Talk:Euston railway station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal DYK 2007-08-19 Sel week 46, 2007 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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. High Importance: high within UK Railways WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport. Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the London Transport WikiProject.

	This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Naming 2 Platforms 3 Location names 4 Is it served by the Circle Line? 5 To whom is this "better known as London Euston"? 6 Capitalisation 7 Clean Up Request 8 Move/merge 9 Contents of the <<rail>> template 10 Subjective opinions in "New building" need references 11 Euston/Euston Square link 12 17 Minutes to St. Pancras?!?! 13 Architectural Controversy 14 Rodents & Beggars

[edit] Naming

Named after Lord Euston I think. There's a panel which explains the origins of the name on the Northern Line (Charing + branch) platform of the tube station, beneath one of the coat of arms decorations there.... are there any London-based wikipedians who care to go take a look? -- Tarquin 10:28 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Platforms

I thought there are only 18 platforms? Also the sleeper trains are operated by Scotrail. It's been a while since I've been down there... Arwel 23:08 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Clarification Platforms 8-11 (known, I believe, as The Woods, on account of their previous construction--citation needed!) are exclusively for suburban trains, operated both by London Overground (formerly Silverlink Metro) and London-Midland (formerly Silverlink County). London Overground services usually depart from Platform 9. These platforms have automatic ticket barriers. --Pubwebmaster (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just about remember Euston during the big rebuilding and have used those platforms (Watford DC and Bletcley/MK local) commuting before and since. I have never heard them called the Woods nor were they in my experience ever made of such. --AlisonW (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Location names

"Euston is located in the former borough of St. Pancras (now Camden), on the northern edge of the city centre." If we need to know the borough, why do we need to know the former one first? Surely the more currently-relevant fact is where it is now, not where it was up to the 60s or 70s or whenever?? Nevilley 17:04, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd disagree because in London the old borough names do survive heavily as the names for the areas, tube stations, parliamentary constituencies and so on. (And a lot of old signs survive with the old names as well.) For a lot of people "Camden" has a narrower meaning than the borough council boundaries. Timrollpickering 21:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, completely. To me, 'Camden' is really just Camden Town, and 'Islington' is the area from the Angel to Highbury (so, not Finsbury at all, nor Clerkenwell), and so on. Of course, it's 'wrong' to call them that, but...

James F. (talk) 21:49, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Interesting though these replies are, they don't help that much, given that no-one refers to the area round Euston Station as St Pancras anyway ... they tend, if they are going to call it anything (printable) other than its borough name, to call it, surprisingly enough, Euston! And actually I think Camden is acceptable to most people as long as you DO specify that you mean the borough, not the place, as the original author had in effect done. But if you want to say where Euston is - whatever that means! - you are a bit stymied as you have the choice of "Camden" (borough specified but maybe irrelevant), "St Pancras" (old borough specified, but doesn't help us that much with the location - how many people know where St Pancras village centre is?) or "Euston" (specifies it beautifully with no borough but has the teeny problem of being the same as the name of the station and hence getting you nowhere [a bit like some Virgin trains to the Northwest, come to think of it]). Of course what should have happened is that in the 19th century they should have passed legislation making it illegal ever to change ANY place names in London, retitle boroughs, or let localities acquire names from their stations - things would be so much easier nowadays! :) Nevilley 16:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is Bloomsbury too far south to suffice? Timrollpickering 17:16, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and too nice to contain Euston! :) Nevilley 18:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is also the postal district on NW1. The problem is that the border is practically on the doorstep of Euston (it's the Circle Line and the road above it, the name of which escapes me), though being a main road it does produce clarity on either side.

Anyone fancy trying our luck on a Virgin train as a better chance of getting somewhere? ;-) Timrollpickering 19:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is it served by the Circle Line?

"Euston is also notable for being the only main line rail terminus in Central London which is not served by the Circle Line. The nearest Circle Line station is Euston Square, which is 250m away."

Hmm - the thing is that to all extents and purposes for interchanging (and I often do this), Euston Square *is* the Circle Line station for Euston. Similarly Embankment is the Circle Line station for Charing Cross (and was called that in one form or another for over 100 years). Or Southwark is encouraged as the Jubilee Line station for Waterloo East despite another tube station being part of the same complex as Waterloo East and having a closer name match. Also Euston Square tube is over thirty years older than Euston tube. Timrollpickering 21:51, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe "[...] the only main line rail terminus in Central London which is not directly served by [...]"?

