Talk:London Waterloo station

Subjects to Talk Archive 1 on 10 Apr 2008

Travelator..........................= Not now pertinent

Origin of name...................= Original name established

Future of Wloo Int..............= Wait and see in Wloo Int article

Photo request....................= supplied

Taking photos

Wloo Int cost....................= see Wloo Int article

Separation/Split................= Each sta has its own article

Bakerloo line exit...............= irrelevant

Attractiveness...........,,......= irrelevant

Names of London stations..= Now go by Official names

How many stations?..........= Unresolved

Luggage...........................= Deleted

Re Talk and Preview

Rewrite of 10 Nov 2007.......= No objections

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)

Left to Right: "Belgium; Italy; Dardanelles; France; Mesopotamia; Egypt; North Sea". They are the arenas of conflict during the First World War. The main entrance is the war memorial of the London and South Western Railway, the company that owned Waterloo at that time. It is known as the "Victory Arch". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.123.248 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010

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 separate 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)

Fair points, but the Waterloo & City Line platform is officially numbered 25, in line with its heritage as a BR platform, and not 7 (as it would be for LUL). Thoughts? Dmccormac (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Whatever platform numbering L&SWR, SR and BR used for the drain, the drain is not their heirs' now, and if a #25 sign still hangs in the undercroft then to me it belongs to the TfL gang and Wloo has 19 platforms. But 2) Aren't Off and On performed at different W&C platforms with a depot siding used for turnback? And 3) If so then the somewhere-in-WPworld use of "Terminal" for a W&C platform needs emending.--SilasW (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the adherents of the 20 platform heresy have convinced me that 20 has been the correct number (to repeat: the drain ain't NR and if it were there would be 19+2 platforms) but here a wrong piece§§ seems better than a right war. However new signs are now up at the real W'loo directing to platform 20 which is, of course, ex-Eurostar platform 20 not yet in re-use; new blocked-off steps and a ramp under construction will give access to it darkly and dimly from platform 19 reminiscent, unless paint and lights are deployed, of the grim side of Paqddington. (§§ is not cacography).--SilasW (talk) 17:19, 23 December 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 South Eastern 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 transfer of platforms.--SilasW (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Service listings

A station article cannot reasonably be a substitute for a timetable or an online real-time train display. Here (W'loo) there is no mention of the three or four Shepperton line trains from and to Waterloo via Richmond, and probably rightly so, as a minor feature, but it leads to the question "How much detail of passenger train services at stations is good for WP station articles?"
Some editors add all the "except on the third Sunday of the month" details and put a gaily coloured previous/next station box for every service through a station, which tends to clutter the article; is the next/previous station one where the service always, or usually, or often stops? WP so far avoids the TOCs' ghastly "next station stop". Had you taken Eurostar from Waterloo the next station to see would have been Vauxhall and not Charles de Gaulle or Geisenhausen South. The few station articles appraised as A-class (or whatever the grade is) tend not to have such details which, while hardly ephemeral, are not carved in stone over the entrances. In the article for one closed (and ripped out) station there is a constructed display (not a photograph) of a week's timetable.--SilasW (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Waterloo is not named after the battle

Once again the story that W'loo was named after the battle has surfaced. The station was not named after the battle (unless you allow a fatuous chain). Please see past talk &c on the matter. The station opened in the 1840s as "Waterloo Bridge" and was shown for decades as that (or a recognisable curtailment) in L&SWR timetables. It was built near the means of crossing the River Thames which was called Waterloo Bridge. That structure, apparently going to be called "Strand Bridge", was called "Waterloo Bridge" cos us and the Germans had just done for Napoleon at Waterloo.
Since, unlike London Bridge station, dropping "Bridge" could lead to no confusion the word "Bridge" slipped out of W'loo's moniker, even in some cramped timetable pages. Offhand I'd say it was in 1886 that the station name was officially depontified. We have gone through the arguments of upholders of the various beliefs and given WP-acceptable references to show what this section is called.--SilasW (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What period is this?

I am puzzled by this: "the [[financial year]] from 2007/8". Is the "from" intrusive? Also are the years for ORR's figures (for which even they say the methods and accuracy of counting change from year to year) in synch with the "financial years" of some body?--SilasW (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:London Paddington station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Passenger numbers look wrong

The article currently states that "187,236 million" passengers were handled in 2007. That's nearly 30 times the population of Earth, so doesn't seem likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcw (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

mmmmn yes, that works out at something like 525 million passengers a day - every person in the UK making 10 journeys! Nancy ^talk 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to match the cited figure in the info box - 100.307 million. Nancy ^talk 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the text remains "187,236 million," I assume someone has evidence to support this? Or not? Tom Meakin (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Origin of name, once again

See above but an editor has inserted "Thus its name derives from Waterloo Bridge and ultimately from the Battle of Waterloo" which to use the word again is fatuous but that editor gives no tie between the battle and the bridge so "Thus..." is a broken chain. The editor's summary includes the incomprehensible " because there's no real etymology".--SilasW (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken chain? Why, what else would you argue the bridge is named after, if not the major battle fought at Waterloo shortly before the bridge opened? If you would like to add a source, there are plenty out there. For instance:

"The first Waterloo Bridge, designed by John Rennie, was opened by the Prince Regent amid much pageantry on 18 June 1817, the second anniversary of the battle it commemorated. The afternoon's ceremonies began with the Prince's journey by royal barge, attended by numerous other craft, from the quay of Whitehall Stairs to the southern end of the new bridge. Landing there, he was escorted by the Dukes of York and Wellington across the bridge, lined for the occasion with Waterloo veterans, before returning by barge to Whitehall." [1] (this description is more fun to read than the actual legislation)

bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the station, not about the bridge. The station was originally called "Waterloo Bridge station". It changed officially to "Waterloo station" in 1886 though often called that for some years previously. Nothing above (apart from today's earlier addition) says that Waterloo Bridge was not named after the battle. To say that the station (named as it was near Waterloo Bridge) was named after the battle is a fatuous broken chain. To read and understand something before commenting on it isan essential practice.--SilasW (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You previously complained that there was "no tie between the battle and the bridge" There is a connection between the bridge and the battle, and there's a variety of sources to choose from. Is there a different complaint now? The station is named after the bridge, the bridge is named after the battle, hence the station is indirectly named after the battle. "Waterloo". What other origin could you suggest for the name? I cannot fathom why you consider this "fatuous" or a "broken chain". Of course, if you have a reliable source that says there's no connection between the station's name and the battle, I would welcome it. Somehow we have now ended up with a "cultural references" section which dances around the battle without ever actually naming it; I fixed that and added a couple of refs, including one from London government.bobrayner (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Weymouth

Instead of having an edit war over whether Weymouth should be included in the intro why don't we do something radicle and come to a consensus through a discussion where other editors can input their ideas? I am not particularly keen on repairing a page due to the damage an edit war has caused only for the repairs to be reverted during continuation of such an edit war.--Wintonian (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But wse have agreed to leave Weymouth in!!! Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I do not believe that Weymouth should be in the lede; it's stretching credibility to claim that it's one of the five most important long-distance destinations. Anybody got passenger volume statistics to hand? bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

After quite a long discussion, it was agreed that Weymouth should be left in as it was the Terminus of the SW Main Line, was hosting the 2012 Olympic Sailing events etc; and was the destination after Dorchester for the Southampton and Dorchester Railway.

It should stay as agreed.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Johnson (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many lines out of Waterloo; some of which have much more substantial termini than Weymouth. As for sailing events, I'm amazed that anybody would consider that a reason to mention Weymouth in the lede. How many thousand passengers do you think that will add, in one year out of Waterloo's 160-odd years of history? This is an article about Waterloo, not about temporary sideshows of a future Olympiad, so that special pleading should be discarded.

Waterloo had 47 million passenger entries in 2008-2009 (excluding Underground). Portsmouth 2 million; Southampton 3.6 million; Bournemouth 1.2 million; Weymouth 357 thousand. It's not even in the same league. If we really have room for another destination in the list, why not include Reading? Reading's passenger volumes are twenty times those of Weymouth. Weymouth is unimportant and does not belong in the lede.

Also, you won't reach a consensus to keep it in just by saying that people agree with you. There is clearly disagreement. I reverted some of your previous changes because they also broke important parts of the article and I acquiesced when somebody else made a change fixing what you broke whilst keeping Weymouth in, because I didn't want to continue your edit war over a trivial little railway station on the south coast; but the fact that you got your way then does not mean you are entitled to claim "there was an agreement!" and stifle any subsequent attempt at discussing whether Weymouth should be in the lede. bobrayner (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you are being arrogrant an a little silly. I replied in a spirit of courtesy.

The figures you give for Weymouth are inaccurate. The latest published figures are over 700,000.

Let's discuss matters without the arrogrance please.

Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I was responsible for adding that last sentence of the lead in the first place. I thought it was useful to give, for each mainline London terminus, its most important long-distance destinations, because this helps define the different termini for the lay person who traditionally thinks in terms of "Euston for Glasgow, Kings Cross for Edinburgh", etc. I didn't include Reading because the main London terminus for Reading is Paddington, not Waterloo, and the Reading service from Waterloo is essentially a suburban service. As to whether or not to include Weymouth, my original inclination was not to do so, but I don't think it is worth fighting over one way or the other. -- Alarics (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think having that sentence in the lede is helpful - the lede might be running a bit long, but a brief mention of destinations is really helpful for an article about a London terminus. Thanks for adding it.

Re: Reading, I'll happily concede it's not ideally located; perhaps I chose a poor example out of the many available. (But should suburban destinations really be excluded if they account for such a large proportion of Waterloo traffic?). I'll still suggest that Waterloo serves many stations more important than Weymouth - plenty to choose from. Putting Weymouth in that short list in the lede is quite arbitrary. Either use a shorter list or add some more important stations...?

Re: 700,000 - presumably that's using a metric which counts both entries and exits? In which case, the numbers for other stations are doubled too. You can get numbers from the horses mouth here. If you have some alternative source which makes Weymouth look important, please let us know.

bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've recast the sentence in question, to better emphasise the distinction in character between local commuter services and long-distance express routes. -- Alarics (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. bobrayner (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)