# Talk:Euston railway station

Named after Lord Euston I think.  There's a panel which explains the origins of the name on the Northern Line (Charing + branch) platform of the tube station, beneath one of the coat of arms decorations there.... are there any London-based wikipedians who care to go take a look? -- Tarquin 10:28 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)
86.157.214.105 (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The statement "The station is named after Euston Hall in Suffolk, the ancestral home of the Dukes of Grafton, the main landowners in the area during the mid-19th century" is poorly expressed and ambiguous.   Does "the area" mean the Euston area in Suffolk, or the land in London?

I thought there are only 18 platforms? Also the sleeper trains are operated by Scotrail. It's been a while since I've been down there... Arwel 23:08 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
Clarification
Platforms 8-11 (known, I believe, as The Woods, on account of their previous construction--citation needed!) are exclusively for suburban trains, operated both by London Overground (formerly Silverlink Metro) and London-Midland (formerly Silverlink County). London Overground services usually depart from Platform 9. These platforms have automatic ticket barriers. --Pubwebmaster (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just about remember Euston during the big rebuilding and have used those platforms (Watford DC and Bletcley/MK local) commuting before and since. I have never heard them called the Woods nor were they in my experience ever made of such. --AlisonW (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Euston is located in the former borough of St. Pancras (now Camden), on the northern edge of the city centre." If we need to know the borough, why do we need to know the former one first? Surely the more currently-relevant fact is where it is now, not where it was up to the 60s or 70s or whenever?? Nevilley 17:04, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd disagree because in London the old borough names do survive heavily as the names for the areas, tube stations, parliamentary constituencies and so on. (And a lot of old signs survive with the old names as well.) For a lot of people "Camden" has a narrower meaning than the borough council boundaries. Timrollpickering 21:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, completely. To me, 'Camden' is really just Camden Town, and 'Islington' is the area from the Angel to Highbury (so, not Finsbury at all, nor Clerkenwell), and so on. Of course, it's 'wrong' to call them that, but...
James F. (talk) 21:49, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Interesting though these replies are, they don't help that much, given that no-one refers to the area round Euston Station as St Pancras anyway ... they tend, if they are going to call it anything (printable) other than its borough name, to call it, surprisingly enough, Euston! And actually I think Camden is acceptable to most people as long as you DO specify that you mean the borough, not the place, as the original author had in effect done. But if you want to say where Euston is - whatever that means! - you are a bit stymied as you have the choice of "Camden" (borough specified but maybe irrelevant), "St Pancras" (old borough specified, but doesn't help us that much with the location - how many people know where St Pancras village centre is?) or "Euston" (specifies it beautifully with no borough but has the teeny problem of being the same as the name of the station and hence getting you nowhere [a bit like some Virgin  trains to the Northwest, come to think of it]). Of course what should have happened is that in the 19th century they should have passed legislation making it illegal ever to change ANY place names in London, retitle boroughs, or let localities acquire names from their stations - things would be so much easier nowadays! :) Nevilley 16:07, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Is Bloomsbury too far south to suffice? Timrollpickering 17:16, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, and too nice to contain Euston! :) Nevilley 18:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There is also the postal district on NW1. The problem is that the border is practically on the doorstep of Euston (it's the Circle Line and the road above it, the name of which escapes me), though being a main road it does produce clarity on either side.
Anyone fancy trying our luck on a Virgin train as a better chance of getting somewhere? ;-) Timrollpickering 19:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Euston is also notable for being the only main line rail terminus in Central London which is not served by the Circle Line.  The nearest Circle Line station is Euston Square, which is 250m away."
Hmm - the thing is that to all extents and purposes for interchanging (and I often do this), Euston Square *is* the Circle Line station for Euston. Similarly Embankment is the Circle Line station for Charing Cross (and was called that in one form or another for over 100 years). Or Southwark is encouraged as the Jubilee Line station for Waterloo East despite another tube station being part of the same complex as Waterloo East and having a closer name match. Also Euston Square tube is over thirty years older than Euston tube. Timrollpickering 21:51, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe "[...] the only main line rail terminus in Central London which is not directly served by [...]"?
I would say, however, that I wouldn't consider even Embankment/Charing Cross to be sufficiently close (and wow, are they) to count as part of the same station...
James F. (talk) 22:05, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm - though if Embankment were still called Charing Cross and the concourse tunnel in the mainline station were not open to the public, I suspect your perspective would be rather different. Similarly some of the tube/DLR interchanges shown on the map (e.g. Shadwell, Canary Wharf, Tower Hill/Tower Gateway) or tube/rail (e.g. Brixton) are not actually single complexes but closeby stations that you can walk between. Timrollpickering 22:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, I reckon there should be a word meaning "distortion of London geography due to Underground maps".... e.g. Bank/Monument must be further apart than Embankment/CC, surely? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Beckification? ;-)
James F. (talk) 22:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Bank/Monument is tricky - where exactly does one stop and the other take over? The Northern Line and (especially) the DLR platforms occupy most of the route from the Circle/District Lines to the Central and Waterloo & City Lines. When I used to regularly change between the C/D and W&C, I found it much easier to change at the street level than tube.
Or how about the assumption by many people that anything with a tube station (or at least within Zone 6 and less) constitutes London - what's the word for this? Timrollpickering 00:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually, that is true.  The 6 zones apply to areas within Greater London with the exception being the portions of Epping Forest on the Central Line that agreed to a subsidization scheme.
Oh I've just realised that the original point is semi-academic because none of Waterloo, London Bridge, or Marylebone have the Circle Line either (two are separated by at least bridges whilst the third is a short walk from the nearest Circle station). If Charing Cross/Embankment and Euston/Euston Squre don't count either then surely neither does Fenchurch Street/Tower Hill?
Though equally is there clarity on what constitutes a terminus (there's a case that London Bridge is really a non-terminus with a big section of non-through platforms), Central London (the boundaries of the Circle Line? That would exclude Euston...) or "mainline" rail? ;-) Timrollpickering 02:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd never ever ever ever ever say that. "I'm just nipping down to London Euston to pick up Mum"? Erm no. I agree it is sometimes used in railspeak and timetablespeak and things, and the article might well acknowledge this, but I don't agree at all that it is "better known" as that. I'd argue that the better known one is the one most people use - Euston without the London -  not one that's a sort of code or formula for what it really is. I'd be interested to read what others think before I make any change. Nevilley 08:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd never say "London Euston" either and I don't live in London. Angela. 08:12, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
If we were going to call it what everyone calls it wouldn't "that craphole Euston" be the correct phrasing :). More seriously, of course you are exactly right and the same goes for every other terminus officially prefixed with "London". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Actually I have been known to refer to it as London Euston, but then, I did work for the railways for 22 years! :) Arwel 08:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I generally don't use the London prefix for stations (other than when mimicking the droning rail announcements out of sheer frustration with delays!) but as a Londoner I guess that's natural. But I do refer to the main stations in other cities by things like Birmingham New Street, Manchester Picadilly, Bristol Parkway and so on. I'm not sure how many locals use those forms, but they are natural versions for outside. Timrollpickering 06:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing and was about to edit it, but thought to read here first. As noone here seems to object, I'm gonna reword it now. OwenBlacker 21:41, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
Good rewording.  It would be bad form to REMOVE the 'London Euston' name since it's the one always used by railway announcers and thus many from outside London. —Morven 02:59, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
*takes a bow*  ;o) -- OwenBlacker 03:16, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
Generally, stations regarded as "London Terminals" as far as ticket purchases are concerned are officially prefixed with "London". However for travellers within the London area it makes sense to omit the prefix. London Bridge is a bit of an anomaly - it should really be London London Bridge!
138.253.102.162 10:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Should this article be called Euston station or Euston Station? The article uses, both (especialy in the picture captions) and one of eth pictures shows the latter. Andy Mabbett 15:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

