This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
The photo is a little dark and could use some histogram adjustment. Lee M 00:50, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
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
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 progressLang rabbie 12 July 2005
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 ?) Pickle13:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Although ownership is not Network Rail, who actually manages the station? ATOC indicate it is Midland Mainline, not London & Continental. MRSC08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Warofdreamstalk17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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")". Warofdreamstalk21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Arthur16:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Arthur19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Kernow22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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! Sladen22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 rabbie22:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 cowie10:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Warofdreamstalk20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Scarletand the Mysterons23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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). 81.178.100.1920:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Bazza11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Zverzia13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ogg20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 15720:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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
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 15711:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Pickle20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 157talk20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 157talk09:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Lfh21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Chevin10:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 south16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 157talk17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 south22:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Chevin16:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ;) 77.100.149.8820:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 south19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Edvid17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). Edvid18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 wood18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lets wait. Even the LCR/Eurostar slogan is just "Meet me at St. Pancras", with no mention of "International" in the intended catchphrase... —Sladen10:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. redcountess01:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Pickle14:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Artlondon13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Pearce17:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 wood16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Arthur19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Request cite for 2010 date for Eurostar at Stratford
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seems an overly enthusiastic Wikipedia contributor has (just) moved this article to include "International" in the title, without realising that the station has been around for 150 years... *sigh*. —Sladen (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do know that the station has been around for years but as the station is now branded with International why live in the past, it's the new name if the station is called St Pancras International why is not the page??? Likelife (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sladen: The TfL link you provide above has this to say re. the western Underground concourse: "This has led to increased capacity, better interchanges and improved accessibility to what is now a gateway to Europe, following the opening of the Eurostar terminal at St Pancras International in November 2007." best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sladen, Its Meet me at St Pancras International thats the right slogen it says that on their website. Also on the Tube map it hasKing's Cross St. Pancras (for St. Pancras International) Likelife (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The station is not called St Pancras International. Part of it is. There is still a domestic part of the station and tickets to that do not say "St Pancras International". This article is about the whole building, both domestic and international parts.Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used the EMT platforms yet, but the Thameslink (FCC) platforms are definitely signed as St Pancras International. Or from a slightly different angle, there seems to be no "on the ground" evidence for a station termed St Pancras Domestic.
My eyes could be deceiving me, but on that picture; "St Pancras" appears in large lettering and the "Internaional" suffix in quite small letters. This is quite unlike the situation for Harwich International, Birmingham International, Ashford International or the future Stratford International where the word International is part of the name and is required to accurately distinguish the station in question. (Ebbsfleet is not open for domestic service yet and Rhoose was reopened as the Rhoose Cardiff International Airport after the airport was similarly rebranded).
So why did they bother with the "International"? BTW, did you spot the far right-hand poster beneath the station sign in the photo? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well ask the St Pancras site, even that the branding of the site has International just beacuse its small don't mean its not part of the name.
Just Look on the EMT route map also on the outside of the station it reads ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL not St Pancras.Likelife (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←If you try to buy a ticket from (say) Sheffield to St Pancras International you can't. But you can buy a ticket to St Pancras Domestic. Or a ticket from Paris to St Pancras International. Rachel Pearce (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→For those interested in the Meet me at... brand, the original consultants (brandstory) have some background on the slogan. (Incidently they refer entirely to St Pancras). —Sladen (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have a point but the branding is confusing at London Bridge or Wellingborough it has St Pancras Int. FCC and EMT on the route maps has St Pancras International. National rail do call it domestic for EMT & FCC services but they call it diffrent it seems like the whole station is call International, on the St Pancras Website, FCC, EMT, Even the Tube.Likelife (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The station announcements at Farringdon, one stop south on FCC, after some fluctuation, seem to have settled on: "Platform 4 for the 09:40 St. Albans service, calling at St. Pancras International, Kentish Town....". Believe me, as it says on my user page I use the station virtually everyday! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yh very ture at London Bridge it has FCC service to Bedford Calling at London Blackfairs, City Thameslink, Farringdon, St Pancras International... you can't say that Sunil060902 is wrong.I Think the station is LONDON ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL!!!!Likelife (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think such a line of enquiry might be bordering on circumventing Wikipedia:No original research. Perhaps we could see what the statute thinks the complex might be called;
I was not able to find any Acts of Parliament that contain "...Pancras International", although I did find a some Hansard recordings of verbal conversations. The were a greater quantity of Hansard records that use "St Pancras" alone in relation to the station complex. —Sladen (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St Pancras International is situated at the heart of central London just two stops away from Oxford Circus and Covent Garden and with more London underground connections than any other station....The underground station Kings Cross St Pancras leads directly into St Pancras International and is better connected than any other London station with 6 of the major tube lines running through it – Victoria, Hammersmith and City, Piccadilly, Circle Metropolitan line and Northern. Please refer to Transport for London for journey times....East Midland trains from St Pancras International and services from nearby King’ s Cross connect St Pancras to the North of England and Scotland, whilst First Capital Connect will help commuters to St Albans, Bedford, Luton and the South of England.
