Talk:St Pancras railway station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the St Pancras railway station article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Central trains

Removed line "Central Trains provide commuter services which terminate at St Pancras."

As http://www.centraltrains.co.uk/_your_journey/timetables.htm shows, Central trains do not operate to St Pancras.

[edit] Photo

The photo is a little dark and could use some histogram adjustment. Lee M 00:50, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of entries

Can I suggest that contributors to this article should consider the balance between maintaining an Olympian "encyclopedia" tone, and one that provides immediately relevant information. In particular, use of the present tense may helpfully suggest where the status may change and may be of use to potential passengers. Many readers looking for information on the station will only encounter this wikipedia text through a web search that alights on one of the many commercial sites that shamelessly regurgitate it. Lang rabbie 7 April 2005 amended 20 December 2006

[edit] Source of History

The recent edit to remove "matter" and insert "human remains" poses wider questions.

Should the integrity of quotations be amended in this way? And shouldn't these quotations from out of copyright reference texts be acknowledged?

Most of the history section in this article seems familiar - does it come from one of the standard histories of the Midland Railway - possibly F S Williams' The Midland Railway - Its rise and progress Lang rabbie 12 July 2005

Does no one have any further information on this? --Lang rabbie 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Should it not be noted in the article that this station isn't owned by Network Rail unlike all the other major stations in the UK. Indeed who does own it (CTRL / Eurostar ?) Pickle 13:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It's explained at Channel Tunnel Rail Link - I'll copy the relevant information over here. Willkm 17:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. While some of it isn't directly about St Pancras I think the whole lot is relevant. Willkm 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice one ;) Pickle 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Although information concerning ownership of St Pancras is of the upmost importance, wouldn't it be more accurate to have chapters sort in chronological order rather than antechronological, every effort is made to promote St Pancras as a Eurostar station when it is more noted for its excellent history.Captain Scarlet 15:48 27 March 2006
I agree. Eurostar/CTRL are mentioned in the intro anyway. Then it should be History and the other sections in chronological order. JRawle (Talk) 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Although ownership is not Network Rail, who actually manages the station? ATOC indicate it is Midland Mainline, not London & Continental. MRSC 08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that although London & Continental were managing the terminus pre-closure, Midland Mainline have taken over management of the "interim station". Presumably until 2007 the rest of the station is not an operational railway site, subject to the Railway Inspectorate, but a building site subject to conventional Health and Safety Executive rules.

--Lang rabbie 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A notice at the entrance to the temporary St Pancras station states that the station is owned, operated and managed by L&C, then lists two stations managers: one from L&C and one from MM. Warofdreams talk 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

St Pancras railway station → St. Pancras railway station : Syntax.

[edit] Voting and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"

  • Support speedy move. David Kernow 13:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (proposer)
  • Oppose - see abbreviation - [in British English] "it is more common in formal writing that abbreviations are written with full stops if the word has been cut at the point of abbreviation (e.g., "Street" – "St[reet]" – becomes "St."), but not otherwise (e.g., "Saint" – "S[ain]t" – becomes "St")". Warofdreams talk 21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    Intriguing. There doesn't appear to be a citation to hand regarding this subtlety on Abbreviation; do you know one to point me toward(s)?  Thanks, David Kernow 22:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    See for instance the Guardian style guide or the EU's style guide.
  • Oppose. As it covers an English station, this article should be named in accordance with English practice. David Arthur 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    As above, some pointers to where I might read more about this "English practice" would be appreciated. Thanks, David Kernow 00:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    I don’t know that there’s really much more to say about it beyond what was already quoted from the Abbreviation article; it’s simply that while in the United States it’s common to put a full stop at the end of any abbreviation, in Britain it is done only if the end is the actual point of abbreviation. David Arthur 16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as per DavidArthur. -Captain scarlet 11:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; "St." is the proper form. It is not Wikipedia's job to help something become "more common in formal writing". It is wrong to use. James F. (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    Nor is it Wikipedia’s job to homogenise grammatical conventions around the world. As was said before, ‘St.’ is neither usual nor correct in the country where St Pancras station is located. David Arthur 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, my comment was about proper form in the UK, which is where I'm from. I don't particularly give a figgin as to what the correct form is outside thereof. :-) Your assertion that it "is neither usual nor correct" in the UK is, erm, well... let's just say that it conflicts with the publication rules of such organisations as St. James's Palace, the FCO, HMT, and various other people which I just imagine might know. James F. (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    Have you looked at their websites? St James's Palace use or omit a point interchangably, a search on the FCO website finds only "St" without the point, and a search on the HMT website finds more occurances of "St" without the point. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    (Still Opposing) If anyone wished to be pedantic the article should be called Saint Pancras Station, not St Pancras Station. Captain scarlet 20:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    Arrg, let's not go there, please!  I already find it odd to read names rendered as "Saint X" in Wikipedia; akin to reading a letter where every instance of "Mr.", "Mrs.", etc. is written in full. Chuckle, David Kernow 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    The thing is, "Mrs." is the full form - "Missus" or whatever is phonetic writing to demonstrate lower social class of the speaker when written. James F. (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that "Mrs." = "Mistress"...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, following DavidArthur line of argument --Lang rabbie 17:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] St Pancras International?

