Talk:London Paddington station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article London Paddington station was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
August 4, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
May 9, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Trains / Stations / Rapid transit / in UK / in London (Rated C-class, High-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
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject London (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Underground sign at Westminster.jpg London Paddington station was the selected article of the London Transport Portal between 1 February and 28 February 2010.


Just to quote what the page currently says: Platforms 6 and 7 are dedicated to the Heathrow Express, and platforms 13 and 14 can only be used by the short trains used on local services. All the other platforms can be used by any of the station's train services. However in normal usage the tendency is for long distance trains to use the western platforms, and local trains (including Heathrow Connect) the eastern ones.

But this is incorrect, Platform 12 cannot be used by HST's. Platforms 1,2,13 and 14 do not have overhead wires so cannot be used by Heathrow Express or Heathrow Connect. Ta, Ollie 2/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Someone right about the bear! -- Sam

If you mean "write", there's stuff on Paddington, London, England that can be moved here, including a link to Paddington Bear --rbrwr
I suspect they mean the Bear statue on the Lawn. Brunel is in the taxi arch, not the Lawn. Was it ever on the Lawn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Paddington has four spans not three.

As this is an unsigned comment, I cannot tell how old this comment is. But the current article doesn't say the station has three spans. It says that Brunel's original station had three spans, and that a fourth span was added later. -- Chris j wood 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming lack of consensus[edit]

Having just had my wrist gently slapped by the National Rail journey planner for requesting a journey from 'Paddington' (it politely enquired if I really meant 'London Paddington'), I thought we needed to do something about naming of the article. However looking into this further, I found there isn't even a consensus amongst the station's key stakeholders, let alone amongst general usage. So I've left the naming alone, and added an explanatory paragraph. -- Chris j wood 11:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The explanatory paragraph wasn't really necessary, and sounded a bit like a rant (especially after an anonymous editor modified it). Apply a bit of common sense to the situation. Also, the same surely applies to other London stations.
Besides, the National Rail journey planner is nowhere near perfect, so I wouldn't treat it "as gospel". --RFBailey 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair points that it did sound a bit like a rant, but I do not think we can completely ignore this issue. Taking my cue from your point about other London stations, I've copied the formula that seems to have been acceptable on the Victoria station (London) article for the last 6 months. -- Chris j wood 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't want to rattle on about this. But I checked the timetable posters on Reading station on my way home. Reading has no trains to Paddington under 'P', but many to London Paddington under 'L'. I rest my case. -- Chris j wood 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
National Rail now just lets you put PAD and it will show up as London Paddington, without asking if that is what you wanted. For example you could want Reading to Paddington, and RDG to PAD will work fine.

Tube split[edit]

I've split off the tube station section to its own article as it seemed too long and awkward to just be a subsection here. Other pages that still link to Paddington station need to have their links updated to either Paddington railway station or Paddington tube station. There's a list of such pages here, and obviously its too many to do all of them by myself. --Dtcdthingy 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (1)[edit]

I don't think the 'tube split' described above makes any kind of sense. You either need to treat Paddington as a single transport interchange (1 article) or as a national rail station plus two quite separate tube stations (3 articles). Lets see what the consensus is. -- Chris j wood 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that the consensus at present seems to be in favour of going back to one article, but the move is blocked, I'm requesting admin assistance for the move. -- Chris j wood 12:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Paddington railway stationPaddington station – In order to revert previous split of article Paddington station into Paddington railway station and Paddington tube station without losing article history and in line with consensus developed on talk page. Three steps needed (1) This move (2) Revert moved article to revision id 74213323 (3) Revert the tube station article to revision id 16040944. -- Chris j wood 12:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Indicate which option you support followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Votes for a single article covering rail and tube (ie. 1 article)[edit]