Also, "Meet me at St Pancras International" not only appears in exhibit D below, but also in the website above, top right!
I don't think there is any doubt about the use of branding in relation to St Pancras. The article states[9]:
"expanded and reopened—branded St Pancras International".
For this article, we are after the the accurate name for the historic station complex, encompassing all its compartmental areas, uses and users. —Sladen (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the name is now St Pancras International. Note that the panels on exhibit B and in exhibit I look as if they have been recently altered. Also you can clearly see in Exhibit D and Exhibit F that a UK domestic operator refer to their terminus as International. Here's an analogy: Should the Arsenal tube station article be renamed Gillespie Road? Because, after all, wasn't that the historic name? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The station is St. Pancras International you can't say the signage is wrong can you
The whole station is branded as "St Pancras international" and most media services and information do refer to it as such but in everyday conversation its referred to as "St Pancras" just like London Heathrow airport is simply referred to as "Heathrow". If users still can't determine what the article should be call then start a discussion or requested move to determine the consensus. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk)16:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have to use the current name? An encyclopedia isn't just about current things. Having said that the standard here does seem to be to use the most recent name for stations. Talltim (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I visit St Pancras regularly but have done fairly often in the last year. My opinion based upon what has been presented so far and from experience of what it is like on the ground, my support is for St Pancras International as the formal name. Adambro (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St Pancras International what the site had to say...
This is what the St Pancras site had to say....
The name of our Station is 'St Pancras International Station'
so now could somone now move the page to St Pancras International Likelife (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear - in the above discussion I have seen nothing that identifies that the article name is incorrect. The article covers the whole period of the operation - for most of that time it was branded as per the article. Changing the name because the branding has been change sets a very dangerous precedent. I say keep as is - the redirects are in place to capture the rebranding. This is all it is rebranding --Stewart(talk)05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clawed together from the first first few pages of [10]: A true change in the legal/technical status, verses an apparent perceptional/superficial change made for promotional/opportunistic reasons (often one core entity with multiple identities, each optimised for a different target market).
The geographical renaming article seems to cover the type of renaming involved here (or not)—some sort of legal mandate and that being subsequently recognised/adopted internationally/locally.
"A rose by any other name..." —Sladen (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (PS. As an amusing aside, when various cities in Russia are renamed/unrenamed (glorification of Stalin et al), the railway stations have continued to carry the previous names; I discovered this when trying to get to Nizhniy Novgorod; the railway station I needed was Gorky!).[reply]
He he, I was joking, but with respect I think you're the one insisting on "historic" names :)! Oh and let's not forget to rebrand Arsenal tube station back to the original "Gillespie Road" while we're at it! (joke!) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying that the signs, EMT, FCC, the Tube Map & the outside of the station dose not identifie that the article name is wrong. If your sure. Likelife (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst very little structural change was undertaken; the plc name was actually changed in the case of Consignia ...which is perhaps more extreme than what appears to have been done around STP (rolls of sticky-back vinyl lettering). —Sladen (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FCC also reckon its International on their train arrival PA messages, and the scrolling destination lists on their "repeater" boards, and on their in-train maps. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Wikipedia Policy on this particluar circumstance?
This discussion is as pointless as the one that was held about Glasgow Central railway station which resulted in the word railway being removed from the title. In added no value to the article. If you walk down Euston Road as ask were St Pancras is - the signposts will tell you, the locals will know. London cabbies know it as St Pancras. Why not go the whole way and retitle the article exactly as Likelife suggests - ST PANCRAS INTERNATIONAL - all capitals, no other words.