In all the literature from the owners, the station is now referred to as "St Pancras International", and the photo of the sign submitted by Edvid (talk • contribs) confirms this.

Should this page (now or eventually) move to St Pancras International railway station?

As an aside, I don't see why it was necessary for them to include "International" in the name: in most countries, international railway stations are nothing unusual. But at least they didn't call it "Grand Central Station" or any of the other awful American-sounding alternatives they were considering. A section on the renaming would be a worthy addition to the article – I'll find some references. JRawle (Talk) 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect to your question, I think the article name should stay as it is for now (at least until Eurostar arrive), but I don't know if it is necessary in the future. Unlike Waterloo International, which is essentially separate from Waterloo, St Pancras International is St Pancras, although that's my subjective view given the design of the station. Edvid 04:26, 31st October 2006 (UTC)

Leave as St. Pancras, any use of International is just LCR branding in the case of STP; similar to the use of HS1 as branding for the CTRL. For ticketing reasons, tickets are often from London International but that again is another issue in itself! Sladen 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midland Road or St Pancras Midland Road?

I had thought that the station for Capital Connect services to be opened in the Thameslink Box was to be called St Pancras Midland Road and not just Midland Road. As it is to be integrated with the main station, surely any detailed description should be in this article and not in a new article on Midland Road? --Lang rabbie 22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The most recent name I’d heard for it was St Pancras Thameslink. David Arthur 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Lets wait and find out! Sladen 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main departure point for Yorkshire?

I grew up in Yorkshire and have only just moved away; I have never travelled to St Pancras... only Kings Cross. I've asked around and the general concensus is that Kings Cross is the major London station serving the North and Yorkshire. Anyone disagree? Rob cowie 10:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

St Pancras is the main station for Sheffield and parts of South Yorkshire, but not for Doncaster or North, West or the East Riding of Yorkshire. Warofdreams talk 20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, it is also the London station for Scarborough, providing direct trains in Summer, although it would be quicker to change at York for King's Cross. Zverzia 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Historically, St Pancras is the main station for Yorkshire. The Midland Main Line did go to Leeds and was the main line into the West Riding. The line's now been cut at Wath/Swinton but has existed longer with the section to Leeds than without. Indeed, it is when the line was cut and the line from Doncaster to Leeds electrified that train to London from Leeds no longer used the MML, but the ECML. There have off course always been trains form Leeds via the ECML, but with more traffic on the MML back then. You can read more in Bob Pixton's North Midland Route from all good WHSmiths and Waterstones. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Following station

In the table which shows preceeding and following stations for each service, the following station for Eurostar is shown as Stratford International: my understanding is that no Eurostar trains from or to St Pancras will stop at Stratford (either before, during or after the Olympics) and Stratford will be the London stop for Eurostar trains continuing north. (The trains will pass through Stratford w/o stopping so I'm not sure whether that counts for the format of these railway tables anyway). 81.178.100.19 20:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Eurostar trains heading North... wasn't that idea scrapped long ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.230.220 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rail Line diagrams

Why are large chunks of the display space of this article taken up by rail-line diagrams which, really, are only loosely related to the article's subject? Other railway station articles do not suffer this intrusion. The diagrams are, quite rightly, included in their respective articles' pages, linked to from this article; which, I think, is sufficient. The "Channel Tunnel Rail Link" diagrams hasn't even been placed somewhere sensible (being under the "History" section). I will remove both in a while unless there is vigorous objection. Bazza 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, go ahead. If we included diagrams of all the lines that enter Waterloo or New Street, the diagrams would run for longer than the articles themselves. Let's keep things to-the-point. Zverzia 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough, both diagrams have been created: See Template:Clapham Junction Lines and Template:Birmingham Lines. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St Pancras Road

The references to to "St Pancras Road" and "Brewer Street" must surely be historical. There is a "St Pancras Way" to the west of St Pancras Station, and a "Pancras Road", but there is no "St Pancras Road". Also there is no "Brewer Street" in London, other than the one in Solo. I have therefore changed the sentence to reflect the names of the street as they are now. Ogg 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kings Cross St Pancras