? Andy Mabbett 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Can one of you please clean up my HTML, I may be good at it but I know people on here can do it better. I've added a template but don't know how to put the text, so it is in-line with the table. Thanks

I'm copying this from the discussion on Talk:Birmingham New Street station for the bulk renaming of some articles, including this, to follow the naming convetions, as it's only relevant to here:

I really do think that there should be an article at Euston station about the combined unit, with Euston railway station and Euston tube station as sub-articles about the sub-parts, rather than an artificial split for the two on reasons of length. We don't treat "History of foo" and "Economy of foo" without an article on "foo", and I think that we should do the same here. However, as some effort has gone into the split, I'm asking here rather than merely being bold.
So, thoughts?
James F. (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to agree what should go in the {{rail}} template at See also - is it the line or is it the service, or do we need both.  An anon editor replaced  West Coast Main Line with "London-Northampton line", which describes the service, not the line.  Likewise the Scotrail sleeper services that I took out for consistency, but now I'm not sure.  It is worth looking a big multi-directtions station like Bristol Temple Meads railway station to see the total picture that we are missing at Euston since it is a terminus (like Kyle of Lochalsh railway station!).  It seems that we need lines and services here too.  --Concrete Cowboy 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of "some people think", we need references to notable critical opinion. redcountess 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
A year later, nothing seems to have been done about this, and the second half of that section is clearly opinion rather than factual. As a half-way house, I'm going to break it into sections for 'controversy' and 'IRA attack'. The controversy section will still need attributations and cleaning up, but at least it will be clearly segregated from a factual description of the new building. I believe it is a controvercial building and it certainly isn't particularly attractive, but that sort of thing doesn't belong in the general section describing the new building. The IRA attack deserves a section to itself as a fairly significant event in the buildings history.
Others are welcome to change this further, I'm just trying to clean up what's there at present. --ThePaintedOne 08:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand you say "we need references to notable critical opinion". Quite right, I could not agree more.
On the other hand you say "I believe it is a controvercial building" and effectively condone the 'controversy' section which contains the most ammount of unreferenced material and which is very "Subjective".
If you are making a case for you to "improve" this article, then you have almost made a perfect case for everyone else to argue that you are the last person who should clean it up. Canterberry 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I made a very minor edit to make things clearer, as a year had passed from someone noting that there was a problem and no progress had been made. I have not made a case for me to clean it up, in fact I implicitly suggest others jump in! I simply tried to segregate what looked to be sensible factual material from the subjective so as to make the job easier. Feel free to carry this on as you see fit. I have heard many people talk about the building negatively (I use it regularly myself), therefore it is valid to say there is controversy about it. That doesnt necesariy mean it belongs in wikipedia or that I can personally provide citations, it just means this might be a valid issue to include. However, it certainly shouldn't be mixed in with an otherwise factual description of the building, hence I split it. Can I sugest you view the edit history to see how the article was and what I did to modify it. I created the controversy section from existing copy, which previously was mixed in with a much larger and purportedly factual piece. --ThePaintedOne 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your intentions. I use the station every working day, and I hate the damn place too! I can give my reasons, but thats beside the point, as I detest other stations in London to an even greater extent (Victoria and Charing Cross are worse that Euston IMHO!). I agree that separating out the "controversy" is a positive move.  I guess that even if we could find a reference, that even that might be based on subjective judgements too, so we get nowhere forward! I guess we need to try and classify the bad points so that people are clear as to what is "bad" about the station, and then we can apply it to others!! Compared to Victoria, Euston does have its good points, and when compared to Fenchurch Street (another appalling station), is actually very good. Standing on the narrow island platforms at Fenchurch Street in the rush-hour scares the hell out of me, and it is a walk to get to the underground. Canterberry 19:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the criticism/controversial nature of the station should be stated. And I agree it should be under a separate heading. The station is deeply controversial and this somehow needs to be set out. Under the entry for Birmingham New Street – an equally controversial station, designed I believe by the same people who designed Euston (yes, I know that doesn’t surprise at all!!) – is to be found a section simply entitled ‘criticism’. Perhaps this would be a simple enough heading to copy. 
For my part I think Euston is an awful station in layout and especially in design; it has all the charisma of a concrete paving slab and I loath having to use it. I think it speaks volumes for how bad a design it is – and how much potential it holds – that Network Rail are prepared to contemplate demolishing the whole thing and starting again. 
But I agree the criticisms need to be said in a detached way. Below is my very VERY! long winded attempt which I readily admit is far from perfect or detached. I can dig up plenty of references to articles and papers criticizing the design of the station and others to support this, so can work on that before this goes onto the main page. 
Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