I hope Likelife is prepared to undertake the maintenance that setting this precedent sets every time a TOC or Network Rail rename a station.
In my mind this has been a pointless discussion that does not and will not add any value to the article. THere are far more important thing needing to be done to the article (early 20th history for example) than quibling over the title. --Stewart(talk)13:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just wondered: How often do stations change name upon re-franchising or reconstruction? This case is pretty unique for a London terminal, I would guess. I remind you to please see exhibits A to I above, thanks. The name International now appears on FCC and EMT timetables (and they are domestic operators after all). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in capitals to stand out & thats like saying words that up put in bold should always be spelt in bold. If a station is renamed then the page should be renamed. It's not as Piontless as the Glasgow Central Station talk. So your saying is the Whittlesford station in Essex the page should not have been renamed to Whittlesford Parkway, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia ot a book an encyclopedia should be right not wrong.Likelife (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current title in not wrong, the proposed title is not wrong. Likelife has decided, based on current photographic and audio evidence that a title is incorrect. It is incorrect for the majority of the existence of the building described in the article. There may even be a argument for the creation a new article to be for the new station. The title was established when the article was created on 3 September 2003. To me an Encyclopediais a comprehensive written compendium that contains information. The comprehensive nature of this article identifies the appelation given to the station for the majority of its existence, and the current appelation following the recent rebranding. The article is not wrong; it is however comprehensive. --Stewart(talk)20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, surely, an encyclopaedia should at least be up to date for it to be accurate, right? This is not a case of a closed or superfluous station. The current station was re-opened after a considerable amount of expansion and reconstruction. I remind you politely that EMT and FCC, two Domestic operators at the the station refer to their services as calling at St Pancras International. As for current or recent re-naming, the example of Whittlesford/Whittlesford Parkway springs to mind (as mentioned above by User:Likelife). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be worth re-evaluating this the day that those domestic operators start issuing their tickets to St Pancras International. —Sladen (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that change will happen soon. But in any case, the hard on the ground evidence suggests the station appears as International in their timetables, public address and signage. The changeover has already happened in that respect. File:St Pancras International on East Midlands Train timetable.JPGExhibit F: East Midlands Trains timetable cover, clearly showing St Pancras International best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the ticketing issue is a complete red herring, as one can presently buy tickets to such exotic destinations as "London Terminals", "Birmingham Stations" and "Travelcard Zones 1 to 6". best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CIV tickets (i.e. tickets on national rail for Eurostar travellers, covered by special rules for international rail travel) have the destination as London International! JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to be clear, London International is a virtual station, it's Waterloo/Liverpool Street/St Pancras/Euston/others [or even two], depending on the international rail/railsail journey being undertaken. It's used to allow the ticket to be issued under CIV terms and to avoid peak-hour restrictions on the connecting trains into/out of London). —Sladen (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic now, but I don't understand why it's necessary to have "London International". The special "High Saver" CIV tickets include tube travel, so the destination is always London St Pancras (International). Or do you mean there are other journeys that offer international "rail travel" by virtue of a ferry connection? JRawle (Talk) 16:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes StP's called International in official places, sometimes it's not. For 150 years before it was plain St Pancras. And most people will call it that, as it's too long a name with International on the end - Wikipedia page titles (as opposed to the opening line) are supposed to reflect common usage. My vote's therefore for St Pancras railway station. JRawle (Talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see exhibits A to I above, thanks. The station has been rebuilt and re-opened. You say it was plain St. Pancras, but evidently it no longer is. Just like Whittlesford is now Whittlesford Parkway. And the latter wasn't even revamped!! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is to be about the modern station, then it seems "International" is part of the name. Maybe we need a separate article about the station before it reopened, as much of the interesting information refers to that station. I do hope UK railways can get over their "international" fetish. On the continent, trains cross the border all the time. Calling stations "international" just highlights how behind we are. (Scrapping passport controls and check-in at the station would also be a move in the right direction.) JRawle (Talk) 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your right scrapping passport controls and check-in at the station would move not just the station but the UK in the right direction. Whats the point of having a rail service and you need your passport, but I think thats why its called International for that reson we cant get to France or Belgium or just the Eurostar platforms legally with out an passport. Otherwise the station may have not been called International. Also yes the station is called mostly St Pancras but its not about mostly its about whats it should be called right?Likelife (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one golden rule for article