What is a duplication of Kings Cross St Pancras station doing in this article? There only should be a mention. Simply south 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the duplication and inserted a link to the main articleTbo 157 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of St Pancras International into this article

Alot of the contents of the article, St Pancras International, is already in this article. I don't see why the title, St Pancras International is necessary at this point as the Eurostar terminus has not opened yet.Tbo 157 20:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that, the "St Pancras International" is a poor knock off created without any discussion or consensus. If this article grows large with its different components (compare with Waterloo with its mainline, international, tube and east stations) then maybe start splitting it up but we aren't there yet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs)
It does seem pretty pointless - after all, it is all one railway station, and St Pancras will never be as massive as Waterloo is. Hammersfan 01/08/07, 01.05 BST
It was plagiarised from alwaystouchout.com anyway, so I've just stuck in a redirect. 83.146.2.234 10:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I have checked the website but it is unclear whether the website is copyrighted. Should a request be added to Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations.Tbo 157 11:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It might be irrelevant now that the article has been redirected and everyone here has agreed that the article, St Pancras International doesn't need to be separate from this one. But a request could be added to Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations, if anyone disagrees.Tbo 157 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course the website is copyrighted. Please see copyright. Things are copyrighted by default now. 83.146.2.234 11:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Everything on the web is copyrighted by default but its up to the site owners to decide the terms of that copyright or whether the site can be used commercially and that isn't specified on the website. But this doesn't really make a difference as the article has been removed now. Tbo 157 11:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of St Pancras Thameslink into this article.

St Pancras Thameslink is underneath the main station and according to the first capital connect website [1], the station is in fact named St Pancras International.Tbo 157 18:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure, the "international" and "domestic"/"network rail" stations are the same but the tube and Thameslink stations are different. on other articles (eg Euston for example) the stations are separated. Pickle 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Im not certain but as far as Im aware the thameslink station will be part of St Pancras International station. Therefore I won't support this merge until Im certain (I probably should have made this clearer in my last post). As for the domestic station that is the same station as the international station. It is part of the same building and the platform numbering system incorporates both the domestic and international services unlike Waterloo International which is separate from the domestic station. The tube station is completely separate.Tbo 157talk 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The new platforms for the Thameslink lines are not actually directly beneath the Barlow trainshed - they are just to the west, largely under land to the north of the British Library. I would wait until there is clarity on whether there will be a single range of platform numbers, and how interconnection will be made from the international and domestic concourses of the above ground station.Lang rabbie 09:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed about the thameslink Station. Should someone remove the merge proposal. In the above ground station, the platform numbering scheme is the same for eurostar and domestic services and dwill be more like Paris Gare du Nord then Waterloo International. However it is probably best to keep everything as it is until there is certainty about the situation.Tbo 157talk 09:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether the forthcoming Thameslink platforms at St. Pancras will be numbered A and B (as per the present Thameslink platforms at Kings Cross Midland City are numbered) or integrated into the numbering for the high level St. Pancras station? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.230.220 (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In St Pancras?

Is the station actually in the St Pancras area? My understanding is that "St Pancras" is only the area south of Euston Road, and the station itself is in Somers Town. Lfh 13:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There is some confusion in the article between various mentions of churches and graveyards in the article. The old graveyard on the northern approaches to the station is that of St Pancras Old Church, at the heart of the historic parish. However, there was also a much more modern church on the actual station site. The history section of the article would probably benefit from a rewrite to separate the sections that currently quote a nineteenth century (pro-railway) source from a fuller appraisal of the contemporary complaints about the destruction wrought by the construction, in particular to the graveyard, and the extent to which Thomas Hardy's poem The Levelled Churchyard relates to his time as Blomfield's assistant supervising the disinterments from the churchyard. http://www.victorianweb.org/photos/hardy/74b.html Lang rabbie 17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that doesn't really clear up the matter of where the station is. According to our own definition of Somers Town it lies within that district. What are the borders of "St Pancras" the area? Lfh 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The station is definitely not "in" Somers Town. The station and the lines approaching it form the clearly defined eastern boundary of Somers Town. LB Camden's current electoral ward (wholly to the north of Euston Road) is called St Pancras and Somers Town.--Lang rabbie 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is or was Agar Town? The station and its approaches came under the jurisdiction of the Parish of St Pancras which covered various settlements including Somers Town and Agar Town. The line had to be taken over not under the Regents Canal to avoid increasing the gradient northwards more than it was already. Belsize Tunnels were/are further north the other side of Camden Town.
Interesting article on whether Agar Town was as much a slum as generally painted at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/pdf/FACTSPDF/0906Swensen.pdf Lang rabbie 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In a map of 1851 Agar Town is shown directly under the present station throat