  1. The three stations (mainline, Bakerloo/Circle/District, and Hammersmith&City) are so interwined it makes better sense to cover them as a single entity. After all, interchange between the two tube stations involves walking the length of the mainline station's platform 8, and the H&C station's platforms are even numbered in the same series as the mainline station. -- Chris j wood 20:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'd have to agree that it would be better to have them all as one, being so entwined. The stations are so closely related to each other anyway that it might seem odd for any other reason to have them separate, unless they were actually physically apart. A visitor to the station, or general person searching Wikipedia for information about the station, would not usually consider them separate, and having them together saves navigating via a disambiguation page. I believe the entrance is also marked with both the National Rail logo and the Underground roundel, as at London Bridge. Perhaps if each section were so extensive that the page was overly long, it would be justified, but I think the split should wait until that time, rather than encouraging expansion of each article by splitting them now. Willkm 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. One artice for both tube and national rail. Jt spratt 21:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. This station probably more than all the other complex stations is better served by one article, given the H&C is integrated with the main station and totally disconnected from the Bakerloo station. The current split is a bad idea. MRSC 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. One article makes sense, given the interlinking. If we have too much information about one part we can split that off to a separate article with a main article link from a summary-section here. Thryduulf 11:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. This option makes the most sense. As stated by Chris j wood above, Paddington station is a single transport interchange. There are various methods of transport available at the station, but it would be almost like having a separate article for each bus number at a bus stop... Robwingfield (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Votes for separate articles covering the mainline and both tube stations (ie. 3 articles)[edit]

Votes for an article on the mainline station and another on the tube stations (ie. 2 articles)[edit]


  • The request for page move succeeded. I see Chris j wood requested some reverting to be done also, but I reckon you don't need admin priviledges for that and I don't want to revert to wrong version, so please somebody do the revert. --Dijxtra 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Viewing issues[edit]

Does anyone else only seem to see the page in a box on the right hand side? I'm using firefox 2.0, by the way? Jt spratt 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IE 7 has the same problem is this just my computer? Jt spratt 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Brunel bridge discovery[edit]

The article currently says:

A very early construction by Brunel was recently discovered immediately to the north of the station; a cast iron bridge carrying the Bishop's Bridge Road over the railway lines was exposed during removal of the more recent brick outer covering in late 2004, in the run-up to the bridge's complete replacement.

I'm pretty sure that this discovery was actually of Brunel's spans carrying Bishop's Bridge Road over the adjacent Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal on the approach to the railway bridge. His actual spans over the railway were replaced long ago by a girder bridge, which has just been replaced again. Anybody confirm that?. -- Chris j wood 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan Line[edit]

can the Metropolitan Line stop be mentioned under "disused" tube/railway stops as paddington used to be on the Metropolitan Line 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The section was merely remaned Hammersmith and City line in 1988. It's still very much there. In fact, we should probably put a picture of the original (1863) Paddington LU station in the infobox, rather than the later District 1868 one, as we have now. (Half the original LU platforms at Paddington on the H&S are used by mainline services nowadays.) ProhibitOnions (T) 12:42, 31 October 2007 (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)

GA Sweeps review[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of the GA Project quality task force, and I'm very pleased to be able to say that as a result of the work that's been it has been confirmed as a GA.

The review can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed uncited references from Paddington station in fiction[edit]

In the light of the imminent GA review (see above), I have removed all the uncited references from the 'in fiction' section. I have done this because:

  • The article has had a refimprove tag since March 2008.
  • The article has had a declared GA review for nearly a week
  • Nobody else has seen fit to work these references in that time
  • I personally don't much care for long lists of 'in fiction' references, so I prefer to use my limited time to work other uncited references
  • Given the above, these references are likely to cause the article to fail GA review.

If anybody else, and especially the original editors of the references, feels agrieved by this, please feel free to do the necessary research and reinsert with cites. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Location: Refute "largely residential", but on what authority?[edit]

This section must have been hijacked by someone marketing the new office blocks! The station dominates its location, which is naturally not "residential" but grimly commercial. Whatever the marketeers might hope or achieve, at present the location is dominated by the large hospital and the usual railway red-light area, cheap hotels, cafes, shops, railway traffic; obviously not "residential", but what authority can one cite? Jezza (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for the moves. --PBS (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There are 12 London stations that for some purposes are prefixed "London" [1] and for other purposes are not. [2] Our article naming has used "London X" on five articles and "X" on seven articles. The articles text explains that two alternative names exist and give these sources. Both names are present in the infoboxes. These articles should share a common naming convention. This proposal concerns only the prefix "London". The article name suffixes (-station, -railway station) form a convention that is followed. MRSC (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This would bring them into line with these articles:

For Victoria the "London X" naming was used for disambiguation with others outside London. However, there is another format currently used for this purpose and it should be moved to match:

Thanks. MRSC (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that I Support most of these, except probably the "London Victoria station" article. I'll need to vet eash individually before saying that I support all of the others, though.
    V = I * R (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Slightly above average oppose(see below), we've tried a few of these formats over time, It has turned out easier to slip London King's Cross railway station into a flowing paragraph of text than it has been to include a line about Victoria station (London) across the other side of the city. In short, the prefixing of London X Y Z has turned out to be a very effective way of solving the disambiguation issue that exists between these London railway stations and the latter ones in other countries. There is not a net benefit achieved by switching from something that works, to something (with parentheses) requiring frequent piped links for clarity (WP:EGG). The need to disambiguate is not ideal, but what we have, appears already to be preferable and has proven itself to work in practice. —Sladen (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, those not supporting the move please indicate if they have a preference for the status quo of random/mixed article naming or if they would prefer to see Cannon Street, Charing Cross, Euston, Fenchurch Street, Liverpool Street etc. moved to the "London X" format. MRSC (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My recollection is/was that the naming was on the basis of:
  1. Generally mainline stations are called Something railway station. Often Metro stations are Something metro station and Tramway stations are Something tram stop
  2. When a station (eg. Euston, or Victoria) is a combined major interchange, it tends to have become Something station because it's multi-modal.
  3. When a station has multiple possibilities (eg. Kings Cross railway stations in Sydney and in London) then the choices are Something railway station, London or London Something railway station and with the choice between two bad options, the latter was deemed preferable.
  4. Where a station has multiple possibly names (St Pancras ...Lowlevel/Domestic/International/Thameslink/Midland Road) the common-name/shortest is chosen, so St Pancras railway station—as it is not a tube station!
Would it just be a case of more-formally codifying this? —Sladen (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I should have made it clearer, this proposal concerns only the prefix "London" applied to five articles. The use of suffixes (-station, -railway station) have been followed as you described and this proposal does not seek to change that. It only concerns five stations that we have added "London" to the start of, despite there being twelve stations where this is sometimes done in practice. Of these five stations only one (Victoria) has the prefix "London" for disambiguation. The other four (Paddington, King's Cross, Waterloo, Waterloo East) it has been applied randomly. MRSC (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there an actual MoS which deals specifically with this topic, somewhere?
V = I * R (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The naming was agreed years ago by WP:London, but didn't deal specifically with the "London" prefix, it was only concerned with the suffixes which relate to the transport modes at the station. MRSC (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, going through them again:
London Waterloo East railway station Waterloo East railway station Strong support a fairly minor station...
London Waterloo station Waterloo station Support scans better
London Paddington station Paddington station ... no preference
London King's Cross railway station King's Cross railway station Oppose disambig @ King's Cross station
London Victoria station Victoria station (London) Strong oppose unnatural (brackets); disambig @ Victoria station
In addition, I'd be interesting in recommendations for getting rid of the awkward "Richmond (London)" naming—although these are of significantly lower visibilty/importance. —Sladen (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I can see the logic (and a pattern we can stick to) if the "London" prefix is only used for central London stations that require disambiguation. MRSC (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:DAB, we shouldn't disambiguate unless absolutely required to do so anyway.
V = I * R (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. That would tie in to our policies and would work in practice. MRSC (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My strong opinion is that in encyclopedic articles official names should be used for names of articles. WP List of London railway stations has a reference to an NR list of official names (although at the moment the article needs to be changed to reflect NR's more recent distinguishing St P (Dom) from St P (Int). Table tennis is mainly in Table Tennis and not in Ping Pong. Although the rule of WP is "Do as you fancy" this sort of unpublicised "poll" with a serve-chosen electorate in no way improves the encyclpedia. WP is meant for information not for the indulgence of fancies. Disambiguating seems to be not particularly relevant for even with say "London Wloo" as the article, an minor article to guide the seeker after truth would be needed to get to London stations and not Liverpool or closed one way Welsh ones--SilasW (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    We're decidedly not supposed to "Do as you fancy". Official naming policies, however, are quite often controversial (not so much in Europe or North America, but the rest of the world) and replying on them would violate WP:PRIMARY anyway. Regardless, see WP:COMMONNAME for our guidelines oh how we are supposed to primarily resolve naming disputes (hint: it's all about the third party references).
    V = I * R (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    OK, the Shield of Irony has not kept me from crying "Touché". Most railway articles fail the reference test because even "A is between B and C" is unsourced. Some strong reason needs to be adduced for not following the reference given above.--SilasW (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    I should point out that I'm very willing to bend. All I'm attempting to do here is state what I see is the position we should follow based on current policy/guidelines (If I'm missing something though, please point it out to me!). I can clearly see your point, and even personally agree with it, but until and unless it is actually crafted as a guideline (either into the existing guidelines or as something new) then we shouldn't be performing "one-off" page moves that will seem inconsistent to the wider project. I think that what you articulated there, a narrow exception which would specifically recognize official names of railroad stations, has a very good chance of being adopted; it simply needs to be done. If and when it is done, this then should become an uncontroversial move.
    V = I * R (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would note there are actually two published sources for the station names. National Rail use "London" [3] and Network Rail (the owners of the stations) do not. [4] MRSC (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Link Network Rail
managed stations [5]
National Rail
station codes [6]
Station signage
1 n/a London Blackfriars London Blackfriars >image<
2 Cannon Street London Cannon Street London Cannon Street >image<
3 Charing Cross London Charing Cross London Charing Cross >image<
4 n/a City Thameslink City Thameslink >image<
5 Euston London Euston London Euston >image<
6 Fenchurch Street London Fenchurch Street Fenchurch Street >image<
7 King's Cross London Kings Cross London Kings Cross >image<
8 Liverpool Street London Liverpool Street London Liverpool Street >image<
9 London Bridge London Bridge London Bridge >image<
10 n/a London Marylebone London Marylebone >image<
11 n/a Moorgate Moorgate >image<
12 Paddington London Paddington London Paddington >image<
13 St Pancras London St Pancras St Pancras >image<
14 Victoria London Victoria London Victoria >image<
15 Waterloo London Waterloo London Waterloo >image<
16 n/a London Waterloo East Waterloo East >image<

