Talk:London Waterloo station/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Travelator

"a 140m (460 feet) travelator link - only the second on the Underground."

What was the first? Some of us can't stand this sort of suspense! HELP! -- Tarquin 20:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the sloping thing at the Bank end of the Waterloo and City line counts as a travelator - although it isn't flat like the Waterloo one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suspense? Suspense? Pah - you'd be a gibbering wreck after 5 minutes of "24". ;-) -- ChrisO 23:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

etymology

I find it extremely unlikely that the station is named for the neighborhood, and not the other way around. Anybody have evidence, one way or t'other? Doops 23:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The station was named after Waterloo Bridge, which was named after the battle. The district subsequently became generally known as Waterloo.

By the way, it's amusing to see the comment about the name of the station by the French politician - Paris has stations called Austerlitz, Magenta and Stalingrad!

138.253.102.162 10:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're sure about that sequence of events, why not edit the article to reflect it? Doops | talk 17:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Waterloo International - future

The article makes the assertion that:

From 2007 after the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is completed, Eurostar trains will terminate at St Pancras station thus meaning Waterloo International will cease to exist and the platform capacity will then be used by commuters from South London and the South-West.

Does anybody have a source for the bit about the platform capacity being used for commuters from South London etc. I'd be delighted to find that a decision to this effect has been made, but the only statement I've seen in writing about Waterloo International's future went something like:

From 2007 after the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is completed, Eurostar trains will terminate at St Pancras station; Waterloo International will then revert to the ownership of the Department of Transport (note, not Network Rail) who will determine any future usage.

Those words are from memory, probably not verbatim, and were more of an aside to a statement on the future of the current Eurostar depot at Old Oak Common (same applies there). -- Chris j wood 22:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No one has responded to this request in nearly a month, so I've removed the claim and substituted the DoT wording from above. -- Chris j wood 18:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops sorry didn't see your original request scroll through my watchlist a month ago. I've certainly seen the "revert to commuters" suggestion in the Evening Standard ... seems more likely a natural extrapolation on the part of a journalists rather than hard fact. Pcb21| Pete 22:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A final decision hasn't been made yet - South West Trains would like to use the platforms, but it would require considerable remodelling of the approaches (costing a lot), so there's a suggestion it will be converted to a shopping centre and offices. Note added to this effect. Willkm 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(POV comment follows) - Why don't they build the shopping centre/offices with trains running into the ground floor or basement, with the income from rents funding the track remodelling? Mind you that would require common sense.....

138.253.102.162 10:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What will happen to the railway at fawkenham junction - will is still be required to connect CTRL 1 to the Chatham line?--Screen42 23:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Railway articles seem to have much unsubstantiated hearsay fought for as Fact, vide alleged origins of Wloo's name. The future of Wloo Int is such a matter enthusiastically disputed. I do not know if The Enthusiasts would hold the South West Trains magazine e•motion reliable but page ten of issue 26 (Jan/Feb 2008) states no decisions have been made about the Eurostar platforms. I'll ensure that both stations' articles show that.--SilasW (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo request

The selection of photos doesn't give much idea of the scale of the station. Could someone please add pictures of:

The main concourse
The Eurostar shed
A wider angle view of the main entrance

Thank you Bhoeble 15:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

how's this? Matt Whyndham 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Commuters at Waterloo station. Travellers waiting for their trains home look for their platform to be announced on the departure boards.

Waterloo station concourse see from the north (Eurostar) end. The famous clock can be seen. This meeting point roughly in the centre of the concourse.

Taking photos

Taking photos in a London railway station is a less hassle-free experience than it used to be ;-). Pcb21| Pete 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's true it's pathetic - the officials not you. I despise the way they play into the terrorists hands by whipping up hysteria and inferring with innocent people going about innocent business. They are doing exactly what the terrorists want. But the entrance is outside and I've found an old picture of the concourse. Bhoeble 18:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A picture of the station sign would be good, though I suppose in light of recent events, it's easier said than done, but anything would be good thanks Danny 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got some photos of Waterloo that are in my queue to upload. I didn't have any trouble photographing at Waterloo although I was told