I shall have to get some better maps but it looks as though it fitted in the og leg of St Pancras Road (then St Pancras Place) fronting onto Euston Road (then New Road). It would poceed past the western boundary of the gas works and cross the canal where there was a dog leg (which would minimise the amount of skew and/or realgnment of the canal) which would take it straight over Agar Town. Chevin 10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the station

From reading the future section, does this mean the whole station, ex-thameslink, is going to be renamed "St Pancras International"? Simply south 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is all the same station and the platform numbering system will be the same for the domestic and international services. In fact the FCC website also states that the thameslink station will also be known as St Pancras International but Im not certain about this [2].Tbo 157talk 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you think this article should go and be renamed in the next month or so? Or do you think there should be a section on the Intenational part? Simply south 22:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should wait until the opening of the international station until we decide on anything. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop Press: National Rail Enquiries now has the MML platforms listed as London St. Pancras Domestic (STP). It is still not known, of course, how it will list the FCC Thameslink platforms when the new box is opened. Chevin 16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as Im aware from looking at various sources, there will be a domestic concourse and an internatonal concourse but both international and domestic platforms will be part of the same platform numbering system. However it is still probably a good idea to not make any changed regarding this until the station is opened to the public. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the naming scheme, the station is and will remain to be Saint Pancras Station... why not leave it at that? Let fotopic and the geek fora worry about the exact name and number of benches ;) 77.100.149.88 20:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just an update, that according to an offical LCR blueprunt of the station, published in the November 2007 issue of Modern Railways, the entire station complex will be known as St Pancras International. Unlike the current Waterloo system, all the platforms will be part of the same building. Below the platforms, there will be various entrances to the main station concourses. Both eurostar departure and arrivals and domestic services are accessible from the main station concourse. This is similar to the system in most Eurostar stations other than Waterloo. However I still don't think we should decide on anything until after the opening of the station. Tbo 157(talk) 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically the station has been open throughout, it is just the extension and refurbished areas that are to reopen. Simply south 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thats true. Although LCR refer to the current station an interim station. Tbo 157(talk) 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably the current name should be kept as it is now known that not the whole of the station will be "International", just those effectively above ground. Simply south 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think its clear what the thameslink station will be called so we don't really know if the whole station will or won't be called "St Pancras international". Tbo 157(talk) 19:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
They have just installed nameplates bearing the name 'St Pancras International' on the Thameslink platforms (which are also labelled A and B like the platforms at King's Cross Thameslink). I've also noticed that 'St Pancras International' and the platform numbers have been removed from the structures (except for the big metal boxes) on the Midland Main Line platforms.
To add to the confusion, if you do a search for a journey on the National Rail website (e.g. Luton to St Pancras), then your destination is labelled as 'London St Pancras (Domestic)', regardless of which TOC you choose (assuming you're travelling from 9 December 2007 onwards). Adding 'International' to the aforementioned query will get you 'London St Pancras (Intl)' (the suggested journeys include a walk from 'London St Pancras (Domestic)'), so National Rail isn't even internally consistent. Edvid 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think National rail, on their website, are trying to distinguish between international and domestic services. However the name of the entire station does seem to be St Pancras International. Refer to [3] and [4]. Tbo 157(talk) 17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Although mentioned (sort of) in the article, I should have also mentioned that National Rail have assigned 3 codes to St Pancras under the heading 'Stations & Destinations' - STP (London St Pancras Domestic) [5], SPL (London St Pancras (Low Level)) [6], and SPX (St Pancras International) [7], hence my point about the internal inconsistency. I have noted that LCR are indeed advertising the whole complex as St Pancras International, but that doesn't explain what's been done along platforms 1-4 (see the second sentence in my previous post). Edvid 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the various stakeholders in the station havn't quite worked out the nomenclature yet. It would seem rash to jump to making any changes on WP until the station is fully open, and things have settled down a little. Lets give it a little while. -- Chris j wood 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Lets wait. Even the LCR/Eurostar slogan is just "Meet me at St. Pancras", with no mention of "International" in the intended catchphrase... —Sladen 10:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
December. Simply south 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the title of the article is "St Pancras railway station", however the name of the station in the first paragraph is written as "St Pancras international railway station". Shouldn't they be the same? Tbo 157(talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've shifted the mention of 'International' down and added 'Low Level' as the various areas the full St. Pancras complex encompasses. —Sladen (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think "Domestic" should be mentioned as well? Simply south (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the paragraph and insertyed info about domestic. Tbo 157(talk) 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Update: Thameslink services call at St Pancras International, according to platform signage AND public address (both on board and at the station). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demolished church clarified and tidy of article needed

A bit of investigation on Google has revealed that the name of the church demolished to make way for the station was called St Luke's. I have edited the article accordingly so that readers don't think the article is referring to St Pancras Old Church!

