Jump to content

Talk:East Croydon station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

WikiProject London has a standardised naming scheme for public transport stations in Greater London; see Talk:Tramlink for details — OwenBlacker 23:37, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Service pattern

[edit]

I am absolutely certain the train services which stop regularly offpeak at east croydon are as follows:

Southern
  • 2tph London Victoria - Norbury - Caterham (stopping)
  • 2tph London Victoria - East Grinstead
  • 2tph London Victoria, Clapham, East Croydon and Brighton only
  • 1tph London Victoria - Horsham - Chichester
  • 1tph London Victoria - Horsham - Portsmouth / Bognor Regis (dividing)
  • 1tph London Victoria - Haywards Heath - Eastbourne / Southampton (dividing)
  • 1tph London Victoria - Haywards Heath - Hastings / Littlehampton (dividing)
  • 2tph London Bridge - Forest Hill - Caterham (stopping)
  • 2tph London Bridge - Crystal Palace - Smitham (stopping)
  • 1tph London Bridge - Horsham
  • 1tph London Bridge - Uckfield
  • 2tph London Charing Cross - Purley - Tattenham Corner
  • 1tph Watford Junction - Brighton
Southeastern
  • 1tph London Bridge - Tunbridge Wells
FCC
  • 2tph Bedford - Brighton

The service pattern which was up before my edits was a clear overstatement including quite a lot of services which go via West, rather than East Croydon, and the CrossCountry services which don't leave regularly - more like 2 or 3 times per day. If anyone requires proof of the above I'll be happy to link to the relevant timetables, I do admit I've written that off the top of my head but I did live in the area for 17 years and I'm sure it's correct. Or, check southern's website

I should also point out though that the timetable is going to be revised for the long distance services on friday, so this may change. - Zeibura (Talk) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

co-ordinates are wrong

[edit]

they're somewhere in Surrey! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.232.3 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Cherryorchard.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Images

[edit]

Does anyone have any images of the station before the rebuild? I have searched high and low on the Internet and I haven't found a single one, let alone one licensed for public use. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well done. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busiest Station outside Zone 1?

[edit]

The article quotes that East Croydon is "the busiest in London outside Travelcard Zone 1". Is there a reference for this as I would have presumed that Clapham Junction, in Travelcard Zone 2, was the busiest outside Travelcard Zone 1 by most means of calculation? Afcwarren (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be correct: Clapham Junction will be busier by train movements, but it has to be remembered that the vast majority of trains passing through stop at East Croydon, whereas Clapham Junction has a lot of non-stopping trains. I will add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_railway_stations_in_Great_Britain as a reference. Crooked cottage (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That list seems to show Clapham Junction as busier than East Croydon, the former being in 5th place (behind 4 London termini) and the latter in 13th. JH (talk page) 19:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I am very confused by the section on the Thameslink Programme. Whilst this programme will undoubtedly deliver platform lengthening (it already has in places such as Luton Airport Parkway) and station remodelling, I believe that East Croydon's platforms are already all 12 platforms, and that station remodelling will not happen here.

Also the cost of the programme is now quoted at £5.5bn not £3.5bn. Crooked cottage (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Croydon 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on East Croydon 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chains

[edit]
This discussion has badly WP:TALKFORKed, to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Chains RFC, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains, and Talk:Chain (unit)#Attempt to clean up the lede and the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is the point of expressing distance from London in chains? Yes, they're used technically within the railway industry, but this is not a technical article, and it just looks ridiculous.

