Talk:London Paddington station

Platforms

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 88.105.194.167 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bear

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 92.24.4.157 (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Spans

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

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

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)

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 station → Paddington 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)

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)

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

Discussion

• 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

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

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

can the Metropolitan Line stop be mentioned under "disused" tube/railway stops as paddington used to be on the Metropolitan Line 82.24.175.199 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

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

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

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?

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

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)

• London Paddington station → Paddington station
• London King's Cross railway station → King's Cross railway station
• London Waterloo station → Waterloo station
• London Waterloo East railway station → Waterloo East railway station
• London Victoria station → Victoria station (London)

This would bring them into line with these articles:

• Cannon Street station
• Charing Cross railway station
• Euston railway station
• Fenchurch Street railway station
• Liverpool Street station
• Marylebone station
• St Pancras railway station

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:

• Kew Gardens station (London)
• Kingston railway station (London)
• Reedham railway station (London)
• Richmond station (London)
• Sutton railway station (London)
• Sydenham railway station (London)

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 [www.die-bahn.de] 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 die-bahn.de 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

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--80.194.231.189 (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

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

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.

http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Railway_Appliances_1000721621/209 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)

Pollution of the station

I think it might be a good idea to talk about how polluted the station is. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/paddington-station-more-polluted-than-the-marylebone-road-thanks-to-diesel-fumes-from-trains-a2943126.html http://www.airqualitynews.com/2015/09/11/paddington-station-air-more-polluted-than-marylebone-rd/ http://www.iop.org/news/15/sep/page_66225.html

SageWater (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on London Paddington 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410040141/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/ to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901170231/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901170231/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Accidents

Are we seriously suggesting that no accident occurred at Paddington until 1920? Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, none that I could find a good reliable source for. If you've got sources for them, put them in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Since when has The Times, The Standard and The Pall Mall Gazette Newspapers, or the Railways Archive website been deemed unreliable sources? Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said they weren't; but just because you can reliably source something, doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate for an article, particularly when (AFAIK) a general purpose source such as London's Termini didn't bring them up. I think you'd agree that the Ladbroke Grove accident is far more significant than all the other ones put together, and therefore has the largest space in this section. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You're the one that removed the earlier accidents and then challenged me to find reliable sources, something I had already done when I added them in the first place.

Agree that they were relatively minor accidents and not deserving of an article, but that doesn't mean that they should be omitted altogether. Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ladbroke Grove surely isn't particularly relevant to Paddington station, from the coordinates it was beyond Westbourne Park. I would accept a hatnote on the grounds it's also known as the Paddington rail crash. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Did we ever resolve this finally one way or the other? Looking at what I wrote above, it looks like I was "towing the party line" from what The Rambling Man said. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that we did. This was the edit that removed all pre-1920 accidents. All entries had a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

I've gone an idea, how about when someone changed someone else's work, we just revert it, back and forth until someone gets blocked, or reported for vandalism or a major argument breaks out. "Thumbs up" Happy Christmas.Gwrhst (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've got a better idea, when somebody spends time and effort getting an article up to good article status, including researching several books to get facts that cannot be simply obtained by a Google web search, you listen to what they have to say first, before logging out to edit-war over it (which can get you blocked, but I'm nice so I won't). Anyway, in this case, the guidelines for embedded lists suggest that there are instances where lists may be preferable to be presented as prose, specifically, "Presenting too much statistical data in list format may contravene policy" And more specifically, "Recent Notable Incidents" - recent according to whom, and "notable" is a word to watch, and putting the phrase "Bulleted list item" is nonsensical. Sorry, your edits weren't improvements so they had to be reverted. Better luck next time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Alledged strikes

Apparently there is a strike happening right now, but a search for news sources brings back nothing. What's going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Architecture

Not sure how I'm only reading this in detail for the first time now but I'm surprised at how little coverage there is of the architecture of the station. There's an entire book on it (which is cited as a reference) and multiple other books on station architecture in general and the London termini in particular. Paddington is one of only nine grade I listed main line railway station in England. There's probably enough material to write a sub article, but I feel it deserves at least a paragraph or two here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! I guess the bits on architecture are spread around the history section - whether it's expanded throughout or summarised in a dedicated section, I'm not fussed. Turini2 (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After four months, proposal has been overwhelmingly opposed, result is not merged. Rossonwy (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

