Talk:Marylebone station

Platforms

Is it me, or does the station only have four platforms? Sure it did last week... I have no idea when they shut the two, but i think they are planning to reopen them. Harris 23:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stations

I fail to see why what should be separate articles on the tube and the overground railways are merged into a single WP article here; they have different histories, different owners, etc. Cross-linked, certainly, but should be separate; for a start the route box is for one only! --Vamp:Willow 11:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, for reasons of consistency with the other London terminal stations. Of these all but Charing Cross and the Kings Cross/St Pancras complex have merged station articles, as do most non-terminal joint stations. Both the two exceptions are, I suspect, because the relationship between the LUL and NR stations is not 1:1; Kings Cross and St Pancras NR stations share one LUL station, and the author of the Charing Cross article thinks Charing Cross NR station links to two LUL stations (Charing Cross and Embankment) although I'm not totally convinced by that.

Secondly, because Marylebone is a single building. The LUL platforms are accessed via exactly the same concourse as the Chiltern Trains platforms; the two ticket offices must be all of 20 feet apart.

Thirdly, it seems perverse to have a merged article for Waterloo, with four distinct station sections (Mainline, East, International and Underground), and two seperate little articles for tiny Marylebone. Two different histories can easily be accomodated in one article; and frankly how much history is there to the Bakerloo line platforms at Marylebone.

Fourthly, there is no reason why the route box cannot cater for the whole station. This is already commonplace at LUL stations served by more than one line. OwenBlacker (and possibly others) has started creating route boxes for London NR stations; see Farringdon station for an example of a LUL/NR station with a route box covering both sets of services. I imagine this will eventually roll out across all London NR stations.

--Chris j wood 19:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Location

Is Marylebone station located in Marylebone or Lisson Grove? Simply south 19:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Location

Can people help develop the location portion of the article similar to that in the page for Paddington, maybe mentioning Lord's, Regents Park and Madame Tussads? Ironman1503 9 August 2008, 11.16 (UTC)

Not sure about this

"Chiltern trains made the station the terminus for a new intercity service to Birmingham's Snow Hill station" - as mentioned by several people on uk.railway today, Marylebone-Snow Hill through services were running before privatisation: 1993 seems to be the start date. Not as frequent as today, to be sure, but they were there. 81.159.57.7 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Regions

"Long-distance trains from Marylebone began to be scaled back from 1958 after the line's transfer from BR's Eastern Region to the London Midland Region". I have a problem here. It is true that at Nationalisation, Marylebone, being an ex-LNER station, was placed in the Eastern Region. It's also true that in 1958 it was transferred to the London Midland Region. My problem is that the text suggests that this was a direct transfer; however, according to two sources, it was WR-LMR:

• Cooke, B.W.C., ed. (1958). "Notes and News: B.R. Regional Boundaries Adjustments". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 104, no. 683. Westminster: Tothill Press. pp. 210–1. Further adjustment of the boundaries between the Regions of British Railways came into effect on February 1. In the London area, the Western Region has relinquished to the London Midland Region the former Great Central main line from Marylebone to Northolt Junction, and Neasden to Harrow South {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Bonavia, Michael R. (1981). British Rail: The First 25 Years. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. p. 57. ISBN 0 7153 8002 8. Marylebone station was first designated Eastern Region and fitted with blue Regional signs; then it was transferred to the Western Region, and completely re-signed in chocolate, and finally transferred to the London Midland, and re-signed in red!

Bonavia uses the word "finally" because he was writing before the transfer from LMR back to WR on 11 October 1987.

Thus, what we lack is the ER-WR transfer, which must have happened before 1958. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea it was ever part of the WR. Mac Hawkins in "The Great Central then and now" makes no mention of it: he just says "Following nationalisation and the subsequent transfer of the system in 1958 to the London Midland Region ...." (p.10), which seems to imply that he thought it went straight from ER to LMR. But Hawkins is not everywhere entirely free of errors, and your Railway Magazine quote seems likely to be reliable. On the other hand, Eastern Region of British Railways says "In a major national boundary change in 1958 the former Great Central network except those lines in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire transferred to the London Midland Region ...", an assertion for which however it cites no source, indeed that article entirely lacks sources. Western Region of British Railways doesn't say anything about Marylebone or the Great Central, but then it doesn't say a great deal about anything. I wonder if the WR phase was only fleeting. Perhaps the answer is to be found elsewhere in your large pile of magazines! A way of checking might be to look in an issue of, say, 1957 and see which section of the regional news columns contains information about Marylebone services, and work back or forward from there. Alarics (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Jan 1958 issue (p. 13) states "Some adjustment of these regional boundaries were made almost at once [1948] ... rather more extensive changes were made in 1950, and what are expected to be the final adjustments are now in progress". So, I've pulled out the 1950 issues, after that I'll try late 1949. Failing that, 1951 onwards. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it, and it's pretty detailed.

