alone takes up more space than the two trains combined.
"The picture of the bare platforms could be anywhere" − sure, if you ignore the sign that says Redhill on the right. In a similar way, one could argue that Image 1 could have been taken anywhere. Besides, the point of the main photo of an article about a place is to show a substantial part of that place, not just a label with its name. Otherwise, every railway station article would have a main photo looking like this. In general, "this picture could have been taken anywhere" is an argument that could be used against almost any photograph, so it's not very helpful.
"[The signage] is not out of date as it still looks like that" − the Street View link above provides strong evidence against this statement.
Support Image 1. For railway stations that have buildings, in my opinion it is generally better to show the building rather than the platforms, at least as the primary photo. The platforms could be shown in secondary photos. The signage at the station entrance may have changed but the building hasn't. When I look at the photo, I'm seeing the building. The signage is just an additional detail, although ideally, a similar but more recent photo should be found, one that includes the current signage. I don't have a problem with the car and people in the foreground. It's just showing the station in use, i.e. people who have left the station or are about to enter it. I will admit Image 1 isn't of great quality, but I still think it depicts adequately what is a reasonably distinctive station building. Image 2, on the other hand, depicts something that isn't at all distinctive. I accept that it is a photo showing the platforms at Redhill station, but it could easily be some other station. You might say, so what, all it needs to do is document the appearance of those platforms, and it's irrelevant if it looks more or less the same as other stations. I suppose that's a valid position but I don't agree with it. When I look at the pages for Euston and King's Cross, for example, they don't lead with photos of the platforms but ones that show the building and entrance. Of course, Redhill is a much lesser station, but the building is still relatively distinctive and so warrants a photo in my opinion. Dubmill (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 3. (fallback Image 1.)Support Image 1. The selection of main image can be somewhat subjective. Sexy Simon has provided commons with some excellent images of stations over a few years now. In my view most up to date best resolution does not always win for lead images, for most page visitors image is only see in thumbnail anyway and I'd agree it is sufficient if the image was of adequate quality.. Redhill was a commute interchange station I endured on and off for a year or two pre-platform zero and the entrance always struck me as distinctive. Sexy simon's original caption constrasted the EMUs rather than captioning the station as the star, and an image consisting of a large expanse of platform in the centre is not in my view the best for a lead image. There is another image on the article that depicts the platforms better but I still !vote Support Image 1. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Per new alternative my preference is now Image 3. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 1. Although Image 1 isn't of the greatest quality, Image 1 is much more distinctive than Image 2 and does a much better job of representing the station. Image 2 looks like it could be any railway station and isn't as distinctive as Image 1. I agree with Dubmill here. Rexh17 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original IP post makes good points, but Support Image 1 in the infobox, bring in Image 2 elsewhere. Image 1 is more distinctive and I believe a more useful lead-image identifier. I would suggest dropping the Platforms 1a/1b image, which seems to have little value if we bring in the new image. I would move the 1955 image into the Platforms 1a/1b slot. I would add the new image in the current 1955 slot. The new image would need a detailed caption, comparable to the caption of the Platforms 1a/1b. Alsee (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsee: Your removal suggestion is actually imprecise and ambiguous as it could refer to one of two images. I do however assume you are talking about File:Redhill Station 02.JPG. To be clear I object to that replacement, and I object to bringing in image 2 elsewhere on the basis of not an improvement. and if that is needed please raise a separate RFC. To be clear File:700111 377308 Redhill.jpg is a goodish photo but the Thameslink train obscures platform 4 detail, and File:2018 Layout looking southwards with the new Platform 0 to the right is in my view the most important current southbound view image best illustrating the new layout. The purposes of images are to try to support the prose and a significant part of that is the historical development of the station. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I intended it as a suggestion. It generally seemed a newer image might be desirable, but I acknowledge I only skimmed the article and I did not look deeply into the current images. Alsee (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark:: If you think there should be another RfC regarding Image 2 being in the article at all, you are welcome to start one yourself, but I personally don't think that will be necessary. We really shouldn't be starting RfCs every time there a new picture is uploaded, otherwise we'll all be stuck here arguing for eternity. A standard talk page discussion should be more than enough to settle that hypothetical debate later on. Having said that, if Image 1 comes out as the "winner" in this RfC (which looks likely at present), then I think Image 2 would do a perfect job in the Services section. As you said yourself, Image 2 focuses largely on the trains serving the station, which is exactly what Services is describing. I reckon we could put both Image 2 and File:166206 at Redhill.jpg in Services, so that this section shows all three TOCs that stop at Redhill. Meanwhile File:Redhill Station (geograph 5737375).jpg could be moved up to the Description section, because that picture almost perfectly shows the new track layout of the station, as described in that section (including the new platform 0 AND the fact that platform 1 is now a south-facing bay). I'm not sure File:Redhill Station 01.JPG is necessary (as there's a lot of track and very little station) so if there's any image I would remove it's this one, but if other users object we could also keep it. 86.175.194.133 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@86.175.194.133: What is wasting my bloody time is trying to work out if IP's 86.175.194.133, 2A00:23C5:D012:2200:195B:2EAB:9026:C4F4 and 2A00:23C5:D012:2200:D4B8:1DD5:FB3B:B6CA and the same person, and if advantage and COI image promotion is attempted to be gained by use of anonymous IP editing; because if advantage is to be gained that is a WP:SOCKing information. I perfectly am willing to accept that dynamic IP's cannot be avoided and can be used but not to gain an advantage. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image #3 Gone are the days when I'd pop across to the market on Friday ... and my photo's are rubbish anyway. But if I have the misfortune to stuck at Redhill for 20 minutes then I'll have a shot but I'm no match for Hassocks5489 or Sexy simon. Actually just noticed [1]might be a candidate. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the photo that @Djm-leighpark: identified on geograph (Image #3) to Commons. It clearly shows the station building, as well as the adjacent bridge, which is a fairly well known landmark in the local area. I think it is better than both images 1 and 2. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Better quality, better framing, and shows the building very well. Image 3 now seems like the obvious choice. Dubmill (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 3. Visually, Image 2 is the better of both suggested image but it does not differentiate the station from other platform photos of trains. Image 3 does a far better job and is self-describing as it has a name on the station which clears shows the subject of the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 3. Higher quality than 1, wider shot of the main entrance of the railway station. Better than 2 as 2 could reasonbly be any of UK railway stations, etc. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk?22:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 3. - a clearer representation of the station facade that a visitor is likely to see passing by, or upon arrival. Agree with the sentiment that Image 2 could be any comparable railway station, despite the clarity factor of train image in train station article. St★lwart11103:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image 1. Because it shows the station. Image 3 has road and bridge so the station is diminished. Image 2 doesn’t have the station. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2021 (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.
.jpg){kind=link}
