Talk:London Waterloo station/Archive 1

Travelator

"a 140m (460 feet) travelator link - only the second on the Underground."

What was the first? Some of us can't stand this sort of suspense! HELP! -- Tarquin 20:30, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the sloping thing at the Bank end of the Waterloo and City line counts as a travelator - although it isn't flat like the Waterloo one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:36, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suspense? Suspense? Pah - you'd be a gibbering wreck after 5 minutes of "24". ;-) -- ChrisO 23:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

etymology

I find it extremely unlikely that the station is named for the neighborhood, and not the other way around. Anybody have evidence, one way or t'other? Doops 23:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The station was named after Waterloo Bridge, which was named after the battle. The district subsequently became generally known as Waterloo.

By the way, it's amusing to see the comment about the name of the station by the French politician - Paris has stations called Austerlitz, Magenta and Stalingrad!

138.253.102.162 10:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're sure about that sequence of events, why not edit the article to reflect it? Doops | talk 17:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Waterloo International - future

The article makes the assertion that:

From 2007 after the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is completed, Eurostar trains will terminate at St Pancras station thus meaning Waterloo International will cease to exist and the platform capacity will then be used by commuters from South London and the South-West.

Does anybody have a source for the bit about the platform capacity being used for commuters from South London etc. I'd be delighted to find that a decision to this effect has been made, but the only statement I've seen in writing about Waterloo International's future went something like:

From 2007 after the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is completed, Eurostar trains will terminate at St Pancras station; Waterloo International will then revert to the ownership of the Department of Transport (note, not Network Rail) who will determine any future usage.

Those words are from memory, probably not verbatim, and were more of an aside to a statement on the future of the current Eurostar depot at Old Oak Common (same applies there). -- Chris j wood 22:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No one has responded to this request in nearly a month, so I've removed the claim and substituted the DoT wording from above. -- Chris j wood 18:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops sorry didn't see your original request scroll through my watchlist a month ago. I've certainly seen the "revert to commuters" suggestion in the Evening Standard ... seems more likely a natural extrapolation on the part of a journalists rather than hard fact. Pcb21| Pete 22:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A final decision hasn't been made yet - South West Trains would like to use the platforms, but it would require considerable remodelling of the approaches (costing a lot), so there's a suggestion it will be converted to a shopping centre and offices. Note added to this effect. Willkm 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(POV comment follows) - Why don't they build the shopping centre/offices with trains running into the ground floor or basement, with the income from rents funding the track remodelling? Mind you that would require common sense.....

138.253.102.162 10:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What will happen to the railway at fawkenham junction - will is still be required to connect CTRL 1 to 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)

Photo request

The selection of photos doesn't give much idea of the scale of the station. Could someone please add pictures of:

• The main concourse
• The Eurostar shed
• A wider angle view of the main entrance

Thank you Bhoeble 15:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

how's this? Matt Whyndham 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Commuters at Waterloo station. Travellers waiting for their trains home look for their platform to be announced on the departure boards.

Waterloo station concourse see from the north (Eurostar) end. The famous clock can be seen. This meeting point roughly in the centre of the concourse.

Taking photos

Taking photos in a London railway station is a less hassle-free experience than it used to be ;-). Pcb21| Pete 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's true it's pathetic - the officials not you. I despise the way they play into the terrorists hands by whipping up hysteria and inferring with innocent people going about innocent business. They are doing exactly what the terrorists want. But the entrance is outside and I've found an old picture of the concourse. Bhoeble 18:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A picture of the station sign would be good, though I suppose in light of recent events, it's easier said than done, but anything would be good thanks Danny 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got some photos of Waterloo that are in my queue to upload. I didn't have any trouble photographing at Waterloo although I was told

• I was a potential terrorist at Tower Hill
• I needed a Network Rail photographic licence at Fenchurch Street
• I was violating Network Rail's copyright at Paddington (interesting that they would have copyright on a building that predates their organisation by ~150 years!). Thryduulf 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Eurostar shed is opposite Old Oak Common (Pretty Much) so you would need to be travelling to Paddington to get a picture. Preferably not on a HST :)

You can get good shots out the open window of a HST - much better than through the inevitably grubby glass of a multiple unit. I'm probably headed in that way on Wednesday, so I'll try and remember to see what I can get. Thryduulf 11:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Waterloo International cost

The cost of construction of Waterloo International claimed on the page seemed to have soared to £600 million, which is getting into the same sort of ballpark as the Millennium Dome. I've done some investigation and the most commonly cited figure on architectural websites (see ref. on page) is £130 million, so I've amended it to that.

