Talk:York Road tube station

York Road reopening - evidence?
The article says "There are plans to reopen York Road in the near future as part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link work currently being undertaken at King's Cross." Where is the firm evidence for this please? I am not saying that no evidence exists and the suggestion is untrue; I am merely saying that I haven't yet seen the evidence, and that such a dramatic statement should not be in this article without readers being able to see the evidence for it. If no-one provides any evidence, the statement should be removed or radically modifed. 138.37.188.109 08:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: I asked the Tube through their online enquiry system at http://tube-tfl.custhelp.com/ . I said
 * "Dear Tube, the Wikipedia article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_Road_tube_station says 'There are plans to reopen York Road in the near future as part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link work currently being undertaken at King's Cross. Is this correct, please? Thanks very much Regards etc"
 * and they replied:
 * "Thank you for your recent email to the London Underground, Customer Service centre. This article is incorrect. There are no plans to reopen York Rd and never have been."
 * I hope this clears it up. Regards to all, 138.37.188.109 09:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't write the original line but did recently update the data. I believe their source was line management within LU and mine was Officers at TfL although it wasn't in connection with the CTRL but the land redevelopment alongside. I note that the station buildings appear to be currently being worked on. Will make enquiries though to confirm the original information. --Vamp:Willow 12:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: Re-opening has been re-confirmed to me. I would suspect that the Customer Service people haven't been "officially" told about the re-opening as no date has (sfaiaa) been fixed as yet, thus their default action would be to deny the re-opening in case someone then started demanding to know why it hadn't opened on or by the date they wanted it to. (Plus someone might mis-understand about it being something in "the future" and think it was already open). --Vamp:Willow 13:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What a shame that perhaps inadvertently they have put their people in the position of lying to the public. I've rewritten the opening of that sentence in order to try to accommodate the contradiction, though not in quite such strong terms! :) 82.45.245.15 08:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Another update: Have re-asked TfL to comment in the light of all this - it will be interesting to see their response, and it would be nice to get the official line and the insider view lined up nicely and singing off the same hymn sheet! :) 82.45.245.15 23:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Given there is a tunnel being built from King's Cross St Pancras Station to the King's Cross Central. Amedeofelix (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I walk past it everyday. Looks to me like the building is in use by another company, not LfT. I'll take a photo once my camera is fixed. Edward 00:55, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)


 * Camera fixed, I took some photos but then people inside started shouting at me so I ran away. I've added one of the photos to the page. Edward 09:54, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Current occupants of the building are:

Siemens Fire Safety & Security Ltd

174, York Way, London, N1 0AZ

Tel: 020 7837 8505

Edward 10:03, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)


 * Heheh excellent, Edward! I wonder why they were shouting at you? Doesn't look like you were trespassing ... :) Gonegonegone 17:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That was the first photo I took, it was when I was standing in their car park that they started shouting. Edward 17:54, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * Ah. Car Park Sensitivity. Can be very nasty! :) 82.45.245.15 17:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to complicate matters further, I've since had *further* information from a different source (non-TfL/LUL) that it is an 'aspiration' with the new works, and 'not' a done deal. Clearly there are too many hymn sheets floating aeound! (btw, istr that the current users are related to or provide services to the underground...) --Vamp:Willow 20:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm interesting. But the current wording probably still covers it, do you think? I mean it indicates some uncertainty ... :) 82.45.245.15 17:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Whisperings heard by anonymous internet users are not verifiable, so I'm removing the parraphy on re-opening. Please replace it with something properly sourced. --Dtcdthingy 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This page: http://www.kxrlg.org.uk/news/asgtransport.htm claims that York Road closed in 1977, not the 1930s. Personally I prefer the 1930s version, but I thought I'd point out that there are other versions of "the truth". I think the confusion may be with some platforms at Kings Cross.


 * Just to confirm; That 'York Road' should refer to the mainline platform of Kings Cross station closed in 1977 known as 'Kings Cross York Road'. The Piccadilly station did close in the 30's, honest ;) 91.106.13.79 (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Convex complexity - help!
Hi. I'm referring to this sentence, in the third paragraph:

The platform layout is almost identical to Caledonian Road (the next station to the north), but in a very gentle convex curve.