---

I see that this has been mooted before - see Talk:London_Paddington_station#Requested_move_(1). However, I want to get this discussion going again because having three different articles covering much of the same content makes no logical sense. I am thus proposing the merge of Paddington_tube_station_(Bakerloo,_Circle_and_District_lines) and Paddington_tube_station_(Circle_and_Hammersmith_&_City_lines) into the London Paddington station article. I think it would be sensible to follow the structure above for this discussion - so please write your opinion under the relevant heading with Strong oppose, Oppose, Support or Strong support with your reasoning if you wish - and remember to use the 4 tildes (~~~~)!Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chris j wood, Willkm, Jt spratt, MRSC, Thryduulf, and Robwingfield:

• Comment — The two tube stations are quite separate having no common gateline, and have different histories (as I'm sure most involved editors are aware, historically they were not the same station, Bishop's Road vs. Praed Street), so the current set-up does make some sense. By a similar token we could merge Edgware Road (Bakerloo) and Edgware Road (Circle), which I don't think people would be for. Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 20:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I see, these are three pretty much distinct stations which happen to share a name. Merging them would only make the resulting article more cramped and would not present readers with information in a clearer way. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any merge, support keeping the articles split - The two tube stations are distinct both from each other and from the mainline railway station. The only difference is that they happen to share a name and are near the same station. And that situation frankly is not uncommon - a similar issue comes up with Hammersmith tube station (District and Piccadilly lines) and Hammersmith tube station (Circle and Hammersmith & City lines). If you want to look across the pond for a very similar example, the NYC Subway's 34th Street–Penn Station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line) and 34th Street–Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line) stops both serve Pennsylvania Station (New York City), but the two subway stations have distinct gatelines and are only indirectly connected by Pennsylvania Station. And NYC has a lot more similarly named stations than London does.
  The tube station articles do not seem to cover the same content, either. The District/Circle/Bakerloo station was built by the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway and by the Metropolitan Railway. The Circle/H&C station was also built by the Metropolitan Railway but on a completely separate branch. If the two MR stations had been named, say, Praed Street and Bishop's Road, then I highly doubt there would even be a merge proposal right now. The railway station is also a separate subject altogether. It just so happens to be served by two tube stations. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, I just realized that some other stations (e.g. London Bridge station, Liverpool Street station) have the opposite problem, where the railway and tube stations are given one article when two would be more appropriate. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, splitting those station articles would be a good idea! I would oppose any merge for many of the reasons detailed above. Turini2 (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I agree with the excellent points made by Epicgenius. Also, as alluded to by RandomCanadian, all three articles are plenty long as it is. Merging three longish articles into one very long article isn't great for the reader, unless there's so much overlapping content that the end result would be clearer. I don't think that would be the case here. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Aren't they seperate stations? If so, then it would make sense to keep the articles seperate/ NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  @NightWolf1223, they are indeed separate. However, the issue is made complicated by a couple of things.

• The stations are displayed on the Tube map in a really weird way. The map displays the Circle/H&C line station as being in between the Bakerloo and District/Circle platforms. This may give the mistaken impression that the three sets of Tube platforms are connected to each other within the same gateline, which they aren't. And of course, the mainline railway station is separate from the tube station.
• The Elizabeth line platforms towards Heathrow/Reading and towards Abbey Wood don't even seem to be connected within the same gateline, at least for the time being. The new platforms of the Elizabeth line (currently only serving trains to and from Abbey Wood) seem to be within the same gateline as the Bakerloo line platforms, and by extension the District/Circle line platforms. The trains to and from Heathrow and Reading call at the mainline platforms, which aren't connected. I'm a little less sure of this, and someone more knowledgeable can correct me.

– Epicgenius (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SIZE - the history of stations with "Paddington" in the name is complicated, but in common use, the mainline station serves a different purpose than the two tube stations, although the Elizabeth line has put a bit of a spanner in the works. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as author of both articles. Although TfL currently shows them as linked on the tube map and combines their user statistics, the two stations are physically separate and treated separately in TfL's count of stations.--DavidCane (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per most above. There are four physically separate stations in close proximity that happen to share a name - (1) the mainline station, (2) the H&C station, (3) the Circle, District line and Bakerloo line stations, (4) the Elizabeth line station. They were built at different times by different organisations, have separate histories, and are operationally separate. There is no advantage to a merger but plenty of disadvantages. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead

Couldn't work out how to word additions to the highly concise and well worded lead - so offering my suggestions to the "floor". Should the lead mention a) electrification of the lines into the station b) the opening of the Elizabeth line? Turini2 (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)