Talk:London King's Cross railway station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article London King's Cross railway station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star London King's Cross railway station is part of the List of London Monopoly locations series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 11, 2017 Good article nominee Listed
May 17, 2017 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Trains / Stations / in UK / in London (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
DYK September 25, 2005
November 2, 2008
Sel week 16, 2017
170433 at Edinburgh Waverley.JPG UK Railways Portal
Underground sign at Westminster.jpg London Transport Portal
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
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject London (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Platform 0 still[edit]

Is Platform 0 still 0? This editor thinks not but hasn't explained why; the plan here and the rather posher PDF here both still show the 0-11 numbering. Has it actually now been updated to 1-12? If so, a source would be nice. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? I will bring crisps. DBaK (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I follow the railway press quite closely and I am sure a wholesale renumbering of platforms at such a major station would have been reported. I haven't seen any such report yet. Until such a report appears, I suggest we leave the article as it is. -- Alarics (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. DBaK (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Run-down buildings and questionable businesses[edit]

A recent edit has added "King's Cross had a notorious reputation for housing a number of run-down buildings and questionable businesses including prostitution services in front of the main entrance. A major clean-up scheme took place during the 1990s". Now, I'm pretty sure that the mixture of buildings in front of the station was cleared away as part of the electrification improvements - which took place in the 1970s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a big clear up in the 1990s too - mostly down the sides, as I recall. It was a filming location for a great many gangster and "London sleaze" film through the '80s and '90s. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:, @Andy Dingley: I've done a bit of a clean up on this area this evening, dropping in mentions of numerous Pet Shop Boys projects and the film Mona Lisa, which made much of use of the seedy and depressed area around the station, and there are certainly other films that should be mentioned too (as soon as I get the appropriate sources). While I am not a reliable source obviously, personal memory of the station from the late 80s / early 90s is it was a good place to avoid like the plague; really grim mix of semi-abandoned buildings with cheap facades and adverts for prostitutes all over the place. Most people came in and went out via the tube entrance. I remember getting a train for the Edinburgh Fringe around 1998 and noticing things had been cleaned up a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Cultural references[edit]

The exchange below took place at Talk:Waterloo railway station and changes have accordingly been made to this article too.

The article is about the physical building and therefore only cultural items in which the station plays a significant part as a railway hub are relevant. Chance references in passing are not and, in any case, the creation of unreferenced lists of irrelevancies are unencyclopaedic. The stylistic rule is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I would say that mentioning its use in films or TV shows should only be done if this station is crucial to the plot - that is, if (say) Victoria had been used, would it have made any difference to the story? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The only one I would argue about (and have restored) is Mona Lisa, which was cross-referenced by late 80s / early 90s tabloid newspapers in particular to refer to the state of King's Cross, which was a bit of a dive (see above thread). The Pet Shop Boys' use of Kings Cross should stay for more or less the same reason. If you tried removing Harry Potter you'd probably be accused of vandalism by somebody. Not bothered about anything else. Also : "The article is about the physical building" - well that's not strictly true, it's also about the services, otherwise we wouldn't bother mentioning the Flying Scotsman or Mallard as they'd be off-topic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:London King's Cross railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 22:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


  • Check captions for fragments, e.g. the infobox image caption needs no full stop.
Should be all fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Not quite, infobox caption needs no full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Location of King's Cross in Central London" there appears to be different uses of either "Central" or "central" in the term "C/central London". I'd pick one and stick with it.
Since our article is called Central London, and uses caps throughout I'll go with that. I think this is just residual paranoia from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why "King's Cross St. Pancras tube station" has a full stop in the title whereas all other references to St Pancras have no full stops?
Our articles seem to use a mix. However, I think the definitive source would be Transport for London] which uses the full stop. So I'm going with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "the Flying Scotsman and" shouldn't that be "the Flying Scotsman and"?
  • Query: you have "as Mallard", why wouldn't it be "as the Mallard"?
    Mallard is the name of a specific locomotive; unlike ships, these conventionally do not take the definite article unless it actually appears on the locomotive's nameplate (such as LNER class A1 no. 2559 The Tetrarch). Named services are sometimes given the definite article, sometimes not - it primarily depends upon the whims of the railway's publicity department, cf. Flying Scotsman and The Coronation). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Or, in the more prosaic case, our articles on Flying Scotsman (train) and LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard have "the" and no "the" respectively. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, then I think that's done slightly differently on the Marylebone article. Better keep an eye out on that one. Or at least the italics are... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " Services are currently" last thing I recall about this kind of stuff is we stick with {{as of}}...
Done, also I think the word "services" is mentioned too often in the lead, so I've reworded that while I'm there Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " work occurred in" I loathe Wikipedia's fixation with things "occurring", far too passive for me.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "is King's Cross St. Pancras on the London Underground, " I get this, but it's potentially confusing, perhaps it's something like emphasising that "King's Cross St. Pancras" is a tube station on the LU?
I've changed it to "King's Cross St. Pancras tube station"; the general convention is to use {{lus}} which leaves the "tube station" bit out, but that's more for articles about tube lines that link to stations all over the place. I don't think that's correct in this context. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "London & North Eastern Railway" in the infobox should be "London and North Eastern Railway".
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Underground fire is pertinent to the Underground station, less-so the railway station, did improvements take place there as a direct result?
Not directly, but the mainline station entrance was a key picture in the news (eg: File:KingsXfire.jpg), and I think people particularly outside London might associate King's Cross with the fire above all else. Still, I could be wrong. After discussion below, I've removed this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Location and name[edit]