Waterloo International now has its own article and that's where all information about it should go, even if the site and structure revert to London Waterloo's use.
Reason 1)That's where it belongs
Reason 2 Unless every bit added to one article is conscientiously added to the other a typical WP contraction will arise.--SilasW (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Separation

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)

I don’t think so — the stations function as a unit, and Waterloo International is likely to become an extension of the main South West services once Eurostar move to St Pancras. David Arthur 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay Danny 17:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bakerloo line exit into station

This may not be the place to post this, but its been bugging me for the best part of a year, so here it goes: I have been travelling through Waterloo a lot of weekends, when making the return trip back out into Surrey I get off at the Waterloo underground stop on the Bakerloo line. Now the tunnel going off the platform towards the escalators, there is almost always a vile smell hanging in the air, sorta smells like puke. It is not there when I go from the jubilee line exit, so what is so specific about that one exit that it always smells rancid? Any comments or theories welcome

Country Captain Chicken 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Split please

These articles need to be split. The current format forces each article to be very short. Each section is completely separate already, so forcing them to be on one page isn't gaining anything. --88.110.189.21 00:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no barrier to expansion - just click edit and add the text to this article. They are one large complex so its right for them to be one article. Also International closes soon and will become part of the main station so a split would be a pointless temporary measure. MRSC 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree this article doesn't need to be split yet, I refer you to WP:SIZE for the general Wikipedia guidelines on article length; just because an article is about one complex, that isn't necessarily a reason to keep it as one page if it becomes too long. Cheers --Pak21 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As you say, that is irrelevant in this case as the article is not that large. I make no suggestion (implicit or otherwise) that the article can never be split. MRSC 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is that each section just isn't long enough for what it's meant to cover, but having them all on one page hides that. On Wikipedia, short articles (as these would revealed to be after the split) encourage people to add to them, which is as good a reason for the split as any.

I've just evicted Waterloo East, which was the least justifiable. More to follow. --Dtcdthingy 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is still in progress and I don't see any consensus for a split so I'm going to move that back. MRSC 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The present page is slightly confusing for someone who is not from the capital, and might be more confusing for people from outside the UK. Surely a disambiguation style page where a "menu-bar" at the top of the page can be used to link to the various stations which comprise the station complex would help? Even a "layout" map instead of just the zoom in map of where it is would help the page(s). This could also be applied to other "complex" stations like Charing Cross, Euston etc.

--Tony4in1 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

split please!--Screen42 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article should be split only when some more content has been added to warrant it. As it stands, the article size has been static for some time. I've put some stub expand messages to encourage further copy. MRSC 08:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Another split request

This article is rather long. All i am proposing is that Waterloo East railway station and Southwark tube station be split off into their 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)

I've split them back out. They shouldn't have been merged. The Southwark tube station article has plenty of content, it doesn't have "Waterloo" as part of its name and also the line guide nav-box was a nonsense with the next station along linking to the same article! MRSC 21:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is gained by splitting Waterloo East railway station? The split should only occur when this article gets too long. MRSC 17:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Many people know this as a separate station. How about i take this to the WikiProject Trains talk page and ask for their opinion, although i hope i haven't gone too far too soon. Simply south 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In the great scheme of things it doesn't really matter. But, if you remove one section, what is to stop someone else removing another, and another until we have four short articles where we used to have one, complete article. I just think employing the usual wiki practice of splitting only once the article gets long is the best thing to do. There have been more edits around the splitting and merging recently than there have been adding content. Perhaps it is time to add some more copy and then there would be good reason to split. If none gets added (and there hasn't been much of great scale for a while) perhaps that is a good indication that the article should stay as-is. MRSC 18:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my above comment. Should we just wait a while more to see what happens? Btw, isn't it wiki practice, only of the section was originally part of the article generally, not merged and split again? Simply south 18:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of name?

