Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To think 'station-stop' is correct, despite what the pedants say!

43 replies

BoysofMelody · 21/08/2017 21:50

On the train to Manchester and the announcer stated that 'The next station-stop will be Dewsbury'.

This grinds the gears of those of a pedantic disposition, who claim that it is a tautology and either Station or stop will suffice.

However the train will pass through several smaller stations without stopping (so the next station is not Dewsbury)

It will stopped by a signal to allow a faster train to pass before it reaches Dewsbury (so the first stop is not Dewsbury)

Therefore 'The next station-stop is Dewsbury' is correct.

OP posts:

blackteasplease · 21/08/2017 23:53

I think it is correct but I dislike the implied acknowledgement but there will plenty on non-station stops...

scaryclown · 22/08/2017 06:03

The next stop might be a traffic light or siding.

Ifailed · 22/08/2017 06:20

I suspect it's just a bit of railway language that has crept into the public domain. "trainset", "signal aspect", "traction" and "ballast" are others you sometimes hear.

ArgyMargy · 22/08/2017 06:24

Many people like to use more words than necessary. Personally I like to use the minimum.

MirandaWest · 22/08/2017 06:35

I thought it was "the next stationed stop". Must listen more carefully next time I'm on a train:

StealthPolarBear · 22/08/2017 06:43

Well personal belongings didn't used to irritate me but it will now!

ButchyRestingFace · 22/08/2017 06:54

The next station will be Dewsberry -

"That's nice", thinks I, as the train runs straight past it w/o stopping.

I've had the extreme misfortune to do train journeys in the northern tippy-top of Scotland, think Inverness to Thurso. Some of the stops are "request stops".

There's no station - in some cases I think
there may not even be a platform as such. Unless you press a button to request the train to stop, it will sail on past.

So it would be inaccurate, I think, in some cases to say "station-stop" because sometimes there's no station where the stop occurs, or no stop where the station occurs.

Original poster

BoysofMelody · 22/08/2017 08:12

I think 'the next station... ' (or 'the next stop...') is clear enough given the context, and sounds so much better.

But is it? I've seen people gathering their stuff together and heading for the doors when the train is halted at a signal.

OP posts:

BitOutOfPractice · 22/08/2017 08:17

People manage on buses to work out that a bus stop is a place to get off (the equivalent of a station for s train) without getting confused with buses stopping at lights or for traffic.

Mineshalfamilkstout · 22/08/2017 08:21

It's jargon. On the plus side it is unambiguous as pp stated.
We will get used to it!

longestlurkerever · 22/08/2017 08:23

I think the truth is that it's "station stop" that is pedantic, not the objection to it. If you said "next stop" or "next station" to refer to the next station the train stopped at no one would be confused and think you were referring to a station you were whizzing past or a brief stop at the lights.

StickThatInYourPipe · 22/08/2017 08:26

But is it? I've seen people gathering their stuff together and heading for the doors when the train is halted at a signal

Why pander to people who can't look out the window and recognise that they are not at a station?

I have never heard this phrase used tbh but then I rarely get trains anymore

Eolian · 22/08/2017 08:30

I'm a bit of a pedant and don't see the problem with it at all (in terms of correct language or clarity of meaning). I wouldn't think it was hyphenated though. It's not tautological because, as you point out, a station is not actually the same as the train stopping.

longestlurkerever · 22/08/2017 08:33

But is it? I've seen people gathering their stuff together and heading for the doors when the train is halted at a signal

Using the phrase "station stop" does not help with this because there's no way to tell whether the next stop is actually a station stop. It's an inelegant and pointless phrase. I also don't like "personal belongings" in this context. If people really need reminding to take their stuff with them what's wrong with just "belongings"?

hackmum · 22/08/2017 08:35

I agree with you, OP. I don't mind it. The meaning is clear. People get unnecessarily wound up about this kind of thing. (NB I also get wound up about people misusing language, but when I do it, it's OK.)

longestlurkerever · 22/08/2017 08:47

I think the reason people get unreasonably irritated is because if you travel a route regularly then you hear these announcements several times each day and pointless pedantry grates in the way it wouldn't in everyday conversation. I mean I'm the sort of disorganised muppet that does leave stuff on trains but not once have I thought "dammit, I totally forgot I'm not supposed to leave my personal belongings on the train. Why didn't someone remind me to take them with me?"

malmi · 22/08/2017 09:15

I've been on trains which have stopped at a station due to a signal even though the train was not due to call there, so the doors aren't opened. So that was a "station stop" but it wouldn't have been announced, and it wouldn't have made sense to do so.

So I think they should say "The next station at which the train will stop to allow passengers to alight is _ ". That should put an end to the confusion once and for all.

chips4teaplease · 22/08/2017 09:17

I agree, Boys, but then, I'm often on that train.
The name of the station seems to be pronounced 'juice-brrry'.

Flip

1 2