titles, from which all other conventions are supposed to be derived, as found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is, "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" – in other words, use the title that people would mostly use in everyday life. JRawle (Talk) 17:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are now I understand to get a train to/from this station you have to present your passport, must remember next I travel in from Derby. --Stewart(talk)14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yh when Im going Wellingborough I need my Passport-I meant to the Eurostar Terminal Platform if you read it thats what I put.Likelife (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it actually matters much what the current name of the station is. WP guidelines say article names (which is all we are discussing here) should be based on the most common usage, and it is at least as arguable that this is St Pancras as it is that it is St Pancras International. And where there are two arguable usages like this, Occam's razor suggests that the simplest and therefore shortest should be adopted. There is no question of the article being out of date, as it carries the the International variant in bold right at the top, and makes it quite clear that this is the current branding. -- Chris j wood (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most common usage today is "International" (please see exhibits A to I above). Whittlesford is now Whittlesford Parkway and appears as such in timetables - PDF available here: [16]. St Pancras is now St Pancras International, and appears as such in timetables (see EMT example above). Also PDF available online: [17]. So there is a recent precedent. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to hearing your success in getting "The Knowledge" amended and re-training all the cabbies only to recognise St Pancras International. Trips off the tongue doesn't it. --Stewart(talk)19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When we end up discussing what London taxi drivers might understand as the name then I think we're getting a bit desperate. It means nothing. There must be hundreds of places in London which can be referred to by many different names. I'm sure I could get in a cab and ask to go to many locations which we wouldn't name Wikipedia articles after. Adambro (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cabbies are great for getting to the point. Ask them for 85 Albert Embankment and they'll probably look confused, but ask for the MI6 Building and they'll know just the place! —Sladen (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St Pancras International I'm sure is recognised by many cabbies! Strawmen aside, here's the FCC timetable in PDF: [18]. Also direct link to the EMT timetable in PDF [19]. Happy to help, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people would understand St Pancras International, why would a cabbie not understand the International bit after St Pancras its not hard.Likelife (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of St Pancras, I suspect a cabbie would ignore International, just like everyone else does; based on it being superfluious branding. The passenger already told the cabbie where they wish to go in the previous two words. ...In the case of St Pancras. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what the station is presently called - International. I'm sure many minicab drivers in Cambridge still refer to Whittlesford Parkway railway station as Whittlesford. You CANNOT escape the FACT that both of the DOMESTIC operators' timetables list the station as International (see PDFs linked to above). Please stop ingoring this. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still can't get a ticket to St Pancras International from Chesterfield on nationalrail.co.uk - it's still called London St Pancras (Domestic). FWIW I think the page should remain St Pancras railway station, and the first line of the lead should start with the full (semi-)official current name, followed by an explanation of its original name etc. Rachel Pearce (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a sign which has St Pancras Domestic the official name is St Pancras International proof from the St Pancras Site ask them yourself.Likelife (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree that the name should be changed I would note that what an organisation wants us to call an article is not necessarily what we should call an article. Adambro (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but if they run the St Pancras site why not. The person who repiled even said our station is called St Pancras International hence the our stationLikelife (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't outside organisations which determine Wikipedia articles, it is the Wikipedia community with reference to our policies and guidelines. Adambro (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind everyone that the suffix is in everyday usage on the Domestic operators' timetables (be it on platforms, booklets and online PDF), public address, in everyday use by retailers at the station such as M & S, and everyday usage by London Underground on their maps and direction signs. I admit, it's not the end of the world if the article is not moved, but after all, Whittlesford is now Whittlesford Parkway, and the latter article has been modified* to reflect that. (*I must stress, not by me LOL!) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are you arguing it's high time the article be renamed then? Like I said, in everyday usage the station is now International. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is St Pancras station has been renamed to St Pancras International, like Whittlesford was renamed to with Parkway, Fambridge to North Fambridge & Woodham Ferries to South Woodham Ferries and the pages were moved I wonder why???Likelife (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that the First Tranpennine Express logo has Express in small lettering so Sladen may think that its just called First Transpennine.Likelife (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More occurrences of "International" in everyday usage at the station:
Exhibit J - Boots branch opening times. This shop is next door but one to M & S at "The Circle", the northern-most part of the station concourse (see exhibit G above).