Like many other large railway stations Euston suffers from a range of problems in layout and operation. Its design has also been the subject of much discussion and criticism. 
Perhaps the most often given complaint surrounds the overall architectural style of the station buildings. In comparison to a large number of other major London stations such as Paddington, St Pancras or Kings Cross, the design of Euston is seen to be generally unappealing and bland. This is made only more so by reference to some of the buildings such as the Euston Arch and Great Hall which it replaced in the 1960s. The current station buildings therefore live in the shadow of memories of the old station that they could perhaps never have surpassed.
As a result of the various redevelopments, Euston station is said to have ‘lost its front door’. The front of the station, facing in the direction of Euston road is now obscured behind the later developments of the 1970s and a series of windswept and untidy open spaces. Providing Euston with a ‘front door’ is seen to be one of the key aims of proposed future redevelopments.
The platforms, especially those on the eastern side of the station, are generally dark and offer a subterranean feel. This is a consequence of the design of the roof above the platforms which is flat and made of concrete. The roof was designed as such so that development could take place above the platforms as happened at Birmingham New Street station. Development has never occurred yet the flat roof has remained in place.
The exterior of the complex is windowless dark brick and corrugated metal, more typical perhaps of an industrial estate than a major metropolitan building. Its impact on the local area has been described as anything but complimentary.
The 1960s designed concourse is now home to a number of retail units that were not part of the original design. The location of these outlets, built to maximise retail space and the services for passengers, has crowded the original design.
Access for disabled persons remains a contentious issue. While the area around the station does have slopes providing access, several sets of stairs remain in places where no accompanying ramp provides easy access for those in wheelchairs or with pushchairs. Access to and from the taxi rank is also difficult for those in wheelchairs or with large amounts of luggage unless they request assistance from station staff who will provide them with access to the concourse via service tunnels. There is no public lift to and from the taxi rank. Like many other underground stations Euston remains inaccessible to those in wheelchairs.
Despite these criticisms a poll in 2007 of passengers views of the twenty busiest UK stations saw Euston come eighth. The station gained a 73% approval rating for customer satisfaction. The average vote was 60%, with Manchester Piccadilly topping the ratings at 92% and Birmingham New Street and East Croydon coming last with 52%. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6927406.stm
timloliver 22 August 2007.

The citation given for the proposed link cites in turn a page the Network Rail site — which is dead.  A search of Google using Euston-square link site:networkrail.co.uk has no finds.  Tubelines.co.uk has a 2003 press release to say that it has been contracted to examine the proposal but nothing more.  An April 2007 press release there, on refurbishment work at Euston Station, doesn't mention it.  Has the idea been spiked?  
(It is really needed.  It is painful for travellers with baggage heading for a WCML destination to have to drag cases up the steps at E-S, cross the road, then up more steps into Euston.  And of course it doesn't comply with DDA.) --Concrete Cowboy 12:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone edited the page to say it is a 17 minute walk from Euston to St. Pancras.  I changed it to say a "brief" walk, as the distance is less than half a mile and really shouldn't take anyone in any sort of shape that long.  Even with construction on Euston Road and all the CTRL stuff, I walked Euston-King's Cross in far less than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.164.168 (talk • contribs) 
I walk between Euston and St Pancras 5 days a week for  work, admittedly I cut through Summerstown. Even when walking down Euston Road, this walk never takes longer than 10 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:ca1a:f900:b8d7:2cd9:5aab:6996 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've beefed up this section, adding in sources to substantiate the criticism which has been made of the new station. Can the 'Weasel Words' heading now be removed? Ravenseft 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The seated are of the food court features mice walking around by customers feet.
Beggars often can be seen harrassing customers for money.
Have any of the people who have editing my comments ever been to Euston Station and looked around, or just cut and paste information from the internet?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.104.212.40 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

