Talk:Blackfriars station

Blackfriars station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Blackfriars station is part of the London station group series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 19, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
August 7, 2019	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Trains: Stations / in UK / in London Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	November 28, 2006
Sel	week 25, 2018

	London Transport Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Mid-importance).

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thameslink 2000 (sorry Thameslink Programme)[edit]

Someone - ideally someone who knows more about it than me - should say something about the major building works that are going to happen with the 'Thameslink' expansion works due to start in a couple of years. As I understand it, the South Eastern service will be diverted elsewhere while the main 'Thameslink' platforms are extended across the river to allow 12 carriages to be used on the route. Lovingboth 08:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes. Having done some reading on the topic in the past its somewhat confusing. I've copied some text in from the thameslink article. Pickle 08:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! I was in the process of adding two lines and the link to the main Thameslink Programme article when you did that - thanks. Lovingboth 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost entirely off-topic, but the combination of this and the December 2007 closure of the East London Line for about three years is going to make travel from my bit of SE London much more difficult for two years. I'm not sure that there's been an announcement about what's going to happen to the South Eastern service, for example... diverted to Victoria? terminated at Elephant and Castle?? Lovingboth 08:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been decided yet, but to the best of my knowledge most of the SER trains to/from Blackfriars will be operated in partnership with First Capital Connect and sent straight through the Thameslink tunnels (so they will still call at Blackfriars); a handful in the evening peak may well be diverted to Victoria. The new service patterns will be implemented this December. Edvid (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Reversion[edit]

An editor who had not logged in added a paragraph referring to a non-exitant Central Express Brighton to Newcastle service. I have reverted the edit Wilmot1 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LU Station Closure[edit]

The London Underground map states that Blackfriars will close in March 2009 (oresumably for refurbishment) and re-open in 2011. Anyone have any more info? If so, can they add please? Krytenia (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stood said the Underground station is closed to commuters. I think that's a bit misleading as it indicates it's open to passengers who don't fall into that category (eg:tourists) and could be misinterpreted as meaning the LUL station is open except in rush hours, or something equally unfortunate. I have changed it to make a bit more sense, if you have a better idea then go ahead... --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording problem[edit]

Hi. Forgive me if I am confused, but at the moment, under Current developments/Station rebuild, we have this: "The Underground station will also see major enhancements,[10] with a new roof of glazed north lights and partial-height glazed side panels to be installed along the entire length of the bridge." Surely the enhancements described (roof, bridge side panels) are to the mainline station, not the tube? I am tempted to alter it myself but a knowledgeable person may well make a neater job of it. Or am I just missing the point somehow? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/london-blackfriars/
Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish[edit]

I have added a distinguish template at the top of the page. Do any other users think it is necessary, or could it be better worded? Thanks for any feedback. --TBM10 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. It's useful info, and the wording is entirely appropriate. I don't like silly distinguishes, but this is not one. DBaK (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Blackfriars 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground station - separate from NR station?[edit]

I've just noticed that Ritchie333 reverted this edit of mine, which aimed to make clear that the London Underground station is regarded as its own station (its entirely segregated from the Thameslink station in a similar manner to somewhere like Euston). Whilst my wording perhaps wasn't ideally-phrased, I personally think it's worth making the distinction within the article - just wanted to open a discussion on whether others agree. 86.31.149.64 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion is the right way to go; I thought the previous version was a bit easier to read (while it might be technically separate, the casual traveller looking a tube map wouldn't pick up on this) but will go with whatever consensus is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie333 - yes good idea, I'm not hugely bothered either way, but be interested as to whether others have views one way or the other. The Adventures of Link (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackfriars Bridge Railway Station[edit]

I can see no Wikipedia entry for Blackfriars Bridge Railway Station and it looks like it is covered here instead This seems confusing as the two were clearly 2 entirely distinct and different stations I therefore suggest such a separate entry is warranted and would be much clearer What do people think, I would welcome any views? If agreed, I would be happy to have a go at drafting an initial entry JSN2849 (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a good number of sources about it, feel free. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]