Talk:Holborn Viaduct railway station

message: Page moved in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject London#Naming conventions Timrollpickering 01:35, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: The article indicates that City Thameslink was built on the site of Holborn Viaduct station - and even that its frontage was incorporated into the new station. However, City was actually built on the site of the old Ludgate Hill station, on the east side of Ludgate Circus and under the (demolished in 1990) bridge. This can clearly be seen from the maps illustrating the article. I've read the source for the info (from which the relevant article text is lifted almost word-for-word btw) and they've got it wrong, too. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Thameslink site? 

message: In the section Layout, there is the sentence "It visited every London terminal used at that time by South Eastern." This is both unsourced and doubtful: first, what is South Eastern? This event was a few years before privatisation, which brought Connex South Eastern into being; and some decades after the South Eastern Railway vanished through amalgamation. Does it mean Network South East? If so, that makes the first part of the sentence dubious, since a , being a third-rail EMU, could not have visited unelectrified NSE terminal stations like Marylebone or Paddington, nor terminals electrified using only the overhead, such as King's Cross or Liverpool Street. Could it actually mean BR Southern Region? That would have been feasible. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has access to The Railway Magazine, Volume 136, there is an article about a special for the last train out of the station starting on page 150. Slambo (Speak) 17:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've dug it out, and made . --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks.  I've updated the portal entry accordingly. Slambo (Speak) 11:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Eastern 

message: This article appears misleading.  Instead  making clear that there were actually 2 stations on this site, it only seems to refer to 1 stating that it became a terminus.  The station shown and otherwise referred to throughout was always a terminus.  It was the other low-level stains station that was not, and was variously named as in the subject-heading above.  
This entry either needs to be far clearer that there were 2 stations at different levels, preferably covered in separate sections, or else the low-level station needs its own discrete entry.  
Either way, I would be prepared to have a first go at some text.
You can see some helpful source material on the low level station here: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/snow_hill/ JSN2849 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have an article Snow Hill railway station (London) which described the other station also referred to as Holborn Viaduct at times. The last revision is here, it was redirected to this article some time later. You could have a go at expanding it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno wasn't it considered separate and then later as a different part of Holbourne Viaduct? An analogy would be Cardiff Riverside railway station which was initially considered as a separate station then was later incorporated into . That said you're right that it probably does need it's own dedicated history, though it might be better as a section of the main article then as a separate article, unless it's particularly long. G-13114 (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holborn Viaduct Low Level/Holborn Low Level/Snow Hill