(1) Remember to sign your edits.  (2) Provide edit summary. (3) I work at Euston Station for Network Rail, and I cannot verify or accept your statements.  You need to provide a source for your facts else it will violate WP:NPOV (4) Please register as an editor and begin to learn about the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Canterberry 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"I work at Euston Station for Network Rail"

I think that sums your actions up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.104.212.40 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 

Well I don't work at Euston or for any rail company.  But I do know how to read WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and so on.  Also do not edit other's comments.  It is very bad form to do so. Regan123 11:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify something that might have been misunderstood.  I work the Network Rail offices at Euston Station, and pass through the station every day. I have no particulr need to support the station. If it has a problem then fine, but lets have supportable facts, not speculation or presonal opinions. Euston is not my favourite station, it has numerous flaws, but they must be backed up by facts if they are to go in the article. IMHO, Euston is no better nor any worse thatn other station in London for problems with beggars etc. Hence one of my reasons for objecting to this paragraph ... if we must have it, then I see no reason whay every other london station shouldn;t have it too. But it MUST be supported by reliable sources. Canterberry 11:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article states "It is one of 17 British railway stations managed by Network Rail...".
1. Is there a list someone could produce, or a link to a page?
2. Is the count accurate?
Thanks, Ian --Ormers (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See here, each is listed down the left hand side. The count of 17 however is incorrect, that page lists 18. Adambro (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The HS2 study suggests transferring the "eight stopping services into London which are currently operated by London Midland from Milton Keynes, Tring, Berkhamsted and similar (on the slow lines)" to Crossrail. Now the services listed on this page do not add up to 8tph London Midland suggesting it needs updating but the original source isn't even given. Anyone know where this data is?- J.Logan`t: 11:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK I'll stand down on this. Replay: King's Cross, St Pancras Int and King's X St Pancras wouldn't be one article because they arn't the same name or considered the same station. Likelife (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I recently changed the Virgin services to follow their regular hourly daytime timetable rather than the current set-up which lists Watford Junction as the first stop for everything except Tamworth for the Glasgow trains (even though one Glasgow train stops at Milton Keynes), and it got reverted under 'Wikipedia is not a timetable' (even though I didn't make it into one). As far as I can tell standard practise on most articles is to put the regular daytime service pattern in the boxes, with less frequent earlier stops sometimes shown underneath. At the moment just putting Watford for everything somewhat defies the point of having the boxes at all because it doesn't tell the reader anything about the service patterns. They'll click to the Watford article which doesn't even distinguish between final destinations. So I wanted to put it out there to everyone on here, do you support changing it to the hourly daytime services (Milton Keynes for Chester trains, Warrington for Glasgow trains etc), oppose and want to keep the current set-up or do you think somewhere between the two? Tom walker (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think originally it was succession boxes on lines, but over time it appears to have morphed to succession boxes of services. If we're going with services, there should be about 8 VT lines, only one of which should say Watford. If we're going by line (which rather defeats the purpose of the TOC colours), then I think the next one is Harrow and Wealdstone. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we have to be very carefull that we do not turn these succession boxes into psuedo timetable info. mattbuck has a point, and I think that going to one succession box per TOC is probably a better way forward. There is a link in the infobox to the National Rail website which will give the relevant timetable info. I am not convinced that we should be following timetable patterns. Although the Manchester and Birmingham trains are relatively regular, the Glasgow and North Wales one are not. And then mixed gently with the Glasgow train which goes through Birmingham during the summer, and the Edinburgh - Birmingham train which also starts back at Euston. --Stewart (talk | edits) 11:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying 1 box per TOC, I'm saying we used to have one box per line - ie for Euston we'd have Watford DC line South Hampstead and WCML Harrow & Wealdstone (plus underground but no one cares about that). That would be it. No TOC colouring. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear I don't propose replicating the entire timetable - The three Birmingham trains would not get separate boxes - I just think it should give the next stops as being the ones that weekday regular services use, possibly including a less common earlier stop underneath. One box for Virgin (or one box for the WCML) doesn't tell anyone anything as far as I can see. I propose a box for each regular destination (for Virgin that's Liverpool, Glasgow, Birmingham/Wolverhampton, Manchester and Chester) with the first stops being Stafford, Warrington, Watford and Milton Keynes respectively. Any detail about irregular services could be in the text above, if it needs to be included at all. That way the boxes just give an accurate idea of what services go where. I think there does need to be a standard agreed policy on this across the board, as looking around every station article is a bit different. Tom walker (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess then this should go to the Project discussion to get a concensus. Elsewhere I have seen three, sometimes four stations listed because of the way service patterns go. Maybe the complex stopping patterns of the WCML just push ability to display sensible maintainable info to the limit. As a regular user of the Euston <<>> Glasgow trains, there is a semi-regular stopping pattern, however I would suggest less that 50% follow some sort of pattern - first stop out of Euston being Watford J, Coventry, Tamworth, Warrington BQ and Preston. Some of these also depend on where the Lancaster/Preston trains are situations within the timetable. Based on this saying Warrington BQ would be misleading since probably around 50% do not first stop Warrington (this is being written without reference to the timetable!). Incidentally I find the connections with XC at Tamworth from the 16:57 and 17:57 trains from Euston very useful. --Stewart (talk | edits)