With the merging of the Thameslink station article, this article has become quite long. It looks like one section that would benefit from a tidy is Future developments - a detailed background on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link should be in the article on CTRL, not here. Perhaps someone with a good grasp of how this affects St Pancras station could rewrite that section. redcountess 01:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proceeding Station/Following Station lists

Is it necessary or desirable to attempt to list the service pattern of all the variations of trains that travel North from here on the Midland Main line? Surely we are listing the stations that proceed and follow (in terms of platforms at the side of tracks) rather than the service pattern? It would surely look less cluttered if all the Midland Mainline/East Midlands Trains entries are combined into one, with proceeding station as Kentish Town, given that there are platform faces there on all platforms? Similarly with the First Capital Connect route, this could simply state proceeding Kentish Town and following Farringdon.

In fact, isn't stating Farringdon technically incorrect, as the platforms at Kings Cross Midland City are to be kept intact and available for emergency use, albeit in a nominally closed state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.230.220 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a lot of consensus as to quite what should be shown here. One school of thought is to list every next station for each service (as currently shown), the other end of the scale is as you describe, only the actually next station for each TOC on that line (ie the first midlands mainline stop north). Some editors "aggressively" enforce one standard (esp the former), but i can't really point at any consensus saying one way or other. Pickle 14:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding of certain words

Hi. Ive noticed that a user has bolded "St Pancras domestic" and "St Pancras (Low level)" as shown here. I did originally remove these boldings as these are not actually the names of the station but just how the platforms are distingushed between domestic and international services by National rail but the user has put the boldings back in. The entire station will be named "St Pancras international" as shown here and in various other sources including Modern railways magazine. Should the bolding be removed as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface? I don't want to cause any unnecessary conflicts so Ill leave it for now. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 15:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20th century onwards

article: "When this service begins, St. Pancras will become the first station in the world to be simultaneously served by French TGV, Japanese Shinkansen, and British HST & Meridian trains." I assume the Japanese Shinkansen trains aren't arriving from Japan; clarification is needed on operator. Artlondon 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scaffolding

The couple of sentences (starting at the phrase "As of June 2007") read a little oddly now that Eurostar services have started. Maybe someone can update it? Rachel Pearce 17:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've completely removed them as the international terminal is now open. Thanks for pointing that out. Simply south 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant section headings

Can somebody explain why we now have single 'Services' subheadings under both 'Domestic services' and 'International services'. They seem both redundant and tautological. I'm hoping somebody is intending to add other sub-sections, but if not they should be removed. I will do so myself if nothing changes soon and nobody objects here. -- Chris j wood 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Partly sorted. When I set up the headings, I was attempting to show how the services have changed over the years including services to Scotland; the Manchester services via Matlock (reprised with Project Rio). London area services include the trains to North Woolwich. I will do a review via my 1923 Bradshaw in the next few weeks.
My feeling was that the encyclopedic content was unduly biased in the services section by only considering the very recent history and needed expanded accordingly. What I am not sure about is if there was any services that headed south west (using the link at Cricklewood). --Stewart (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic Services

Following a brief discussion with User:Tbo 157, I have some thoughts regarding the Domestic Services section of the article.

It now has headings covering the complete timespan from the opening of the station:

  • Midland Railway
  • London Midland and Scottish
These first two are mentioned in passing and need expansion (and sub-section headings), and possible linking to an appropriate article.
  • British Railways (LMR era)
Brief mention of the routes served, not a lot about shorter distance services - for example the Woolwich service.
  • British Railways (Sectorisation)
Electrification and the BedPan services; introduction of HST
  • Privatisation (Midland Main Line)
Both Midland Main Line and East Midland Trains
  • Thameslink
Thamslink covers the whole period from the opening of the Snow Hill tunnel in 1986 through privatisation; dewiring and the end of the use of the main platforms; temporary use of the eastern platforms; and the end of the Thameslink franchise in favour of FCC.

I do like the way this article is going. It has good solid sections on the history and development of the building. The sections on the service over the years is developing and needs more in the LMS and BR(LMR) days.

