![]() | This page 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. |
"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)
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)
The article makes the assertion that:
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:
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)
(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)
The selection of photos doesn't give much idea of the scale of the station. Could someone please add pictures of:
Thank you Bhoeble 15:42, 17 August 2005 (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 :)
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.
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)
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)
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)
-- Tony4in1 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
split please!-- Screen42 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article needs to be split in to seperate articles or well reorganised,
Waterloo east has now been moved to its own article and should STAY THERE. mark999 26/07/07 UTC: 18:58
mark999
Are the comments about the lost luggage area in the correct NPOV form? Advice.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WP guidelines say Talk is for discussing improvements to article, not for loosely related questions and ramblings.-- SilasW 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There's a marvellous old ticket office at the station that I never noticed until this summer. I can't find anything about it on Google so I thought someone here might know about it. I've got a couple of pictures but can't see how to put them here. Aalisonberry ( talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that we need to write these articles with the potential visitor in mind. The visitor is seeking information, and probably is not a railway enthusiast.
I wonder therefore whether the History section ought not to be the first thing we get after the summary. Of course the intricacies of the history are interesting to us railway enthusiasts ... but should they dominate the descriptive matter?
Secondly, the scope of the article seems to be the main ex-LSWR station. Indeed "All regular services are operated by South West Trains." and "Adjacent is London Waterloo East, which is managed and branded separately."
Yet halfway down we get a fullish description of Waterloo East, including the fact that the preceding station is Charing Cross and the next is London Bridge. It gets worse, because we now learn that the previous Bakerloo station (for example) is Embankment and the next one is Lambeth North. Oh, and the next Eurostar station was Ashford until 1997.
Of course it is relevant to say that Waterloo East is next door and trains run to places in Kent, and that the Underground lines X, Y and Z run from there. But all this off-topic information is what gets railway enthusiasts a bad name. Afterbrunel ( talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It would worth adding something about the link discussed in [2]; I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the station's historic layout. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
London Waterloo station. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is about the physical building and therefore only cultural items in which the station plays a significant part as a railway hub are relevant. Chance references in passing are not and, in any case, the creation of unreferenced lists of irrelevancies are unencyclopaedic. The stylistic rule is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 21:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I trimmed the number of significant figures of total passengers for the lead, but it was reverted by Jayck123. I think 6 is far too many significant figures for the lead, especially as those who are interested in the details can look in the infobox as well as the main body of the article. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London Waterloo station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The article currently says, "... the complex handled a total of 211 million passengers in the 2015/2016 financial year ..."
Really, it means that the complex handled 211 million departures and arrivals, I assume. I doubt that 211 million individual people passed through Waterloo. Am I misunderstanding? Living up to my user name too closely? IAmNitpicking ( talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user ( talk) 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
London Waterloo station →
Waterloo station – Since
Waterloo station already redirects to this article, and is noted as the
primary topic in
Waterloo station (disambiguation), there's no need to put the "London" in front. Although official announcements always refer to it as "London Waterloo", this is more as a reference for people outside London travelling in, and in practical conversation, it's simply called "Waterloo". See
Marylebone station (not
London Marylebone station) for previous precedent.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 09:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk
21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: although there are more oppose !votes, the extent and depth of the support !votes are much more compelling so I think a relist is in order.
There are points both for and against what is proposed. It would be preferable that references to London railway stations should be standardised. In this case, however, we are dealing with a station named after a preexisting locality ( Waterloo, Belgium) which also has a station - "along the line Charleroi-Sud - Nivelles - Brussels", according to the WP article. There needs to be a title that resolves this ambiguity, therefore. A precedent for this is the disambiguation of Kings Cross railway station, Sydney, so perhaps the article under question might be listed as Waterloo Station, London. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"I can't find a reliable source for it being the nth busiest in Europe, full stop - throw it out" an edit by Ritchie333 Quite rightly, a statement on Waterloo being the nth busiest station in Europe has been removed.
