Talk:Cambridge railway station

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 12, 2021

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 Low-importance).

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stansted

I find no reference to Stansted in the text and I wonder what line it may be said to be on. It is mentioned in the text of Birmingham to Peterborough Line. Laurel Bush 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

OK. Think Ive found it, as a station on a branch of the West Anglia Main Line. Laurel Bush 17:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Cambridge Cruiser/Express

I changed the article to say Cambridge Express rather than Cambridge Cruiser because that's what it says on the departure information at Cambridge and King's Cross. "Cruiser" doesn't appear anymore. Where is Cruiser indicated as a name for the services? Rich257 07:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still referred to this as a common name, for a start. Simply south 12:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platform length

Is the through platform really that short (just 365 metres)? If I look up the platform lengths in the Rules of the Plan, I get 247 metres for platform 1 and 220 metres for platform 4, plus a few tens of metres for the central scissoirs crossover, adding up to over 470 metres. 212.144.172.166 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current Rules of the Plan that i'm looking at give;

1 - 247m (ie 12*20m cars)

2 - 207m (ie 10*20m cars)

3 - 166m (ie 8*20m cars)

4 - 220m (ie 11*20m cars)

5 - 167m with the notation next to it saying "Maximum EMU 4 Car plus DMU Class 158/170 2 Car. Alternatively 4 Car Class 158/170" (i guess that is because of power supply limitations or something otherwise it should be 8*20m cars, nb 158's and 170's are 23m long, most EMU around London are 20m's).

6C - 145m with the notation next to it saying "Maximum EMU 4 Car plus DMU Class 158/170 2 Car. Alternatively 4 Car Class 158/170". (ie should be 7*20m car but isn't)

84.71.229.251 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question, this article states the platform at cambridge is the third longest in the UK. However, aren't you forgetting the Cheriton Shuttle Terminal which at 791m is not only the longest in the uk but also in europe. I think the article should be updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.194.32.58 (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Cross

I changed one "Kings Cross" to "King's Cross", as all the others have the apos. I believe the standard use is without the apos, any opinions? SimonTrew (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglia Ruskin University

As someone who lives in Cambridge, I was wondering whether it was notable that there are many signs at the station semi-humorously proclaiming Cambridge to be the "Home of Anglia Ruskin University" (as opposed to the internationally renowned University of Cambridge). For me that's as least as notable as Reality Checkpoint. (Yes, that is an entire article on a lamppost, and one that has survived AfD too). So could there be a line mentioning this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it sounds like pure advertising, similar to Reading station where circa 2005 the station nameboards stated, not simply "Reading", but "Reading ING Direct" (they're plain "Reading" again now). The key policy here would be that of verifiability; are there any reliable publications - such as respectable local newspapers - who have covered this topic? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Article would be better illustrated with more representative photos:

Queue spewing out station on a Saturday
Carnage of bike parking
Vista of Station Road as welcomes visitors to Cambridge "it doesn't look like the postcard" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt me (talk • contribs) 19:11, 7 April 2015

You would need to observe WP:NPOV. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cambridge railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cambridge railway 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/20120224071720/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk:80/Home/Cambridges-new-railway-station-to-open-in-2015-21022012.htm to http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Cambridges-new-railway-station-to-open-in-2015-21022012.htm

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) 12:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cambridge railway 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) 02:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Station DfT category

Does anybody know the current DfT category of the station? Someone's previously changed it from B to A, but that seems irrational considering that stations with a similar number of journeys (e.g. Brighton) are category B, and a list of station categories in 2009 has Cambridge listed as cat B (https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20121107103953/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/stations/betterrailstations/pdf/partd.pdf).

I checked the National Rail Enquiries page (https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/CBG/details.html) and it says "ORR category A", but after checking to the document that that linked to (https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/10955) I believe that ORR categories are to do with station accessibility and step-free access, and are not the same as DfT/Network Rail station categories.

Thought it best to raise the issue on the talk page before inadvertently starting an edit war!

— Sicherheitsblick (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation [2] at United Kingdom railway station categories? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]