Talk:Liverpool Street station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / Stations / in UK / in London (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
WikiProject London (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Electrification[edit]

As I understand it some original from of electrification went from Liverpool Street to Shenfield, around the 1930s using (i think) 1500v DC. I've only found a handful of mentions of it eg (p11 of [1] ) and any more details would be appreciated (eg when it was replaced by 25Kv AC) --Pickle 15:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is mentioned here on p10 [2] (1959) that 1500v DC has been started in the early 1950s and when the rest of the Liverpool street system is electrified to 25Kv AC (adopted standard in 1954 BTC modernisation plan) the 1500v DC system will have to replaced. --Pickle 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
on p34 [3] (1959), it states Liverpool street to Shenfield was electrified at 1500v DC in 1949, and this system was extended Chemslford and Southend Victoria in 1956. Passengers and receipts "more than doubled".Pickle 16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

This photo might come in handy one day:

Liverpool Street station
Cool, thanks! Pcb21| Pete 08:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disused line[edit]

Looking at Google maps and satellite images, there is a disused line [4] that goes up to kingsland. Does anyone know any history of this and why it was torn up? --Dean Earley 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Broad Street station article - it was next door to liverpool street. IIRC the east london line extension will use it. Pickle 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

High pitched sound/high frequency sound in station[edit]

I have noticed an annoying high pitched sound in the station every day since I started commuting through it in December 2005. A little Googling shows I am not the only one to have noticed it. I wondered if it was vermin control or perhaps some sort of crowd control device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.169.116 (talkcontribs) 08:54, 24 May 2006

Sir John Betjeman[edit]

Wasn't Sir John involved in the (partial) preservation of Liverpool St Station from destruction? I also heard that there were plans (shelved) to re-name the station bar in his honour. Colin4C 22:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd platform on the Sub Surface Underground platforms....[edit]

How long ago was it in use?

It seems rather short from what i can see of it, so i gues sit wasnt used for full length trains.

Might find an answer somewhere on this excellent site - http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/ Pickle 10:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crossrail icon.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Crossrail icon.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Notable events" → "As target of violence"[edit]

After due consideration, I've amended these changes, as the reasoning behind them is inherently spurious. The Bishopsgate Bomb was 200 metres away from the Underground station and so this was clearly not a specific targeting of the station as the new heading suggested. The station was damaged to a certain degree, but given that there are numerous large buildings between it and the site of the explosion, the various claims of it being "wrecked" or "destroyed" are clearly exagerations. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bishopsgate bombing[edit]

Although there are numerous online references to this bombing "severly damaging" or even "destroying" the Underground stations, this is not reflected in any works specifically about the Underground. The latest edition of The Story of London's Underground, for example, mentions the extensive 1992 refurbishment of the station, but makes no reference to the bombing at all. Likewise, in the Capitol Transport series of books on the specific lines, neither of the Circle, Metropolitan, nor Central line ones make reference to the event. The inescapable conclusion is that the aforementioned online reports are the result of Chinese whispers, and are vastly exagerrated. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Trainshed contractor[edit]

"The Railway Heritage of Britain" London 1983 holds the supplier and close collaborator of E. Wilson was Sir William Fairbairn and his firm Fairbairn Engineering Company of Manchester. J. Mowlem could have been responsible for the c1890 eastern extension rather than the original trainshed. 212.51.208.194 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination[edit]

History section[edit]

I felt the History section was rather bulky and could have done with being split up a bit into chronological subsections to aid better reading. I wasn't sure, however, on the headings for the subsections and currently have: "A new terminus for the City", detailing the establishment of the station; "War-time events" outlining the events involving LST during the Wars; "Post-War deterioration and redevelopment", describing the period of overhaul for the station in the 80s and 90s; and "Recent events". I would welcome any suggestions of alternative headings/splits and any thoughts on how to improve the section/article. Thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_Street_station&diff=596336042&oldid=596335716

Lord Salisbury, who was chairman of Great Eastern in 1870, described the Liverpool Street extension as "one of the greatest mistakes ever committed in connection with a railway.".