  • "or at the side" -> "or to the side".
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "on the tube map " we typically capitalise Tube, don't we?
A quick look at TfL says, we do Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "was used on them only very rarely before then" reads ugly. Any chance of an elegant re-phrase?
Yikes, must have forgotten to copyedit this bit (I don't believe I wrote it) - fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "other National Rail railway pages," what pages? Web pages?
  • is a redirect now, and as it's a private company, why are we specifically talking about it?
Since these last two aren't actually cited to a reliable source, I've removed them. I can only guess the original reason they were put in is to back up the punctuation differences, but I think we can get the message from the sources we have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "the British Iceni" British is a piped redirect, a pet hat, so please pipe it to Celtic Britons instead.
Fixed (my excuse is you can't easily tell when looking at the parsed page) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Boudica is overlinked.
Fixed (blame section merges) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "terminus of the East Coast main line.[12] " Main Line.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "name from the area of London, named after" name, named... repetitive.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Could be worth linking fever and smallpox, perhaps not all our readers get the real meaning of fever here, nor may have been troubled by smallpox.
I don't have the source used here, but a quick search for others suggests that the hospital was mainly known for smallpox, plus "fever" is a generic term (what sort of fever?) We have a Smallpox Hospital article, but it's a specific one that's irrelevant here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to worry, leave as-is. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "which today includes platforms" see previous "as of" comment.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Midland Railway services ran from King's Cross on 1 February 1858.[22]" to where? And I suppose you mean " Midland Railway services commenced from King's Cross..." because it wasn't just on one day, right?
    The source doesn't say where. This is important to get right because MR services diverted to St Pancras about ten years later, and their "heyday" to the northwest dates from that period. From context I think Birmingham New Street is correct; Redrose64, can you check this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Birmingham New Street is unlikely (remember that although the MR did serve Birmingham New Street from 1854, its route to Birmingham was from Derby via Tamworth, which creates a circuitous route from London). MR services from Kings Cross ran over the GNR to Hitchin, where they picked up the Midland's own route thence to Bedford, although the services on this line probably didn't terminate at Bedford until after the route opened between Bedford and St Pancras via Luton and St Albans. As for where the northern terminus actually was... there are several possibilities. It's easier to decide which cities were served directly from Kings Cross via Bedford in those days: Leicester is a 100% certainty, Derby and Nottingham 99% certain, Sheffield and Leeds are highly probable too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let's go with "Leicester via Hitchin and Bedford", which is what sources tend to agree on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "which is platforms 9-11 today " are, 9–11, and "today" again.
Done, though platforms 9-11 have been numbered as such for 45 years, and thanks to Harry Potter are probably not going to change. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "during World War I" archaic Brit speaking, would prefer "during the First World War"
I've had this argument before; I personally have got more comfortable with World War I over the years. Indeed, BBC Schools are calling it "World War One". I think it's just the English language changing and old gits bemoaning how things just aren't the same anymore (usually by Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells on pen to the Daily Mail). See related discussion in Talk:Bow Street/GA1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "1922–4" per new daterange MOS, that would be "1922–1924".
    I can't see the text "1922-4" anywhere in the article :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    It's gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    I fixed it earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Got the Flying Scotsman and Mallard issues I noted in the lead here again.
See earlier reply Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "during World War II" see above, I don't really see the world wars as original/sequel movies.
As above, this increasingly seems to be the common name on both sides of the atlantic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " occurred at another day and time" could be more specific, I guess it was on a slow moment.
Reworded to "during a busy period", the emphasis here is that not many people were around to be killed by the blast, which was fortunate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "British Rail (1948–96)" again, MOS now says "British Rail (1948–1996)".
Fixed, though I'm sure I have seen somebody edit warring over this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "through the Gas Works Tunnels" prior to this, three times it was just "Gas Works tunnel".
    Originally there was just one tunnel, but a second parallel tunnel was brought into use in 1878 (and then a third in 1892) - the name is shared, so chronologically later mentions are in the plural. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Also I meant you capitalised the Tunnels, but I've de-capped it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why link Royston only?
Wasn't sure which station to go for for Hertford (though reading the articles it must be North) and I probably linked Welwyn, previewed, found it was a redlink (as it should be Welwyn Garden City railway station) and left it out to come back to later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "late 1970s Labour government." bet there's a link for this.
indeed so Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "was seen as an opportunity to modernise the station"[by whom?]
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " Grade I-listed[40] façade of the original station" that ref can go at the end of the end of the sentence, plus facade is anglicised enough now that we don't need the cedilla.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "75,000 sq ft " you've converted everything else to metric so far, this can go to.
  • "at 12.24," do you mean "at 12.24 p.m.,"?
Yes, I probably assumes it was obvious from context but best to mention it anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "King's Cross was a major terminus for the InterCity 125 high speed services. By 1982, almost all long-distances trains leaving the station were 125s." do we know when they started?
The source doesn't say; the best I can find at the moment is this source that says "between 1976 and 1981". That sounds about right, but I can't pinpoint a specific date for when they were introduced to King's Cross. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The King's Cross fire of 1987 started in... " fine, but I'm not seeing the "improvements to the network" piece that was mentioned in the lead.
While I can easily find sources for changes on the underground network, including a complete smoking ban and phasing out of wooden escalators, I can't actually find any reliable sources that specifically pinpoint changes to the main station concourse around this time, so I'll take it out of the lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "four for Thameslink trains" link Thameslink.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Privitisation of British Rail in " typo and no need for capital P.
fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "with the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh " the is part of the first wikilink but not the second...
fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "questionable businesses i" this could be considered POV.
I've trimmed this down to just "prostitution services", I can't remember anything else that stood out like a sore thumb from this time Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " the ORR approved" who?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • " The service would begin" you will "is scheduled to begin"?
Rewritten Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Accidents and incidents" section, most of these are trivial. Could they not be summarised into prose?
I tried that, but then (IMHO) the prose looks as exciting as watching grass grow, so in this case I think a list is more suitable. Alternatively, we could move the major incidents in 1881, 1945 (those with fatalities) into the prose and nuke the rest. How's that for a plan? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Other stations[edit]