Things that are still missing are:-

  • Locomotive Servicing from Steam Days;
  • Freight services (including those that required the use of the now redeveloped undercroft

I am sure that there are other issues that I have missed. --Stewart (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I kept my own opinions on this for a while, to give it chance to develop. However I'm afraid I have to say I find the 'new' structure of this article rather confusing. It is also completely at odds with every other station article I've seen on WP. In general the services heading is held to mean 'current services' and historical service is covered, if at all, in the history section. We now seem to have two competing history sections, which makes it difficult to correlate chronology, or determine where to put some information. I'd like to propose moving the historical service information into the history section, in the same chronological sequence as the other historical information. What do other editors feel?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of my reasoning came from the way Glasgow Central railway station has developed. My main fustration comes from the deletion of historical service information when situations change. Can I suggest a way forward that considers the points raised by Chris Wood:
  • Introductory section
  • Midland Railway
Construction, intiial services provided - was this when the west side was purely carriage storage - when were the platforms rebuilt?
  • London Midland and Scottish Railway
Development
  • British Railways (LMR)
Rationisation, especially after the WCML electrification. BedPan electrification
  • British Railways (Sectorisation)
InterCity Midland Mainliine; Network SouthEast; creation of Thameslink and the severe reduction of local services.
  • Post 1996 (Privitisation)
Dewiring; Temporary Station (for Midland Mainline and Thameslink); present day 2007

There was a lot of relevant information in the railway press over the last few months (RAIL Magazine and The Railway Magazine amongst others).

In the interim I will make a slight change to separate historic and current services, but I think a more drastic reorganisation of iformation would help. --Stewart (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good change. The article does flow a bit more now.Tbo 157(talk) 10:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Station site, in the History-Incentives to build section.

I've just found/properly read this that is in the History-Incentives to build section:

For the terminus the Midland Railway chose a site backing onto New Road (later Euston Road) bounded by Pancras Road and York Way, a few hundred yards to the east of Euston and immediately to the west of King's Cross station. The problem canal was to be tunnelled under (the Belsize Tunnel), although the churchyard and the gas-works were added problems.

That sounds more like a description of the site of Kings Cross station to me. Certainly York Way is the opposite side of Kings Cross station to St Pancras. The current St. Pancras station is between Midland Road (west side) and Pancras Road (east side). And the tracks into St Pancras pass over the canal, whilst those into Kings Cross pass under the canal.

It may be that the Midland planned to tunnel under the canal and later changed its mind; but the article doesn't say this. Or the tunnel reference could be to the link line to the Metropolitan (now used by Thameslink) that (I guess) tunnels under the canal, but again the article doesn't say. And I don't see how the Midland could have even planned to use the site between Pancras Road and York Way, because by the time they were planning St Pancras this site was well and truly occupied by Kings Cross station.

Anybody shed any light?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

St Pancras was built on the North side of New Road (now Euston Road), to the west of what is now St Pancras Road, which was possibly realigned, as probably also was Brewer Street and Skinner Street, which are now Midland Road.
The canal was on the roughly the same level as New Road, and the original plan to take the line under it. However this would affect the alignment of the proposed Belsize Tunnel. Thus Barlow came up with the idea of taking it above the canal and raising the level of the station. This means the train shed arch has no abutments. Part of its structure is the struts which also form the floor of the shed and the ceiling of the undercroft - something the architect will have taken into account in the recent alterations.
Thus the station itself would not have materially affected the graveyard. The problem was the intention to first build a connection under the station to the Metropolitan Lines. This descends from Kentish Town, runs diagonally under the canal and the station then makes a very sharp left curve to proceed parallel to Euston Road to Kings Cross Thameslink (until December)
The Fleet River was another problem. It had already been breached when the Metropolitan had been built, and Londoners were very wary of a repetition. Barlow completely rebuilt and realigned the brick built culvert, replacing it with a steel pipe. Chevin (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so if I read your comments correctly the reference to the Midland planning to use the site between Pancras Road and York Way is an error, and needs to be corrected. And the reference to a planned tunnel is correct, but needs to be followed up with some text about them changing their mind and building a bridge instead. One other query; the article says that the planned tunnel under the canal would have been called Belsize Tunnel, but today's Belsize tunnel is significantly further to the north. Is this an error in our article, or a case of names changing over time, or would it all have been one much longer tunnel in the original plans?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it got as far as a planned tunnel. They had two options - under or over the Regent's Canal. Over would mean building the station on an embankment. Under would have increased the length of the tunnel under Belsize Park since it started at a lower level, and would have given problems with the design of Camden Town, Kentish Town and Haverstock Hill stations. (according to Williams) It was Barlow's idea of building the trainshed on columns over a potentiality useful undercroft that decided the matter. Incidentally the shed needed to be tied firmly to solid foundations not only because of the weight, but also the uplift due to winds. I will upload an engraving to Commons showing the Fleet sewer. Chevin (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New International Services