### Toilets per Harem?
I'm guessing that "tph" is short for "trains per hour", but I shouldn't have to guess in an encyclopedia article. --- Guest  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.28 (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Tnx! Ortolan88 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC) (I reveal myself to the snippy autosigner)

I don't want to start an edit war so I'm posting here instead - having Tamworth as the first stop makes no sense. The 05:39 ex-Euston stops first at Watford Junction and the regular hourly service is fast to Warrington. So I only see two choices, which is either list the first stop in all cases, which would basically create Watford Watford Watford. However I think we should use the regular hourly weekday timetable, perhaps including an 'or' footnote for earlier stops if there's a consensus to include that. This would create the following:

The current setup makes no sense at all and I think this would definitely be better, but I'm open to other ideas. Please discuss and hopefully we can get a broad consensus from as many contributors as possible. Tom walker (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What you suggest seems sensible at first glance, but the small fly in the ointment is that the way things are listed it seems to show a journey finishing at Euston, rather than starting there, and hence the first column (labelled "Preceding station") should perhaps show the last stop southbound rather than the first stop northbound? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that makes sense. It's just that way round because that's what the code is like in the table. I'm not sure how to go about changing it! But I know it can be done and yeah I agree it would be better that way. Tom walker (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The routeboxes are intended to be bidirectional, and following a service from station to station should mean that you are consistently clicking on the left-hand side, or consistently clicking on the right-hand side. Having it suddenly flip can be confusing. I have noticed that many routeboxes (but not all) are arranged to have north or west on the left, south or east on the right, so having the right-hand column at Euston shown as Terminus all the way down fits that logic.
Anyway, that is a secondary matter. The primary matter is "which is the station adjacent to Euston on these services?" As has been pointed out, there is no all-encompassing simple pattern like "for all Glasgow services it's X, for all Manchesters it's Y, for all Liverpools it's Z", etc. One factor that may have confused some editors is that if you go to Euston and look at the departure board for, say, the 05:39 to Glasgow, it's shown as first stop Milton Keynes. But if you travel on that train, it also calls Watford Junction, Printed timetables show that at WJ it "stops to pick up only". The current timetable is at Table 65 National Rail timetable, December 2011.
Risking WP:NOR, I would say that the timetable should be analysed for Monday-Friday off-peak departures and arrivals, and the majority should take precedence over oddities. So, of the down services to Glasgow, the 09:30 is first stop Warrington BQ, as are the 11:30, 13:30, 14:30 (FO), 15:30; the 16:30 is first stop Preston and the 16:57 is Tamworth LL. In the up direction, the 10:12 arrival from Glasgow last stopped at Warrington BQ, as did the 11:12, 12:12, 13:12, 14:12 and 15:12, but the 16:03 arrival was last stop Preston. It's clear to me that the normal "next" station is Warrington BQ, whilst Preston and Tamworth LL should be considered aberrations to the normal pattern, mentioned in prose if necessary but not worthy of a routebox row. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree with this. I don't think that's original research given that the published timetable (which is on the table in front of me) is our source and we're just rewording the information it gives. I'm fairly confident that my example above fits this as with the three per hour services (Manchester and Birmingham) there are going to be three roughly equal first stops so we should just go for the southernmost of those (in Birmingham's case I've merged it with Wolverhampton as that's the same route and on the hourly timetable Watford is where the Wolverhampton services stop anyway). I'd like to start moving towards a consensus but I think in the interests of Wiki policy and fairness we should have a few more people chime in first. Tom walker (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. I am not sure this whole routebox idea really lends itself to complex cases such as this, but if we are to have them, I agree with Redrose64. -- Alarics (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Shall we do the whole 'Support' thing then? Tom walker (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not be bold and remove the routebox, our just put one for Virgin Trains to Watford Junction, with details in the text. There are enough oddities especially on the trains that go north of Preston (do not forget the Glasgow and Edinburgh via Birmingham trains - effectively the joining of a Scotland-Birmingham and Wolverhampton/Birmingham-Euston services). There is a basic pattern which could be given, but it then is deceptive for the oddities. And yes I had forgotten about my regular southbound train: the last from Glasgow which stops at MKC and Watford Jn(set down only). --Stewart (talk | edits) 20:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
How about no. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you remove the routebox, Euston will be (correct me if I'm wrong) the only open station in Great Britain without one, and some well-meaning editor will notice the lack and put one in again, which is likely to differ to a greater or lesser extent from the current one. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the bidirectionality, one has to accept one or the other:
Sometimes a journey will switch sides of the routebox
Sometimes a single station will appear on both sides of the routebox
I personally prefer the latter, as in Filton Abbey Wood -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What I meant about bidirectionality is that in a routebox like this:

one row is redundant because it's merely a mirror image of the other. In one direction, trains tend to come from the same stations that they go to in the other direction. It's only real oddballs like Reddish South and Denton where special treatment may be needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus/decision then? Tom walker (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
One row only for Virgin Trains. --Stewart (talk | edits) 08:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly we don't then because most people here aren't advocating that, which is why I asked if we could do the whole support/oppose thing. Tom walker (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Support the Tom walker proposal as refined by Redrose64. -- Alarics (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
*Support - what I think is the proposal, which appears to the modification of the latest route box in this discussion, i.e. only one line for Virgin Trains as described by the latest comment by Redrose64 (talk · contribs). --Stewart (talk | edits) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The multiple boxes for what is a complex timetable is misleading and should be dispensed with. --Stewart (talk | edits) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Support The Redrose64 modification of my original proposal with five boxes. Note Redrose64's last comment isn't saying only have one line, it's saying don't have one for each direction. Tom walker (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The solution as proposed by Tom walker (talk · contribs) will mislead and will leave inaccurate information in the article (admittedly that is where we were before). Wikipedia is NOT a timetable (or directory). That is where this is leading. Virgin operate a complex set of routes out of Euston, keep it simple, one line, first stop Watford. --Stewart (talk | edits) 14:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The thing is the departures run up physically different lines - If I was trying to make it the timetable I'd have nine boxes not five, which would be against wiki policy. Tom walker (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

They're only physically different once the trains get past Rugby Trent Valley Junc (83 miles 18 chains (133.9 km)). Yes there are six tracks as far as Bushey - but Virgin never use the DC lines, and only use the slow lines as a diversionary route. There is much to be said for having only one row for the whole Virgin service - compare Paddington, where FGW have four rows - of which two are for local services, one is for sleepers and just one is for the entire set of Bristol/Cardiff/Cheltenham/Exeter/Hereford/Penzance/Plymouth/Swansea/Weston-super-Mare/etc. long-distance services. The locals get two rows instead of one because the Greenford route swings off after just 6 miles 54 chains (10.7 km). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some years ago there was a TV programme (C4?), hostess Kirsty Wark which were trying to find out what had happned to the remains of the Euston Arch. Eventually some of it was found as a garden wall but most of it had ended up in a river bed as infill. A diver was hired to check the river bed and the remains of the arch located and a small piece raised.AT Kunene (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the bits were dumped in the River Lea. But to mention this, we need a reliable source, per the policy on verifiability.
To be precise, it wasn't an arch, because there were no curved portions forming an actual arch: there were Doric columns and an entablature. The structure is more correctly known as a propylaeum. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Although the word most commonly highlighted is that from within the entablature, a portico which is probably how any such monument would be revived.  Which leads me to the obvious point on the section Architectural Controversy - can we please rename this Architectural Criticism as even most brutalist guides skip past Euston.Adam37 (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The term "controversy" describes not only the current structure but also the demolition of the Arch. "Criticism" taken by itself would not accurately reflect the public outrage which followed the Arch's demise and which led to greater consideration and protection of Britain's built heritage. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was recently pointed at some wonderful old aerial photographs, one of which is of the old Euston station (photos). The text makes the following note: "This superb picture clearly shows the original layout of Euston, with the Great Hall behind the Doric Arch dividing the station in two halves. The western half (on the left) was originally to have been used by the Great Western Railway, unitl it decided to develop Paddington, with the London & North Western Railway originally intended to occupy the eastern (right-hand) section.". As we don't mention this on either the Euston or Paddington articles, does anyone have a further reference to this possible history? --AlisonW (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@AlisonW: It was a serious proposal, because the two routes are very close together in the Old Oak Common/Kensal Green area and the GWR hoped to save some money and at the same time get close to the centre of London. The GWR's Act of Incorporation (1835) showed that it was to terminate "by a Junction with the London and Birmingham Railway in a certain Field lying between the Paddington Canal and the Turnpike Road leading from London to Harrow on the western side of the General Cemetery in the Parish or Township of Hammersmith". See
MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. I: 1833-1863. Paddington: Great Western Railway. pp. 19, 26, 35–36.
It seems that the London & Birmingham Railway (not the London & North Western, that would not be formed until 1846) bought considerably more land at Euston than they actually needed, the intention being to lease part of it to the GWR; but negotiations over the terms of the lease broke down, and the GWR decided to have its own terminus at Paddington. The Act authorising the deviation of the route in order to reach Paddington was obtained in 1836 or 1837 (MacDermot is unclear). If you have
Baker, Stuart K. (2013) [1977]. Rail Atlas Great Britain and Ireland (13th ed.). Hersham: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 978-0-86093-651-0.
- that's the current edition, not the 12th edition (or earlier), you'll see on map 20 section B2 a dashed brown line running between Old Oak Common Interchange and Queen's Park. That's the proposed HS2 line, and runs almost exactly along the intended route of the GWR. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am having some trouble editing the usage figures for the station, I have changed the numbers but the old ones seem to still be coming up! I tried changing "railexits" to "usage" but this just removed all of the figures! Can anyone shed some light on this? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The answer is simple.  The parameter railexits1415 has not yet been included in Template:Infobox London station.  It only goes as far as railexits1314. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Now it has. Simply south  ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Euston railway 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/20090704140724/http://www.eustonarch.org:80/britishrail1968.pdf to http://www.eustonarch.org/britishrail1968.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Euston railway 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 {newarchive} to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Euston railway 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/20140410040141/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/ to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118122454/http://www.motco.com/map/81006/SeriesSearchPlatesFulla.asp?mode=query&artist=390&other=498&x=11&y=11 to http://www.motco.com/map/81006/SeriesSearchPlatesFulla.asp?mode=query&artist=390&other=498&x=11&y=11
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Euston railway 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/20130527162506/http://www.londonreconnections.com/2009/the-euston-arch-part-2-death/ to http://www.londonreconnections.com/2009/the-euston-arch-part-2-death/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A discussion about possibly-confused stations was held here User_talk:Ritchie333#Heuston and Euston and following that I put the distinguish Heuston Station back after it had been deleted; also added Euston Square tube which is often confused, per suggestion in that discussion.
82.69.229.22 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This subsection needs updating now that work is underway. [1] seems to be the latest official source of plans--FDent (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well go and add it and stop removing reliably-sourced content for no reason - although with Carillion going bust I think things are a bit up in the air at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The future services table in unsourced and appears to be WP:OR as no operator is appointed yet for 2026 but this seems to be OK. --FDent (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