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

I haven't got the book to hand, but I'm sure I've read that the bridge originally had a different name. Naming big stations after battles is apparently quite common in Europe. Thryduulf 00:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The station is almost certainly named after the adjacent Waterloo Bridge (built 1817) rather than the long-ago Battle of Waterloo. All other London railway stations are named after the streets or districts in which they are situated. Colin4C 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the article for Waterloo Bridge, it was called the 'Strand Bridge' during construction. Another website (Victorian London) has quotes about the bridge with dates. It quotes from 1844 (four years prior to Waterloo station's opening) a mention of the bridge as Waterloo Bridge. Not only that but, apparently, the bridge passed its first passengers on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.

Besides this evidence, isn't there a memorial of the Battle of Waterloo over the main entrance to the station, with words to that effect? This would suggest perhaps a dual-inspiration for the naming of the station. -- smiler 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Colin i am not sure i follow your comment "The station is almost certainly named after the adjacent Waterloo Bridge (built 1817) rather than the long-ago Battle of Waterloo" The Battle of Waterloo was in 1815 so only predates Waterloo Bridge by 2 years Deckchair 13:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Colins comment is correct, when the bridge was built, the general Wellington victory over Napoleon was actually adopted for the name of the bridge and Waterloo Station was named after it as there was no specific name of a line starting there to name the station. ] (talk • contribs) SonniWP 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

With no reference to hand I presumed to write in the article itself that the station was built decades after Waterloo Bridge. My style was not, I confess, encyclopedic, but I hoped to prompt someone with access to sources to establish the facts. That was a vain hope. The reaction was to object to my calling 31 years "decades", to delete my comment, and to re-affirm that the station was named after the battle. As for uncertainty that the station is named directly after the battle see the Wikipedia article for London and South Western Railway which states that the station was first named Waterloo Bridge. Of course everything in Wikipedia should be sourced, I doubt if one tenth is. Perhaps a journey to BM newspaper archives is needed.-SilasW 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As I was the editor who deleted the article text (not comment) The nearby Waterloo Bridge was constructed decades before the station perhaps I can reply to this. I removed it because it just didn't seem to belong where it was; as written and in its context in the article it failed to convey anything to me about the naming of the station. I can now see from the above comments where the author was coming from, but we shouldn't expect our readers to have to read the talk page in order to understand the article. So I stand by my deletion.

Moving on to the naming question. I see several people have contributed the very plausible theory that the station is indirectly named after the battle (ie. Waterloo Station is named after Waterloo Bridge is named after Waterloo the battle). Unfortunately no one has cited a reference for this, so a theory is all it remains, and it cannot go into the article until somebody can find a cite for it. What is currently in the article certainly doesn't contradict this theory, as it simply says the station is named after the battle, without specifying exactly how. So I think it is fine to leave it as it is, until an appropriate cite is found.

I apologise if my comment on 31 years not being decades sounded a bit offhand. In hindsight I could have said it better. -- Chris j wood 10:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Measurable?

The article states "Waterloo station however remains the most attractive and spacious of all London mainline stations." How has this been measured? Deckchair 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I must second this remark. I was sitting in Waterloo station this morning looking around at the train shed, thinking how ugly it was, especially with the careless addition of Tannoys, cabling, netting and so-forth (what I despise about all British railway stations). Personally, I think the Kings Cross train shed is far superior in appearance, though its exterior is sadly hidden by the 1970s monstrosity that currently stands (not for long though!). Spacious it is, however, and could we be measured (Liverpool Street may be a strong contender). -- smiler 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we must assume that the original author was being sarcastic here. The 'industrial' cross-wise train shed at Waterloo simply doesn't bear comparison to Brunel's 'cathedral' at Paddington, or the awe inspiring single span at St Pancras. And Waterloo's concourse is well known for its crowds. Still someone else has removed the text, so its moot now. -- Chris j wood 10:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Form of names of London stations

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)

Naming issues

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)

How many stations?