I would say, however, that I wouldn't consider even Embankment/Charing Cross to be sufficiently close (and wow, are they) to count as part of the same station...

James F. (talk) 22:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm - though if Embankment were still called Charing Cross and the concourse tunnel in the mainline station were not open to the public, I suspect your perspective would be rather different. Similarly some of the tube/DLR interchanges shown on the map (e.g. Shadwell, Canary Wharf, Tower Hill/Tower Gateway) or tube/rail (e.g. Brixton) are not actually single complexes but closeby stations that you can walk between. Timrollpickering 22:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I reckon there should be a word meaning "distortion of London geography due to Underground maps".... e.g. Bank/Monument must be further apart than Embankment/CC, surely? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Beckification? ;-)

James F. (talk) 22:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bank/Monument is tricky - where exactly does one stop and the other take over? The Northern Line and (especially) the DLR platforms occupy most of the route from the Circle/District Lines to the Central and Waterloo & City Lines. When I used to regularly change between the C/D and W&C, I found it much easier to change at the street level than tube.

Or how about the assumption by many people that anything with a tube station (or at least within Zone 6 and less) constitutes London - what's the word for this? Timrollpickering 00:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that is true. The 6 zones apply to areas within Greater London with the exception being the portions of Epping Forest on the Central Line that agreed to a subsidization scheme.

Oh I've just realised that the original point is semi-academic because none of Waterloo, London Bridge, or Marylebone have the Circle Line either (two are separated by at least bridges whilst the third is a short walk from the nearest Circle station). If Charing Cross/Embankment and Euston/Euston Squre don't count either then surely neither does Fenchurch Street/Tower Hill?

Though equally is there clarity on what constitutes a terminus (there's a case that London Bridge is really a non-terminus with a big section of non-through platforms), Central London (the boundaries of the Circle Line? That would exclude Euston...) or "mainline" rail? ;-) Timrollpickering 02:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To whom is this "better known as London Euston"?

I'd never ever ever ever ever say that. "I'm just nipping down to London Euston to pick up Mum"? Erm no. I agree it is sometimes used in railspeak and timetablespeak and things, and the article might well acknowledge this, but I don't agree at all that it is "better known" as that. I'd argue that the better known one is the one most people use - Euston without the London - not one that's a sort of code or formula for what it really is. I'd be interested to read what others think before I make any change. Nevilley 08:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd never say "London Euston" either and I don't live in London. Angela. 08:12, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

If we were going to call it what everyone calls it wouldn't "that craphole Euston" be the correct phrasing :). More seriously, of course you are exactly right and the same goes for every other terminus officially prefixed with "London". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually I have been known to refer to it as London Euston, but then, I did work for the railways for 22 years! :) Arwel 08:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I generally don't use the London prefix for stations (other than when mimicking the droning rail announcements out of sheer frustration with delays!) but as a Londoner I guess that's natural. But I do refer to the main stations in other cities by things like Birmingham New Street, Manchester Picadilly, Bristol Parkway and so on. I'm not sure how many locals use those forms, but they are natural versions for outside. Timrollpickering 06:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing and was about to edit it, but thought to read here first. As noone here seems to object, I'm gonna reword it now. OwenBlacker 21:41, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Good rewording. It would be bad form to REMOVE the 'London Euston' name since it's the one always used by railway announcers and thus many from outside London. —Morven 02:59, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

*takes a bow*  ;o) -- OwenBlacker 03:16, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Generally, stations regarded as "London Terminals" as far as ticket purchases are concerned are officially prefixed with "London". However for travellers within the London area it makes sense to omit the prefix. London Bridge is a bit of an anomaly - it should really be London London Bridge!

138.253.102.162 10:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Should this article be called Euston station or Euston Station? The article uses, both (especialy in the picture captions) and one of eth pictures shows the latter. Andy Mabbett 15:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

? Andy Mabbett 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up Request

Can one of you please clean up my HTML, I may be good at it but I know people on here can do it better. I've added a template but don't know how to put the text, so it is in-line with the table. Thanks

[edit] Move/merge

I'm copying this from the discussion on Talk:Birmingham New Street station for the bulk renaming of some articles, including this, to follow the naming convetions, as it's only relevant to here:

I really do think that there should be an article at Euston station about the combined unit, with Euston railway station and Euston tube station as sub-articles about the sub-parts, rather than an artificial split for the two on reasons of length. We don't treat "History of foo" and "Economy of foo" without an article on "foo", and I think that we should do the same here. However, as some effort has gone into the split, I'm asking here rather than merely being bold.

