Talk:Charing Cross railway station


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

Requested move
'Charing Cross' is not the official name for the station, and is a minority station in Glasgow, Scotland. chrismjc 00:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It was suggested that this article should be renamed Charing Cross Station (London). The vote is shown below:
 * Oppose. Primary topic disambiguation is emminently suitable here. James F. (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, if we were going to rename it at all, it would be "London Charing Cross station" (not ... railway station, as the tube part isn't called that at all, even if the overground bit sometimes is). James F. (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the London station is massively more well known than the Glasgow one, it's at the correct place right now. -- Joolz 01:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you mention Charing Cross, chances are you're talking about the one in London. There is no need for this to be moved. I definitely don't think that every train station deserves an article. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with James F. - Primary topic disambiguation seems appropriate here. It might also be an idea to mention the Glasgow station at the foot of the page. -- Solipsist 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. – AxSkov ( T ) 02:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 19:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.

distances in London
I was of the view that all distances in London are measured from St Pauls. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.43.107.41 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 December 2005.
 * No, I believe they are measured from the Eleanor cross. You can find a little more on the article at milestone. -- Solipsist 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops - page move
I didn't realise i had to discuss this first. As you know, i have moved Charing Cross railway station to its new location. The original Charing Cross railway station page is now a disambiguation page. Simply south 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not that fussed, but IMHO "Charing Cross" is "Charing Cross London". IIRC is there not somehting on station naming policy that if two stations ahve the same name but one is insignificant and the other of great importantce it should be the mian one (Example IIRC was reading and reading west) ... ???? Pickle 07:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's not really such a good example (reading and reading west) as it is clear from the name they are seperate stations. However, this move involved renaming because both stations had exactly the same name. The London and Glasgow things were just added to distinguish in location between the two. I will possibly check policy out. Simply south 09:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This move was pointless. If there are only two articles with the same name you do not have to dab each in the title. This page needs to be moved back. No dab page is needed. MRSC 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has been moved back
I have moved the article back to Charing Cross railway station. Normally, I would have relisted the move request because the proper procedure given at Requested moves was not followed. A move notice was not put at the top of the talk page and a clear place for discussion and voting was not made. However, I moved the article back because the move goes against naming conventions. When there are two articles with the same name and one is more notable than the other, the more notable one should have the name and there should be a link to the other article at the top of the page. I suggest that the mover read Naming conventions and Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). -- Kjkolb 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Busiest station per-platform.
This might be OR, though all I'm doing is dividing the passenger figures by the number of platforms, but Charing Cross is the busiest station per-platform in the UK, at over seven million passengers per-platform per-year. There's only one other station over five million (Liverpool Central), except that London Bridge is temporarily at 6.2 million because half the platforms have been closed for redevelopment. Waterloo and Victoria are both about 4.7 million, just for comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg (talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charing 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410040141/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/ to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Busiest Transit Facility in the World in 1920s or 1930s?
In California's San Francisco Bay Area, an oft-repeated statement is that the Ferry Building in San Francisco was the world's second-busiest transit facility (in terms of annual passengers) before the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge opened in 1936. These assertions often note that Charing Cross Station in London was the world's busiest transit facility at that time (mid-1930s). Does anyone have knowledge of any facts about passenger traffic through London's transit facilities in the 1930s? Does it make sense that Charing Cross Station would have been the busiest in the world in the mid-1930s? Jab73 (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the mid-1930s the current Charing Cross tube station was two separate stations (Strand and Trafalgar Square). At that time the Charing Cross name was used on the London Underground for what is now Embankment tube station, which was served by three lines (District, Bakerloo and Northern), but would probably not have been the busiest on the network. I'm not aware of any data from the period, but I would have thought that the busiest Underground station would more likely have been one serving a major mainline station (say Kings Cross or Paddington) or one of the central stations served by more than one line (Oxford Circus, Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, Tottenham Court Road, Bank or Holborn). If Charing Cross was the "busiest transit facility" it probably applied to the mainline station rather than an Underground station, but Clapham Junction railway station is usually the one said to be the busiest junction.--DavidCane (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look in book sources when I next get a chance, but as David says, the busiest interchange is likely to be that serving a major long-distance terminal, such as Waterloo, which is the busiest today because it caters for an abundance of both long-distance and local services. As the article states, in the 1930s, Charing Cross was considered a bit of an anachronism and in a parallel universe, we might now have a rebuilt Hungerford Bridge carrying one of the London Ringways with run-down diesel services terminating at London Bridge. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just come back from a trawl of The Times Digital Archive on Gale, and found a possible confirmation of this in an article of 14 June 1930 "More Sub-Surface Tube Stations." (p. 9) . The article discusses the introduction of sub-way entrances and below ground concourses in the style of Piccadilly Circus at a number of central tube stations (what it calls sub-surface stations). The article states "The official added that something like 50,000,000 people a year used the subways and station at Piccadilly-circus (sic), where improvements had had the effect of challenging Charing Cross as London's busiest centre." I note that the 50 million is defined as those using "the subways and the station". This might mean that Charing Cross as London's busiest centre is being used in a broader sense than just a single station. It might be that use of the mainline station, the three underground stations and the foot traffic around Strand and Trafalgar Square are being brought together.--DavidCane (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where they use the term "subway", is that in the American sense (the underground railway line) or the British sense (a passageway below ground level often used as a means of crossing the road). The Underground station at Piccadilly Circus has a number of pedestrian subways (in the British sense) that are not used 100% as a means of accessing the underground railway: it is a very busy road junction. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The British English sense. When talking about changes planned at Leicester Square tube station, the article talks about "four subway entrances-on each corner of the cross-roads".--DavidCane (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)