There's a place for railway nerdery. This is not it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.161.141 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are verifiable. Please stop your disruptive editing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable does not mean "put in every last detail". We can verify the angle of the slope that passengers walk up or how many steps there are at platform 1. It is not generally useful information. Please realise that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia - it is not a repository for every conceivable detail that can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.161.141 (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Redrose64 that the chains should remain. Apart from anything else, it is simply inaccurate to state that East Croydon is 10 miles from London Bridge: it's a fraction more. For those who are hazy on what a chain is (and I'm one of them), there's a wikilink and also a kilometre conversion. And (although I'm aware that other stuff exists is not a decisive argument) it's very common on comparable articles for chains to be used: e.g. Clapham Junction railway station, Richmond station (London), Southend Central railway station. GrindtXX (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be inaccurate to say it was 10.0 miles. To say it is 10 when in fact is 10.05 is rounding. But in any case, in normal parlance where "is" East Croydon? There are two entrances, so they can't both be right? And where at London Bridge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.161.141 (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The normal convention is that terminal stations are measured at the buffer stops, through stations are measured at the ticket office. The number of entrances is immaterial. In the case of London Bridge, the zero point is two chains to the south-east of the former platform 8-13 buffer stops; or four chains to the north-west of the former platform 14-16 buffer stops. I urge you to seek consensus before removing; and also refer you to Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the normal convention in railway technical material. **Any** area of knowledge has technical obscurities, and it doesn't help to parade them in a general article. At the very most it could be a small bullet point somewhere in the article. Having it where it was is misleading and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.161.141 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When writing an article, use units appropriate to the subject, and then add conversion to SI units for clarity. It's not "railway nerdery" to use the unit in which the railways are measured, any more than it's railway nerdery to state distances on the London Underground in km (when most of the UK uses miles). It's simply how it's measured. That you don't know what a chain is does not make it an inappropriate unit. I don't exactly know what a decibel is, but I accept it's the standard measure for sound. My personal method is to add a footnote the first time chains come up (because it is an unusual unit), and always include a {{convert}} to km. That way you are using the official mileages, but also providing context and an internationalisation. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chains are the standard unit for many of these measurements, particularly curve radii. We have plenty of ways to convert units so that they're published in all manner of accessible, internationalised, modern units. We should keep them in chains (as well) where these are either the units used in the source, the appropriate unit of measure for the context, or where it facilitates comparisons between other measurements - and chains are still pervasive in railways, modern railways and historical railways. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... and elsewhere. A 'chain' may seem obscure, but it is one of the easier distances to visualise (at least in some parts of the English-speaking world), once you realise it's the distance between the wickets on a cricket pitch Rjccumbria (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article existed for a decade without this absurd trivia, and now it's essential? Bonkers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.203.144 (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the IP here. I've lived in the UK all my life, and flatter myself that I can speak English and am accustomed to our weird imperial units, but I had to blick twice when I saw that these articles are using such an archaic and esoteric measure of distance. Articles are, or should be, written for the casual reader, the use of "chains" is jarring. What's wrong with 10.1 miles if you don't want to round the miles off? Fish+Karate 14:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing - "It is 10 miles 28 chains (16.66 km) measured from London Bridge" - does this mean it is located 10.whatever miles away from London Bridge? Or 10 miles high? It's poor English. Assuming it's distance, why is the distance to London Bridge of any particular significance or relevance? I'm sure it has some somewhere to railway fans, but what is it? Are we all just supposed to know? Fish+Karate 14:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well; at least Fish and karate has now involved themselves editorially in this edit-war so has effectively recused themselves from taking any administrative action regarding it. Of course, it just means we will require full protection now, instead of semi. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't taken any administrative action, and will not do so. As I said on WP:RPP, I can't bring myself to stop an IP editor doing what I believe to be the right thing to do, in trying to get rid of the use of an archaic measurement that has no relevance to anyone except a small minority of enthusiasts. Fish+Karate 14:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RGW, F&K; well done on—err—exacerbating the aforementioned edit-war. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see all the previous edits; won't do it again. No need to wave around links to tendentious editing. And Redrose64, do you honestly think giving out an edit-warring template is a helpful edit that will help resolve the issue? I know it doesn't mean anything, and will ignore it, but come on, you ought to know by now that templating experienced editors just riles everyone up and is really unhelpful. Fish+Karate 15:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. And "I didn't see all the previous edits"—but at RFPP you knew exactly what the IP was doing; you must have looked at the edits. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Redrose64#Templating me for edit warring. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't EW, it was disruptive editing just of itself. And heading towards INVOLVED. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out in previous discussion of the issue, chains are used in the modern railway as a unit of measurement, in fact a RAIB report from as recently as December 2017 uses chains. At Wikipedia, we are required to follow sources. If sources use chains, then we use chains. If sources use decimal miles, then we do the same. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a mining engineer's daughter I know all about rods and chains. But {{convert}} supports converting into multiple units. So, for the rest of those who didn't go beating through the bush with their father and his transit, use "10 miles 28 chains (16.66 km; 10.35 mi)". StarryGrandma (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still hoping someone can explain why the distance from London Bridge is of encyclopaedic relevance. Fish+Karate 20:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same reason as the Swedish Theatre in Helsinki or Marble Arch in London – you have to measure such things from somewhere, and that's where the arbitrary start points were chosen. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fish and karate - the relevance is that the original London and Croydon Railway measured all distances (in miles and chains) from London Bridge. This was perpetuated by its successors the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, the Southern Railway, British Railways, British Rail, Railtrack and Network Rail. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so more esoteric stuff of no use to anyone except railway enthusiasts. Also I found the MOS section I was trying to remember, at MOS:JARGON: Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. 10.4 miles is much easier for the layperson to understand than “10 miles 32 chains”. I’ll draft up an RFC over the weekend to get the views of the wider community, as I feel I’m wasting my time trying to explain this here. Fish+Karate 20:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A RFC would be a good idea. It'll give us a chance to thrash the issue out once and for all. No sure how wide a spread of articles will be involved, but would imagine that all of the British Isles and any areas where railways were largely built by the British or were part of the British Empire are likely to be affected. Suggest that listing the RFC at WP:CENT would be a good idea. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The objections of the IP and of Fish and karate come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The implication of 86.181.161.141's earlier edits that we should remove the chains leaving only the whole miles is, at best, misleading - on that basis, Penge West and Anerley would both be 7 miles from London Bridge, where in reality, they are 32 chains (640 m) apart.
Distances in miles and chains are easily verifiable, for example from Railway Track Diagrams published by Trackmaps of Frome. These books are very detailed, and are sourced from Network Rail internal documents. On the other hand, decimal miles are simply not used in any respectable railway publications, so are not verifiable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular reason not to do the normal conversion into feet for the convenience of the reader. That the original source uses chains is not a good enough reason. Mangoe (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have the distance in cubits as well please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.239.71 (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: I don't understand your comment. Did you mean metres? Unsual conversion is miles and chains to kilometres, but for smaller measurements chains to metres, as at the Headcorn and Maidstone Junction Light Railway article where 21 chains (420 m) appears. That the original source uses chains is a very good reason, because it meets WP:V, which is a policy, unlike WP:MOS, which is only a guideline. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute. Are you really saying that if the source says a distance is 5 miles and 40 chains, that to display that as 5.5 miles would be in violation of WP:V?! Good lord. Fish+Karate 06:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd lean in that direction, because you are changing from imperial measurements to a mixture of imperial and decimal measurements. I'd have less objection to 5 miles 4 furlongs (8.85 km), but we should really go with the sources. One important tenet is that we don't rewrite history when writing articles. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that that MOS dictates the use of chains as the primary unit here, but I would remind residents of the UK that in the US possibly the only users of chains left are readers of antique real estate documents. My B&O and Chessie System and CSX documents all use miles and either fractions of a mile or feet. Really, since we are stuck with chains, people outside UK railroading circles need decimal kilometres and decimal miles. I also note that the one reference given feels the need to explain how long a chain actually is, so one suspects that the conversion issue also obtains in the UK for the layman. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is opposing the (usual) use of conversion templates to display both. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots I think you may be getting mixed up between “decimal” and “metric”. Of course you can have 10.1 miles, 5.5 gallons, 3.6 yards, 2.5 inches, and so on. Fish+Karate 14:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: Which is this one reference given? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ianmacm (talk · contribs) is now altering sourced information at Paignton railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gasp, shock, horror, somebody couldn't be bothered to do a simple conversion. The reason why I did this is because it is simpler modern English. Chains are not commonly used nowadays. It's only old railway surveys that use them. Railway buffs, please grow up and start living in the 21st century.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for this edit, it most definitely is in the cited source, unless the aim is to win the gold medal for railway buff pedantry.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really had to use chains before, and I think this would really be better solved with an RfC than with an argument, but converting to miles from chains would probably mean losing some accuracy if the measurements are specified to the nearest chain. I've added the {{cvt}} conversion from mi/ch to miles for now, since chains are not commonly used in the US. Jc86035 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm: The source says "PAIGNTON 222.12", which as explained in the key at the start of the book (which btw is not an "old railway survey") means "distance in miles and chains from specified zero". It explains that 1 mile = 1760 yards; that 80 chains - 1 mile; and that 1 chain = 22 yards. This edit was WP:POINTy since you did it after posting here, so you were fully aware of the content dispute. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are written for a general readership. A railway buff may know what 222.12 is, an average person doesn't. The MOS discourages excessively technical information when it isn't really needed. The "pointy" edit was actually Carrite, not me.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right - it was Carrite. Sorry, on that one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Foxhall Road overbridge, Didcot: 7 July 2018
The bridge
The information plate
@Ianmacm: Re your comment Chains are not commonly used nowadays. It's only old railway surveys that use them. Railway buffs, please grow up and start living in the 21st century. Here are two photos which I took earlier today of a bridge over the Great Western Main Line (GWML). In the first photo, toward the left-hand end of the parapet you will see a red outline; the second photo is a closeup of that. The third line of text is significant: here, MLN1 id the engineers' line reference for the stretch of the GWML between Paddington and Plymouth (via Bristol); 53m is 53 miles; 41ch is 41 chains. That bridge was reconstructed in 2014-15, so that plate indicates that chains were still in official use four years ago - well into the 21st century. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the photo, the main issue here is MOS compliance. If you stopped a hundred people in the street in Britain today and asked them how many feet there are in a chain, probably only a University Challenge contestant would get it right. For the purposes of a Wikipedia article, decimal conversion is simpler.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, I'm not really involved here, but it would probably be better not to remove the miles/chains measurement unless there is consensus to do so. From what I can tell it does seem that chains are still in use in the UK for whatever reason. Jc86035 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bridge sign outside Paignton railway station, July 2018

