This is an archive of past discussions about St Pancras railway station. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
Although information concerning ownership of St Pancras is of the upmost importance, wouldn't it be more accurate to have chapters sort in chronological order rather than antechronological, every effort is made to promote St Pancras as a Eurostar station when it is more noted for its excellent history.Captain Scarlet 15:48 27 March 2006
I agree. Eurostar/CTRL are mentioned in the intro anyway. Then it should be History and the other sections in chronological order. JRawle (Talk) 14:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Although ownership is not Network Rail, who actually manages the station? ATOC indicate it is Midland Mainline, not London & Continental. MRSC08:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that although London & Continental were managing the terminus pre-closure, Midland Mainline have taken over management of the "interim station". Presumably until 2007 the rest of the station is not an operational railway site, subject to the Railway Inspectorate, but a building site subject to conventional Health and Safety Executive rules.
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)
Main departure point for Yorkshire?
I grew up in Yorkshire and have only just moved away; I have never travelled to St Pancras... only Kings Cross. I've asked around and the general concensus is that Kings Cross is the major London station serving the North and Yorkshire. Anyone disagree? Rob cowie10:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
St Pancras is the main station for Sheffield and parts of South Yorkshire, but not for Doncaster or North, West or the East Riding of Yorkshire. Warofdreamstalk20:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, it is also the London station for Scarborough, providing direct trains in Summer, although it would be quicker to change at York for King's Cross. Zverzia22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Historically, St Pancras is the main station for Yorkshire. The Midland Main Line did go to Leeds and was the main line into the West Riding. The line's now been cut at Wath/Swinton but has existed longer with the section to Leeds than without. Indeed, it is when the line was cut and the line from Doncaster to Leeds electrified that train to London from Leeds no longer used the MML, but the ECML. There have off course always been trains form Leeds via the ECML, but with more traffic on the MML back then. You can read more in Bob Pixton's North Midland Route from all good WHSmiths and Waterstones. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons23:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Kings Cross St Pancras
What is a duplication of Kings Cross St Pancras station doing in this article? There only should be a mention. Simply south17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There is some confusion in the article between various mentions of churches and graveyards in the article. The old graveyard on the northern approaches to the station is that of St Pancras Old Church, at the heart of the historic parish. However, there was also a much more modern church on the actual station site. The history section of the article would probably benefit from a rewrite to separate the sections that currently quote a nineteenth century (pro-railway) source from a fuller appraisal of the contemporary complaints about the destruction wrought by the construction, in particular to the graveyard, and the extent to which Thomas Hardy's poem The Levelled Churchyard relates to his time as Blomfield's assistant supervising the disinterments from the churchyard. http://www.victorianweb.org/photos/hardy/74b.html Lang rabbie 17:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well that doesn't really clear up the matter of where the station is. According to our own definition of Somers Town it lies within that district. What are the borders of "St Pancras" the area? Lfh21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The station is definitely not "in" Somers Town. The station and the lines approaching it form the clearly defined eastern boundary of Somers Town. LB Camden's current electoral ward (wholly to the north of Euston Road) is called St Pancras and Somers Town.--Lang rabbie 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is or was Agar Town? The station and its approaches came under the jurisdiction of the Parish of St Pancras which covered various settlements including Somers Town and Agar Town. The line had to be taken over not under the Regents Canal to avoid increasing the gradient northwards more than it was already. Belsize Tunnels were/are further north the other side of Camden Town.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok, so if I read your comments correctly the reference to the Midland planning to use the site between Pancras Road and York Way is an error, and needs to be corrected. And the reference to a planned tunnel is correct, but needs to be followed up with some text about them changing their mind and building a bridge instead. One other query; the article says that the planned tunnel under the canal would have been called Belsize Tunnel, but today's Belsize tunnel is significantly further to the north. Is this an error in our article, or a case of names changing over time, or would it all have been one much longer tunnel in the original plans?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it got as far as a planned tunnel. They had two options - under or over the Regent's Canal. Over would mean building the station on an embankment. Under would have increased the length of the tunnel under Belsize Park since it started at a lower level, and would have given problems with the design of Camden Town, Kentish Town and Haverstock Hill stations. (according to Williams) It was Barlow's idea of building the trainshed on columns over a potentiality useful undercroft that decided the matter. Incidentally the shed needed to be tied firmly to solid foundations not only because of the weight, but also the uplift due to winds. I will upload an engraving to Commons showing the Fleet sewer. Chevin (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
New International Services
The CTRL into St Pancras is built to continental loading gauge, meaning that TGVs and ICE3s can run into the station, so there has been much speculation about whether companies other than Eurostar will operate cross-channel services. SNCF, Deutsche Bahn and Netherlands Railways have all been suggested through various sources (including the Railway Magazine and Evening Standard newspaper). DB recently was forced to deny that they had any definite plans, so the question is, will it happen? L.E. Greys 139.133.7.37 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
