Talk:Richmond station (London)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move[edit]

Why has this article been moved to Richmond tube station? I thought that the naming system was that if a station served more than one of {tube, rail, tram, DLR} then the format was xyz_station - from Wikipedia:WikiProject_London#Naming_conventions - and as Richmond station serves both tube and rail, surely "Richmond station, London" would be more appropriate? edd 22:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under that naming convention the name should be, as was, "Richmond station" however that was turned into a redirect to "Richmond railway station" - which is a disambiguation page. If the disambiguation page was moved to "Richmond station (disambiguation)" then this page could return to where it belongs without the need for a ", London" or "(London)" suffix. MRSC 05:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

April 06 move[edit]

If we are following "most-common-naming" such as Birmingham New Street over a consistent naming scheme then Richmond tube station comes before Richmond (London) station. MRSC 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are equally wrong. The convention would be Richmond station, since only 2 of the 7 platforms are for tube services. London can be added in brackets afterwards to disambiguate it from other stations of that name. --Dtcdthingy 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Those who use the station use the rail service as much as if not more than the tube service. I disagree that (as alleged in April rename) the more common name is "Richmond tube station". I have lived in the area and find myself there, now, as I type this. The use of a "(London)" suffix is in keeping with WP standards and is necessary because of the existence of railway station in Richmond (Yorkshire) and in other Richmonds too. Paul Beardsell 09:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover,as any fule kno,Richmond (upon Thames) is actually in Surrey.Ask the Post Office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.123.71 (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM Oct[edit]

Just simply agree. "Tube station" goes against naming convention with stations with multiple modes of rail transport, amongst others. Look at Paddington station or Tottenham Hale station as two examples. The only station that comes to mind with the new move which follows this format however is Victoria station (London). Simply south 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because there are several Victoria stations. Similarly there should be Waterloo station (London) because of the important and busy station similarly named in Manchester. Paul Beardsell 09:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where in Manchester is that? Are you thinking of the tiny Waterloo (Merseyside) railway station? Warofdreams talk 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But if the size of the station is found wanting and therefore unsupportive of my argument then I see you and raise you Manchester Piccadilly. Paul Beardsell 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The result of the debate was move to Richmond station (London) —Mets501 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Richmond station (London)" - Survey[edit]

  • Support renaming to Richmond station (London). With a renaming like this, I think it should just be done, without discussion. It is so obviously the right thing to do that resorting to a survey is only necessary after the fact if there is significant objection. There isn't. Edit boldly! (I have tried to rename but it has all become so complicated the move requires an admin's help. Help!) Paul Beardsell 08:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This seems to be following convention for conventions sake to amend the current, simple, and commonly used naming to a convoluted one containing parenthesis. What would be gained by this move? MRSC 20:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lived in the neighbourood. I am typing this from Kew, just down the road. Richmond Station is not "commonly" called Richmond "Tube" Station. Reference required from Mrsteviec for this repeated but incorrect assertion of his. But even if he were correct, we file things under their proper name at WP. The "(London)" is required for disambiguation. Paul Beardsell 22:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, based on a not-terribly reliable google survey I conducted, which gives 30:1 hits in favour of '"Richmond station" London' versus "Richmond tube station". However, note that "we file things under their proper name at WP" is not true. Please see use common names, which is one of our earliest guidelines, going back over 4 years. Morwen - Talk 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 11:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But are you in favour of retaining the current title? Paul Beardsell 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm in support. Warofdreams talk 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be in favor favour of the move; Richmond station (London) seems more natural to me than Richmond (London) station though. Could you point me out to "standard disambiguation for British stations"? Duja► 08:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

External links[edit]

Two do not seem to contribute much. "Old maps" leads nowhere. Another is in German where searching for "Richmond Station" or "Richmond Bahnhof" found nothing, while searching for Richmond found it in a string of stations. The Old Maps (?1874) could have clarified the next point--SilasW 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the two links have suffered from the shifting nature of the internet since I added them:
  • The German site has been restructured and whilst the direct links to the images are still working the front-end navigation has changed to such an extent that there no longer seems to be much point giving a link to the main page. I have delinked it.
  • The Old maps link originally linked directly to a map of Richmond in 1874 showing the station. The ordnance survey has changed the way its site works so that it is no longer possible to link directly to a specific location on the map. To see the map, go to old-maps.co.uk and enter the following coordinates (518200 175300), then choose the 1871 Surrey map. --DavidCane 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Station's locations[edit]

The article now says that when the line was extended to Windsor the station was moved to its present location. The very first location is not given, perhaps it was temporary and somewhere east of The Quadrant, even to the east of Church Road. Before the 1930s' rebuilding the Underground/LMS terminus and the Southern Railway station were separate; the terminal platforms were much where they are now while the Southern Station was west of The Quadrant. So either the history given is incomplete by not mentioning a move of the Windsor lines station from "the present location" to west of The Quadrant or the history is wrong and any move in the very early days was to the pre-WWII location. Perhaps someone with access to a relevant work could emend that piece of the article rather than quibble endlessly how the misinformation should be labelled.--SilasW 15:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the information on the station was Clive's Underground Line Guides. The OS map of 1871 (see note above) shows a station in two distinct but connected parts with terminating lines and through lines provided with different buildings. I have clarified that the locations better in the article.--DavidCane 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rethink. I see it depends what you mean by "location" and just as I would not argue with a German about the true meaning of "Fuss" I'll not support any one meaning of "location", but I can remember an SR sign on the west parapet of the road bridge proclaiming "London Cheap Day Return 9d" and a cobbled yard down behind it and I think that led to the old SR station entrance. Southern Electric 1908-1969 by G T Moody 4th ed says "At Richmond there were in effect two stations with the road bridge crossing the Waterloo platforms about midway." So the current placing seems to come from more of a sideways shuffle than a full relocation. I would point out, that, for example, however obvious it is that Richmond Station is between North Sheen and St Margarets, most Wikipedia railway articles are not properly sourced. DavidCane quotes Clive's Underground Line Guides, is that adequate? Both the book I just mentioned and Volume 3 of A Regional History Of Railways Of Great Britain say Twickenham was to be rebuilt with #1 and #2 as bays which I contest in Twickenham Talk. We need care in sourcing.--SilasW 18:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article, with a reference, says "the exact location is unknown" but (always bearing in mind that railway line books and web pages do err) "Waterloo to Windsor" by V Mitchell and K Smith, Middleton Press 1988, ISBN 0 906520 54 1, shows a 1864 map with a goods station and says that that was the original terminus. It seems to be aligned with the track from the east while the lines through the present station and its predecessor curve away to avoid the town.--SilasW (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Service via Railwayside curve[edit]

The article does not mention services from the north via the short-lived curve at Barnes, commemorated by the road called Railwayside. They stopped when the line through Gunnersbury and Kew Gardens opened.

RuT pipe dream[edit]

The RuT suggestion seems to be something dreamt up while wiling away the hours.
1) The line served by SWTrains has an intensive service. I have waited at White Hart Lane LC for five trains to pass before the gates lifted. I don't know if Crossrail's proposal to go to Kingston was serious or just something to withdraw as a sop to public opinion but the furious NIMBY squawking then at the idea of a non-grade crossing would revive to kill the RuT "plan" which, without a flyover, would lead to gross spreading of any late running. The Waterloo trains are not like the Underground or NLL shuttles but serve several widespread destinations.
2) The Southern Railway rebuilt Richmond with conversion to four tracks in mind. Has that been heeded in later development west of the road?
3) District and NLL trains seem to have used 4 of "their" 5 faces regularly with #3 only as parking for an NLL train or flexibility at service disruptions. Perhaps platform 3 might lead west to connections to both tracks, burrowing to get country-bound. Thameslink use a bi-directional platform at Wimbledon. There seems to be space E or NE of the station for an out-of-service siding if needed.--SilasW 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear where the suggestion comes from that the NLL would be extended to Kingston. The Borough UDP referenced only refers to an additional platform for terminating orbital services. I took orbital in this context to mean the existing orbital route of the NLL around London to Stratford. The plans for the London Overground service which will take over the NLL later this year don't seem to indicate any extension to Kingston. Does orbital mean something else? Is there another source that should be referenced regarding an extension to Kingston?--DavidCane 02:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/43

NLL extension to Kingston

TfL and Network Rail are also looking at the potential extension each hour of 2 out of 4 NLL services, from Richmond to Kingston via Teddington. Extending this small number of trains would not require the grade separated junction at Twickenham previously proposed for Crossrail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.216.87 (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could user at 81.129.216.87 give a source that TfL and NR are considering that?
Crossrail proposed a grade separated crossing east of Richmond station, not at Twickenham, where there is a flyover.
The Waterloo-based service, intense and mixed speed, would have frequent disruptions if NLL crossed their tracks on the level.--SilasW 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for more info[edit]

Who built the current station ? LMS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.225.173 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Railway, opening on 1 August 1937, as mentioned in the article. Headhitter (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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: moved. Deor (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Richmond station (London) → Richmond (London) station – This station is referred to as Richmond (London) by Transport for London, the service operator and National Rail:

This is a more WP:COMMONNAME for the station than the wiki-creation of "Richmond station (London)". Lamberhurst (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the response. Deor (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richmond (London) station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LU Roundels[edit]

As a Richmond resident and frequent user of this station, I have noticed that none of the platforms feature London Underground (Or indeed Overground) roundels on the platforms, instead featuring (at the time of writing) SWT-format signs, even on the LU and LO platforms. I don't know if any other stations on the network share this trait as well but it may be worth mentioning on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralZoneUltra (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richmond_station_(London)&oldid=1210043926"