The CTRL into St Pancras is built to continental loading gauge, meaning that TGVs and ICE3s can run into the station, so there has been much speculation about whether companies other than Eurostar will operate cross-channel services. SNCF, Deutsche Bahn and Netherlands Railways have all been suggested through various sources (including the Railway Magazine and Evening Standard newspaper). DB recently was forced to deny that they had any definite plans, so the question is, will it happen? L.E. Greys 139.133.7.37 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

There are many other issues that need addressing in addition to the loading gauge. Firstly is the Eurotunnel requirement that a train should be able to be spilt in the case of an incident to evacuate people on board - hence the reason will the the Eurostar trains are formed of two half trains. The second concerns board controls. Consider the Eurostar platforms are Waterloo (now closed); Brussells-Midi; and Paris Gare de Nord. This is partly because the UK are not part of the Schenegen agreement. There are border controls to pass through. Now compare with another international undersea route in Northern Europe - between Denmark and Sweden. THere are no border controls, regular stopping train services between Copenhagen and Malmo run. In fact there are services to further afield. Special regulations for the trains? Border controls are the station? I do not pretend to suggest that these are the only reasons, but there are two significant ones that do not appear to encourage services to further afield. --Stewart (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But despite all this, the channel tunnel will become open access in 2010 and any European operator will be able to bid for diagrams through the channel tunnel. So I guess it will eventually happen some how. Tbo 157(talk) 17:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It’s not just because the U.K. isn’t in the Schengen area that there are controls for passengers; the laws also require security checks because of fears someone would try to blow up the tunnel. While there is some potential for more competition through the tunnel, I can’t see it becoming a commuter route like the Öresund bridge/tunnel any time soon. David Arthur 19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning this in the article? Tbo 157(talk) 23:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont know all the details but I believe trains on HS1 have special on-board signalling and safety equipment that other European lines don't have. Chevin (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
A check is needed, however I do beleive that HS1 is signalled using the same system as the TGV lines. I do agreed in that I think it is the required safety and security protocols that may be the main challenges to any Open Access Operator. --Stewart (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thameslink open?

Have St Pancras's Thameslink platforms opened yet?. The article says they have, but then destroyed its credibility by citing a reference dated in 2006 which actually gives November 9th 2007 as the planned date. The fact that something is planned to happen is clearly not the same thing as it actually happening, so I've removed that cite and substituted a fact tag. I did try checking the Capital Connect web site news pages, but the last news article that company has posted was in November. Which makes me suspect that the opening hasn't yet happened. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It happened on Sunday, 9th December. [8]. Mister Ant (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There are multiple sources if you search in google news. And I assure you that the station has opened. I have stood on the new platforms myself. Tbo 157(talk) 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Me three :) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Not been there myself yet, however have seen pictures taken by friends who used KXTL to take the last departure in the early morning on Sunday 9th December 2007 and after little sleep were at StPTL for the first departure later on during the same morning. --Stewart (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request cite for 2010 date for Eurostar at Stratford

The article contains the following statement:

From 2010, once the Docklands Light Railway extension is completed, some Eurostar services will call at Stratford International as the first stop from St Pancras.

I cannot find any reference for this. The closest I can find Eurostar coming to a commitment to serve Stratford is a statement that:

Eurostar services at Stratford International will only begin when good quality road and public transport connections are in place.

So I've added a fact tag. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me rewriting this thusly:
Eurostar is only considering calling at Stratford International as the first stop from St Pancras, once the Docklands Light Railway extension is completed[38]. Presently there is no fixed connection between the International and domestic (Regional) stations at Stratford. The DLR extension is due to be completed in 2010[39]. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine. Although my personal suspicion is that they will continue to find a reason not to stop there, so as not to further slow down their services. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Govia - Thameslink - use of St Pancras