Can anyone find a reasonable source for this? Turini2 ( talk) 14:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@ 2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B:, do you have a reliable source for your unsourced additions, or do you just like edit-warring without leaving any edit summaries so people have to guess? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
"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)
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)
The article makes the assertion that:
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:
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)
(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)
The selection of photos doesn't give much idea of the scale of the station. Could someone please add pictures of:
Thank you Bhoeble 15:42, 17 August 2005 (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 :)
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.
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)
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)
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)
-- Tony4in1 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
split please!-- Screen42 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article needs to be split in to seperate articles or well reorganised,
Waterloo east has now been moved to its own article and should STAY THERE. mark999 26/07/07 UTC: 18:58
mark999
Are the comments about the lost luggage area in the correct NPOV form? Advice.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WP guidelines say Talk is for discussing improvements to article, not for loosely related questions and ramblings.-- SilasW 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There's a marvellous old ticket office at the station that I never noticed until this summer. I can't find anything about it on Google so I thought someone here might know about it. I've got a couple of pictures but can't see how to put them here. Aalisonberry ( talk) 20:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that we need to write these articles with the potential visitor in mind. The visitor is seeking information, and probably is not a railway enthusiast.
I wonder therefore whether the History section ought not to be the first thing we get after the summary. Of course the intricacies of the history are interesting to us railway enthusiasts ... but should they dominate the descriptive matter?
Secondly, the scope of the article seems to be the main ex-LSWR station. Indeed "All regular services are operated by South West Trains." and "Adjacent is London Waterloo East, which is managed and branded separately."
Yet halfway down we get a fullish description of Waterloo East, including the fact that the preceding station is Charing Cross and the next is London Bridge. It gets worse, because we now learn that the previous Bakerloo station (for example) is Embankment and the next one is Lambeth North. Oh, and the next Eurostar station was Ashford until 1997.
Of course it is relevant to say that Waterloo East is next door and trains run to places in Kent, and that the Underground lines X, Y and Z run from there. But all this off-topic information is what gets railway enthusiasts a bad name. Afterbrunel ( talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It would worth adding something about the link discussed in [2]; I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the station's historic layout. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
London Waterloo station. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The article is about the physical building and therefore only cultural items in which the station plays a significant part as a railway hub are relevant. Chance references in passing are not and, in any case, the creation of unreferenced lists of irrelevancies are unencyclopaedic. The stylistic rule is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 21:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I trimmed the number of significant figures of total passengers for the lead, but it was reverted by Jayck123. I think 6 is far too many significant figures for the lead, especially as those who are interested in the details can look in the infobox as well as the main body of the article. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London Waterloo station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The article currently says, "... the complex handled a total of 211 million passengers in the 2015/2016 financial year ..."
Really, it means that the complex handled 211 million departures and arrivals, I assume. I doubt that 211 million individual people passed through Waterloo. Am I misunderstanding? Living up to my user name too closely? IAmNitpicking ( talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user ( talk) 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
London Waterloo station →
Waterloo station – Since
Waterloo station already redirects to this article, and is noted as the
primary topic in
Waterloo station (disambiguation), there's no need to put the "London" in front. Although official announcements always refer to it as "London Waterloo", this is more as a reference for people outside London travelling in, and in practical conversation, it's simply called "Waterloo". See
Marylebone station (not
London Marylebone station) for previous precedent.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 09:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk
21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: although there are more oppose !votes, the extent and depth of the support !votes are much more compelling so I think a relist is in order.
There are points both for and against what is proposed. It would be preferable that references to London railway stations should be standardised. In this case, however, we are dealing with a station named after a preexisting locality ( Waterloo, Belgium) which also has a station - "along the line Charleroi-Sud - Nivelles - Brussels", according to the WP article. There needs to be a title that resolves this ambiguity, therefore. A precedent for this is the disambiguation of Kings Cross railway station, Sydney, so perhaps the article under question might be listed as Waterloo Station, London. Mzilikazi1939 ( talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
"I can't find a reliable source for it being the nth busiest in Europe, full stop - throw it out" an edit by Ritchie333 Quite rightly, a statement on Waterloo being the nth busiest station in Europe has been removed.
Can anyone find a reasonable source for this? Turini2 ( talk) 14:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@ 2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B:, do you have a reliable source for your unsourced additions, or do you just like edit-warring without leaving any edit summaries so people have to guess? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)