Talk:Charing Cross tube station

Closed to the Travelling Public

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)

If you wish for it to stay, then so be it. I'd certainly dispute whether it's necessary, though, as from what I understand there aren't even regular rusty-rail movements to Charing Cross any more. Even if some part of the line is used for reversing trains, it's little more than an extended turnback siding and the platforms aren't necessary for that. --Mike 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

However, if the Docklands Light Railway's extension to Charing Cross is given the go-ahead, these platforms may be in use once more. Simply south 19:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming

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)

No, it's wrong. In 1915 the southern Bakerloo and Northern stations became "Charing Cross". Based on Douglas Rose's Diagrammatic History, the changes were thus:

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

Bold denotes the name on opening or a name change, italics means an existing unchanged name at the time of other openings/changings. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jubilee Line platforms

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)

• The connection is the long corridor shown above (on the screen) the Jubilee line platforms. The Bakerloo line platforms are missing from the diagram. The long connection corridor was original used for construction and was not going to be used for passengers, but was fitted-out to provide a connection that avoided descending and ascending the escalators at each end of the Jubilee line concourse. This diagram from a tube poster shows a different arrangement, but still misses the Bakerloo line platforms.--DavidCane (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So then it appears from bottom to top: 1.) Jubliee line & concourse level, 2.) Intermediate concourse; it is at this level which one can access both the Northern and Bakerloo platforms through the long interchange passage, which both appear to be a half-level between the Jubliee line & concourse and the intermediate concourse itself. 3.) The ticket halls for the Northern and Bakerloo lines below street level. I assume both the lines have ticket halls at this level. It also appears the "access working tunnels" in the other diagram I linked to connected at the interchange passage at the intermediate level and the Jubliee platform & concourse level meaning that east tunnel was at a higher level than the west tunnel. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There are two ticket halls - one each for the Bakerloo and Northern - because they used to be two completely separate stations, Trafalgar Square and Strand respectively. The Jubilee line platforms were so aligned that one end of them was below the Bakerloo station, and the other end was below the Northern station - so connections were made to both, and the whole lot was combined into a single station named Charing Cross. Tip: if you need to interchange between Bakerloo and Northern, don't do it here but at Embankment or Waterloo, where the passages are much shorter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a top-down plan view that shows the whole thing. I'm just about finished doing a complete rewrite of the article in my sandbox here.--DavidCane (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to that diagram in my last reply. It is still confusing and hard to pick out the various different levels of the combined stations from any of the diagrams posted and available online, though. I guess I'm just a stickler for detail. Anyway, thanks for rewriting this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

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)

Sorry, you don't like it. In my view, one of the most interesting things about the Underground is its development and the enormous amount of "what might have been". This is the approach I took when I rewrote Euston tube station and Green Park tube station. If you read the articles on the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, Central London Railway, Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway, Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway, Metropolitan Railway, District Railway, Brill Tramway you will see that the developmental history is something on which we try to go into quite a lot of detail. Charing Cross is an extreme example of numerous aborted, failed and rejected plans and attempts to build lines through the same location. If one of these had come off earlier, then the other plans probably would not have targeted the destination--DavidCane (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I notice that this page was added to WP:CLEAN (link) for consideration. I added a comment there stating that before people from that outside project jump in and change the article, I strongly recommend discussing matters first here at this discussion thread. Also of consideration is that the article was nominated for consideration to become a WP:GOODARTICLE only two days ago, on 8 May 2020 (diff). Would removing content make the article less likely to pass a GA-review? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I find the History section illuminating and interesting. FWIW it should be spun into its own article and then summarized here. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, that would be an excellent solution. The planning information is fascinating, but it seems it'd be much more relevant to and appropriate for the development of the particular lines that cross this area (Northern, Bakerloo, Jubliee and District). The previous version of the article could use some cleaning up for clarity, and maybe that would require an additional graph or two, or a sentence here or there. But it did not need a major expansion. In fact, the "stack" accompanying the previous version of the history of the station did a very good job. The proposed and changing development of this line don't need to be detailed here to this extent to understand the changes to the station, and certainly not the information added prior to the construction of the two stations. --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that spinning off the development section into a separate article would work. It would very likely get tag for merging back here again.--DavidCane (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If consensus is to make an independent article, which likely already meets GNG, it would likely be fine. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that a "history of" article could be taken to AfD, with users potentially stating opinions such as "the station is notable, but not its history", etc. Sometimes users don't research such matters first to see if an article was a WP:SPINOUT. Upon consideration, I feel that the history section remains best within this article. I also don't agree that it's too long. The Charing Cross tube station itself has a long, detailed history, and that which is covered in reliable sources should be covered in the article, rather than omitted per concerns that it doesn't match the length of other articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

GA candidate

@DePiep: Well, I would expect:

• “City” with capital “C” as it is the City, not a city;
• hyphen instead of dash in “east-west” (like “south-east“).

Pls consider reverting your revision. --Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, fixed City (1x).

re east–west: MOS:ENBETWEEN (even has this example). It's a subtle rule, but in my understanding it's applied correctly here. Hope you can agree.

Have a nice edit, -DePiep (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: your example "south-east" is a windrose direction, so not exactly the same (not a range/spread of values). btw, looks like its written "southeast", but "south-southeast" does have the hyphen; see Points of the compass#32-wind compass rose. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

ok, “east–west” v. “south-east”: understood. --Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)