# Talk:London Paddington station

Just to quote what the page currently says:
Platforms 6 and 7 are dedicated to the Heathrow Express, and platforms 13 and 14 can only be used by the short trains used on local services. All the other platforms can be used by any of the station's train services. However in normal usage the tendency is for long distance trains to use the western platforms, and local trains (including Heathrow Connect) the eastern ones.
But this is incorrect, Platform 12 cannot be used by HST's. Platforms 1,2,13 and 14 do not have overhead wires so cannot be used by Heathrow Express or Heathrow Connect. Ta, Ollie 2/2/08  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.194.167 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 

Someone right about the bear! -- Sam

If you mean "write", there's stuff on Paddington, London, England that can be moved here, including a link to Paddington Bear --rbrwr
I suspect they mean the Bear statue on the Lawn.  Brunel is in the taxi arch, not the Lawn.  Was it ever on the Lawn?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.4.157 (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Paddington has four spans not three.

As this is an unsigned comment, I cannot tell how old this comment is. But the current article doesn't say the station has three spans. It says that Brunel's original station had three spans, and that a fourth span was added later. -- Chris j wood 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Having just had my wrist gently slapped by the National Rail journey planner for requesting a journey from 'Paddington' (it politely enquired if I really meant 'London Paddington'), I thought we needed to do something about naming of the article. However looking into this further, I found there isn't even a consensus amongst the station's key stakeholders, let alone amongst general usage. So I've left the naming alone, and added an explanatory paragraph. -- Chris j wood 11:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The explanatory paragraph wasn't really necessary, and sounded a bit like a rant (especially after an anonymous editor modified it).  Apply a bit of common sense to the situation.  Also, the same surely applies to other London stations.
Besides, the National Rail journey planner is nowhere near perfect, so I wouldn't treat it "as gospel".  --RFBailey 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair points that it did sound a bit like a rant, but I do not think we can completely ignore this issue. Taking my cue from your point about other London stations, I've copied the formula that seems to have been acceptable on the Victoria station (London) article for the last 6 months. -- Chris j wood 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't want to rattle on about this. But I checked the timetable posters on Reading station on my way home. Reading has no trains to Paddington under 'P', but many to London Paddington under 'L'. I rest my case. -- Chris j wood 17:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
National Rail now just lets you put PAD and it will show up as London Paddington, without asking if that is what you wanted. For example you could want Reading to Paddington, and RDG to PAD will work fine.

I've split off the tube station section to its own article as it seemed too long and awkward to just be a subsection here. Other pages that still link to Paddington station need to have their links updated to either Paddington railway station or Paddington tube station. There's a list of such pages here, and obviously its too many to do all of them by myself. --Dtcdthingy 15:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else only seem to see the page in a box on the right hand side? I'm using firefox 2.0, by the way? Jt spratt 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IE 7 has the same problem is this just my computer? Jt spratt 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article currently says:

A very early construction by Brunel was recently discovered immediately to the north of the station; a cast iron bridge carrying the Bishop's Bridge Road over the railway lines was exposed during removal of the more recent brick outer covering in late 2004, in the run-up to the bridge's complete replacement.
I'm pretty sure that this discovery was actually of Brunel's spans carrying Bishop's Bridge Road over the adjacent Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal on the approach to the railway bridge. His actual spans over the railway were replaced long ago by a girder bridge, which has just been replaced again. Anybody confirm that?. -- Chris j wood 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

can the Metropolitan Line stop be mentioned under "disused" tube/railway stops as paddington used to be on the Metropolitan Line 82.24.175.199 18:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The section was merely remaned Hammersmith and City line in 1988. It's still very much there. In fact, we should probably put a picture of the original (1863) Paddington LU station in the infobox, rather than the later District 1868 one, as we have now. (Half the original LU platforms at Paddington on the H&S are used by mainline services nowadays.) ProhibitOnions (T) 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crossrail icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of the GA Project quality task force, and I'm very pleased to be able to say that as a result of the work that's been it has been confirmed as a GA.
The review can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In the light of the imminent GA review (see above), I have removed all the uncited references from the 'in fiction' section. I have done this because:

The article has had a refimprove tag since March 2008.
The article has had a declared GA review for nearly a week
Nobody else has seen fit to work these references in that time
I personally don't much care for long lists of 'in fiction' references, so I prefer to use my limited time to work other uncited references
Given the above, these references are likely to cause the article to fail GA review.
If anybody else, and especially the original editors of the references, feels agrieved by this, please feel free to do the necessary research and reinsert with cites. -- Chris j wood (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This section must have been hijacked by someone marketing the new office blocks! The station dominates its location, which is naturally not "residential" but grimly commercial. Whatever the marketeers might hope or achieve, at present the location is dominated by the large hospital and the usual railway red-light area, cheap hotels, cafes, shops, railway traffic; obviously not "residential", but what authority can one cite? Jezza (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am changing the current image (File:Paddington Station.jpg) into a new one (File:Paddington Station rush hour.jpg) as it is a much recent image and displays the main concourse along with the old train shed, platforms and directions to give the reader a general view of the station that displays many features mentioned further in the article, rather than an image which only focusses on one particular platform and a train. Hope it helps! Gareth--80.194.231.189 (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, and from the changes in the last few days, neither does User:Sladen, who also changed it back to the picture with the trains. The picture of the concourse isn't even very obviously a railway station. -- Alarics (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The history section does not include anything associated with the works carried out during the introduction of Heathrow Express. Specifically the building of check-in desks for Heathrow airlines (as used to be at Victoria for Gatwick). And the subsequent conversion into retail units after off-airport check-in was dispensed with. I am aware it happened, but this significant works at the station are missing. Unfortunately, although I know it happened I do not have the relevant sources to put the info into the article. --Stewart (talk | edits) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

From working there in the past it is true to say the work carried out for the Heathrow Express was extensive and not just what the ordinary passenger can see either, however from memory alot of this information was not released into the public domain because of security fears.  I've never seen any reference to these works outside of Network Rails own records. LongRobin79(talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
We should be able to track down a bit.  [7] has some information, and in turn references "Airline check in at London station". International Railway Journal. XXIX (7): 2. July 1999..  [8] talks about "the new Paddington Station Extension, which leads to the Heathrow Express check-in".  [9] talks about "Heathrow Express check-in area within the Paddington Lawns,".  [10] has a picture.  [11][12] reference a couple of papers that may/may not be related. [13] shows at least a reference in Hansard.  Paddington Railway Station Lawn Area - glass, automatics and door hardware from DORMA talks about "6m high glass".  99/02144/ADLBC appears to have been the planning application, which could be tracked down along with the usual enormous detail.  [14] has six pages on the design process.  The listed building #209557 notes "Finally 'The Lawn' building was demolished in 1999 and has been replaced by a larger and more attractive version designed by Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners".  Should be enough leads to at least get somebody else started!  —Sladen (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How about "The Heathrow Express Check-In desks were opened in 1999, as part of a £350 million pound project to provide access from London to Heathrow Airport.1  The opening of these desks marked the end of a complete refurbishment of Paddington Station, making it the first main line terminus to be fully refurbished under the Station 2000 Project.2 Originally there were 27 desks, over time these were progressivly closed, due to financial restrictions imposed by a fall in air passenger traffic.3   Since the closure of the desks, the space they previously occupied has been convereted into a number of retail units." LongRobin79(talk) 11:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Paddington station has/had I think an assigned airport code QQP, which seems to have some random generated web pages referencing it still. The idea was you could check in at Paddington, and I think it did run for a few years until terrorism threats ended it. I remember thinking it was a cool idea at the time. I cant currently find an IATA historic list as a proper source. Justinc (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok the code is listed in [List of IATA-indexed railway stations]. Justinc (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What is the evidence that, "recent research, using early documents and photographs, does not seem to support this belief, and their actual purpose is unknown"? 
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Railway_Appliances_1000721621/209 refers to a hydraulic platform and Charles Lee in his Railway Magazine article (June 1954 p. 374) on the centenary also referred to John Wolfe Barry's 1878 'Railway Appliances' and included these diagrams. Charles' research was usually very thorough. Was he wrong?Johnragla (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to talk about how polluted the station is.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/paddington-station-more-polluted-than-the-marylebone-road-thanks-to-diesel-fumes-from-trains-a2943126.html
http://www.airqualitynews.com/2015/09/11/paddington-station-air-more-polluted-than-marylebone-rd/
http://www.iop.org/news/15/sep/page_66225.html
SageWater (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on London Paddington station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410040141/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/ to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/managed-stations/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901170231/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120901170231/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/great%20western/great%20western%20rus.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 12:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Well, none that I could find a good reliable source for. If you've got sources for them, put them in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Since when has The Times, The Standard and The Pall Mall Gazette Newspapers, or  the Railways Archive website been deemed unreliable sources? Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think anyone said they weren't; but just because you can reliably source something, doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate for an article, particularly when (AFAIK) a general purpose source such as London's Termini didn't bring them up. I think you'd agree that the Ladbroke Grove accident is far more significant than all the other ones put together, and therefore has the largest space in this section. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
You're the one that removed the earlier accidents and then challenged me to find reliable sources, something I had already done when I added them in the first place.
Agree that they were relatively minor accidents and not deserving of an article, but that doesn't mean that they should be omitted altogether. Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Ladbroke Grove surely isn't particularly relevant to Paddington station, from the coordinates it was beyond Westbourne Park. I would accept a hatnote on the grounds it's also known as the Paddington rail crash. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Did we ever resolve this finally one way or the other? Looking at what I wrote above, it looks like I was "towing the party line" from what The Rambling Man said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that we did. This was the edit that removed all pre-1920 accidents. All entries had a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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