Talk:Glasgow Central railway station

message: I propose getting rid of some of the templates on this page.  Apologies to the people who put so much work into them, but quite frankly they make this page look like crap.  
We don't need the "Railway stations in Glasgow" template.  The "Railway stations in Glasgow" cat already fulfills that purpose quite happily.
We also don't need the "West Coast Main Line" template.  If people want to know about the West Coast Main Line" they can click on the West Coast Main Line link lying front and center in the intro paragraph.
Anyone opposed? AlistairMcMillan 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-o-rama 

message: I have reformatted the table this evening to reduce the width of the columns. However I do not think that the  limited stop Argyle Line trains deserve a separate line. The WCML trains do not get separate lines for the trains which the first stop is Carlisle; the Neilston Trains for which the first stop is Muirend do not get a separate line.
I suggest the Peak Hour Argyle Line trains line is deleted.
Stewart 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argyle Line Peak Hour Trains 

message: Why is this article in the category Future public transportation? The category seems to be about planned projects or projects under construction, this doesn't seem to apply to Glasgow Central station Oxyman42 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's with regard to the section 'Future schemes' that mentions the Glasgow Airport Rail Link. Adambro 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well that doesn't make sense because it's the link that is Future public transportation not Glasgow central station Oxyman42 20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the page itself really is pretty clear in the section entitled "Future schemes" it explains about the rail link to Glasgow Airport which will serve Glasgow Central Station in the future. Fraslet 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me as a new public transportation facility - a raillink - is to be provided from Glasgow Central to Glasgow Airport. This will require constructional activities in the extension of the station. --Stewart 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article itself was a Future Public Transportation article, the appropriate flag would have been placed at the top of the article; and clearly it was not placed there. It was placed in the section that deals with a future transportation link between Central Station and a new station yet to be built at Glasgow International Airport. Until this transportation link is up a running some of the text in this section is speculative and therefore the section was flagged as such. I placed it there; the relevant article on the proposal rail link is also flagged.Pyrotec 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As part of the link, changes are going to be made at Central station, so the tag is appropriate here. AlistairMcMillan 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes to Glasgow central are small scale modifications, not large scale rebuilding like at say London St pancreas, should every station that has new services or a new bus shelter style waiting facilities be included in the category future transportation? The category is I feel for large scale project like new tube lines or high speed routes not small scale modifications to existing infrastructureOxyman42 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you aught to read what it states in the box. The text in the box provides a precise description. I've copied it here for you, "This article or section contains information about a planned or expected public transportation infrastructure. It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the construction and/or completion of the infrastructure approaches, and more information becomes available." It makes no distinction between bus shelters and new tube lines, or even changes to platforms. Pyrotec 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps you should look at what else is in that category? I am hardy going to copy the whole category to prove my point but this article is very much out of place, I had hoped that when I raised the point here that the editors would be grown up enough to admit they might have made a mistake, obviously given that response some editors are not and are more concerned with waving their dick around then providing reliable informationOxyman42 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The information on Glasgow Central Station is reliable; you at are at liberty to change the article, but have not yet done so, which suggests your only unhappiness is the use of the future public transportation info box. Can I suggest you look at North Clyde Line, it also has the same info box; which is in accordance with wikipedia policy on future events. The info box makes no distinction between bus shelters and new tube lines, or even changes to platforms; but it does state infrastructure, so your comment about services is irrelevant. I've added a link to templates Wikipedia:Current and future event templates, if you wish to create an additional one for bus shelters or other minor works, there is the place to add it. You could even create one for new services, I assume you mean railway passenger services, not other types of services? By creating such an minor works info box, you could move Glasgow Central Station into it.Pyrotec 00:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future public transportation? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support Does it matter at all that no one calls it "Glasgow Central railway station"?  Does it matter at all that all the signs in the station call it either "Glasgow Central" or "Central Station"?  Does it matter at all that our official naming policy clearly says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other things"?  Google Search for "Glasgow Central station":52,800 results. Google Search for "Glasgow Central railway station": 644 results. AlistairMcMillan 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, we have a proposed naming convention.  AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a convention, in the sense that most articles use "[Location] railway station", but not a naming convention in the formal Wikipedia sense, only a proposal for one as AlistairMcMillan notes. Adambro 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming convention in the sense that members of the WikiProject have gone around and moved everything whether anyone else likes it or not.  AlistairMcMillan 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support Does it matter at all that no one calls it "Glasgow Central railway station"?  Does it matter at all that all the signs in the station call it either "Glasgow Central" or "Central Station"?  Does it matter at all that our official naming policy clearly says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other things"?  Google Search for "Glasgow Central station":52,800 results. Google Search for "Glasgow Central railway station": 644 results. AlistairMcMillan 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose - we have a naming convention for this already, in which stations are "railway station", unless they have multiple modes of rail transport on-site.  In this case, GLC does not have a portion on the Glasgow Subway, hence it is a "railway station". Chris cheese whine 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, we have a proposed naming convention.  AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a convention, in the sense that most articles use "[Location] railway station", but not a naming convention in the formal Wikipedia sense, only a proposal for one as AlistairMcMillan notes. Adambro 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming convention in the sense that members of the WikiProject have gone around and moved everything whether anyone else likes it or not.  AlistairMcMillan 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: The comments about Central Low Level being closed due to tram competition are incorrect.  Some stations on the former Glasgow Central Railway closed in the 1930s due to tram competition, notably Botanic Gardens.  However Central Low Level closed in 1964 as part of the Beeching cuts.  At this point it was worked by DMUs, which didn't prove as effective as the EMUs on the Glasgow District line (Queen St Low Level) at attracting customers.  Having been worked by steam until the early 60s, the Central low level route was dark and grimy.  Part of the 1979 reopening involved a massive amount of cleaning, and installing bright new surfaces to counteract the grime.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.121.65 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low level closed not due to tram competition - correction 

