Talk:London King's Cross railway station

(Harry Potter films)

Kings Cross IS used in the Harry Potter films. You can tell by the GNER trains there. Apparently JK Rowling was confusing Euston with Kings Cross when she was thinking of platform nine and three-quarters. In real life platforms 9, 10 and 11 are in another train shed.

St Pancras or St Pancrass ?

only one 's'. -- Tarquin

Thanks !

(To apostrophe or not to apostrophe)

Please note that there is no apostrophe in Kings Cross. Reference: http://eur-op.eu.int/code/en/en-4100213en.htm --The Anome

Here's the whole story (to date):

• Kings Cross is the name for the surrounding area, as supported by both style guides and general usage.
• Google searches also say that Kings Cross station is more common that King's Cross station
• King's Cross is the "official" signage for the stations
• but Kings Cross is the "official" usage in the timetable database, as well as being used on other official documents: joyously, the official station page at [1] uses both usages

The Anome 09:38 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

---

Don't forget Harry Potter! (lol) Nevilley

The first Harry Potter book uses King's Cross -- but hey, it's fiction.

Oh very quick. And next will we be starting on St Pancras, which is incorrectly given as St. Pancras all over the place???? And come to think of it, it really needs a proper entry, it's a sort of poor relation of K'in'gs 'Cros's 'sta't'i'on at the moment. I guess I probably mean St. Pancras station and its correct version St Pancras station here, rather than the place (where is it anyway?!) and the churches! I would insert a smiley at this point but don't know how. Nevilley 10:20 Nov 29, 2002 (UTC)

(Bold warning)

From the article:

Although considerable regenration effort (and money) has gone into the area over recent years, there is still a significant presence of drug dealers and prostitutes. Visitors are advised to remain within stations and/or on main thoroughfares during working hours and to exercise extreme caution in all locations at all other times.

This warning was added in bold text today. This seems at variance with my experience of Kings Cross, where my major worry is generally whether the trains are running and the length of the queue for mocha-cappuchino. Can the contributor of the warning give cites for the danger level suggested in the warning, please? The Anome 07:52 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Mentioning that the area is a traditional stamping ground for prostitutes is ok content for the 'pedia, I guess, but I don't think issuing advice about personal safety is encyclopedic, even in its now toned down form. (Maybe such advice would be ok in an article about personal safety but this article is about a particular geographical location). I propose its removal. Pcb21 10:44 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

The same contributor has added a similar warning to Soho.

I'm going to edit that. Pcb21 10:52 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

The original contribution has had an overall positive effect. Following my edit, a couple of recent changes watchers dived in and improved the article. Pcb21 12:07 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I like the work that has now been done on this. I do not agree that a personal safety warning must always be inappropriate for the wiki - after all it is just another piece of info, and if someone finds it useful one day then great, info has been provided! But I do agree that the tone of the initial one was a bit strong, and I think the way it works now is fine. Smiles all round! :) Nevilley 17:32 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC) PS Watch out for aggressive mocha vendors trying to hustle you! :)

I agree that if 'authorities' (whoever they may be in a particular location) advise people to exercise appropiate caution then that we should report that useful info. E.g. it is official New York Subway policy to advice passengers to stand in the lit yellow areas of the platform when late at night. That should form part of the New York Subway article. However I am not sure Wikipedia and its contributors should issue advice by itself... who's to say Kings Cross is any more dangerous than a dozen other places in London (and elsewhere!) where advice is not issued. The current paragraph is a bit ambiguous in this respect. Having written all that, I guess it doesn't matter too much on the large scale! Pcb21 17:46 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

(Page move)

This page should be at Kings Cross railway station in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject London - see especially the recent discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London but I can't get it to move. Timrollpickering 7:52, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this should be at King's Cross railway station (the lack of apostrophe in the station's signs are apparently typographic rather than concious choices), but I'll wait for someone else to give me the nod, given that others seem to disagree...

James F. (talk) 18:24, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that (apparently) the official web page, the official signage, the London Underground, and indeed Transport for London generally, perhaps we can make a decision on this?

