Talk:New Cross railway station

infobox
The rail box at the bottom has both St Johns and Lewisham listed as the next stations, but should it only have St. Johns, as you have to go through the station (or past it, if you're on the fast lines and go over the flyover) to get to Lewisham?

And more generally, do the rail boxes on the pages show geographical routes or are they a reflection of train services? And if the latter, what services should be shown? (eg should the page for Kidbrooke have an entry for the "next" station as Waterloo East due to the few fast trains in the morning that do run fast?) edd 15:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That is the key $64,000 question, and no one has yet to come up with an answer. The physical lines (typified in the end by a network rail other number) differ from the services. The former may stretch from say Charing cross to Dover priory via Orpington, Tonbridge and Ashford. But the services will consist of fasts to the end and a variety of stoppers, some going to other locations. I don't have the knowledge to explain the various (complex) services in South London so i have treaded somewhat carefully. There is also a new template to use which is more complex so i haven't got around to updating all the infoboxes with the actual situation. The typical situation is to list the "typical off peak" train services, but if you know the details a Limited Service tag (or Peak service) can be added. Pickle 15:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

distance to New Cross Gate station
This article claims "600 metres", New Cross Gate station states "600 yards", one (or possibly even both!) is incorrect. Can anyone shed any light? Grunners 82.20.251.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC).

New Cross Railway station?
Should New Cross Station be moved to New Cross railway station as the London Underground will not serve this station again as the East London Line is being converted to London Overgorund which is a TOC.Likelife (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

grammar/white space

 * In the second paragraph of the article, the statement "The original station buildings on the road bridge was replaced by the present buildings at the side" ought to be replaced by either "The original station building on the road bridge was replaced by the present buildings at the side" or "The original station building on the road bridge was replaced by the present building at the side" or "The original station buildings on the road bridge were replaced by the present buildings at the side" or "The original station buildings on the road bridge were replaced by the present building at the side. I'd do it myself, but have no idea which is correct because, although I've been through the station by train numerous times, I have no idea whether there were (or are) one (or more than one) building (or buildings).
 * On a more practical (or less pedantic!) matter, does anyone know how to get rid of the enormous quantity of white space to the left of the infobox? A number of other station articles have the same problem, and it just looks rather unprofessional. --GuillaumeTell 16:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first point, I have no idea. As for the second, do you mean the whitespace caused by the table of contents? I've reduced sectioning a bit, so that should help. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial problem regarding right-aligned images placed immediately beneath an infobox, and does not show the same way in different browsers. IE7 (poss other versions of IE) attempt to align text which follows an image (or other box-type object) with the top edge of that image (or box). So, if the image is pushed down the page by an infobox, the piece of text which occurs in the wikicode (next piece after the image) will be pushed down by a similar amount. By contrast, Firefox allows the text to move up as far as is sensibly possible.
 * A related problem which shows in both IE7 and Firefox is that where a right-aligned image is pushed down as described above, subsequent images are also pushed down - even when they are left-aligned.
 * The things to do are (i) don't put images in the lead section of an article which has an infobox, but instead place them in relevant sections; (ii) where left-aligned and right-aligned images are used close together, put the left-aligned image first; (iii) check the overall appearance in both IE and a different browser. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both. Mattbuck's amendment made the top of the article look better, and I've just moved the Underground train image from right to left, and all white space has now vanished (at least in my IE8 browser). As for the grammar, the current entrance pictured seems to be a single building, so that reduces the options from four to two. --GuillaumeTell 21:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)