• "Revision of Regional Boundaries of British Railways". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 96, no. 587. Westminster: Tothill Press. 1950. pp. 201–4. {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Omitting the bulk of the list, we have:

The Railway Executive, with the concurrence of the B.T.C., is making certain adjustments to the boundaries of the six Regions of British Railways. These adjustments, which come into operation on April 2, are being made with the object of simplifying supervision, reducing administration costs, and avoiding duplication.

• Eastern Region to London Midland Region
  • The former Great Central line: Quainton Road (exclusive) and Ashendon Junction (exclusive) to Heath (Derbyshire) (exclusive)
  • Hazlehead Bridge to Manchester London Road, and to Manchester Central via Fairfield Junction and Levenshulme South
  • Metropolitan and Great Central line: Rickmansworth (inclusive) to Quainton Road and Verney Junction
• Eastern Region to London Transport Executive
  • Metropolitan and Great Central line: Harrow to Rickmansworth (exclusive) and Watford
• Eastern Region to Western Region
  • Marylebone to Northolt Junction
  • Neasden to Harrow (exclusive)

A map on pp. 202-3 shows that the regional boundaries seem to have been drawn in such a way as to avoid the lines of one Region crossing those of another, except, curiously, in the Birmingham/Wolverhampton area. It then states:

The existing operating arrangements for trains and traffic working will be preserved, including the existing operating and motive power districts, divisions and regions. ... Former L.N.E.R. (G.C.) line from London, Marylebone to Manchester, London road, will continue to be operated throughout by the Eastern Region, although the line in part will come within the revised boundaries of the Western, London Midland and Eastern Regions.

This means, that between April 1950 and January 1958, a train from Marylebone to Manchester (via Aylesbury) started off in the Western Region, changed to London Transport at Harrow, to the LMR at Rickmansworth, to the ER at Heath, and back to the LMR at Hazlehead Bridge, but was operated by the ER. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

More details on the 1958 Regional boundary changes, including a map, in the April 1958 issue (pp. 233-6) where the new WR/LMR boundary point is noted as "Northolt East Junction down distant signal". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I've recast the relevant bit of the article accordingly, but you may like to tinker further. Actually I think a fair bit needs doing to this article and I will come back to it in due course. Alarics (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation from what I've seen on the internet is disputable... here it's pronounced "Mar-li-bone", but certain internet forums, and my pronunciation suggests it should be "Marry-le-bone". Can this be added to the pronunciation key as and when anyone can research this in detail? Richard n 22:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that "Mar-li-bone" is the correct traditional pronunciation (certainly it is what I have grown up with), though I have heard "Marry-le-bone" more frequently in recent years, which I assumed was due to people mispronouncing it based on its spelling. I guess we need to find some reliable sources for the pronunciation. BabelStone (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember, it is an area of London (and the name of a main road), not just a railway station. People who live or work there have traditionally tended to pronounce it "Marlybun", in my experience, but people from elsewhere tend not to know this, and pronounce it more like it is written. In a case like this, I do not really think you can say that there is only one "correct" pronunciation. -- Alarics (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't both be added? Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 20:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation is still incorrect. The phoneme ‘le’ is silent, (Kreb (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)).

Was there a particular reason you decided to drag up a six year old discussion and de facto vandalise a GA because of your unsourced assertion? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation II

The lead states the pronunciation of "Marylebone" as MAR-li-bən such that bən ends with /ən/ as in "button". However, the pronunciation recording pronounces /bəʊn/ as in "bone". Checking the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (the only dictionary that has an entry for Marylebone), it seems like bən is correct. Perhaps a new recording is needed? Esquivalience (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's one of those English words where the pronounciation varies according to the place where the speaker lives and their social status. Rather like the words "Cherwell", "Magdalen" and "Thames" having completely different pronounciations ("Charwell", "Maudlin" and "Isis" respectively) for people who went to Oxford University. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The sound file is titled as the UK pronunciation, for which the most common pronunciation is at least not with "bone" as the last syllable. The American pronunciation seems to be similar as well according to the Oxford dictionary, although it may often be pronounced mar-li-bone. However, the UK pronunciation should be the UK pronunciation, not the North American one. Esquivalience (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marylebone 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080109072952/http://www.alwaystouchout.com:80/project/35 to http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/35

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 22:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change title of article

Hello! Just a quick note that it seems Marylebone is unusual by not using 'X railway station' as the article title. (With a redirect going from 'X station'). I'd propose we change this article to match. Would be interested to know others' thoughts on this too - it's longstanding so I'd be reluctant to make the change without getting a consensus here first. Mike1901 (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's Marylebone station not Marylebone railway station because there are two systems ("mainline" rail and London Underground) in one station, see WP:NCUKSTATIONS, last row of table (Any two or more of the above). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Second section in "history"

What is the issue with changing this section's heading to "1948"? The text in the section begins with the formation of BR and the introduction of the Master Cutler and South Yorkshireman, all of which happened in this year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It's self explanatory in the section title. The section is about the service cuts which occurred between 1958 and 1966. The service cuts started in 1958 not 1948. G-13114 (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The previous section ends at 1947. If this one starts in 1958, that leaves a ten-year hole. In that hole, such things as the Master Cutler and South Yorkshireman occurred. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Splitting the section in two; where one section is a sentence long, is probably not what the MOS recommends, but I can't work out where the particular guideline would be there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, why did you just remove a lot of new content I added? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Cultural references

I see these "Cultural references" or "In popular culture" sections on just about every London transport related article I've done substantial work for. What I've found is that provided you have a reliable source that can be verified to tie the article's subject matter with the film / TV show / song, and there's a reasonable chance people will associate the two, then I think it should stay. Unsourced or unreliably sourced stuff should go - even if it's true, nobody has asserted its important enough to mention in a general article about something else. I had a bit of a trim not too long ago in this article.

If you don't do this, a new or anonymous user will come along and add it anyway, simply because these things are far easier to throw in an article than actual history, engineering plans, significant architects, sponsors etc. Then you'll have to discuss it anyway. Sometimes (eg: Talk:North Circular Road/GA1), it's been suggested there's not enough cultural references in an article and there are more to add; at other times (eg: Talk:Woolwich Ferry/GA1), consensus has been with a bit of a resigned such but again concluding that reliably sourced stuff with a reasonably plausible connection should stay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, I agree with your aim but I don't think you've done a rigorous enough job and you also fail to cite a relevant policy. I see that you have just contributed to the discussion at Talk:London Waterloo station and are therefore aware that the argument for pruning culture sections advanced there is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article, like the others to which you have made such frequent contributions, is about the physical building and therefore only cultural items in which the station plays a significant part as a hub are relevant. Changes have therefore been made to this article in the light of what is argued above. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If somebody asks me to cite a policy, I cite my favourite - WP:IAR :-) ... more importantly I believe we spend too much time whacking each other over the head with policies and a better approach is to express yourself in common sense terms first and then back yourself up with policy if there's no agreement (eg: "well I'm not really excited about this content but it's cited to a reliable source and it's not making the article lop-sided so WP:V and WP:NOR suggests we should keep it"). If you spend long enough reading policy you'll go mad at the ones that contradict each other. Having opinions on stuff is fine, but if your opinion doesn't match mine, then we need to see what we agree and disagree on, and reach a compromise (that's another policy there, WP:CONSENSUS).

Going back to this specific article, just because you think the article is only about the physical building, it does not necessarily follow that everyone reading the article will agree with you. In Marylebone's case, the history of the station is centred around its late arrival as the GCML terminus, decades after all the other London termini, its closure threat from the Beeching days to the mid-1980s, and its subsequent renaissance as an alternative London - Birmingham service. None of that has anything to do with the building - indeed, I would argue that the article in its current state doesn't actually say much about the physical building at all bar the original decor and some of the refurbishments, and comments more on the history of services and ownership. And I think that's appropriate, because it matches what the books I've read during research say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't just read about editing, I have been an encyclopaedia editor (and a researcher). I only look for WP guidelines when I come across off-topic information and lack of focus and need justification for edits that avoids seeming arbitrary. WP's policy of openness is a novel experiment, certainly allowing a greater scope in topics covered and even in what is included into articles. From what you write above, it's clear you need no lessons in the price one can pay for that in trying to stem the volume of undisciplined irrelevance. I guess we're at one in wanting to see WP flourish as a more-or-less trustworthy source, with something of a professional edge, even if we differ over how to manage it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Station masters

Do we really need this section? No other station articles have it. In particular, you shouldn't expand a good article unless your additions still meet the GA criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: You claim No other station articles have it. - but several do, such as Beeston, Boston, Derby, Derby Friargate, Doncaster, Grantham, Newcastle, Newark Castle, Newark North Gate, Nottingham, Nottingham Victoria, Sheffield, Wellingborough, York. Of course, all of these were added by Andrewrabbott (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant no other London stations, sorry; however we should not put it into a GA unless we have all the possible sources to keep it up to date, and state why it is important to the casual reader. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Accidents section

Just wondering whether the 2015 'small fire in an air conditioning unit' is really important enough to have in the article? After all the other accident is quite a serious one, and there must have been lots of similar small problems in the past unrecorded. Bob talk 09:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marylebone 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/20170313082004/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161230231154/https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/CR1612_ROUTECARD_1.pdf to https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/sites/default/files/files/timetables/CR1612_ROUTECARD_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828155520/http://omicron.sequence.co.uk/nonchksites/dougrose/walk_great_central.htm to http://omicron.sequence.co.uk/nonchksites/dougrose/walk_great_central.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405003838/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3114_Route_2016_Chilterns.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3114_Route_2016_Chilterns.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marylebone 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/20161213022441/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-night-bus-map.pdf to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-night-bus-map.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Grade II listing

The station has been Grade II listed since 1996. I'm surprised that isn't even mentioned. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)