James F. (talk) 01:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Convinces me. I've requested the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Stevage 20:34, 6 March 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 move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (archived)

Stevage has proposed the following move at Requested moves:

Kings Cross railway station -> King's Cross railway station. Looks like the company website [2] has finally made up its mind. Stevage 20:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting and discussion

• Support. If you look into the history of the name I believe you'll find the reference is to one particular king, hence the possessive "King's". Regards, David Kernow 21:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Proteus (Talk) 09:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Suppoer. Given the clear policy change I would have just moved it... Justinc 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, in cases like these, forget about WP:RM and just ask an admin to move the page. No need to wait for five days when it's as obvious as in this case. —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 11 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.

Image:London King's Cross sign.jpg

May I ask, not intending to sound rude etc. where this picture has gone, as we appear to have began with 2 (as mentioned in page history) which admittedly is too many, but now the picture is non-existant in the article, I think that although didn't show much, it looked better than the current pic in the infobox (just my two cents), or at least somewhere in the article. Also may I take this oppurtunity to apologise for unintentionally altering the article (by the first addition of the infobox), sorry again for the tone if anyone finds it rude DannyM 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Latest change to intro

London King(')s Cross (officially),King's Cross or Kings Cross station is just too messy. I've placed it here and reverted it until a better, agreed intro. is established. leaky_caldron 20:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent nearby fire

I know it's caused disruption in the last couple of days, but is a nearby fire (which wasn't even in the station if my understanding is correct) really worth mentioning in the article?--Tivedshambo (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Shouldn't King's Cross station redirect straight here rather to a disambig page? This is by far the largest and best known station of the name. 86.0.203.120 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hogwarts Express

I have removed the "Hogwarts Express" from the succession box: this was utterly ridiculous. If anyone objects, please discuss it here before putting it back. --RFBailey 10:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Locomotives..

..stabled there used to be marked " KINGS + "

These quibbles about the apostrophe are childish. An encyclopedia should be easy to use. In all such cases the various spellings should be redirected or be on a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I'll be in Kings Cross on 21st April, any requests for images? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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 No consensus for the move. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• London King's Cross railway station → King's Cross railway station — For consistency with other London railway stations, should not have "London" at the start of the name, for example St Pancras railway station. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions. The page was moved to add "London" by a user in March 2007 without discussion. --JRawle (Talk) 11:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

For consistency with other London railway stations, should not have "London" at the start of the name, for example St Pancras railway station. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions. The page was moved from King's Cross railway station to add "London" by a user in March 2007 without discussing it first. (The apostrophe has previously been discussed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRawle (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 August 2008

