Talk:Richmond station (London)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: April 06 move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Where in Manchester is that?  Are you thinking of the tiny Waterloo (Merseyside) railway station? Warofdreams talk 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  WP:RM Oct 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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, , 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)
thread_title:  Station's locations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RuT pipe dream 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Who built the current station ? LMS?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.225.173 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Southern Railway, opening on 1 August 1937, as mentioned in the article. Headhitter (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more info 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120715035018/http://idoxwam.richmond.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Correspondence-943641.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=943641&location=&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=4&appid=1001 to http://idoxwam.richmond.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Correspondence-943641.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=943641&location=&contentType=application%2Fpdf&pageCount=4&appid=1001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LU Roundels