I was a potential terrorist at Tower Hill
I needed a Network Rail photographic licence at Fenchurch Street
I was violating Network Rail's copyright at Paddington (interesting that they would have copyright on a building that predates their organisation by ~150 years!). Thryduulf 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Eurostar shed is opposite Old Oak Common (Pretty Much) so you would need to be travelling to Paddington to get a picture. Preferably not on a HST :)

You can get good shots out the open window of a HST - much better than through the inevitably grubby glass of a multiple unit. I'm probably headed in that way on Wednesday, so I'll try and remember to see what I can get. Thryduulf 11:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Waterloo International cost

The cost of construction of Waterloo International claimed on the page seemed to have soared to £600 million, which is getting into the same sort of ballpark as the Millennium Dome. I've done some investigation and the most commonly cited figure on architectural websites (see ref. on page) is £130 million, so I've amended it to that.

Waterloo International now has its own article and that's where all information about it should go, even if the site and structure revert to London Waterloo's use.
Reason 1)That's where it belongs
Reason 2 Unless every bit added to one article is conscientiously added to the other a typical WP contraction will arise.--SilasW (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Separation

Hey everyone, I think it could improve the article if the 3 stations were to be separated, your thoughts please ta Danny 16:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don’t think so — the stations function as a unit, and Waterloo International is likely to become an extension of the main South West services once Eurostar move to St Pancras. David Arthur 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay Danny 17:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bakerloo line exit into station

This may not be the place to post this, but its been bugging me for the best part of a year, so here it goes: I have been travelling through Waterloo a lot of weekends, when making the return trip back out into Surrey I get off at the Waterloo underground stop on the Bakerloo line. Now the tunnel going off the platform towards the escalators, there is almost always a vile smell hanging in the air, sorta smells like puke. It is not there when I go from the jubilee line exit, so what is so specific about that one exit that it always smells rancid? Any comments or theories welcome

Country Captain Chicken 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Split please

These articles need to be split. The current format forces each article to be very short. Each section is completely separate already, so forcing them to be on one page isn't gaining anything. --88.110.189.21 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no barrier to expansion - just click edit and add the text to this article. They are one large complex so its right for them to be one article. Also International closes soon and will become part of the main station so a split would be a pointless temporary measure. MRSC 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree this article doesn't need to be split yet, I refer you to WP:SIZE for the general Wikipedia guidelines on article length; just because an article is about one complex, that isn't necessarily a reason to keep it as one page if it becomes too long. Cheers --Pak21 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As you say, that is irrelevant in this case as the article is not that large. I make no suggestion (implicit or otherwise) that the article can never be split. MRSC 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is that each section just isn't long enough for what it's meant to cover, but having them all on one page hides that. On Wikipedia, short articles (as these would revealed to be after the split) encourage people to add to them, which is as good a reason for the split as any.

I've just evicted Waterloo East, which was the least justifiable. More to follow. --Dtcdthingy 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is still in progress and I don't see any consensus for a split so I'm going to move that back. MRSC 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The present page is slightly confusing for someone who is not from the capital, and might be more confusing for people from outside the UK. Surely a disambiguation style page where a "menu-bar" at the top of the page can be used to link to the various stations which comprise the station complex would help? Even a "layout" map instead of just the zoom in map of where it is would help the page(s). This could also be applied to other "complex" stations like Charing Cross, Euston etc.

--Tony4in1 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

split please!--Screen42 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article should be split only when some more content has been added to warrant it. As it stands, the article size has been static for some time. I've put some stub expand messages to encourage further copy. MRSC 08:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another split request

This article is rather long. All i am proposing is that Waterloo East railway station and Southwark tube station be split off into their separate articles. Anyway, Southwark DOES NOT actually form a direct interchange with Waterloo terminus itself. Instead it is within easy walking distance of Waterloo East. Although Waterloo east has an interchange with Waterloo, it is counted as separate, especially by National Rail and Network Rail.