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)

Waterloo East redirect

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)

Split (again)

This article needs to be split in to seperate articles or well reorganised,

Waterloo East

Waterloo east has now been moved to its own article and should STAY THERE. mark999 26/07/07 UTC: 18:58

mark999

NPOV

Are the comments about the lost luggage area in the correct NPOV form? Advice.

Function of Talk

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)

Function of Preview

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)

??? Doops | talk 02:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, its not the end of the world, have a cup of tea Pickle 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo International reuse revisited

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)

The countries on the arch

Looking at the photo of the archway above the main entrance, I see there are seven countries named on it, but I can't read all of them. What are they and what is their significance? Akiyama 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of 10 Nov 2007

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)

Purpose of Talk

WP guidelines say Talk is for discussing improvements to article, not for loosely related questions and ramblings.--SilasW 14:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is good to ask questions about the topic of the article. This does help improve the article as it is collating knowledge on the subject. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of and numbers of Platforms

The 1-19 which followed "Number of platforms in use = 19" has recently been cut as redundant. Is it really redundant? Many stations have platforms not in use but numbered (on lines from Wloo Twickenham uses only 3, 4, and 5, CJ does not use #1). "A"s and "B"s abound. KX is growing a "Y". The parasitic twin in any WP article on the main body of Wloo has no numbers, just A, B, C, & D.--SilasW (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. We only need to show how the platforms are numbered if there is something odd about the numbering such as at Twickenham and CJ. Also, Waterloo East is seperate from Waterloo Main. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but that relies on all odd cases having been dealt with. With the hodge-podge that WP editing is, that is unlikely. I don't see what Wloo East being separate has to do with the matter. That station with letters is an odd case (for good reason) yet an editor deleted the letters.--SilasW (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, the 'Platforms in Use' is only there to show the numbers of platforms. How they are numbered, etc. should be shown in a platform guide elsewhere in the article. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Seeing as it seems this has just split, does anyone object if i change the name to London Waterloo railway station? Simply south (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure though, because it does cover the whole of Waterloo station (mainline, east and Underground). It just has links elsewhere to pages for the East and Underground stations. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The terminal station (London Waterloo) and the through station (London Waterloo East) although adjoining and connected, now only for pedestrians, are separate entities. LW is managed by Network Rail, LWE by Southestern Trains. Apart from a link there should be no LWE information this article.--SilasW (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the Underground station still counts. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite with you. The collection of LU platforms (just how many stations do they make? and by what system of counting?) for me should have the Waterloo tube station link and the lines, without previouses and nexts. Similarly for W Int except to refer to the tranfer of platforms.--SilasW (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The countries on the arch

Looking at the photo of the archway above the main entrance, I see there are seven countries named on it, but I can't read all of them. What are they and what is their significance? Akiyama 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Naming

Seeing as it seems this has just split, does anyone object if i change the name to London Waterloo railway station? Simply south (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure though, because it does cover the whole of Waterloo station (mainline, east and Underground). It just has links elsewhere to pages for the East and Underground stations. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The terminal station (London Waterloo) and the through station (London Waterloo East) although adjoining and connected, now only for pedestrians, are separate entities. LW is managed by Network Rail, LWE by South Eastern Trains. Apart from a link there should be no LWE information this article.--SilasW (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but the Underground station still counts. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite with you. The collection of LU platforms (just how many stations do they make? and by what system of counting?) for me should have the Waterloo tube station link and the lines, without previouses and nexts. Similarly for W Int except to refer to the transfer of platforms.--SilasW (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Service listings

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

Waterloo is not named after the battle

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

Number of and numbers of Platforms

The 1-19 which followed "Number of platforms in use = 19" has recently been cut as redundant. Is it really redundant? Many stations have platforms not in use but numbered (on lines from Wloo Twickenham uses only 3, 4, and 5, CJ does not use #1). "A"s and "B"s abound. KX is growing a "Y". The parasitic twin in any WP article on the main body of Wloo has no numbers, just A, B, C, & D.--SilasW (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. We only need to show how the platforms are numbered if there is something odd about the numbering such as at Twickenham and CJ. Also, Waterloo East is separate from Waterloo Main. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but that relies on all odd cases having been dealt with. With the hodge-podge that WP editing is, that is unlikely. I don't see what Wloo East being separate has to do with the matter. That station with letters is an odd case (for good reason) yet an editor deleted the letters.--SilasW (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, the 'Platforms in Use' is only there to show the numbers of platforms. How they are numbered, etc. should be shown in a platform guide elsewhere in the article. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

What period is this?