I took out "convex" because I felt that it was difficult to see its meaning in this context. AlisonW put it back in with a link to the disambiguation page Convex and Grafen changed this to the Wiktionary page to which is it still linked. Unfortunately, and I apologize if it's just me being thick, I still honestly do not think that the sentence works. Sure, once you know what it means it's fine, but this isn't really what's supposed to happen. So, for example, once I'd seen Alison's rather handy mini-diagram (logogram? typogram??) thus: I could go, oh yeah, I see. Similarly, if you look at the platform plan linked from the article then you very quickly see that same shape. But, I maintain, when you see the words "gentle convex curve" from a state of, er, innocence, then it means nothing ... all curved lines are convex and concave: it just depends on where you're standing. The impression that that sentence gave to me, as an innocent reader, was that the whole station is on a single curve - that is, the line is curved as a whole at that point - and that the author didn't know how to describe its shape: as if it's curved, but it appears (say) concave if you are standing in Wharf Road and (say) convex if you're on Havelock Street. Indeed, I still don't really see how a single curve can be convex and the links don't really help me much - the missing piece of language here is where you describe this: - and that is not fully and easily covered by "convex curve". Apart from anything else, it is simply not a single curve - if anything it is a pair of curves, with each having convexity viewed outwards from its platform or concavity(?) viewed inwards from a passing train (yeah, 1:20 out of Cally Road, I know!); and if anything it looks more like the station is not in aggregate on a curve, or much of one, but fairly straight. From the plan it looks like the curving is to do with fitting the station in, not to do with the line as a whole needing to change direction at this point.

Is there, I wonder, a simple, elegant piece of language which accurately describes this in a way which is immediately accessible to the first-time reader? I'd love to think that there is, and if not, I fear that it either needs a clunky and inelegant explanation of what is actually meant, or omitting. I'd be very grateful for your views on this. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "simple, elegant piece of language which accurately describes this" - quite. some stations have enough space between the tubes for parallel platforms, York Road didn't, so the roads widen enough to squeeze in curved outward (ie 'convex') ones (as opposed to both-curved-in-same-direction). The line itself doesn't change direction at York Road. And if you can word it better please do! --AlisonW (talk) 11:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reopening revisited?
I was very interested in and excited by this edit in which 213.52.213.133 added "It now has a sign outside stating it will reopen as "Granary" in 2015." Sadly there is no ref for this; I am tempted to remove it, having not found anything myself. What do you think? I am sending that editor a Talkback notification about this. I would much rather we could keep it in with a reference but it's not much use without. Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen so many sources now saying it can never be reopened *as a tube station* that this only sounds like it might be a food shop. Reasons such as 'too near KX', 'not enough platform width/length for modern needs', 'not able to be upgraded to meet current H&S requirements and not able to be grandfathered-in', and the simplest one: 'Picc line is too busy to be able to add another stop' (though there is a very outside possibility that could change after the NT4L upgrade finishes in the next decade, but don't hold your breath.) Sorry! --AlisonW (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Slight revision to my earlier comment: "The Granary" is the name which has been given to the big building in the middle of the area, now used by Central St Martins, so there is some logic to that as a possible name, especially as the original cannot be used. There is a report, however, on just how expensive opening would be if the Picc could cope (which it can't, anyway) here: http://lurs.org.uk/articles10_htm_files/york%20road.pdf (pdf). The report notes the BCR is a near-to-zero 0.03:1, ie will never happen. --AlisonW (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for looking into this. It sounds vanishingly unlikely, and we still don't have a RS to quote so I have removed the claim. Hope this is OK. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Having read the referenced LURS paper I'd suggest that it is now unduly pessimistic. It was based on a 2005 report which does not fully take into account significant development in the area since that date (e.g. housing and student accomodation at Kings Cross Central, St. Williams Yard) and which over-represents the presence of alternative modes of transport. The bus alternative (e.g. 390, 91) is also over capacity in this area and in the morning peak it is common to have to let several go past the stops as they are full! I'd agree that the Piccadilly line is beyond capacity in this area, and the Halcrow report has missed the benefit of using this new station to reduce the number of people boarding/alighting, and hence the dwell time at KX station; I believe the northbound platform at KX is currently the pinchpoint for the entire line (and is likely to remain so following the NTfL train/signalling upgrade). This reduction in dwell time will allow a more intense service to be operated over the entire line, creating capacity rather than reducing it. It's also true that re-opening this station will increase journey time for passengers passign through this station, but I disagree that it will reverse the reason for closing the station; modern trains can accellerate and decellerate at much higher rates than those in use when this station closed, and this will mitigate this disbenefit. The capital costs of moving existing signalling equipment and changes to signalling/passenger information could be largely offset if integrated into the current NTfL upgrade programme (if we are prepared to wait for the re-opening!) Finally, the operational costs of the station are likely to be less than those stated in the Halcrow report given LU's current changes to staffing practice. 84.93.246.19 (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Won't happen (imnsho!) as the station would have to be entirely rebuilt to modern fire/disability standards (closed too long to be grandfathered in), alongside there just not being the line capacity. Even though there is lots happening in the area it is very unlikely that this station would reopen, especially as there is now a below-ground walking route to the Granary area. --AlisonW (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on York Road tube 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/20110713152348/http://www.kingscrossenvironment.com/files/york_road_business_case_report__final__2sided.pdf to http://www.kingscrossenvironment.com/files/york_road_business_case_report__final__2sided.pdf

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) 15:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on York Road tube 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/20060505115530/http://www.kxrlg.org.uk/news/LBIjan05KXCFORMALOBS.pdf to http://www.kxrlg.org.uk/news/LBIjan05KXCFORMALOBS.pdf

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) 19:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)