Talk:Cross-City Line

It's ridiculous to have two seemingly identical lists of links, going to differenet targets - and it's contrary to the W3C WAI guidelines on accessibility. I'm not sure, if the non- tabular list cannot be removed, how to deal with this, but the page as it currently stands is a mess. Andy Mabbett 13:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sidebar gives links to the individual stations on the line, whereas the bulleted list links to the towns. This is the same format used on all lines listed at List of railway lines in Great Britain. Our Phellap 23:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Route diagram
I've added a route diagram to this page. Unfortunately the text is a little small, so I'll try to produce a better image. I'd like the map to appear alongside the sidebar table of stations - does anyone know how to do this?

I've also put the stations back from north to south, to match the diagram, and the Chase line. --Tivedshambo 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated the map - it's now a bit more readable, though I may try to improve it next week.--Tivedshambo 14:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Historical train types & new stations
(Feels weird titling it as such for something that happened in my lifetime, but..)

Whoever wrote this forgot the electric trains that formed the stopgap between the diesels and the 323's... I clearly remember, when using this route to get to school in the mid 90s (wylde green to sutton - one stop only, but about the longest one on the line), we started out riding rather decrepit navy blue four-carriage jobs - with an enormous pantograph arrangement halfway down, all the accelerative force of a gentle cough (despite massive gear noise from the motors), and the old school steam loco coach type access arrangement, with one door per pair of seats... that was impossible to open with the interior latch and was much easier used by opening the window and twisting the exterior handle, usually before the train had come to a complete halt (despite the vicious brakes).

Good times... the hard-charging, automatic door 323s actually seemed to be a bit killjoy in comparison, great machines though they are. Shame the company went under.

Also... where in the world would a station in Mere Green or Raddlebarn Road be sensibly located? In the former, I'm not entirely sure where the railway line goes between four oaks and butlers lane, but i know it does it in a deep cutting, and there's barely time for the train to make it up to maybe 30mph before slowing again (similar to the gap between wylde green and chester road, where you can successfully get on at CR station after a spirited drive if you're late to WG and see the train pulling out.. i.e. Mere Green itself is already easy walking distance from either existing station, and not much more than a 6-carriage length away). I have similar reservations about the Selly Oak idea; anyone who isn't emphysemic or terminally obese can make it between the hospital to/from SO station in about 5 minutes with ease, which certainly doesnt justify the great cost of building another stop so close to the existing one, and the service slowdown and line congestion it would cause. I call bunk on this idea - it may have been something idly tossed around a Centro boardroom where the author was present, but the practicalities of it are laughable. Re-tunnelling around birmingham centre seems a more profitable way to blow your millions (made a lot more possible now by redevelopment and park zoning than may have been thought 10 years ago).

What of the occasionally surfacing idea to improve capacity by returning passenger services to the freight rail line that passes through Sutton Park, New Hall et al, including redevelopment of the (now abandoned) mail sorting office that adjoined the line? Even today, the 323s can get shockingly cramped around 5.30pm... something definately needs to be done (though it's an economist's dream in terms of capacity utilisation and efficiency in that state) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.128.25 (talk • contribs)

The Butlers Lane-Four Oaks section of the line runs roughly parallel to Lichfield Road, cutting under it about a hundred metres before the Methodist Church. A station at Mere Green would be sited below Belwell Lane. It's at least a mile between Four Oaks and Butlers Lane stations, and neither is really suitable for Mere Green, so in terms of convenience for shoppers it might not be a bad idea to place a small station there. Martyn Smith 21:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, still not too convinced... the distance between WG and CR must easily be more than a half mile (unfortunately i'm not on my regular PC so I don't have autoroute to check) and it seems like a very short, almost tram/metro-like distance. How much walking time must a station cut out in order to be seen as economically sensible given the amount of surveying, purchasing, building, additions to signalling and timetabling, re-drafting of said timetables and route maps, etc? It's about as far from my house to WG as it is between these two stations (10, to maybe 15 minutes on a bad day e.g. snow, which I've had to deal with) and I'm happy enough to walk between either pair of nodes (though maybe not both!) rather than driving when it's practical, rather than asking for a spur line and station to be built into east Boldmere ;-)
 * Happy enough to see though, at least, the interim electric trains got some kind of mention - even though it's a rather sparing one at the end regarding the promotional video ("It is interesting to note on the video near Lichfield the use of an elderly Class 310 unit on the opposite direction service")... though they may not have got as much use as the diesel units noted further up the article, they were in fairly common and regular service for maybe a couple of years until the 323s were properly established, and I can hardly remember any diesel units being used on that line, but the 310s did make quite an impact on my young, train-commuting self :) 82.46.180.56 (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
On the Belwell Lane bridge on the right hand side when travelling towards Lichfield there is/was a piece of graffiti which reads (or read, I don't know if it's still there): 'Jailed For Telling The Truth'. Anybody know what it's about? Martyn Smith 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2017