The station signage adds another layer of complexity as "London" is not applied to agree with either source. With this, the notion of an "official name" becomes harder to grasp hold of. MRSC (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Annnnd... there's the other excellent reason not to rely on "official names". It would be nice if this were easier, wouldn't it? I personally tend to dislike multiple movereq's, because I've noticed that they invariably tend to turn into quagmires like this. My suggestion is to de-list this, and either re-list some of these individually gather an interested group together and modify the requites guidelines in some appropriate fashion. The articles aren't going anywhere, so my suggestion is to go with the discuss and modify guidelines route, but that's just me.
V = I * R (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
We've already had preliminary talk at WikiProject London Transport, but that brought us here to get wider discussion. So rather than go round in circles, I suggest we delist the group nomination and relist only Paddington, Waterloo and Waterloo East separately. There appears to be some support for continuing London Victoria and London Kings Cross as they require disambiguation and that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Can you do the de-/re-listing? I am not that familiar with WP:RM admin. MRSC (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This afternoon I noticed that the displays in the SWTrain I was on showed "London Waterloo".--SilasW (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I see he conversation you occurred at WT:LT#London station article naming, now. The best move is to update your Manual of style, and then add an exception to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United Kingdom by pointing to the section on the MOS. If you do that, then this can be re-listed with a simpler "rename in order to comply with WP:NCGN" statement. Much less controversy or questions, that way. I could certainly re-list this, but I'd rather just wait for the changes and then change my !vote. There no real rush, since the movereq has 6 days to run befomre being in the backlog.
V = I * R (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. This is updated now. MRSC (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. A better solution would be to rename St Pancras railway station as London St Pancras station. Have you any idea how many railway stations in Europe are called Waterloo? The answer is eleven. The railway time table site I use is [] always requires disambiguation on this question. If there is going to be an article entitled Waterloo Station, it should be about the one south of Brussels. If you use the website, you will understand the logic behind this.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(FWIW station is used for multi-modal, railway station is used for mainline railway only and STP is not a tube station). —Sladen (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My opinion has always been that we should go by the platform signs - which gives us, according to MRSC's list above, "Fenchurch Street", "St Pancras International", and "London [name]" for the other terminii. Victoria will always need disambiguation (as long as Manchester Victoria is open, at least), and I can't believe that the abomination "Victoria station (London)" is preferable to "London Victoria station". So, we're stuck with "London Victoria", which agrees with the platform signs; if we're implacably opposed to platform signs and consistency is more important, this would suggest that "London" should be added rather than removed. Tevildo (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify - if global consistency is required, I would support "London Fenchurch St" and "London St Pancras" as against the status quo. Tevildo (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image change[edit]