There are many other issues that need addressing in addition to the loading gauge. Firstly is the Eurotunnel requirement that a train should be able to be spilt in the case of an incident to evacuate people on board - hence the reason will the the Eurostar trains are formed of two half trains. The second concerns board controls. Consider the Eurostar platforms are Waterloo (now closed); Brussells-Midi; and Paris Gare de Nord. This is partly because the UK are not part of the Schenegen agreement. There are border controls to pass through. Now compare with another international undersea route in Northern Europe - between Denmark and Sweden. THere are no border controls, regular stopping train services between Copenhagen and Malmo run. In fact there are services to further afield. Special regulations for the trains? Border controls are the station? I do not pretend to suggest that these are the only reasons, but there are two significant ones that do not appear to encourage services to further afield. --Stewart(talk)09:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But despite all this, the channel tunnel will become open access in 2010 and any European operator will be able to bid for diagrams through the channel tunnel. So I guess it will eventually happen some how. Tbo 157(talk)17:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It’s not just because the U.K. isn’t in the Schengen area that there are controls for passengers; the laws also require security checks because of fears someone would try to blow up the tunnel. While there is some potential for more competition through the tunnel, I can’t see it becoming a commuter route like the Öresund bridge/tunnel any time soon. David Arthur19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont know all the details but I believe trains on HS1 have special on-board signalling and safety equipment that other European lines don't have. Chevin (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
A check is needed, however I do beleive that HS1 is signalled using the same system as the TGV lines. I do agreed in that I think it is the required safety and security protocols that may be the main challenges to any Open Access Operator. --Stewart(talk)08:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Govia - Thameslink - use of St Pancras
From the beginning of the Govia Thameslink franchise until around a year before de-wiring, some peak hour Thameslink services used St Pancras; and then during the closure of the tunnel during the construction of the new Thameslink station box, the Govia services terminated at the temporary domestic station. It was during this period that the franchisee changed. In both instances I have travelled on Govia Thameslink services into St Pancras. --Stewart(talk)21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so running into actual St Pancras, rather than the new low-level platforms. (Though the sentence I deleted does seem like it would be better off integrated into the sentence about the privatisation of Thameslink at the top of that section). David Arthur (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. Did you read the first paragraph of this section. It already says that. The paragraph that has been inserted/deleted twice is more or less a duplicate of the last sentence of that para. Why do we need to say it twice?.
And I'd respectfully suggest that we hold off talking about dewiring for rebuilding, let alone platform usage during rebuilding, until we have reached the section explaining what is being rebuilt and why. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've restructured the history section to put it more into chronological order. I've removed one paragraph altogether, which was talking about platform lengths at KXTL and other TL stations, and which I didn't think had any bearing on St Pancras station (although it probably belongs on the KXTL article as an explanation as to why that station closed). Other than that, I shouldn't have lost any information, just moved it around and merged places where we said the same thing twice.
One thing I'm not comfortable with is our coverage of the late 20th century. The article very much reads as if the electrification to Bedford, re-opening of the tunnel link to the Met, etc was part of the Thameslink project. In other words we have more or less lost the whole BedPan project (which was actually responsible for all of those, and predated TL by some years). -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Chris - I like your restructuring and rewording. Need to think about the BedPan electrification and the reopening of the Widened Lines to Moorgate. --Stewart(talk)17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
To be honest I havn't a clue what Oxyman42 is talking about when he says that these pictures are causing a good article to be soiled, undermined and cheapened by having images with Xmas decorations. It is just a Christmas Tree, after all. So I cannot respond too much to that.
However I would point out that WP is not a photo gallery, and the only reason for having images at all is to support the article text. In this case the photographs are there to help illustrate and clarify my text alongside that describes the layout of the arcade. I didn't cause the tree to be put there in order to photograph it, it was already there. The picture is a true reflection of what the arcade looked like when it opened. The Commons category is not full of pictures of the arcade without the tree; any such picture can only have been taken since the tree was taken down (presumably on the 6th Jan) and not surprisingly, there aren't any. The only pictures in the commons category that show the arcade and its relationship to the platform level and roof are the two I took to illustrate this article.
As to whether they should be replaced by later shots from the same angle and perspective without the tree, once they are available, I'm not sure. Until I read this comment I thought they probably should (I was a bit irritated they were there when I took the pictures). But having written the above, I realise that there is a certain historical authenticity about these shots that would be absent in retaken ones. They do show the arcade as it was when it opened. So now I'm tending to think they should be kept. Besides we need to remember that this is a commercial shopping mall; odds are that by the time somebody comes to take the picture they will find the tree has been replaced by a giant Easter Bunny :-( -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
actually the tree was not there when the station opened I traveled from the station in November after it opened and the tree was not there. It seems to have arrived towards the start of December. You really should check your facts before you post them. This is not meant to be a personal attack as you seem to be taking it but the presence of the tree cheapens the quality of this article Oxyman42 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you both are acting like children! In my personal opinion the tree is fine, it's the the covering of the hotel front that I don't like (and was quite annoyed when visiting for the first time). For that reason a clear picture without the decoration background would be better as its hows more of the building. 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.137.92 (talk)
I don't think the 'hanging' in front of the hotel is specific to Christmas. I could be wrong, but I've seen at least two different designs there, and it may be that the presence of such a hanging is going to be a permanent (or frequent) feature. On the other hand I havn't looked this year, so maybe it has gone now. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the Hanging is there because of work still going on in St Pancras Chambers/ Midland Hotel and will be removed when the Hotel is completed Oxyman42 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Could well be. In which case we may to have to wait another year or two for a picture without the hanging. The hotel and appartments are due to be finished in 2009. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to all contributors involved with the article. Reviewing the following recently-applied change-set[2], 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[3] 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)
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)
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."[4],[5]