Seconded. Adambro (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I'm reconsidering this issue as part of the discussions of the wider naming convention for London stations. In this particular instance London isn't a disambiguating term which we've added, it is part of the name similar to Manchester Piccadilly and as such I'm no longer convinced that removing "London" from the page name is such a good idea. Adambro (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. This is a well known station. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also a Kings Cross railway station in Sydney. The current name makes the distinction clear. (To be honest, I think it would be better if all the major mainline termini in London had 'London' in the article name.) DrFrench (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That one is, and always has been, located at Kings Cross railway station, Sydney. There's no doubt that the primary topic is the station in London. JRawle (Talk) 23:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite. But that doesn't invalidate what I said. DrFrench (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. _If_ it were necessary for disambiguation against the Australian station (which I don't believe it is), the article title should be King's Cross railway station, London. But - with all due deference - the London station is the primary reference, IMO. Tevildo (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the Australian station is only ever known as Kings Cross, never Sydney Kings Cross. Whilst the London station is known as London King's Cross (on station signs), as well as just King's Cross. We don't have Piccadilly station or Piccadilly station, Manchester - we have Manchester Piccadilly station - for the same resason, this should be London King's Cross. DrFrench (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add, that the original poster was not correct; we have London Waterloo station and London Victoria station - so changing this article will not deliver the desired consistency... DrFrench (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The sensible (although probably not policy-compliant) thing to do would be to add "London" where it's necessary for disambiguation. So, London King's Cross (distinguish from Sydney), London Victoria (distinguish from Manchester, Sheffield, etc), London Charing Cross (distinguish from Glasgow), London Waterloo (distinguish from Waterloo in Merseyside), but all the rest (Fenchurch St, Liverpool St, Paddington, Marylebone, etc) without the "London". 78.105.161.182 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Having read the debate, and (more particularly) the debate at St Pancras, I'm now convinced that the article name for any station should be the official name of the station. So - the question is, how do we determine what that official name is? The Network Rail site calls it "King's Cross" (no London) [3]. The platform signs call it "London King's Cross". NRE call it "London Kings Cross" (no apostrophe) [4]. My gut feeling (supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)) is to go with the platform signs, hence my opposition to this specific move. However, without having seen the platform signs (or photos of them) at any of the other terminii recently, I wouldn't want to offer an opinion on any other station. Tevildo (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - Looks like 3:2 against the move; is that consensus? Tevildo (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think if it was a choice between having King's Cross, London or King's Cross railway station (London), then it would be preferable to prepend instead: to London King's Cross [railway] station. By no means do I think prepending "[London]" should be automatic; London Kensington Olympia and London Finsbury Park are somewhat nonsensical and the boundary for what is in London is going to cause problems (London Tottenham Hale, London West Croydon?). —Sladen (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that point - automatic appending gives us "London London Bridge". I feel, however, the case has been made out for "London King's Cross" specifically, without London Paddington or even London Victoria entering the equation. Tevildo (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Rationale behind this move cites a completely spurious 'for consistency' argument. Actually there is no consistency, with some London stations having the London prefix in the title (eg. London King's Cross railway station, London Victoria station, London Waterloo station) and others not (eg. Paddington station). I suspect the reason is to do with ambiguity, but even if it isn't, changing one name will not achieve consistency, and the proposal therefore fails by its own rationale. -- Starbois (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment to avoid confusion; an "Oppose" opinion means you're in favour of "London King's Cross", a "Support" means you're in favour of "King's Cross". I wouldn't want your !vote to be counted on the wrong side. :) Tevildo (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the move, and as there are disambiguation problems, I don't see that there is an overriding procedural reasons for the move. (see WP:NC sections "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Be precise when necessary"). However as the only technical impediment blocking such a move was an edit history at the target page, I have removed the edit history so that in the future if there is consensus on this talk page the move can be made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New poll

London railway stations should all be named consistently. Should they be prefixed with London or not? Or doesn't it matter if they are not consistent?

• Rename articles for consistency, but am neutral about whether they are prefixed by London (should add extra interest to the [London] St Pancras [International] debate!) JRawle (Talk) 12:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• If consistency is our goal, we have to accept the possibility of London London Bridge station - which says to me that we shouldn't have an _automatic_ "London" prefix, if nothing else. 78.105.161.182 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I do not appreciate being "canvassed" to vote in this "new poll" which is just a red herring. Just move the station back to "King's Cross railway station" and be done with it. Everything on Wikipedia has to be done on a case by case basis. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Whats the point, no other station has London at the beging of the name but of couse London Bridge station. At St Pancras station theres at talk about weather adding 'International' is a good idea thats more senseable than adding London to King's Cross. Likelife (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not true. See London Waterloo station and London Victoria station. -- Starbois (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Google gives 1,260 hits for "London King's Cross railway station" and 13,900 for "King's Cross railway station". Can you guess which is the preferred name? Hint: (13,900-1,260)/1,260 = 10.03. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate this issue as it covers other pages and it was not advertised as a general debate at WP:RM or on the relevant project pages. It should probably be debated at a project level, and WP:NC needs to be followed including consideration of the sections "Use the most easily recognized name" and "Be precise when necessary" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and community links

Hi,

I'm concerned that links I've added to community groups in King's Cross are being deleted. There are controversial elements of the current station redevelopment and surely Wikipedia should refer to these? If not, then Wikipedia is guilty of taking a one-sided view of a two-sided debate. I totally agree it is not the place to promote one or the other, but I do feel strongly it should refer fairly and openly to both.