### Planned v proposed
Ritchie333 and I seem to have "a difference of emphasis" (as the politicos like to say) on this one, so we had better discuss rather than get into a revert battle. Ritchie333 cites https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/plan-to-scale-back-hs2-labelled-concerning-unacceptable-and-an-insult-16-12-2020/ in support of the view that it is all back up in the air. [I argue that this says nothing about Euston, it is just about eastern leg of the Y to Leeds). In response, I can cite "First freight train arrives at HS2's main construction compound". Dry Bulk. 21 December 2020. to show that the reality says that it is definitely going ahead. What exactly is going ahead remains to be seen but there can be no doubt that, at Euston and Curzon St, two big cemeteries have been excavated and the bones relocated. At Euston, Stevenson Tower out front and buildings along the other side of Melton St have been demolished. Obviously, per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't say what the outcome will be, it may all end in economic crash, but the facts on the ground are inescapable. It is happening. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It was more because you added an unsourced opinion without a reliable source on a Good Article, per WP:V and WP:WIAGA. I'm sceptical about HS2 and would prefer a "Reverse Beeching" (where there is clear demand to reopen or improve services). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Those two things ("Reverse Beeching" and HS2) are not mutually exclusive. Both are allegedly going ahead. -- Alarics (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I acknowledge the GA strictures and will try to find a suitable RS, though a walk through the Euston and Curzon St areas would tell you that the question is pretty close to WP:the sky is blue. I can't help but wonder if your antipathy to HS2 is making you do a Nelson. Why do you suppose that the Stevenson Tower has been demolished? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
From High Speed 2#Oakervee Review:
On 15 April 2020, formal approval was given to construction companies to start work on the project.
Per WP:LEADCITE, do you really want that adding to the lead? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of recent changes because, as John Maynard Friedman observed, it is unsourced original research. Since having that in a good article devalues the GA criteria and procedures, it should be removed. So how do we progress with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

But, as I also observed, it is all true. The rugby scrum under the signs followed by the charge down the side corridors and then pell-mell down the slopes to the gates: the architects and BR executives ought to have been hung drawn and quartered (metaphorically of course).
Saval, can you find any external source to support the information you added because it is certainly worth including. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
A significant source seems to be missing from the article's bibliography: Euston Station Through Time.  This might help. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This link (Worldcat.org) will tell you which libraries have it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Please read MOS:HYPHEN. "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) ...". Chris the speller yack 22:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I made a bold edit that user:Ritchie333 reverted, so let's discuss. 
My reason for the changes were these:  