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

Move discussion in process

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

Passenger numbers look wrong

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

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

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

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

Origin of name, once again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weymouth

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

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

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

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

It should stay as agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's discuss matters without the arrogrance please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

old ticket office

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)

Structure of page

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)

We should remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so services and facilities should not be given undue prominence. The general principle for article layout (whether railway stations or other topics) is chronological. Thus, history goes first after the lead, then the current situation (services, facilities, etc.), then any work in progress, then any plans for the future.

The Waterloo East, Underground and International stuff keeps creeping in despite the separate articles for all three. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Former Charing Cross link

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509173052/http://www.historyplace.com/specials/clarke.htm to http://www.historyplace.com/specials/clarke.htm

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: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cultural references

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)

Yep. I would say that mentioning its use in films or TV shows should only be done if this station is crucial to the plot - that is, if (say) Victoria had been used, would it have made any difference to the story? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked Waterloo myself (so who knows what state it was in), but see my recent comment on Talk:Marylebone station - I went through and did a big trim a while back for that article so what was left ought to be all reliably sourced. All I would say is if an IP puts it back in with no edit summary, don't say you weren't warned! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Number of significant figures for passenger numbers

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410040141/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/ to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/

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) 13:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Passengers are people. Rides are rides.

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)

Given the number of times I've been stuck in a queue to get through the damn gates into the concourse, it might as well be 211 million, but you're probably right. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• Rename per WP:COMMONNAME and per the standard in Category:Railway termini in London. Waterloo station redirects here, reflecting the primary topic status so ambiguity is not an issue. Timrollpickering 11:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, although Mzilikazi1939's proposal of Waterloo Station, London may also be acceptable to differentiate, somewhat alternatively from the currently-existing form, the world-famous station from Waterloo railway station, Belgium in Belgium. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  Please don't capitalise "station", that goes against WP:NCUKSTATIONS. We also don't use comma disambiguation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've no opinion either way on this, however it's worth referring to this in depth discussion where the same was proposed for London Paddington station. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I note the comment "I personally tend to dislike multiple movereq's, because I've noticed that they invariably tend to turn into quagmires like this" I endorse this view, and should point out, notwithstanding my comments below, that I'm not too bothered if consensus decides the status quo of "London Waterloo" is okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Disagree with stated precedent - as per the discussions renaming other major London terminis at London Victoria and at London Paddington, London Waterloo should remain the name for consistency. Most importantly, London Waterloo is the official name of the station.Turini2 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  On the other hand, we have Liverpool Street station, Marylebone station and Fenchurch Street railway station, with no mention of the word "London" between them, although I suppose those are slightly different being well-known on the Monopoly board as well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  Very true, but as per the Victoria + Paddington discussions "the prefixing of London X Y Z has turned out to be a very effective way of solving the disambiguation issue that exists between ... London railway stations and the latter ones in other countries". By my count, there are eleven other Waterloo stations - London Waterloo is the most notable, and IMO the current naming conveys this. Turini2 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The correct name is London Waterloo as on all station name boards and on train announcements. This an encyclopedia dealing in facts and not someones personal view. David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  It's not my personal view, it's the view of reliable sources [3] - see WP:COMMONNAME. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  It may be WP:COMMONNAME, but all signage, timetables etc; refer to the correct name, "London Waterloo" let's keep the article title correct. David J Johnson (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, but that's violating policy! (I know, policy sucks, but you've got to have a good reason to ignore it) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how a google search of news of Waterloo can be viewed as a reliable source. The search results also include Waterloos in Belgium, Sydney, Huddersfield, California, Merseyside, etc, and last but not least "London Waterloo"...