Specific additions I think should be made are: (Under restoration) The redevelopment is controversial and has resulted in a local campaign being set up to press for improved access in the new design.

(Under Links)

• King's Cross Development Forum, a group facilitating the community response to the King's Cross Central development
• The King's Cross community website
• King's Cross Railway Lands Group

Apologies for not getting the Wikipedia procedure right, hopefully this posting is the right way to do it...

Help!

PurpleNaartjie (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Sophie T

KCS contact info

where should it go in the article? Contact Tel: 02089294080 Address: Station Manager Network Rail Room 104, West Side Offices King's Cross station London N1 9AP Opening hours: 24 hours Monday - Sunday thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.91.63 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article already includes a link to the KGX details page at the National Rail site which appears to contain most of the information that you are proposing. Generally Wikipedia does not duplicate lists of facts that can be more effectively maintained by simply linking to them. Once again, thank you for the suggested it though! —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:London Paddington station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Platform Y

I was walking around Kings Cross looking at all the rebuilding / restoration work, and came across this immage

Platform Y Photo

It clearly showes a "Platform Y" reference, what is that?

Could it be the new "Platform 0" they are building?

--Casper (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been variously described as Platform Y or Platform 0. Recently, First Capital Connect have stated on their site that it will be called Platform 0 and will open in May.

Buz44 (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Updated, with ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Adams Fiction

To avoid a revert war I would like the pinion of other editors on this matter. The following was added to the other fiction section of the article:

• In Life, the Universe and Everything, Arthur Dent uses the telephone number of King's Cross railway station passenger inquiries as Improbability coordinate "on the grounds that it must have some function"

This edit originally made by another editor was reverted. I reversed this reversion but it has since been removed again by on the rationale that it is only of interest to fans. IMO this is not the case. I would argue that this piece of information is equally relevant if not more so than a number of others in this section (especially the reference to the station appearing in the background of a movie scene). If this information is only of interest to fans then surely this is the case for a number of the other references in the section? Also I am not a fan of the Douglas Adams' books but I did find this reference interesting. Would other editors please give their opinion on whether this should be re-instated to the section. If it should not be included can I suggest a clean-up of the other fiction section for consistency? Grizzlyqi (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed this - twice. I would estimate that 1/3rd of the article is dedicated to fictional or celebrity related events connected with the station. The latest addition is yet more wp:fancruft drivel which has already turned the article into a laughable encyclopaedic source. There is nothing in the slightest notable about the latest fictional link and it, together with much of the stuff already in there, should be dumped once and for all. WP does not need and is not required to list every detail of minutia connected with its articles. Leaky Caldron 13:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter reverted

A good-faith edit was reverted 12 mins later; the reversion was valid, because it wasn't a regular service. However, a special train did run over that route, just once, on 8-11 July 2000 - I've added a section to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

York Road

I'm not sure that the location of the York Road station is correct. The 1874 6" OS map shows it a station to the south east of the main station, between two tunnels. Curiously enough, it is still shown on the Current 1:50,000 OS map. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That said, a map dated 1899 names that station as King's Cross (Metropolitan), and shows a station north of KX labelled "York Road". Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Am now satisfied as to the position of York Road. I think the Metropolitan station is deserving of a section in this article, and maybe the Great Northern Cemetery station too. This was on the east side to the line, just before Gasworks Copenhagen Tunnel portal. This forum thread discusses the station, and there is a book source that covers the station in detail - Dawes, Rev. Martin C. (2003). The end of the line : the story of the railway service to the Great Northern London Cemetery". Barnet: Barnet & District Local History Society. . Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Further info on the Cemetery station can be found in Dawes, Martin C. "The Great Northern London Cemetery And Its Railway Service". London Railway Record (Connor & Butler) (October 1999): pp254–60.  and Lucas, R G. "Kings Cross Cemetery Station". Railway Magazine (The Tothill Press) (October 1954): pp713–15. . Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We have hardly any info on the Maiden Lane temporary terminus. Does anything cover that? Simply south...... unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 20:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I did add a bit to the article on the station earlier today. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A good place to look for old maps is... old-maps.co.uk - it's indirectly linked from the GeoHack page: in a WP article, click on some coordinates to get to the GeoHack page, then under "Great Britain", find the "Old OS maps" row, and click on "Map". Then, at upper right you should find "View at old-maps.co.uk(~1900)"; despite the name, this site often has many maps for various dates between the 1850s and the 1970s. For a shortcut to York Road, go to this link, and in the scroll box on the right, find "1954 Post-WWII - ESSEX 1:2,500" and click the green "Enlarge Map" button. Once it's loaded, you can zoom in - particularly if you go for the orange "Enhanced Zoom" button. It's marked as "York Road Station", and is in the centre of that view, i.e. to the west of York Way. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Cemetery station needs to be a separate article, it was before Copenhagen Tunnel, not Gasworks, and thus away from KX proper. Mjroots (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead picture

