Talk:City Thameslink railway station

Untitled

Thameslink services started in 1988 but there was originally no station between Blackfriars and Farringdon. St. Paul's Thameslink was opened on the new alignment after closure and demolition of Holborn Viaduct station in 1990.

Gordon Mackley former South Eastern Performance Manager and organiser of both the last train from Holborn Viaduct and the first train to serve St. Paul's Thameslink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.13.39 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I am proposing that Ludgate Circus tube station be merged in to this article, given that the former was/is a proposed station on the site of the existing City Thameslink station, and if it were to ever be built would exist as part of the same station complex. Grunners (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the merge at present (though if it were ever built into the City Thameslink station that would be a different matter): one is an existing station, another is an abandoned project for a station. Dsp13 (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely rather than mentioning something that never happened and probably never will, it would be more relevant to include the fact that this station stands on the site of the former Ludgate Hill station ? See http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/l/ludgate_hill/index.shtml Ivor the driver (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Naughty Photo

Ahem, the photo entitled "319440 at City thameslink" was actually taken at St Pancras International - check out the OHLE ! Ivor the driver (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take the photo so can't be certain, but are you sure it's wrong? The description is fairly clear, and OHLE is due to be extended from Farringdon to City Thameslink. Admittedly I haven't been there recently so have no idea whether it has actually happened yet... (looks at description more closely) Oh. It says it was uploaded in May 2008. Probably is wrong then. Never mind. --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 12:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've probably answered your own question there. ;o) As of today's date there isn't any OHLE installed at City TL, though as you rightly point out it very soon will be. Compare this photo with another which is correctly captioned as being at St P......http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:319428_B_London_St_Pancras.JPG. Ivor the driver (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is forced below the infobox in my browser (IE8). Can something be done about this? I am unsure of what needs doing. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 18:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

history

Isn't it actually Holborn-viaduct low-level? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The City Thameslink platforms are south of Holborn Viaduct (the street). Holborn Viaduct Low Level station was north of the street. See Holborn Viaduct railway station. -- Alarics (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

PoV and anecdotes

We really don't need unsourced info about what might happen to the station in future and what staff supposedly call certain parts of it. Smurfmeister (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on City Thameslink railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607020354/http://www.atoc.org/retail/_downloads/NFM98/NFM98_Common_A.pdf to http://www.atoc.org/retail/_downloads/NFM98/NFM98_Common_A.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419152425/http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk:80/content/doc/timetables/tttl_book_pdf_ontime_final_ver.pdf to http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/content/doc/timetables/tttl_book_pdf_ontime_final_ver.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City Thameslink railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717161104/http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/news/news_items/view/62 to http://www.thameslinkprogramme.co.uk/news/news_items/view/62

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Name

I don't have a RS, but I feel it's worth mentioning in the article that this station's name is rather unusual in the UK in that it is named after the franchise route serving it. I can't think of any other UK station named after the route it is on. Why didn't they just name it Ludgate Hill? Any thoughts? --TBM10 (talk) 07:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@TBM10: First off, there is Wigan North Western - actually in the south west of Wigan, but named after the London and North Western Railway. Then we have Bedford Midland, Nottingham Midland and Sheffield Midland - Midland Railway. Then there are a number of former LNER stations which after grouping gained the suffix Central, East or North depending upon whether they were ex-Great Central Railway, ex-Great Eastern Railway or ex-Great Northern Railway. Examples include: Gainsborough Central; Hertford East; Hertford North; New Mills Central; Ramsey East; and Ramsey North. This followed the precedent set by the GCR before grouping (St Helens Central, Wigan Central), including working the word "Central" into a number of stations which it did not directly own but which were on lines in which it had a joint interest, such as: Liverpool Central; Manchester Central; and Warrington Central. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There's also King's Cross Thameslink. The station is accessed not only from Ludgate Hill but also Holborn Viaduct. Just calling it Ludgate Hill wouldn't be correct. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It still has a terminally crap name, nevertheless. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Including interchange stats

I don't think we need to include past interchange statistics when they are so low - 3,000 interchanges for a station serving 6 million passengers is not really relevant. I propose including only the interchange stats for the current year. Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there is widespread consensus for the past couple of years' stats over all station articles. You'd be best off asking Redrose64 or WT:UKRAIL. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I just found this discussion from last year (not that my memory is going in my old age!) which came to a rough consensus that interchange stats should be included only if they are around 10% of the usage figure. I'll therefore remove all but the last year (even though that's still only about 1%, it's not taking up too much space). Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would double-check on the UKRAIL talk page first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Govia City Thameslink and a half-hour service

The article currently states that "In 2018, Govia City Thameslink announced a major timetable change, which was implemented that May. The changes included a half-hour service across Central London, connecting City Thameslink with Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport Parkway." About a week ago I amended this in two ways:

1. changing "Govia City Thameslink" to "Govia Thameslink Railway" as the former text refers to an entity which does not exist and therefore cannot announce anything
2. adding a "Clarify" inline template as I was not sure that stating there was "a half-hour service" was sufficiently clear.

Both these changes were reverted within 5 minutes (although I have only recently discovered this). I do not feel my reasoning was fully understood so reckon it's best to talk about this here. I don't think the first change is controversial and suspect that Ritchie333 undid this without realising. While I realise that having any statement tagged as unclear is not ideal, especially on a Good Article, I did not have time to make a fuller edit to this page and felt this was important to note and (if possible) I would come back to it at another suitable time. Unfortunately reading the citation is somewhat complicated by the fact that one cannot do so anonymously but must register with the relevant website. The tag I added did not suggest that the statement about a "half-hour service" was untrue or not sourced, simply that it was unclear. The reason is a reader cannot clearly understand from the article alone what a "half-hour service" means; there are several possible interpretations and I believe readers would want to know the answers to questions such as:

• Does this mean 30 minutes between trains or 30 minutes to reach these destinations?
• How is this a change: what was the service before this?

I do not feel the text as it stands explains either of these. We should be aiming for clarity and to Make technical articles understandable. It is not ideal to have imprecise statements which readers cannot properly interpret without referring to the cited material in any WP article. However, after completing the (somewhat lengthy) registration process with TTG Media I can now read the cited source - it answers the first question but sheds no light on the second one. I think this needs discussing. --09:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?}

This edit will not have notified Ritchie333 (talk · contribs). Anyway, "a half-hour service across Central London, connecting City Thameslink with Gatwick Airport and Luton Airport Parkway" is certainly ambiguous in that it could refer either to the interval between trains or to the duration of the journey. A 30-minute trip from CTK to Gatwick (or Luton) Airport is not unreasonable, although it would require some acceleration to the present service, since the fastest off-peak trains currently take 37 minutes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI Redrose, I made sure to post on Ritchie333's User's Talk page to alert them to this discussion. --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 13:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Better platform pictures

Is it possibble to get a better picture of the platforms? The current photo shows the original open air layout. The platforms are now in a cut and cover tunnel, which is alos not made clear in the article.

Platform level looks more like this now: https://en-academic.com/pictures/enwiki/67/City_Thameslink_stn_northbound.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.182.210 (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mattdaviesfsic <3 81.149.182.210 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)