It is generally poor practice to have images swapping wildly from left to right. There is an MOS on this somewhere.
Portrait images should have "upright" set.
Images should not have a fixed size (one has 150 px set).
In their edit note, Ritchie says that the left/right setting is needed for small screens. I previewed the changes on 11" screen, so how small is small? Not mobile obviously because the layout changes completely. 
I made some other corrections but it looks like it was the image issue that was the main reason for reverting.
Do other editors have a view? (Ritchie, you might want to coirect my paraphrase of your edit note or expand on it.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant large monitors, not small - sorry. However, this version looks awful on 1080p in my view, all the images are jammed up next to each other after the infobox, to the extent that the section "1960s rebuild" has a picture of the 1888 station layout. That doesn't make sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
And on small monitors, the text is squeezed between the images and equally looks awful. So it is really an MOS issue: do we write for desktops or for laptops and tablets? (but the style for most articles is pics down the RHS only). I'm not really motivated to pursue, so I'll let it drop. But I do think the section title "New station" needs changing before the "New New station" gets built. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I remember the policeman running out to the forecourt as we were waiting for our Scottish sleeper to be announced and for a six year old lad with his mum and little brother and an uncle, we orderly left the station to regroup in a small park garden a fair distance away and that police officer literally bellowing "Get out, theres a bomb" as we moved out from the main entrance was quite frightening for everyone.
My father with his car at the Motorail terminal in Kensington was doing his pieces, that was the time it just all went wrong as we were put onto a later train but thanks to me dad we got a first class cabin and so we awaited him in Inverness for his train to arrive and found they had unloaded his Hillman Hunter at Stirling and so he and we had to wait at BR's expense in the big station hotel there for BR to tag his car onto the next up Motorail the next day.
Another year, we had decided to travel as one family from Kensington Motorail when a shunter was killed by a shifting coach that speared the poor man who was incidentally a working friend of my father and as he was the ranking BR man on the spot and Olympia was just on the edge of the SR he had to take control best he could and so we were whisked away to Euston to catch the held back sleeper and both my brother and I had a great sense of trepidation going back into the station and even my mum was uncommonly nervous.
So an eyewitness from that very night, it was truly terrifying especially when the police came to talk to us they said they had little warning and ironic too that in later years my own mother became an official code-taker for warnings from the IRA at her newspapers.   It was a duty she abhorred because of the potential death and destruction her news portended.
92.11.135.180 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hotpantsraindance, John Maynard Friedman Can you settle your differences here. The majority of the prose in question is sourced to London's Termini, Alan Jackson, (1984) [1969], David & Charles. I cannot easily get the book out of the library because it access is still restricted owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hotpantsraindance and I have identified deficient sourcing for some clearly pov statements. This is a WP:GA and that should never arise. Ritchie333 reverted, with the extraordinary counter-attack that it is gratuitous  tagging, which is a new one on me after 13 years as an editor. Ritchie says  that they can easily cite this when he can get to a library.
(a) that doesn't stop valid tags being left in place, nobody is going to delete a tagged statement in less than a month.
(b) libraries are open again
Ritchie, I suggest you reconsider and self revert. These were not bold edits per WP:BRD. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
As I said above, I believe everything is sourced to Jackson p. 53. Please can you assume good faith, there are no unsourced statements anywhere in the article. Iridescent and Redrose64 may be able to help with their collection of sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
On my part, the section I removed - about the demolition being approved by Harold Wilson, motorway builder, and a statement about the flat roof being inferior to Victorian architecture - appeared to be cited to a How We Built Britain page, where these things didn't appear. In any case, the latter statement should be presented as a quote from someone with an opinion, not as part of the main text. The revert has also removed the positive appraisals of the building by more recent critics, which should definitely be included.--Hotpantsraindance (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hotpantsraindance I have copyedited and added extra citations to the part in question, can you check that's what you were expecting? I don't have an issue with the other appraisals or any objection to them being re-added; the point was rather to go back to an earlier revision before the edits to day, and discuss what's the right way forward. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the delayed response - yes, that now seems entirely reasonable! Am I alright to add back in the positive opinions, or is the section still being negotiated? Hotpantsraindance (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hotpantsraindance: so long as it it supported by citation (which it is), then it should certainly go back as far as I am concerned: it is a limited balancing opinion, which was never going to be easy as it's a place that only its mother would love. The article still, IMO, falls below the standard of citation expected for WP:GA status but it seems that this deficiency is slowly being rectified. I think that Ritchie and I have reached at least an understanding of each other's concerns. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
With very few exceptions (Euston is not among them) I no longer work on railway stations. You can blame ProcrastinatingReader for that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
It'd be a reasonable courtesy to ping if I'm being mentioned. @Ritchie333: What Redrose means to say is that she disagrees with a consensus reached by the community, almost one year ago, and every now and then seems to (unfairly, IMO) blame me for proposing the change, even after this ANI she opened. The sheer amount of time and effort I spent trying to work with Redrose is documented in Template_talk:Infobox_station/Archive_4, amongst other pages. Admittedly I underestimated and still don't really understand why it matters that much to Redrose, but I don't think it's fair to be blamed for proposing a content change that someone else doesn't like. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have time to go through point by point, but let's take one blatant example: The demolition of the original buildings in 1962 has been described as "one of the greatest acts of Post-War architectural vandalism in Britain" and was approved directly by Harold Macmillan.[101][102]. MOS:QUOTE requires explicit citation for quotations. Cite 101 is a Railway News Op-ed about something completely different, that repeats this "quotation" in passing without citation: it looks like WP: circular to me. 102 is a Guardian article that never mentions the word vandalism. Need I continue?  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
What nonsense! You seem to be more interested in picking a fight than writing an encyclopedia. Why have you not attempted to look for book sources yourself? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
What is 'nonsense' about it? If this article is to continue to have GA status, it should not have blatant errors or MOS violations. Under no circumstances should it have fake citations. It is entirely legitimate to tag them for attention. But for what it is worth, any online sources I found for that "quote" appear to be WP:circular, none attribute it to anyone. It should be deleted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I have just spotted that you reverted my changes, specifically the "failed verification" tag  and accused me of disruptive editing for having done so. Have you taken leave of your senses? You seem determined to prevent any changes to this article unless you personally pre-approve and even then you rewrite them. Why would you want to defend a WP:quotations violation to the extent of adding a WP:NPA violation?  Surely you can see that this can only end in a WP:ANI reference if it continues? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This has now been addressed - if there are others please let me know as I have quite a bit of material on the station. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I've just been to the local library, which has re-opened this week. It had the original book sources I used for this and several other articles. Unfortunately, they are not open for browsing non-fiction, so I can't easily look at other book sources to further verify this - just one of many things that COVID-19 has disrupted. This isn't just a problem here, but a problem on several other articles, as if anything I put in to these original book sources is challenged, I can't easily go back to it at the moment. Thanks for stepping in, Lamberhurst. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lamberhurst:, thank you, that is exactly the response that I wanted and expected to see. If you would like to continue your good work, there are a number of other uncited assertions that I tagged earlier this week as in need of making good: in all probability they are true but, given that they are expressing an opinion, can't just stand as Wikivoice. These tags are no longer visible. Since I have been named as party to a dispute, it is not appropriate that I reapply them but they can be found in the revision history if you want to pursue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)