Exhibit K - Platform monitors on the First Capital Connect platforms with a nice welcome message.
Incidentally the "St. Pancras Station" gate lettering on Pancras Road is probably an equivalent of the "historic tiling" on some tube stations platforms, left for decorative purposes? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look what I found here and here. International only gives international services. When I search the National Rail - yes National Rail - supported by ATOC for services from St Pancras International, I do not find any domestic service trains. --Stewart(talk)17:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Stewart, this is what the station website tells us:
St Pancras International is situated at the heart of central London just two stops away from Oxford Circus and Covent Garden and with more London underground connections than any other station....The underground station Kings Cross St Pancras leads directly into St Pancras International and is better connected than any other London station with 6 of the major tube lines running through it – Victoria, Hammersmith and City, Piccadilly, Circle Metropolitan line and Northern. Please refer to Transport for London for journey times....East Midland trains from St Pancras International and services from nearby King’ s Cross connect St Pancras to the North of England and Scotland, whilst First Capital Connect will help commuters to St Albans, Bedford, Luton and the South of England.
Glad to hear it - Maybe you should present your evidence to ATOC to update the National Rail web site. I could always use Trainline which calls it London St Pancras Intl. Another case for you to continue your campaign to change the name. Have you changed the name of Waterloo back yet? --Stewart(talk)11:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue does now seem past its sell by date. We should try to find a resolution now rather than just going back and forth with apparent "evidence" that supports one position or the other. This can't be just let to run forever, we need to find a solution. Adambro (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before this becomes a formal referral to WP:RM, it might be an idea to see which way King's Cross goes first, so that we don't have to have another debate on whether or not to add "London" to the name. On the current issue, I would support the addition of "International" - in addition to the examples quoted above, it's Didcot Parkway (not Didcot), Bicester Town and Bicester North (not Bicester London Road and Bicester), and I'm sure there are others; precedent seems to be overwhelmingly in favour of having UK station articles at the current rather than the historical name of the station. 78.105.161.182 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the Kings Cross page has been moved to London Kings Cross to match London Victoria and Waterloo pages St Pancrashas been moved to St Pancras International. If there is a problem with that don't move the page talk about it first!!!Likelife (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if editors are unaware of such basic conventions for consistency, then they should (perhaps) not be doing moves in the first place. I have restored "...railway station" at the end. —Sladen (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to decide on [London] St Pancras [International] [railway] station - eight different combinations! It'll probably require an admin to move the article itself as many of the titles exist already with talk pages and histories. JRawle (Talk) 16:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"People were discussing the name St Pancras International railway station"; agreed; something that clearly does not match the Move which was performed; so to deal with the inconsistency it should be either SPIrs. or SPrs. The latter (SPrs) was the status quo before the mess was created and the topic was (is) still under discussion, so I would lean in the direction of that on purely procedural grounds. (Until any discussion is finalised and that includes LSPIrs/LSPrs discussion). —Sladen (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be so much easier if we simply went with the name which National Rail use for all stations, since this is clearly defined and is what it is referred to for passenger services and so is likely to be the most common name used. We can then append "railway station" or "station" as per the naming conventions. In this case the article would therefore be "St Pancras International [railway station]". Adambro (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of date website? How about all the pictorial, audio evidence presented above? I would suggest St. Pancras International railway station. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are posting the above as part of the "International" debate, rather than the "London" debate. The fact that it has "London King's Cross" and "London Blackfriars" but doesn't include "London" for any others just goes to show that railway companies' literature is inconsistent. Do you really think train operating company employees all sit around and discuss at length the exact names of stations as we are doing? Of course not.
I think it's time to accept that many variations on the name of the station are all valid. We, as Wikipedians, need to determine our own naming policy, never mind what any of the railway companies do. I think it's time to stop posting "evidence" and continuing fruitless discussions, and have a simple vote on the name. If the "London" part of the prefix is to be part of this, any vote probably needs to be advertised elsewhere too. JRawle (Talk) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exhibit N:Signage on the high-level concourse of the station
Formal RM reference
The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.
I think it's time to kick this off officially. I've summarised the various options below, with sources for each option; I'm sure that it would help to add any additional sources that anyone has to hand.