Simply south 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've split them back out. They shouldn't have been merged. The Southwark tube station article has plenty of content, it doesn't have "Waterloo" as part of its name and also the line guide nav-box was a nonsense with the next station along linking to the same article! MRSC 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is gained by splitting Waterloo East railway station? The split should only occur when this article gets too long. MRSC 17:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many people know this as a separate station. How about i take this to the WikiProject Trains talk page and ask for their opinion, although i hope i haven't gone too far too soon. Simply south 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the great scheme of things it doesn't really matter. But, if you remove one section, what is to stop someone else removing another, and another until we have four short articles where we used to have one, complete article. I just think employing the usual wiki practice of splitting only once the article gets long is the best thing to do. There have been more edits around the splitting and merging recently than there have been adding content. Perhaps it is time to add some more copy and then there would be good reason to split. If none gets added (and there hasn't been much of great scale for a while) perhaps that is a good indication that the article should stay as-is. MRSC 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my above comment. Should we just wait a while more to see what happens? Btw, isn't it wiki practice, only of the section was originally part of the article generally, not merged and split again? Simply south 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of name?

Isn't the Waterloo bridge at least partly the reason for the naming of the station. The bridge was constructed first. Most sources I can find seem to directly attribute the name to the battle however. Can anyone find one that mentions the bridge? --nsh

I haven't got the book to hand, but I'm sure I've read that the bridge originally had a different name. Naming big stations after battles is apparently quite common in Europe. Thryduulf 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The station is almost certainly named after the adjacent Waterloo Bridge (built 1817) rather than the long-ago Battle of Waterloo. All other London railway stations are named after the streets or districts in which they are situated. Colin4C 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the article for Waterloo Bridge, it was called the 'Strand Bridge' during construction. Another website (Victorian London) has quotes about the bridge with dates. It quotes from 1844 (four years prior to Waterloo station's opening) a mention of the bridge as Waterloo Bridge. Not only that but, apparently, the bridge passed its first passengers on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.

Besides this evidence, isn't there a memorial of the Battle of Waterloo over the main entrance to the station, with words to that effect? This would suggest perhaps a dual-inspiration for the naming of the station. -- smiler 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Colin i am not sure i follow your comment "The station is almost certainly named after the adjacent Waterloo Bridge (built 1817) rather than the long-ago Battle of Waterloo" The Battle of Waterloo was in 1815 so only predates Waterloo Bridge by 2 years Deckchair 13:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Colins comment is correct, when the bridge was built, the general Wellington victory over Napoleon was actually adopted for the name of the bridge and Waterloo Station was named after it as there was no specific name of a line starting there to name the station. ] (talk • contribs) SonniWP 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

With no reference to hand I presumed to write in the article itself that the station was built decades after Waterloo Bridge. My style was not, I confess, encyclopedic, but I hoped to prompt someone with access to sources to establish the facts. That was a vain hope. The reaction was to object to my calling 31 years "decades", to delete my comment, and to re-affirm that the station was named after the battle. As for uncertainty that the station is named directly after the battle see the Wikipedia article for London and South Western Railway which states that the station was first named Waterloo Bridge. Of course everything in Wikipedia should be sourced, I doubt if one tenth is. Perhaps a journey to BM newspaper archives is needed.-SilasW 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As I was the editor who deleted the article text (not comment) The nearby Waterloo Bridge was constructed decades before the station perhaps I can reply to this. I removed it because it just didn't seem to belong where it was; as written and in its context in the article it failed to convey anything to me about the naming of the station. I can now see from the above comments where the author was coming from, but we shouldn't expect our readers to have to read the talk page in order to understand the article. So I stand by my deletion.

Moving on to the naming question. I see several people have contributed the very plausible theory that the station is indirectly named after the battle (ie. Waterloo Station is named after Waterloo Bridge is named after Waterloo the battle). Unfortunately no one has cited a reference for this, so a theory is all it remains, and it cannot go into the article until somebody can find a cite for it. What is currently in the article certainly doesn't contradict this theory, as it simply says the station is named after the battle, without specifying exactly how. So I think it is fine to leave it as it is, until an appropriate cite is found.