So, thoughts?

James F. (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contents of the <<rail>> template

We need to agree what should go in the {{rail}} template at See also - is it the line or is it the service, or do we need both. An anon editor replaced West Coast Main Line with "London-Northampton line", which describes the service, not the line. Likewise the Scotrail sleeper services that I took out for consistency, but now I'm not sure. It is worth looking a big multi-directtions station like Bristol Temple Meads railway station to see the total picture that we are missing at Euston since it is a terminus (like Kyle of Lochalsh railway station!). It seems that we need lines and services here too. --Concrete Cowboy 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjective opinions in "New building" need references

There's a lot of "some people think", we need references to notable critical opinion. redcountess 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A year later, nothing seems to have been done about this, and the second half of that section is clearly opinion rather than factual. As a half-way house, I'm going to break it into sections for 'controversy' and 'IRA attack'. The controversy section will still need attributations and cleaning up, but at least it will be clearly segregated from a factual description of the new building. I believe it is a controvercial building and it certainly isn't particularly attractive, but that sort of thing doesn't belong in the general section describing the new building. The IRA attack deserves a section to itself as a fairly significant event in the buildings history.

Others are welcome to change this further, I'm just trying to clean up what's there at present. --ThePaintedOne 08:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand you say "we need references to notable critical opinion". Quite right, I could not agree more.

On the other hand you say "I believe it is a controvercial building" and effectively condone the 'controversy' section which contains the most ammount of unreferenced material and which is very "Subjective".

If you are making a case for you to "improve" this article, then you have almost made a perfect case for everyone else to argue that you are the last person who should clean it up. Canterberry 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a very minor edit to make things clearer, as a year had passed from someone noting that there was a problem and no progress had been made. I have not made a case for me to clean it up, in fact I implicitly suggest others jump in! I simply tried to segregate what looked to be sensible factual material from the subjective so as to make the job easier. Feel free to carry this on as you see fit. I have heard many people talk about the building negatively (I use it regularly myself), therefore it is valid to say there is controversy about it. That doesnt necesariy mean it belongs in wikipedia or that I can personally provide citations, it just means this might be a valid issue to include. However, it certainly shouldn't be mixed in with an otherwise factual description of the building, hence I split it. Can I sugest you view the edit history to see how the article was and what I did to modify it. I created the controversy section from existing copy, which previously was mixed in with a much larger and purportedly factual piece. --ThePaintedOne 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your intentions. I use the station every working day, and I hate the damn place too! I can give my reasons, but thats beside the point, as I detest other stations in London to an even greater extent (Victoria and Charing Cross are worse that Euston IMHO!). I agree that separating out the "controversy" is a positive move. I guess that even if we could find a reference, that even that might be based on subjective judgements too, so we get nowhere forward! I guess we need to try and classify the bad points so that people are clear as to what is "bad" about the station, and then we can apply it to others!! Compared to Victoria, Euston does have its good points, and when compared to Fenchurch Street (another appalling station), is actually very good. Standing on the narrow island platforms at Fenchurch Street in the rush-hour scares the hell out of me, and it is a walk to get to the underground. Canterberry 19:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the criticism/controversial nature of the station should be stated. And I agree it should be under a separate heading. The station is deeply controversial and this somehow needs to be set out. Under the entry for Birmingham New Street – an equally controversial station, designed I believe by the same people who designed Euston (yes, I know that doesn’t surprise at all!!) – is to be found a section simply entitled ‘criticism’. Perhaps this would be a simple enough heading to copy.

For my part I think Euston is an awful station in layout and especially in design; it has all the charisma of a concrete paving slab and I loath having to use it. I think it speaks volumes for how bad a design it is – and how much potential it holds – that Network Rail are prepared to contemplate demolishing the whole thing and starting again.

But I agree the criticisms need to be said in a detached way. Below is my very VERY! long winded attempt which I readily admit is far from perfect or detached. I can dig up plenty of references to articles and papers criticizing the design of the station and others to support this, so can work on that before this goes onto the main page.

Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

Like many other large railway stations Euston suffers from a range of problems in layout and operation. Its design has also been the subject of much discussion and criticism. Perhaps the most often given complaint surrounds the overall architectural style of the station buildings. In comparison to a large number of other major London stations such as Paddington, St Pancras or Kings Cross, the design of Euston is seen to be generally unappealing and bland. This is made only more so by reference to some of the buildings such as the Euston Arch and Great Hall which it replaced in the 1960s. The current station buildings therefore live in the shadow of memories of the old station that they could perhaps never have surpassed.

As a result of the various redevelopments, Euston station is said to have ‘lost its front door’. The front of the station, facing in the direction of Euston road is now obscured behind the later developments of the 1970s and a series of windswept and untidy open spaces. Providing Euston with a ‘front door’ is seen to be one of the key aims of proposed future redevelopments.

The platforms, especially those on the eastern side of the station, are generally dark and offer a subterranean feel. This is a consequence of the design of the roof above the platforms which is flat and made of concrete. The roof was designed as such so that development could take place above the platforms as happened at Birmingham New Street station. Development has never occurred yet the flat roof has remained in place.

The exterior of the complex is windowless dark brick and corrugated metal, more typical perhaps of an industrial estate than a major metropolitan building. Its impact on the local area has been described as anything but complimentary.

The 1960s designed concourse is now home to a number of retail units that were not part of the original design. The location of these outlets, built to maximise retail space and the services for passengers, has crowded the original design.

Access for disabled persons remains a contentious issue. While the area around the station does have slopes providing access, several sets of stairs remain in places where no accompanying ramp provides easy access for those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs. Access to and from the taxi rank is also difficult for those in wheelchairs or with large amounts of luggage unless they request assistance from station staff who will provide them with access to the concourse via service tunnels. There is no public lift to and from the taxi rank. Like many other underground stations Euston remains inaccessible to those in wheelchairs.

Despite these criticisms a poll in 2007 of passengers views of the twenty busiest UK stations saw Euston come eighth. The station gained a 73% approval rating for customer satisfaction. The average vote was 60%, with Manchester Piccadilly topping the ratings at 92% and Birmingham New Street and East Croydon coming last with 52%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6927406.stm

timloliver 22 August 2007.

[edit] Euston/Euston Square link

The citation given for the proposed link cites in turn a page the Network Rail site — which is dead. A search of Google using Euston-square link site:networkrail.co.uk has no finds. Tubelines.co.uk has a 2003 press release to say that it has been contracted to examine the proposal but nothing more. An April 2007 press release there, on refurbishment work at Euston Station, doesn't mention it. Has the idea been spiked?

(It is really needed. It is painful for travellers with baggage heading for a WCML destination to have to drag cases up the steps at E-S, cross the road, then up more steps into Euston. And of course it doesn't comply with DDA.) --Concrete Cowboy 12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 17 Minutes to St. Pancras?!?!

Someone edited the page to say it is a 17 minute walk from Euston to St. Pancras. I changed it to say a "brief" walk, as the distance is less than half a mile and really shouldn't take anyone in any sort of shape that long. Even with construction on Euston Road and all the CTRL stuff, I walked Euston-King's Cross in far less than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.164.168 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Architectural Controversy

I've beefed up this section, adding in sources to substantiate the criticism which has been made of the new station. Can the 'Weasel Words' heading now be removed? Ravenseft 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodents & Beggars

The seated are of the food court features mice walking around by customers feet. Beggars often can be seen harrassing customers for money. Have any of the people who have editing my comments ever been to Euston Station and looked around, or just cut and paste information from the internet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.104.212.40 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) Remember to sign your edits. (2) Provide edit summary. (3) I work at Euston Station for Network Rail, and I cannot verify or accept your statements. You need to provide a source for your facts else it will violate WP:NPOV (4) Please register as an editor and begin to learn about the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Canterberry 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"I work at Euston Station for Network Rail"

I think that sums your actions up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.104.212.40 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't work at Euston or for any rail company. But I do know how to read WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and so on. Also do not edit other's comments. It is very bad form to do so. Regan123 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify something that might have been misunderstood. I work the Network Rail offices at Euston Station, and pass through the station every day. I have no particulr need to support the station. If it has a problem then fine, but lets have supportable facts, not speculation or presonal opinions. Euston is not my favourite station, it has numerous flaws, but they must be backed up by facts if they are to go in the article. IMHO, Euston is no better nor any worse thatn other station in London for problems with beggars etc. Hence one of my reasons for objecting to this paragraph ... if we must have it, then I see no reason whay every other london station shouldn;t have it too. But it MUST be supported by reliable sources. Canterberry 11:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.179.66 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)