This appears misleading in context - read the original here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nfxBAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q&f=false (1st col. top) Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions/overhaul[edit]

There have been some very interesting and useful additions and expansion to this article. I have to say, though, the "Expansion of the station (1895)" section seems to go into quite unnecessary granular detail, particularly this paragraph, which is very difficult to read because of the vast numbers of measurements and conversions: The side buildings had foundations of a 10 ft (3.0 m) square, 2 ft (0.61 m) thick concrete bed, supporting brick footings and then a 5 ft (1.5 m) square, 2 ft (0.61 m) thick bedstone,[31] which supported 18 to 24 in (460 to 610 mm) wide 1.25 in (32 mm) thick main columns.[32] The main central parcels building was built on foundations of a 21 by 19 ft (6.4 by 5.8 m) bed of concrete 3 ft (0.91 m) thick supporting brick footings and then a 12 by 10 ft (3.7 by 3.0 m) square, 1 ft 9 in (0.53 m) thick bedstone, supporting twinned cross-strutted iron columns 3 in (76 mm) thick up to the floor level support girders. --TBM10 (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see that - too many numbers - I'll try to fix it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_Street_station&diff=596504296&oldid=596502659
I've removed some number spam resulting from all the template:convert (I assume 90% people can understand 3ft or 3in.. and attempted to make the readability a bit better.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Crossrail Gold coin[edit]

I don't think the Gold coin found by Crossrail was from Liverpool street - is there a source for this ?Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

found it confirmed in http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/08/crossrail-project-unearths-prehistoric-workshop-and-16th-century-burial-ground-3917415/

Gotha attack[edit]

Was the bombing of Liverpool Street the "first daylight raid on London"? if so where does it say that? Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is wrong.
The Gotha as built was a day bomber - the 28 Nov 1916 attack is well documented. eg [5] Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
See German strategic bombing during World War I --TBM10 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Not seeing the answer to that in the current version..Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A second attack on 5 June 1917 was diverted to Sheerness in Kent but a third attack on 13 June resulted in the first daylight raid on London, causing 162 deaths and 432 injuries. ... This was the deadliest air raid of the war. No Gothas were lost. --TBM10 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

1993 Bombing[edit]

Was it the Underground station that was damaged ?

According to :

it was the underground station ??Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First daylight raid - disputed[edit]

From the current source: (Sokolski)

In May 1917, a special heavy bomber unit, equipped with the latest Gotha bombers and directly subordinated to the High Command, began conducting brazen daylight attacks against British cities. On June 13, 1917, a formation of 20 Gothas soared over central London and prepared to attack the Liverpool Street station

reasoning - if the daylight bombings began in May then the June raid was not the first?? Also it isn't stated in the current sources. Please fix.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - In popular culture[edit]

The "in popular culture" section is supposed to be about popular culture references to the station. eg see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. It's not a trivia section. Use as a filming location/advertising promotion site probably does not apply. The section appears to be getting a bit trivial.Prof.Haddock (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. To me, the use of a station as a filming location is a necessity if the script calls for the characters to travel by rail. But in such situations, is the actual station important to the plot of the film? That is, if the characters are travelling to London, from an indeterminate or irrelevant origin, any London terminus could have been used. Contrast the Harry Potter books, where King's Cross is directly named in all of them; the films based upon these usually used King's Cross as a filming location, but the use of St. Pancras as a stand-in was certainly worthy of note. It is not for us to point out these inconsistencies; but if a film reviewer has noted either an excellent choice of filming location, or a plot hole, we may report that.
So, was the use of Liverpool Street in the 1996 Mission Impossible (film) crucial to the plot of that film (would the film have been spoiled if another station was used), or was it obviously wrong (used as a stand-in for Paris Gare du Nord or somewhere)? Whichever of these applies, we then need to ask, per WP:V/WP:NOR, has somebody else already pointed that out? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
As it's not mentioned in Mission_Impossible_(film)#Plot (or any station) I would think it was used as "generic london station" - If so - I think these instances are minimally notable, and could be just added as a list of films using the station as a backdrop.
I haven't seen this film - but have seen some of the others mentioned - eg in The_Shadow_Line_(TV_series) as I remember, the station backdrop wasn't crucial to the plot, specific, or memorable. I will compress these down in the absense of more info about why they are important.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 July 2014 - new fields to add into infobox[edit]

Add to infobox:

| cyclepark = Yes - platform 10 & external
| toilets = Yes

SheffGruff (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@SheffGruff: Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I'm not sure that's a good idea - the infobox is supposed to hold key facts that are discussed in the article, and the article text mentions neither cycle parking nor toilets. Where were these parameters proposed? How do they fit in with WP:NTT? The infobox does hold a Facilities link, where this information - and more - may be found by those that are interested. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I too have to question this - the infobox now tells us that there is a cyclepark in the car park, but the article doesn't tell anything about a carpark, even if it exists or not.
Seems to be a borderline example of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. - specifically - a travel guidebook. Prof.Haddock (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)