  For what it's worth, having lived in London, near London, and some distance from London, there is probably a tendency to use the fuller "London Waterloo" the further away from London you are living... Robevans123 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support – From what I've seen the name isn't "London Waterloo", it's simply referred to as "Waterloo" when I go there. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:901C:81B9:CD7A:CD2A (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The official name of the station is London Waterloo (see http://m.nationalrail.co.uk/pj/ldbboard/dep/WAT and others). Wikipedia policy dictates that we reflect the official name, not dictate what it should be. doktorb _words^deeds 11:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose move is potentially London-centric (see my note geolinguistics(!) above). The current name fits the five main criteria for naming (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency). I've not yet seen any convincing evidence that "Waterloo" is more of a common name than "London Waterloo". Robevans123 (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons arising from earlier discussion and the point made about London-centrecism. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, There is already a Waterloo station up near manchester, this may confuse wikipedia members. SageWater (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, to change would be taking a London centric view. Ruttnpark (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - the official name is fine, no need to muck about with it. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was previously undecided, but now I don't see the validity of relisting this against general consensus. The "extent and depth of the support !votes" are not "much more compelling". The nomination refers to a precedence that is easily countered by the precedence of London Paddington station. There are three "supports". One refers to a 'standard' in Category:Railway termini in London that a cursory glance shows doesn't exist. Two 'supports' reference WP:COMMONNAME, when this very much depends on whether you are in London or not. There are far more people outside London than in it. And the third 'support' is a anecdotal personal observation. I see nothing compelling in any of them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose London Waterloo is the correct name, per National Rail. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose London Waterloo is the official name. WP:COMMONNAME getting out of hand. There are two Waterloo stations in the NR network. Waterloo (Merseyside) and London Waterloo. Just like London Victoria, there needs to be a clear difference in name. Furthermore, I think you find many passengers inside and outside of London do indeed say "London Waterloo, London Victoria, London Euston", etc. Just like most people in London say "Glasgow Central, Manchester Piccadilly, Edinburgh Waverley", most of the locals will shorten it. Even Gatwick Airport is often shortened to "Gatwick". Railway stations and any other geographical location should have its official name. Likelife (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose London Waterloo is the official name, and what most people refer to it as- see London Paddington etc. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

While I'm pretty sure this is going to close as "not moved", the above statement to "what most people refer to it" just isn't true from my experience. Nobody says "I'm just coming into London Waterloo, I'll see you at Canary Wharf in about half an hour or so." See Marylebone station etc Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

While it may not be true in your experience, it is in mine - especially among people who do not live in London. Let's agree to disagree on this one. Turini2 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The train describer on my local station. (Actually visible from my window) carries trains to three of London's terminal stations. 'Victoria', 'London Bridge' and 'London Waterloo'. Also, as noted above, this differentiates it from 'Waterloo' station (in Belgium) to which it would theoretically be possible to run a train without having to change anywhere. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose after relist I would like to repeat my stance from before the relisting. As has been pointed out already, the official name of this station is 'London Waterloo'. That name is accepted by all sources directly associated with the station and all credible sources relied upon by Wikipedia and Wikitravel. Any altered title would be creating disambiguation where none needs to exist, and could be seen as Wiki inventing a name for an existing building without clear reasoning. Using "it's not that in my experience" as a counter argument, as happens above, is not a valid argument doktorb _words^deeds 22:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"nth busiest station in Europe"

"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)

@Turini2: I couldn't, which is why I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of busiest railway stations in Europe, which recently closed as "no consensus". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

South eastern services

@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)

I've included the source to show that those who added this service weren't imagining it, but as the service will run for only a few days it probably doesn't need to be here. As it turns out, the further disruption at Waterloo meant that these Ramsgate & Dover trains didn't run from Waterloo yesterday, but they are due to start today.--David Biddulph (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts were whoever put it in was just getting confused with Waterloo East. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought so too. Why do we even have a section for Waterloo East anyway? Can we at least lose the routebox? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not, it avoids giving the impression that you can somehow get a (overground) train from Waterloo to Charing Cross or London Bridge directly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)