  • "to Farringdon, Barbican and Moorgate" Barbican here is the Tube station, is that intentional?
I think so in this context, because Barbican was historically an overground station as well as underground, but has not served a conventional "overground" service since the Thameslink shuttle to Moorgate closed in 2009. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "main line" or "mainline" or "main-line"? Even the hat note at the top of the article should be made consistent.
    All the prose I wrote used "mainline", so let's go with that for consistency. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Over the last year or two we have been going the other way, towards "main line" (adjective, noun) in many articles. This is because "mainline" is not just a verb (meaning "to inject", esp. with heroin); but is also slang. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "inter city routes" would have thought that was "inter-city routes".
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Virgin Trains East Coast operates"... no bold links please.
I didn't notice they were bold ... fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Half hourly" hyphenated?
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "1 train per hour departing at xx:05 " is this stuff stable enough? Do we really need this level of detail? Train routes, stations served etc I can buy, but regularity and departure times seems a little too much.
    I think having the main King's Cross - Waverley service on the hour is significant (though I can't quite pinpoint why), for the rest - meh. However, if I take it out, an IP or a user with a redlinked userpage will put the whole lot back in without an edit summary. (example) For some people, casual editors really like all this detail being in here and occasionally turn up to fiddle with the route tables. I've left it like it is for the sake of keeping the peace, and it is all verifiable to the timetables (though last time I tried actually verifying the information in that manner, I decided watching grass grow was a more pleasurable activity). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ok, it's not harmful to have this, although I would consider it a little WP:UNDUE. For the sake of harmony, let's leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    I agree, but the next question is - what you would you trim out? There's nothing obvious; you could cut out detail in the Edinburgh and Leeds services, but those are easily the most important ones in the station, so that would make the section even more undue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    At the very least I'd trim out the times past the hour. I seem to recall that the Marylebone article just has number per hour rather than that minutiae. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, I've got my shears out and had another go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    We don't need specific times, see WP:NOTTIMETABLE; except where a particular service has left at the same time of day for decades. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hull Trains Route" route.
    Huh? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Capital R in Route is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    That's the name on a template, and requires a move. Should we do that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Such capitalisation changes (Route/route; Line/line) have recently (that is, over the last five or six months) caused much debate on pages like WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    That's a "no" then ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a substantial crossover in the Services and Routes sections.
See above Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tube Routes" not sure this is necessary in this article, but if it is, then it should be "Tube routes".
No, I think this should come out as it's technically wrong - you can't get a tube from "King's Cross" itself, you need to go via "King's Cross St. Pancras" tube station first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural references[edit]

