Talk:Toronto Union Station (1873)

Durban Toronto roof mixup
I suspect the Original Union Station was the one that supposedly received Durban station's roof. The story goes that both stations had their roofs designed by a firm in London, UK, and each station's plans were sent to the other station by mistake. As a result, the old station in Durban, South Africa (sub tropical region) has a roof capable of sustaining 5 meters of snow. The Toronto station's roof collapsed after the first snows. Was this the Original Union Station? The Durban station was completed in 1896. You can find references to it here: http://www.google.com/search?q=durban+railway+station+toronto. -- leuce (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting story, but I doubt it is true. I have never read anything about the roofs on either the first, second or third Union Station in Toronto collapsing.  From the article, it would appear that this Union Station was designed in Canada, not the U.K.  I also doubt that Canadian railways would have looked to England for advice on how to handle snow. Further, the portion of this Union Station that dated to the 1890s was the office building component on Front Street, so I doubt that plans for a railway station roof would have been used in error.  Also, the photos to which you've linked of the Durban station show a station that is sufficiently different from the former one in Toronto for there to have been any serious plan mix-up. I'm not aware of any other stations from this period in Toronto that had roofs that collapsed in the first winter.  I could be wrong -- maybe the roof of a train shed or something collapsed.  However, the story strikes me perhaps as an urban legend or a factoid -- an important part of local lore in Durban, but not one that is necessarily accurate.  Best of luck tracking it down! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of Images
Images should be used to "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." In this case the subject of the article is a historic architectural structure that no longer exists. There is also no page of Wikicommons for the structure. I had placed an additional 4 images (historical photos) on the page in a gallery section to help illustrate the different architectural aspects of the station. These images were removed. I apologize for not making that clear in my edit summary why had added the gallery and the value of the images and for any confusion this caused. I have since removed the one image which illustrated a piece of the architecture which was already conveyed in one of the images on the page (although that image was a drawing and not a photographic image). I will add the architectural value to the descriptions of the images.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)