Talk:Thameslink

message: There seems to be dispute (at least there was in the past) over whether Thameslink is a line or a service. Maybe this should be discussed and sorted. Simply south (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This hinges on the difference between a route and a line. Thameslink is a route and it is also the brand name of FCCs service, but there is no such thing as the "Thameslink line". Lines are specifically defined in the Network Rail Sectional Appendix. In the north Thameslink trains work over the Midland Main Line, in the centre there are Snow Hill lines, Holborn lines, London Bridge lines et al, and of course in the south there is the thumping great Brighton Main Line. But there never has been a "Thameslink Line", since Thameslink appeared long after all the lines were laid. Ivor the driver (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line or Services? 

message: The article seems very much in the style of an essay rather than of an encyclopedic article, Does it say when the Thameslink service started running on the former LDCR City Branch? It mentions "the full Thameslink network in 1988" but has the network not changed since then?.--SilasW (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is what precisely constitutes "Thameslink". Most people focus on the core route across the City (and indeed most journeys start & end there; very few passengers make through journeys between north and south London or beyond), then on the Brighton-Bedford services and the south London suburban branch gets much overlooked. I think 1988 is referring to the north-south link through the tunnel which is when the brand name "Thameslink" started to be used. Before that it was separate Bedford to St Pancras ("Bedpan") and services to Holborn Viaduct (not sure if there was a through Brighton service though). Timrollpickering (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search for buried treasure 

message: Is someone going to briefly mention the 2011 rolling stock contract controversy? (it's covered in more detail at Derby Carriage and Wagon Works). Imgaril (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Contract controversy

message: Will the Horsham service go ahead?  There has been talk of a new railway station between Horsham and Crawley, is this part of the Thameslink programme? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.252 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horsham 

message: The article states that Thameslink is a "24 hour" route. I am not sure this is true, & it could be conflated with "24 trains per hour".Dr. British12 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: East Croydon to London St Pancras, at least, runs 24 hours (from experience). In contrast Herne Hill gets no trains after about midnight (also experience). If I recall correctly, the Brighton to Bedford via London Bridge service is 24 hours whereas the rest of the Thameslink network is normal rail/tube times. —Kilopylae (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "24 hour", or really 24 '''trains per''' hour? 

message: Should the :Thameslink core article be merged into this article, appears to be WP:CONTENTFORKING? Hazzerheld (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notified WT:UKRAILof this discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thameslink core 

message: The May 2022 timetable change is a huge one for Thameslink, and brings the service nearly to the full proposed service (see table in article) of 24tph. The only difference is that the Orpington services are currently peak time only, and the East Grinstead and Littlehampton services are not twice per hour, just 1-3 times each 'peak'. 
This needs to be added and updated to the current timetable section of this article, and I don't have the time to at the moment. I might do it later this summer if someone else is unable to do this prior. 
FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2022 Timetable Change 

message: Why, instead of a politically-neutral image, is the one at the top of the page a "pride" train? It does not need to be; someone is deliberately pushing this upon readers (and this article is about a train - not about pride). Can this please be changed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.135.190 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Pride isnt political. No one is pushing anything. No it can't be changed. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 02:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pride train 

message: Can you please add the "Logo" to this page 188.220.255.161 (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the Thameslink route, as it says in the note at the top of the page, not the company which operates it. As far as I know, there is no "logo" for the route. Bazza (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thameslink Logo 

message: I don't see any reason for the recent removal of distinction between "Regional" and "Commuter" routes, which Govia Thameslink as a whole refers to this as part of routes for "North to South of London" and "South London Metro" respectively. This distinction is clearly sectioned on Thameslink, Southern, and Great Northern's timetable pages, and yet in a recent post to my User talk page, the editor who did this claims original research by basing their edits mostly on the fact they travel on this network. How can we compromise this? Jalen Folf (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the NRT/WTT - which are used for most station articles - make no such distinctions at all and just use the routes. I can't be certain when/if they stopped using such distinctions, but their website doesn't suggest a clear set of routes, the subheadings don't appear particularly official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: After a second look, I can see what you're talking about. What it looks to me is that even though the subheaders do make this separation geographically, it's not actually official, which my original mindset happened to be. While I could also agree to add subheaders for rail lines like how some other TOC pages have their tables, but since all the off-peak routes here run on multiple lines, it doesn't make sense anymore to have any distinction on the table. I can agree to removing subheaders on here and Great Northern route because of this, with other TOC articles handled on a case-by-case basis. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good. Thanks for signing my comment as well! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Oh so I was correct in the end? I explained exactly this but using different words to you on your talk page. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I really really don't want to seem like I'm gatekeeping anything here, beacuse I'm truly not; Wikipedia is a place for everybody. But I really don't understand why on earth you have called into question my well-sourced edits on this article twice over the last couple of months with absolutely no evidence to show apart from 'I think/thought this was right'. It really makes little sense to me.  FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of distinction