I apologise if my comment on 31 years not being decades sounded a bit offhand. In hindsight I could have said it better. -- Chris j wood 10:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this read carefully gets over the unsourced speculation about the name:
Dendy Marshall in The History of the Southern Railway 1936 calls it only "Waterloo" which shows, see below, that that work cannot be used as a source of minutiae. Page 104, referring to the extension from Nine Elms, has "... to Waterloo (which was called York Road Station in the Act)". That is evidence that all sources need to be appraised and is the addition of a tad more confusion.
The Railways of Richmond Upon Thames by Tim Sherwood, 1991, page 3 (or maybe I wrote '7') says that in July 1845 the LSWR got the Act for their "Metropolitan Extension" from Vauxhall to Hungerford/Waterloo Bridge. So there again is evidence that all sources need to be appraised and is the addition of a tad more confusion.
Page 12 says the Richmond Railway prompted the LSWR to move its terminus from Nine Elms to Waterloo Bridge.
Page 16 has ".. the best train of the day was the 4.40 from Waterloo Bridge (as it was initially called.)"
Page 66 has an image of page 28 of the LSWR November 1859 timetable which gives Waterloo Bridge.
Page 67 has an image of a page from the LSWR September 1869 timetable which gives Waterloo.
A bound original of the LSWR 1864 timetable (in Richmond-upon-Thames Libraries Local Studies Collection) has "Waterloo" in some tables and "Waterloo Br" in others.

Perhaps it can be agreed that 1) the original name in service was "Waterloo Bridge", 2) all mention of continental battles be thrown out or relegated to Trivia and 3) "Bridge" was dropped from the name during the 1860s.
In view of the claims and counterclaims the only conclusions to be drawn from the length of time during which "Bridge" was still appended are that much of Wikipedia fails to conform to its standards and most editors do not care.

To claim that W'loo, which got its name from a bridge decades old (which was named after a then recent battle), was therefore indeed named after the battle is fatuous.--SilasW 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Measurable?

The article states "Waterloo station however remains the most attractive and spacious of all London mainline stations." How has this been measured? Deckchair 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I must second this remark. I was sitting in Waterloo station this morning looking around at the train shed, thinking how ugly it was, especially with the careless addition of Tannoys, cabling, netting and so-forth (what I despise about all British railway stations). Personally, I think the Kings Cross train shed is far superior in appearance, though its exterior is sadly hidden by the 1970s monstrosity that currently stands (not for long though!). Spacious it is, however, and could we be measured (Liverpool Street may be a strong contender). -- smiler 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we must assume that the original author was being sarcastic here. The 'industrial' cross-wise train shed at Waterloo simply doesn't bear comparison to Brunel's 'cathedral' at Paddington, or the awe inspiring single span at St Pancras. And Waterloo's concourse is well known for its crowds. Still someone else has removed the text, so its moot now. -- Chris j wood 10:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Form of names of London stations

There seems to be need for agreement (unlikely among Wikipedia/rail fanatics or even from NR and TfL) on the naming of some London Stations and for such a scheme to be applied "universally" (JHC! I see a Wikipedia row somewhere about using that word). The list of London termin(i/uses) has one station prefixed with "London" (Afore they start screaming, I hold the "London" of London Bridge not to be a prefix). That station is listed as "London Victoria". As the list is of London stations that "London" might seem redundant....BUT... several "official" journey planners and the like do not accept "Waterloo" and complaint produces the official explanation that it is "London Waterloo" lest we silly girls go not to Crewe but to Liverpool or try to travel to Vauxhall from platforms A, B, C or D. There, I've thrown the kipper to the kittens, let them sort it out.SilasW 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming issues

I think the article overplays the importance of protests by "French politicians" about the name of the station. Certainly, no major politician was involved. The only politician cited is a city councillor of Paris! David.Monniaux 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How many stations?

The count of stations at Waterloo is expressed unclearly. If it is needed a reason should be given e.g. the Authorities say so or some information services do not recognise plain Waterloo despite mistravelling being unlikely. "International" despite its branding and architecture is an annexe of “Mainline”, a term leading the unfamiliar to look for "Suburban". With information screens and several help desks “East” with distinctively lettered platforms is easy to find.

The article starts: “The complex comprises four linked railway stations and a bus station.”