Various station signage, see above image galleries (exhibits A to N) (Encompassing, retailers at the station, Domestic operator timetables, Domestic operator maps, London Underground Maps, London Underground concourse signage, Kings Cross station concourse signage, Bus stops outside the station—Sunil060902 (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)(edited to avoid swamping with duplicated information)[reply]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support XYZ'''or*'''Oppose XYZ''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
SupporteitherSt PancrasorSt Pancras Internationalwithout the "London" prefix. Both names are used in different circumstances. London is usually only added when referring to the station from outside London. The name should have "railway station" appended, but we don't appear to be voting on that here. JRawle (Talk) 22:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support St Pancras. Succinct (shortest accurate name). (In addition: most commonly used, most legally accurate, most historically accurate, and is current status quo without demonstrated gain from renaming). —Sladen (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Open one week, no further comments for five days. Straw poll of; six for St Pancras railway station, five for St Pancras International railway station (one indifferent comment) with lack of interest expressed for London.* prefixes. —Sladen (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ISTM that almost all references to "St Pancras" exist in cyberspace or the bureaucracy, whereas on the ground, virtually all references at or around the station say "St Pancras International". As for history, stations get renamed or their names modified. See Whittlesford Parkway railway station for a recent pertinent example. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I have no problem with "railway station" either. For History buffs, remember that all the major station articles have a "History" section. That is where it should be pointed out that the station was originally opened as St Pancras. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how many people still clinging onto the old name have actually been to the new station since re-opening at the end of last year. "St. Pancras" is not in common usage on the ground. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed my point. The whole station only got rebranded with parts which were refurbished reopening, the remainder of the station, whilst other parts have remained open throughout. Simply south (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have travelled out by Eurostar to Paris in June 2008 and my ticket was from London St Pancras. My in-laws live in Hertfordshire (close to Luton Airport) on the Thameslink line I have been through the Thameslink platforms quite a few times. A straw poll of my in-laws neighbours and wife's friend's drew a total blank regarding the suffix International with respect to the TL trains. Simply south lives in the area and it would be interesting if he gets a similar result. --Stewart(talk)21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing theres a large sign outside of the station stating St Pancras International then I think you should go by it. First Capital Connect and East Midlands Trains go by International and there domestic operators!! So just that is two resons. Likelife (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the dissenters, here are four new shots, with three of them suggesting unambiguously that the domestic station, managed by Network Rail, is also International.
Why not just to end the whole thing we have with the intro St Pancras railway station is a major railway station..... In 2007 it was rebranded as St Pancras International? Simply south (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The present name is St Pancras International, according to owners and managers Network Rail (see exhibits P to R above). Let's go with them, eh?
Here are a couple of analogies:
West Hampstead (Midland) -----> West Hampstead Thameslink (new name 1988)
Simply South: okay, I've tried to tweak[21] the wording back closer to your suggestion; although if you can work out a wording that still flows, you may be able to bump the International mention up a bit closer to the second sentence.—Sladen (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat POV in my opinion. Let's go with what the owners and managers of the station now call their station (see above), shall we, bearing in mind that in Intro or History we make it clear the 1868 station opened as plain "St Pancras". I keep on reminding you re. "Whittlesford"! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three more images in favour of International as the accepted variant:
I looked at this page for a purpose completely unrelated to this discussion, one which I have now forgotten. Having started to read this, I've felt compelled to read through to the end. My impression is that a lot of people have spent a lot of time and effort gathering evidence for 'their side' - completely wasted time if you ask me, as it is clear that due to a mix of current common and official usage, both St Pancras railway station and St Pancras International railway station are correct. This is now reflected in the two bolded phrases in the lead and several redirects. Maybe a few years down the line, nobody will be calling it plain old "St Pancras", but for now all that can be actually achieved by this is to swap the first and second paragraphs. Because the discussion is going nowhere, the page has already been moved several times and the fact that this is really boring me, this is clearly Lame. --Peeky44 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Lead section and infobox accuracy
Thank you to all contributors involved with the article. Reviewing the following recently-applied change-set[22], I have three concerns:
The link Network Rail - Our Company Structure was added as a reference for the managers of the station. This web page does not state that Network Rail either own, or fully manage the St Pancras station complex. The previously provided reference from the #Network Rail electronic knowledge database did[23] state very clearly:
"Platforms 1-4 and 11-13, along with the domestic departures areas are managed by High Speed 1 (London and Continental Stations).