I am changing the current image (File:Paddington Station.jpg) into a new one (File:Paddington Station rush hour.jpg) as it is a much recent image and displays the main concourse along with the old train shed, platforms and directions to give the reader a general view of the station that displays many features mentioned further in the article, rather than an image which only focusses on one particular platform and a train. Hope it helps! Gareth-- (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, and from the changes in the last few days, neither does User:Sladen, who also changed it back to the picture with the trains. The picture of the concourse isn't even very obviously a railway station. -- Alarics (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Building works associated with Heathrow Express introduction[edit]

The history section does not include anything associated with the works carried out during the introduction of Heathrow Express. Specifically the building of check-in desks for Heathrow airlines (as used to be at Victoria for Gatwick). And the subsequent conversion into retail units after off-airport check-in was dispensed with. I am aware it happened, but this significant works at the station are missing. Unfortunately, although I know it happened I do not have the relevant sources to put the info into the article. --Stewart (talk | edits) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

From working there in the past it is true to say the work carried out for the Heathrow Express was extensive and not just what the ordinary passenger can see either, however from memory alot of this information was not released into the public domain because of security fears. I've never seen any reference to these works outside of Network Rails own records. LongRobin79(talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
We should be able to track down a bit. [7] has some information, and in turn references "Airline check in at London station". International Railway Journal. XXIX (7): 2. July 1999. . [8] talks about "the new Paddington Station Extension, which leads to the Heathrow Express check-in". [9] talks about "Heathrow Express check-in area within the Paddington Lawns,". [10] has a picture. [11][12] reference a couple of papers that may/may not be related. [13] shows at least a reference in Hansard. Paddington Railway Station Lawn Area - glass, automatics and door hardware from DORMA talks about "6m high glass". 99/02144/ADLBC appears to have been the planning application, which could be tracked down along with the usual enormous detail. [14] has six pages on the design process. The listed building #209557 notes "Finally 'The Lawn' building was demolished in 1999 and has been replaced by a larger and more attractive version designed by Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners". Should be enough leads to at least get somebody else started! —Sladen (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How about "The Heathrow Express Check-In desks were opened in 1999, as part of a £350 million pound project to provide access from London to Heathrow Airport.1 The opening of these desks marked the end of a complete refurbishment of Paddington Station, making it the first main line terminus to be fully refurbished under the Station 2000 Project.2 Originally there were 27 desks, over time these were progressivly closed, due to financial restrictions imposed by a fall in air passenger traffic.3 Since the closure of the desks, the space they previously occupied has been convereted into a number of retail units." LongRobin79(talk) 11:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

history - traversers to carry coaches between the tracks within the station[edit]

What is the evidence that, "recent research, using early documents and photographs, does not seem to support this belief, and their actual purpose is unknown"?

Showing turntables and lines allowing transfer between lines. refers to a hydraulic platform and Charles Lee in his Railway Magazine article (June 1954 p. 374) on the centenary also referred to John Wolfe Barry's 1878 'Railway Appliances' and included these diagrams.

Movable platform at Paddington. its truck from the recess by means of a chain connected to an hydraulic apparatus, and the lower sketch shows it raised to the level of the platforms on each side. The raising is effected by continuing to haul on the chain after the truck has come out of the recess, which causes the two rollers (shaded in the sketches) to travel along the lower surfaces of the inclined planes fixed below the platform. Small rollers at the end of the platform relieve the friction between the movable platform, and the side of the central platform. By the use of this movable platform three long trains can be loaded at once, if the two trains nearest the booking offices be temporarily cut in halves. When it is necessary to despatch these trains, the movable cross platform is run back to its position beneath the main platform, the first half of the train is backed and coupled up to the second half Trains of shorter length can be loaded and despatched, when the movable platform is raised.

Charles' research was usually very thorough. Was he wrong?Johnragla (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)