Charing Cross tube station is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added this to the statement that the Jubilee line platforms are now closed. I did it because "closed" may be thought of as abandoned as in "the railway line has closed". However they are not abandoned. From a railway operations point of view they are still very much in use. I understand they are used quite a lot - particularly if it is necessary to suspend the line south of Green Park as trains run empty to the Jubilee line platforms where the driver changes ends.
The statement was removed on the grounds of "unnecessary wordiness". I beg to differ as I think it clarifies a point. However if it is still felt that this is unnecessary wordiness then please remove it and I will not reinstate it again-- Pedantic of Purley 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The detail on the 1915 renaming states that the Bakerloo station now known as Embankment reverted to that name at that point (without asserting when it did change to Charing Cross of fairly recent memory). That's in conflict what is stated in 'The Spread of London's Underground' published by Capital Transport. It seems highly unlikely that LER would have confused everyone by doing that, as the purpose of the 1914 and 1915 renamings would have been to avoid confusion. On the strength of the above published work I'm about to change the article accordingly. I haven't yet looked at what the Embankment article says but I may change that too. Ivanberti ( talk) 09:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
DATE | DISTRICT (S) | BAKERLOO (S) | NORTHERN (S) | BAKERLOO (N) | NORTHERN (N) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
30/05/1870 | Charing Cross | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
10/03/1906 | Charing Cross | Embankment | N/A | Trafalgar Square | N/A |
22/06/1907 | Charing Cross | Embankment | N/A | Trafalgar Square | Charing Cross |
06/04/1914 | Charing Cross | Charing Cross (Embankment) | Charing Cross (Embankment) | Trafalgar Square | Charing Cross (Strand) |
09/05/1915 | Charing Cross | Charing Cross | Charing Cross | Trafalgar Square | Strand |
04/08/1974 | Charing Cross Embankment | Charing Cross Embankment | Charing Cross Embankment | Trafalgar Square | N/A - closed 16/06/1973 |
12/09/1976 | Embankment | Embankment | Embankment | Trafalgar Square | N/A |
01/05/1977 | Embankment | Embankment | Embankment | Charing Cross | Charing Cross |
Quick question, exactly how many levels between the three different lines are there in the station? I'm trying to orient myself, and figure out exactly where and how the escalators down to the Jubilee platforms are closed off. This is the best diagram I can find, but it leaves me a bit confused. It looks like there is at least three different levels, including an "intermediate" level. This diagram also doesn't appear to show the connection between the Bakerloo and Northern platforms. What level is this connection on? Thanks! -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 01:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the idea behind and effort of a rewrite, but, boy, this is not what I imagined. I imagined that this wasn't going to be some major expansion of the article, rather something to make it more concise in places. It's not really consistent with other articles of rapid transit stations, quite frankly. And, in fact, the least confusing part of the article was the previous "History" section. Really, we just needed a "History" section concerning the origins as two different stations and then the joining, and then a "Configuration" or "Description" section speaking of its current conditions, and then maybe a section or two of any additional facts that are interesting and relevant to the current station. The "Planning" sub-section is WAY too much. This is something that could be convered - like it was in the previous article - in a few sentences or paragraph or two. The three sub-sections under the previous "History" section were more than enough.
I understand this is one of the more complicated stations, so the "History" section would admittedly be a bit longer than your typical article on a station in the system, but this is overkill. This needs to be pared back in a big way. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 03:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Well, I would expect:
Pls consider reverting your revision. -- Jan Hejkrlík ( talk) 22:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Charing Cross tube station is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added this to the statement that the Jubilee line platforms are now closed. I did it because "closed" may be thought of as abandoned as in "the railway line has closed". However they are not abandoned. From a railway operations point of view they are still very much in use. I understand they are used quite a lot - particularly if it is necessary to suspend the line south of Green Park as trains run empty to the Jubilee line platforms where the driver changes ends.
The statement was removed on the grounds of "unnecessary wordiness". I beg to differ as I think it clarifies a point. However if it is still felt that this is unnecessary wordiness then please remove it and I will not reinstate it again-- Pedantic of Purley 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The detail on the 1915 renaming states that the Bakerloo station now known as Embankment reverted to that name at that point (without asserting when it did change to Charing Cross of fairly recent memory). That's in conflict what is stated in 'The Spread of London's Underground' published by Capital Transport. It seems highly unlikely that LER would have confused everyone by doing that, as the purpose of the 1914 and 1915 renamings would have been to avoid confusion. On the strength of the above published work I'm about to change the article accordingly. I haven't yet looked at what the Embankment article says but I may change that too. Ivanberti ( talk) 09:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
DATE | DISTRICT (S) | BAKERLOO (S) | NORTHERN (S) | BAKERLOO (N) | NORTHERN (N) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
30/05/1870 | Charing Cross | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
10/03/1906 | Charing Cross | Embankment | N/A | Trafalgar Square | N/A |
22/06/1907 | Charing Cross | Embankment | N/A | Trafalgar Square | Charing Cross |
06/04/1914 | Charing Cross | Charing Cross (Embankment) | Charing Cross (Embankment) | Trafalgar Square | Charing Cross (Strand) |
09/05/1915 | Charing Cross | Charing Cross | Charing Cross | Trafalgar Square | Strand |
04/08/1974 | Charing Cross Embankment | Charing Cross Embankment | Charing Cross Embankment | Trafalgar Square | N/A - closed 16/06/1973 |
12/09/1976 | Embankment | Embankment | Embankment | Trafalgar Square | N/A |
01/05/1977 | Embankment | Embankment | Embankment | Charing Cross | Charing Cross |
Quick question, exactly how many levels between the three different lines are there in the station? I'm trying to orient myself, and figure out exactly where and how the escalators down to the Jubilee platforms are closed off. This is the best diagram I can find, but it leaves me a bit confused. It looks like there is at least three different levels, including an "intermediate" level. This diagram also doesn't appear to show the connection between the Bakerloo and Northern platforms. What level is this connection on? Thanks! -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 01:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the idea behind and effort of a rewrite, but, boy, this is not what I imagined. I imagined that this wasn't going to be some major expansion of the article, rather something to make it more concise in places. It's not really consistent with other articles of rapid transit stations, quite frankly. And, in fact, the least confusing part of the article was the previous "History" section. Really, we just needed a "History" section concerning the origins as two different stations and then the joining, and then a "Configuration" or "Description" section speaking of its current conditions, and then maybe a section or two of any additional facts that are interesting and relevant to the current station. The "Planning" sub-section is WAY too much. This is something that could be convered - like it was in the previous article - in a few sentences or paragraph or two. The three sub-sections under the previous "History" section were more than enough.
I understand this is one of the more complicated stations, so the "History" section would admittedly be a bit longer than your typical article on a station in the system, but this is overkill. This needs to be pared back in a big way. -- Criticalthinker ( talk) 03:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Well, I would expect:
Pls consider reverting your revision. -- Jan Hejkrlík ( talk) 22:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)