Platforms 5-10 and the international departures areas are managed by Eurostar.
Platforms A and B and the areas on the low level part of St Pancras, are managed by Network Rail."
On this basis, I fear that an inaccuracy has been introduced into the article. This is why (per WP:VERIFY) I removed the entry altogether rather than risk having the statement be incorrect.
The second part of the change places detailed information "[..] by the Midland Railway as the southern terminus of that company's Midland Main Line arriving from the East Midlands and West Yorkshire" above important information providing the location ("in central London"). Ideally global context (what, when, where) should be provided before details. The middle of a book needs to come after the beginning.
The third part of the change adds "along with enhanced domestic connections to the north and south of England". This also appears to have introduced factual inaccuracies.
As of 2008
High-speed CTRL-DS domestic service to the south-east of England has not started.
The CTRL-DS area of St Pancras station has not opened.
The MML fifth-train per hour to Corby has not started.
The Victoria Line speed increase has not started
I can think of three improvements that have happened.
One Nottingham train per day extended via Newark to Lincoln.
Twelve minute peak time reduction to Sheffield.
Last evening MML departure from from STP retimed to be after last Eurostar arrival.
I don't think these three minor improvements really justify mentioning in the lead, and by themselves do not account for mentioning the south-east of England or addition domestic capacity (in fact, domestic MML capacity was reduced by one-third).
I hope these inaccuracies/concerns can be addressed in a way that does not result in an immediate (good-faith) reversion/re-introduction of the inaccuracies by other well-meaning editors. Once again, thank you to all those involved. —Sladen (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sunil's response: Both Network Rail and LCR now mentioned in Domestic (separated high level and low level). I had honestly assumed Exhibits P, Q and R above referred to High Level as well. Sunil060902 (talk)
The pictures (that the assumptions were based on) are Original Research. If a linked reference states one thing, then it is believed that the reference is accurate. If you find further high-quality references, then those references can be used instead. Alternatively, the disputed statement can be removed. Original Research is not as a source for making edits on Wikipedia. Cite it or delete it.
I hope that this particular topic is a good example of the extreme problems that occur when an attempt is made to introduce Original Research.
Everyone is free to use Original Research on their own website, but not on Wikipedia. That is not my choice; that is one that has been made by the Wikipedia community and identified in WP:VERIFY. It is a choice that I choose to follow, most people involved with Wikipedia have made that choice too.
Wikipedia is fun and enjoyable, because the result of decisions is the best/most sensible result. Not the one that got the most votes, nor necessarily the wish of the editors that shouted the loudest. Running around spending hours vetting other editors contributions is not fun, neither is writing keep-it-simple-stupid essays detailing the obvious.
I hope editors can think about what people want to read, about beautiful writing, introductions that flow; sub-headings that break up text for quick answers. Value and enjoy the fruits of Wikipedia—quality matters, not edit counts.
Please do continue to contribute, it's a pleasure working with others. "If you can't beat them, join them". Wikipedia is much more rewarding when everyone going in the same direction.
A notable exception to this policy concerns images: Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few existing publicly available images available for use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role.
It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to try to distort the facts or position being illustrated by a contributed photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion.
Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.
I'm confused. What are you trying to prove, Sunil? Just copy-pasting policy without making it clear which part you are referring to could be unhelpful. --Peeky44 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photos count as primary evidence on their own, right? Suggesting overwhelmingly that station has been renamed on or since November 6th, right? So obviously the question to ask next is, is there are any secondary sources to back the renaming (ie. not WP:NOR)? One obvious example is HM the Queen's closing remarks on 6/11/07 (with reference!):
"It gives me great pleasure to officially launch High Speed 1, Britain's first high speed railway and to re-open this magnificent station, St Pancras International."[24],[25]
Exhibit J - Boots branch opening times. This shop is next door but one to M & S at "The Circle", the northern-most part of the station concourse (see exhibit G above).
Exhibit K - Platform monitors on the First Capital Connect platforms with a nice welcome message.
Exhibit L - Bus stop in Euston Road, opposite the station
Exhibit Q: Underground directions at the Thameslink station
Exhibit R: Platform monitors at the Thameslink station
Exhibit U: Signage on the Eurostar platforms, viewed from the high-level concourse