message: Please see the discussion I have started at Talk:Glasgow Queen Street railway station#Usage 06/07 (for Queen Street and Central) regarding the 06/07 usage figures for Glasgow Queen Street railway station and also a recipricol effect to Glasgow Central. --Stewart (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should have some explanation why usuage appeared to drop dramatically in the last year shown i.e. that many journies previously attributed to Central were redistributed to Queen's Street at this time, rather than there having been a real drop in usership.86.1.196.156 (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 06/07 (at Queen Street and Central) 

message: Some of the platforms will be renumbered at the end of December 2008. 11a becomes 12; 12 & 13 become 14 & 15; 14 & 15 (Low Level) become 16 & 17. The article will need to be amended when this comes into effect. –Signalhead < T > 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now taken place - any body got a link for the revised layout? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Platform 12 (previously 11a) has now closed (around Christmas 2009) whilst the two new platforms are constructed at the location of the previous car park (closed September 2009). These will be numbered 12 & 13. Currently 15 platforms in operation. --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform renumbering 

message: Both this article and the Birmingham New Street article claimed that their respective stations were the busiest outside London. Both were right: the latest Network Rail figures show New Street to be slightly busier, the latest Office of Rail Regulation figures (which are less ridiculous now that they include PTE travelcard tickets) show Glasgow Central to be slightly busier. Having the two articles contradicting each other was clearly unacceptable though, so I've rewritten the leads for both to reflect this ambiguity in a way that I hope is WP:NPOV. JimmyGuano (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The still contradict each other, though both articles now claim the other to be the busiest!FrFintonStack (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Station Usage vs Birmingham New Street

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Glasgow Central 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/20130122064223/http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/component/content/article/2999-list-of-railway-station-names.html to http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/component/content/article/2999-list-of-railway-station-names.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607094541/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/5318_Footfall%20figures%20for%202007.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/5318_Footfall%20figures%20for%202007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303134459/http://www.nationalrail.co.uk:80/stations/sjp/GLC/plan.html?rtnloc=GLC to http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/sjp/GLC/plan.html?rtnloc=GLC
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) 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Glasgow Central 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/20090202163233/http://www.scotlandontv.tv/scotland_on_tv/video.html?vxSiteId=60fdd544-9c52-4e17-be7e-57a2a2d76992&vxChannel=History%20Places&vxClipId=1380_SMG1671&vxBitrate=300 to http://www.scotlandontv.tv/scotland_on_tv/video.html?vxSiteId=60fdd544-9c52-4e17-be7e-57a2a2d76992&vxChannel=History%20Places&vxClipId=1380_SMG1671&vxBitrate=300
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061015005336/http://www.jhowie.force9.co.uk/glasgowcentral.htm to http://www.jhowie.force9.co.uk/glasgowcentral.htm
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) 07:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should this piece of info be listed on this article, I’m sure that this station is a category A station? If there is any reason why this info should not be on the article, could you please explain it to me as soon as possible? Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Like almost all other Scottish stations, it's not listed in the source documents that we used (see refs in United Kingdom railway station categories). Glasgow Central might well be DfT category A (and going by the facilities available, almost certainly is): but we cannot be sure. The policy on verifiability trumps educated guesses every time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glasgow Central DfT Category? 

message: When the station is viewed on Google Earth, it gives the appearance of two stations that were merged structurally. As I understand it, the LNER went south and the LMS went west. Did the two portions of the station merge early in the 20th century? Or later? Filling in the chronological gap might be an interesting project for this article. LFlagg (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Any apparent "division" of Central station is due to the original building being extended at various times. You get a similar effect in the roofs of London Waterloo and London Liverpool Street. There was only ever one station at Glasgow Central, which was wholly owned by the Caledonian Railway (CR) until that amalgamated with the Glasgow & South Western Railway (GSWR) and several other railways at the start of 1923 to create the LMS. The GSWR didn't use Central, but St Enoch. The LMS also inherited a terminus at Buchanan Street from the CR. Apart from suburban services, the CR routes from Central were mainly to the south-east of Glasgow, such as Carlisle; but also to Ardrossan, Gourock and Wemyss Bay in the west and south-west. The LNER was never involved in Centtal: like the LMS, the LNER was also created in 1923 by amalgamation, but here the Scottish partners included the North British Railway (NBR). NBR trains to Glasgow (which ran mainly from the east, north-east and north-west) mostly used that railway's Queen Street station, although some used St Enoch. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost no information on the years 1930 to 1955 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure)  Silikonz💬 05:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Glasgow Central station →  – In accordance with naming convention guidelines, at WP:NCUKSTATIONS. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 January 2023