There is a similar sign outside Paignton railway station. It's a bit like horse racing using furlongs for traditional reasons even though they are no longer in common use. How many feet in a furlong? 660 (shame on you if you didn't know that). If it keeps the railway buffs happy I am not going to argue about chains, but MOS:JARGON has to be borne in mind as it may help to give the figure with a miles/km conversion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to convert from miles and furlongs to decimal miles. A conversion to kilometres (2 decimal points) is appropriate and usually done. Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See Metrication of British transport. UK road signs still use miles and miles per hour. All metric signs have never arrived in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: There are clearly some places where chains and furlongs are never used (otherwise this discussion would not be happening), so it makes sense to also convert to decimal miles. Probably the only reason I know there are 80 chains in a mile is because I added them to {{BScvt}}. Jc86035 (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think there is much wrong with the current wording in this article, which is "It is 10 miles 28 chains (10.35 mi; 16.66 km) measured from London Bridge." This avoids the MOS:JARGON problem while keeping the railway purists happy. Metrication is not commonly used in the British transport system.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder that Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom exists and is still in force. MER-C 14:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Fish and karate has not edited in two days, I've started the RFC at WT:UKT#Chains RFC. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I'd draft it up over the weekend, which I did, but happy to go with yours. I'm going to link to it again below in a new header so everyone can definitely see it, rather than it be hidden away at the end of a long thread. Fish+Karate 10:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on chains

[edit]

Mjroots has kindly initiated an RFC on the chains matter, which you can access at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Chains_RFC Fish+Karate 10:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they already provided such a link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"East Croydon" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect East Croydon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1 § East Croydon until a consensus is reached. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 18:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Croydon_station&oldid=1196310681"