From the beginning of the Govia Thameslink franchise until around a year before de-wiring, some peak hour Thameslink services used St Pancras; and then during the closure of the tunnel during the construction of the new Thameslink station box, the Govia services terminated at the temporary domestic station. It was during this period that the franchisee changed. In both instances I have travelled on Govia Thameslink services into St Pancras. --Stewart (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so running into actual St Pancras, rather than the new low-level platforms. (Though the sentence I deleted does seem like it would be better off integrated into the sentence about the privatisation of Thameslink at the top of that section). David Arthur (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Added some clarification descriptive text to the paragraph. --Stewart (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. Did you read the first paragraph of this section. It already says that. The paragraph that has been inserted/deleted twice is more or less a duplicate of the last sentence of that para. Why do we need to say it twice?.
And I'd respectfully suggest that we hold off talking about dewiring for rebuilding, let alone platform usage during rebuilding, until we have reached the section explaining what is being rebuilt and why. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've restructured the history section to put it more into chronological order. I've removed one paragraph altogether, which was talking about platform lengths at KXTL and other TL stations, and which I didn't think had any bearing on St Pancras station (although it probably belongs on the KXTL article as an explanation as to why that station closed). Other than that, I shouldn't have lost any information, just moved it around and merged places where we said the same thing twice.
One thing I'm not comfortable with is our coverage of the late 20th century. The article very much reads as if the electrification to Bedford, re-opening of the tunnel link to the Met, etc was part of the Thameslink project. In other words we have more or less lost the whole BedPan project (which was actually responsible for all of those, and predated TL by some years). -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Chris - I like your restructuring and rewording. Need to think about the BedPan electrification and the reopening of the Widened Lines to Moorgate. --Stewart (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Meet me at St. Pancras"

No not asking you out on a date(!), just that I have a reasonably good pic of Paul Day's The Meeting Place, and would like to see it somewhere in the article, but at your discretion! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

actually since I last checked on Thursday two other shots of the statue have been uploaded to Commons - oops! Sunil060902 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tacky images

Why is wikipedia allowing what should be a good article to be soiled, undermined and cheapened by having images with Xmas decorations in this article? One click on the commons category link will show there are many high quality images that would not spoil the article that could be included in place of the offending pictures. The damage done by these pictures is not compensated for by any information in the pictures. Oxyman42 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's only one on it! Yes, it would be great if someone could replace this with a picture of St Pancras on a normal day. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I havn't a clue what Oxyman42 is talking about when he says that these pictures are causing a good article to be soiled, undermined and cheapened by having images with Xmas decorations. It is just a Christmas Tree, after all. So I cannot respond too much to that.
However I would point out that WP is not a photo gallery, and the only reason for having images at all is to support the article text. In this case the photographs are there to help illustrate and clarify my text alongside that describes the layout of the arcade. I didn't cause the tree to be put there in order to photograph it, it was already there. The picture is a true reflection of what the arcade looked like when it opened. The Commons category is not full of pictures of the arcade without the tree; any such picture can only have been taken since the tree was taken down (presumably on the 6th Jan) and not surprisingly, there aren't any. The only pictures in the commons category that show the arcade and its relationship to the platform level and roof are the two I took to illustrate this article.
As to whether they should be replaced by later shots from the same angle and perspective without the tree, once they are available, I'm not sure. Until I read this comment I thought they probably should (I was a bit irritated they were there when I took the pictures). But having written the above, I realise that there is a certain historical authenticity about these shots that would be absent in retaken ones. They do show the arcade as it was when it opened. So now I'm tending to think they should be kept. Besides we need to remember that this is a commercial shopping mall; odds are that by the time somebody comes to take the picture they will find the tree has been replaced by a giant Easter Bunny :-( -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
actually the tree was not there when the station opened I traveled from the station in November after it opened and the tree was not there. It seems to have arrived towards the start of December. You really should check your facts before you post them. This is not meant to be a personal attack as you seem to be taking it but the presence of the tree cheapens the quality of this article Oxyman42 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not the end of the world! All you need to do is explain the image was taken at Christmas. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Duly done in the article caption. The image description on Commons already so explained. -- Chris j wood (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you both are acting like children! In my personal opinion the tree is fine, it's the the covering of the hotel front that I don't like (and was quite annoyed when visiting for the first time). For that reason a clear picture without the decoration background would be better as its hows more of the building. 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.137.92 (talk)
I don't think the 'hanging' in front of the hotel is specific to Christmas. I could be wrong, but I've seen at least two different designs there, and it may be that the presence of such a hanging is going to be a permanent (or frequent) feature. On the other hand I havn't looked this year, so maybe it has gone now. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the Hanging is there because of work still going on in St Pancras Chambers/ Midland Hotel and will be removed when the Hotel is completed Oxyman42 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Could well be. In which case we may to have to wait another year or two for a picture without the hanging. The hotel and appartments are due to be finished in 2009. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First Capital Connect

Is there any sound reason why the FCC platforms are numbered A and B rather than 14 and 15? Dmccormac (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably a hat-tip to the old Kings Cross TL station, whose FCC platforms were also A and B? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Photos

I'm of to St Pancras on 21st of April, any imagery requests? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)