 * 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Sky  Warrior  14:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Cross-City Line → Cross-City line – While "Cross-City" is pretty often capitalized in sources, "Line" is most often not, so per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we should fix that over-capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

(using Birmingham to limit the scope; feel free to try other searches and add them here)
 * Evidence in edited sources

(in first 2 pages of 10 hits each; what I see) (and news items mostly omit the hyphen, more so than books do; we could go either way on that)
 * books -- 5 Cross-City Line, 6 Cross-city line, 6 Cross-City line: City mostly uppercase, line mostly lowercase.
 * news -- 6 Cross-city Line, 12 Cross-City line, 2 Cross-City rail line, 1 Cross-city line: again, City mostly uppercase, line mostly lowercase; Cross-City line in clear majority, with capitalized "City" consistent enough per MOS:CAPS suggestion.


 * Survey
 * Support as nom – Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Sorry for delay, I thought this page was on my watchlist). As a regular user of the line for the last 20+ years, I can assure you that Cross-City Line is the proper name of the line, and therefore needs caps per WP:NCCAPS. The main books about the subject all have capitals. Optimist on the run (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Optimist. Can you say which books you mean, and if they're not in Google book search, maybe quote a sentence? Dicklyon (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A Century of Railways around Birmingham and the West Midlands, Volume Three 1973-1999 (John Boynton, 1999) p22: "The Cross City Line, apart from a few instances of exceptional rostering, has always been a Sprinter-free zone..."
 * Birmingham & West Midlands Railway Atlas (Joe Brown, 2016) p41: "...then 'Birmingham West Suburban Railway', part of 'Cross-City Line' today..."
 * Rails Across The City, The Story of The Birmingham Cross City Line (John Boynton, 1993) - I'm fairly certain I have a copy of this book, but cannot find it at the moment, so I'm reliant on User:G-13114's comment here.
 * Optimist on the run (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do have a copy of the John Boynton book, which as far as I know is the only book written specifically about this line, and having just checked it, I can confirm that it uses the capitalised 'Cross City Line' throughout the text of the book, and not just the title. If there is some way I could confirm that to you, then I would be happy to do so, but I'm not sure how. G-13114 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming; we trust you. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, G, I just got home from a long day and found my copy of the Boynton book had arrived, so I quickly verified that you were right. But then I open it to the middle (p. 49 in particular) and found "Cross City line" with lowercase line.  That's all for now; going to sleep; probably won't have time to look at it much tomorrow, but soon. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Going through it some more, I find "Cross City line" on pages 49, 91, and 107 (and quoted "Cross City rail line" on p.89) but otherwise mostly capped Line (I didn't check exhaustively). Other lines such as Camp Hill line and Lifford Canal Branch also have varying caps on different pages. That and the amateur typography (using hyphens and spaced hyphens for en dashes, especially, and typos such as "clearfrom") suggests that this enthusiast's book did not really have the benefit of an editor, typographer, or proofreader.  So it's not just specialist, but amateur specialist.  Weight it accordingly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Having looked through my other books. I've also found A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain: The West Midlands v. 7  by Rex Christiansen, it mention the 'Cross-City Line' 13 times throughout the book that I have counted, in all but one it uses the capitalised and hyphenated form. Also A Century of Railways Around Birmingham and the West Midlands: 1973-99 v. 3 also by John Boynton also used the capitalised 'Cross City Line' throughout the book as far as I can see. G-13114 (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As per reasons above of Optimist on the run. G-13114 (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The company who operates services on the line, London Midland, refer to it as "Cross City Line" on the front of their timetables. I trust the operator here. Jeni  ( talk ) 14:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I trust them, too, but look at WP:TITLEFORMAT. Does the title case on a timetable cover give any indication of how this would be capped in a sentence?  No, it does not. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, that operator London Midlands almost always (except on the timetable title perhaps) refers to the "Cross City line" with lowercase line. See this search. Dicklyon (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