Headings in the article: Waterloo mainline station, Waterloo International, Waterloo East, Waterloo Underground stations <<note plural Subtotal: Four or five

The text of that last heading begins with this untidy and confusing piece: “Waterloo tube stations are two London Underground stations, the main and the Waterloo & City Line station. They are on the Bakerloo Line …, the Jubilee Line…, the Northern Line…,and the Waterloo & City Line… .

Can we have authority for bundling B, J, and N as one, especially as J is far from the others? Maybe more distant than W&C.

So by now we could run up to seven stations.SilasW 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo East redirect

Any particular reason why Waterloo East has just been cleaned out and moved here ??? From what i gather from a quick read of the old talk the consensus is to keep it separate. Pickle 19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Split (again)

This article needs to be split in to seperate articles or well reorganised,

Waterloo East

Waterloo east has now been moved to its own article and should STAY THERE. mark999 26/07/07 UTC: 18:58

mark999

NPOV

Are the comments about the lost luggage area in the correct NPOV form? Advice.

Function of Talk

We should be able to expect Wikipedia editors to read the discussion before bashing the keyboard. Of course we cannot. Talk often has pointers to sources not immediately to hand, suggestions for sources, and requests for guidance, clarification and information.--SilasW 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Function of Preview

Preview is there for you to correct your finking and thingering. JHC alone knows why so many "editors" can't press a spell-checking button before saving.--SilasW 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

??? Doops | talk 02:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, its not the end of the world, have a cup of tea Pickle 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo International reuse revisited

According to a recent-ish news report by the BBC, the Department for Transport has indeed confirmed that the platforms will be reused for domestic services, although they will need to be heavily modified. St Pancras - the new link to the Channel Tunnel (look at the end) Simply south 19:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The countries on the arch

Looking at the photo of the archway above the main entrance, I see there are seven countries named on it, but I can't read all of them. What are they and what is their significance? Akiyama 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of 10 Nov 2007

Simplified whole to concentrate on ex-LSWR station. Took out most mention of Wloo Int, intending to edit new article while recognising that many seem not to allow Wloo Int a separate existence. Removed facetious "Typical scene" picture. Article still needs work to match most other railway station articles. River and Tube data should be in separate articles. End of its Eurostar function partly allowed for but will need finalising after the last day. I hope no recent edits in range of reworked article have been lost.--SilasW 14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)--SilasW 14:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of Talk

WP guidelines say Talk is for discussing improvements to article, not for loosely related questions and ramblings.--SilasW 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is good to ask questions about the topic of the article. This does help improve the article as it is collating knowledge on the subject. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of and numbers of Platforms

The 1-19 which followed "Number of platforms in use = 19" has recently been cut as redundant. Is it really redundant? Many stations have platforms not in use but numbered (on lines from Wloo Twickenham uses only 3, 4, and 5, CJ does not use #1). "A"s and "B"s abound. KX is growing a "Y". The parasitic twin in any WP article on the main body of Wloo has no numbers, just A, B, C, & D.--SilasW (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. We only need to show how the platforms are numbered if there is something odd about the numbering such as at Twickenham and CJ. Also, Waterloo East is seperate from Waterloo Main. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but that relies on all odd cases having been dealt with. With the hodge-podge that WP editing is, that is unlikely. I don't see what Wloo East being separate has to do with the matter. That station with letters is an odd case (for good reason) yet an editor deleted the letters.--SilasW (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, the 'Platforms in Use' is only there to show the numbers of platforms. How they are numbered, etc. should be shown in a platform guide elsewhere in the article. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Seeing as it seems this has just split, does anyone object if i change the name to London Waterloo railway station? Simply south (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure though, because it does cover the whole of Waterloo station (mainline, east and Underground). It just has links elsewhere to pages for the East and Underground stations. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The terminal station (London Waterloo) and the through station (London Waterloo East) although adjoining and connected, now only for pedestrians, are separate entities. LW is managed by Network Rail, LWE by Southestern Trains. Apart from a link there should be no LWE information this article.--SilasW (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the Underground station still counts. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite with you. The collection of LU platforms (just how many stations do they make? and by what system of counting?) for me should have the Waterloo tube station link and the lines, without previouses and nexts. Similarly for W Int except to refer to the tranfer of platforms.--SilasW (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives