Talk:Great Northern route

Actually i am not really sure this counts as a proper line. It is often referred to as the Great Northern franchise, which is why i created this article. Please clarify Simply south 16:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well there are tracks, and they to and from somewhere: it's a line, of lesser importance, but a line never the less. You might need to categorise your article. Captain scarlet 20:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Category referred to is Category:Railway lines of England, although whether it can be counted as one of them I am not too sure. I guess if the railway timetables label it as such - cp eg Pontefract Line - it is OK. The problem is to differentiate a description of a rail route (ie the geographical character of the particular railway line) with a marketing name to sell the services! Peter Shearan 09:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Or should i merge this with the Great Northern Railway as it follows much of its old route to Peterborough. That is probably where the name for the franchise comes from Simply south 09:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, merge it into East Cast Main Line, not Great Northern Railway as the articles relates to the line, not the service or operation or TOC information. Any services information should really be on a line's page or a TOC's page, as opposed to its own page where so little information would feature. Captain scarlet 11:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have confused some definition on this page and Thameslink page: How should we define the Service and Route?

In Thameslink page, we describe it as "a railway route with no logo". But strangely here at Great Northern, we also describe it as a route, but this one we have a logo.

But infact I'm afraid they are infact under the same definition: There's no Railway Line called "Thameslink" or "Great Northern", but instead they are Services which cross on different lines, and operate by a same company GTR, just like the notes on the top of both pages. Maybe the tunnel section between Blackfriars and St Pancras can be described as "Thameslink", but still I don't the whole Thameslink network can be described as a "Line".

So combined with recent London Overground remain discussions, how should we define them? If we consider Thameslink has the same definition as Great Northern, then we should add its logo back on. Awdqmb (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:VNT – the sources call it the Great Northern route so that's what we will call it. If you can find many sources that call it the Great Northern Service or Great Northern service, be my guest. But it is also not a service, it is a route.

• A service is a path that a train takes calling at multiple stations. For example one service on the Great Northern route is between Moorgate and Hertford North.
• A line is a stretch of track between two places, those two places usually being where it joins other lines and/or where trains on it terminate. For example, the Herford Loop Line is a line between Alexandra Palace and Stevenage because that is where it joins the ECML.
• A route is a series of lines on which multiple services are run under the same umbrella. For example, the Great Northern route contains 4 whole lines and part of 1 other, and contains many services which are all run on those lines by the same company. This article is not about any of the lines, which have their own articles, or the company, which is covered at the Govia Thameslink Railway article.

I hope this clears up these railway terms for you. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

But what I mean here is: If we consider GN as a route rather than a service, then it should not have a logo that represent the operating brand, just like we did on Thameslink, which: We consider it as a mainline route of NR there.

And just as you said: GN along with Thameslink are operating under the same company GTR. Which, I think we should align with Thameslink if we consider them as same definition. Awdqmb (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Totally agree with you @Awdqmb and I have always believed this should be the case. Whichever terms are used, the Thameslink and Great Northern route articles should use the same format of titles and terminology. I believe this to be something needing a resolution ASAP. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Moorgate services significantly increase, to I think 9 per hour (up from 4) in the peak based on Real Time Trains, but this isn't mentioned in the article. Please could someone add it? Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

If this is added to the article, it cannot be included in the table. We did not intend that table to include peak hour services. Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The peak-time Moorgate services have always been this frequency. The great northern/thameslink websites state in relation to the recent timetable change: "Key changes to Great Northern: There are no significant changes to Great Northern services." Also, Jalen is correct in that this article's table only covers off-peak time services FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand the problems with using a table. However, as of the most recent timetable change (and possibly before) the extra moorgate services are very regular, as are the fast Letchworth services and extension of the semi-fast Letchworth services and the Ely services. Only the peterborough ones are very sporadic and I couldn't figure out a pattern if there is one. I think a table is clear and concise, and if anyone can work out how the Peterborough trains are done please may they add it. Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but then I also dont. I’m not sure why @JalenBarks and the other recent editor are so against it because its a more complex issue that needs discussion rather than immediate reversion. But I do also understand that it’s not standard practice at all on wikipedia to have two tables; usually only an off-peak table is shown, with peak-time additions shown in a paragraph underneath, which was ironically what the format already was with the paragraph I wrote ages ago (albeit the paragraph wasn’t conclusive but couldve been added to). Im split on this issue tbh. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Well now somehow the article has nothing. I will manually rollback to the paragraph until we decide as although I prefer my little table I think WP:RETAIN should be our starting point and we can go from there. Also, the fact that the fast letchworth, hertford north, and gordon hill services only run in the peak makes me think those should be in the table with the header peak only.... let me just put it below here it's easier. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I am going to courtesy ping @10mmsocket to this discussion for input. At this time, I am still against converting the existing paragraph on peak-hour services and service increases into a separate table, given the whole "barely any difference" reasoning here. Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the second table is not a good idea and for the same reasons. As for WP:RETAIN I would counter with WP:BRD - which is exactly what we are doing. Some text explaining peak hour differences (not the full peak hours service) is not something I'd object to. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)