See also some previous discussion on this line, buried in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per . Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  17:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * 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.

Naming revisit
I note the correct change to line from Line. But I also note that what I would regard as the most official source, the current timetable refers to it as Cross City line, i.e. there is no hyphen. Here is an article in the Birmingham Mail that also omits the hyphen and again here in the Birmingham Post and based on this reported tweet, Network Rail also omit it. I'd say that was pretty solid evidence of the official name. Use of the hyphen is mostly confined to "fan-created" sites.Thorsson64 (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no change to line from Line, but I agree it would have been correct. On the hyphen, I agree that's probably right, too, if "Cross City" is the proper name.  It is more common that way, and it is unusual in general to use hyphenation in proper names.  The generic version "cross-city line" would use the hyphen, based on usual grammar and style guidance.  So it all depends on what is a "proper name" here, which is what we haven't come to much agreement on.  Based on books, I'm actually leaning toward Birmingham Cross City line (though you'll also see Birmingham's Cross City line, Birmingham's Cross City Line, Birmingham Cross City Line, Birmingham's cross-city line, Birmingham Cross-City line, . Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Route image
Bringing this here at the request/suggestion of. I removed File:Birmingham Cross-City Line.png from this article, with the following rationale:
 * What value does this give that the route diagram doesn't? They are visually comparable, but this one falls short of MOS:ACCIM - "Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept." We shouldn't present text in a format incompatible with screen readers.

G-13114 disagreed – could we have other editors' opinions on the above, please? I really can't see what this provides that the accessible version doesn't. I've looked at other similar articles, and Birmingham to Worcester via Bromsgrove Line (for example) has a not-particularly-accessible map, although that one does have value because it is a superimposed map and therefore gives geographic context. All this one seems to do is duplicate content in the article, but in a non-accessible way. If there is a consensus that there is value to keeping the image, then it really needs to be recreated as SVG. MIDI (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A tricky one this, and I admit to having a COI as I created File:Birmingham Cross-City Line.png back in 2007, before the BS system of route diagrams was introduced. At the time I had intended to create many such diagrams, but with the introduction of BS this became unnecessary. In my opinion, my diagram is more compact and better shows the route and related connections. However the BS system allows easier updates for future changes, and allows easy linking to articles (though this can be achieved with files as well). I agree we don't need both, but due to my COI I'll leave it to someone else to decide which is better. I may be able to recreate the file as SVG, as the software for this has improved since I first created it - I'll see what I can do. — Voice of Clam 08:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the RDs and geographic maps can co-exist as they show different information. RDs are somewhat limited, as they are purely technical line diagrams with no geographic context, so I don't agree that one must exclude the other. Though it's true that the current map is somewhat less than perfect, it does show more of the geographic context than the RD in an at-a-glance way. User has been creating lots of the geographic maps on railway line articles, maybe they could create one for this article. G-13114 (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have fast-tracked its creation and added one to the article. Rcsprinter123   (palaver)  16:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Estimates of station usage table
How do you make it so the table is able to show 2022-23 figures for the stations (currently u20) JamesVilla44 (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * GBsta-u will need updating first. — Voice of Clam (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What next? JamesVilla44 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated and related templates so the 2022–23 (u20) figures should now appear. rbrwr&plusmn; 12:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (...and I've added the missing data to the table in this article.) rbrwr&plusmn; 18:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The passenger flows are now available for 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23.
 * What are thoughts on the possible presence of these in the article or any of the station articles.
 * E.g. Flows from Birmingham New Street to Selly Oak. JamesVilla44 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)