  • "Margaret Schlegel" who?
I've copyedited this to make it a little clearer Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "E.M. Forster" should have a space after the first .
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "platform 9-11" en-dash.
Are you sure? My old standby of User:GregU/dashes.js doesn't touch this when I run it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The script is flakey, at best, but sometimes it's clever enough to look at the preceding word, which in this case is singular. Perhaps it should be platforms 9–11. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Should be sorted now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "a mile to the north of the station." could use a ref.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Pet Shop Boys released " The isn't part of the name of the band.
Well I never .... it appears I've been getting it wrong for over 30 years :-/ .... fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually doesn't need dismabiguation.
So it doesn't. That's me being over-cautious and thinking "actually's a word, of course it's not going to have the album as its primary topic!" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "pp. 76–7." vs "pp. 78–79." consistency please.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 42, 47 and 49 are all "BBC News" but are all formatted differently.
Fixed (my preference is cite news|title=[title]|work=BBC News|date=[date]|accessdate=[today]) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 59 & 60 are bare URLs.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gourvish, Terry; Anson, Mike (2004). British Rail 1974 – 1997 :" unspaced en-dash here.
I think I've fixed this, though dashes make my head hurt :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Nothing major, a minor heap of small issues, so it's on hold. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Right, I've addressed all the issues, though some need further and clarification and work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking good. I still see consistency issues with Tube and tube, although that appears to be a Wikipedia issue more than anything. I think there are only one or two points outstanding above now, let me know when you think you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Okay, everything has been addressed; I've come up with a solution for Midland Railway services, the "Services" section has had another trim, and I think all the other stuff is uncontroversial. If I've missed anything, shout! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Well we both missed the fact that Monopoly should have been in italics, which is somewhat ironic given the project you're trying to complete, but I've fixed that, and I'm happy to pass now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just the "mainline" / "main line" thing mentioned above, but I can't see that being a showstopper for GA; somebody can just do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just done it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents[edit]

I note that the accidents and incidents section was nuked per the GAR. The problem with doing this, is it leaves the article lacking in coverage in an important area. If if is felt that the section was dominating the article, would it not be better to split it off to a separate list article? Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think consensus was that it was a indiscriminate collection of information; sure all of it was cited to reliable sources, so I wasn't going to remove it without a solid consensus, but it just seemed a little off topic I guess. I won't complain if somebody creates a separate list article, of course. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion between one reviewer and one nominator does not consensus make. For the minute, I'm going to reinstate the section for the reasons stated above. We can discuss a split here. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No, reinstate the section here and we can discuss it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Too late. The other issue is that this list contains trivial incidents yet nothing for decades, it's certainly incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the section is incomplete. There are another thirteen accidents to add, according the the Railways Archive. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Given that there are so many, I'm minded to create a new list, which I will do tomorrow morning. The section in this article can briefly cover the two most serious and the most recent accident, with a link to the newly created list using {{Main}}. Mjroots (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

What does anyone else think? I remember we had the same discussion (in reverse) about Marshlink line, though that was sorted out before it went to a GA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Surely the ecml is a 20th century concept as is the term hub. The GNR built the station as its southern terminus. (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The text is cited to The London Encyclopedia 3rd edition; let me go and route out my paper copy and see exactly what it says. When did the name ECML appear, exactly? Certainly the route is the same one as completed by the GNR when the station opened. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Between Kings Cross and Shaftholme Junction (just north of Doncaster) it's the same; but between that point and Chaloner's Whin Junction (just south of York) the route has changed at least twice, most recently in 1983. There have also been variations further north, for instance between Ferryhill and Castle Junction (Newcastle upon Tyne). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say the GNR built the station as its southern terminus because the ECML is comprised of the lines of more than one company. Is the London Encyclopedia the best source for a railway article? I don't know. (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC) As nobody seems to know I think I'll change it to what is certain. (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The text in the London Encyclopedia is, verbatim, "The station, designed by Lewis Cubitt, was built 1851-2 as the London terminus for the Great Northern Railway and when it opened was the biggest station in England". As far as a source goes, it is one of the best for anything London-related in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)