I disagree with this edit, which removed a picture of the fantastic new departures concourse and replaced with with a poor picture of the front of the station. I can say it is poor because I took both photos and the picture is mostly in shadow (I do intend to return at a better time to get another). The front of Kings Cross is an ugly temporary structure, now only used for folk leaving the station. The new entrance is round the corner and is a dome shaped structure, the inside of which is spectacular but the outside of which is fairly grey and boring. The rationale for the edit was "for consistency" which is a fairly low-priority reason for choosing any image and not actually true: see Glasgow Central station, London Paddington station, Edinburgh Waverley railway station, Leeds railway station, Liverpool Street station, London Bridge station, Birmingham New Street railway station.

I've restored the concourse image further down (it is currently an FP candidate so its removal would be disruptive). However, I strongly believe the article should lead with the best image. Currently, the new concourse is the best feature. In a couple of years time, the front of Kings Cross will be redeveloped to get rid of the ugly 1970s "temporary" structure, and it might then make a good picture. Colin°^Talk 20:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The new picture should be in the infobox. Leaky Caldron 21:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The front of the station has been the well known iconic image of King's Cross for 150+ years. The new concourse has only just opened a few months ago. G-13114 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The King's Cross frontpage is distinctive and meaningful to a reader, in the same way that St Pancras chambers/clock tower are. While you may believe the photograph is terrible, it is one of the few I have seen where the inner "tunnel effect" of the train sheds are visible through the new glasswork. The new retail concourse is designed to be artistic and artsy, …and illuminated in purple I'm sure looks lovely; but so does the London Eye when illuminated at New Year—you could mistake the two pictures at a distance. Thusly, I'm inclined to suggest that the Infobox stay as the familiar historical KX frontage, and that the new "side entrance" pictures stay somewhere within the article, supporting whatever text has been written about the expansion. —Sladen (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

luggage trolley

Since when exactly there is the luggage trolley at platform 9 3/4? -- 134.99.30.20 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The actual location of platform 9 3/4 has changed over the years, with the current position only since March 2012. However, there has always been a trolly partway into the wall for Harry Potter fans to push. Colin°^Talk 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Being a magical platform 9¾ it moves around quite a bit. Before ~2002 the sign was not visible to mere muggles like you and I.[5] The luggage trolley additionally took even longer for muggles to spot, and wasn't recorded on film until a few years later, even then it was a habit of shapeshifting, and sometimes fading out of view completely (leaving no trace, except some boltholes and sprinkles of brick-dust). I suspect I might have first noticed the trolley during 2003/2004. —Sladen (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party but Sladen's right - despite Colin's interesting use of "always", it was not visible to most of us at least until the books were published, and perhaps - I'm guessing - not until the films came out. It would be interesting to try to find a RS for some detail on this. DBaK (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish border

Thanks, Sladen, for sorting out that cn. But then when I look at it, it makes me think - (1) if the border is worth marking on a fictional map then why is it not on the non-fictional ECML map? Conversely (2) if it's not worth marking on the real map then why on earth put it in fiction, where everyone should, surely, give even less of a monkey's, and (3) do we have some generally-agreed practice on borders in rail maps, or borders in UK rail maps, or - er - something?? Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)