Talk:Waterloo station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

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.

[edit] 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)

Persumably 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Internation 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 originial 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 thr Chatham line?--Screen42 23:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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 lisence 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Seperation

Hey everyone, I think it could improve the article if the 3 stations were to be seperated, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Mrsteviec 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. Mrsteviec 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 Wikpedia, 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. Mrsteviec 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. Mrsteviec 08:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 seperate 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 seperate, 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! Mrsteviec 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. Mrsteviec 17:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many people know this as a seperate 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. Mrsteviec 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my above comment. Should we just wait a while more to see what happens? Btw, insn'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)

[edit] Origin of name?

Isn't the Waterloo bridge at least parlty 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/t/Talk%7EWaterloo_station_26a2.html"

Categories: Start-Class rail transport articles | Unknown-importance rail transport articles | Start-Class London-related articles | High-importance London-related articles | WikiProject London articles

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.