Talk:Willesden Junction station

Possible renaming
The article for a London heavy-rail railway station s is usually "XXX railway station" which makes it clear that the subject is a train station. Some stations also have "XXX station" redirecting to "XXX railway station". That might let the hurrying unfamiliar searcher score first time. But some articles follow their own schemes. The article for Willesden Junction railway station is "Willesden Junction station". Both "Willesden Junction railway station" and "Willesden railway station" redirect to it. As there was another edifice called "Willesden railway station" which till now has had no article the WJ data should be put in WJrs with mild zapping and "For that, go there".--SilasW (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But a main reason for this particular station to be "station" instead of "railway station" is because it is an interchange between two (or three, sort of) different modes of transport - NR/LO services and LU services. Simply south (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The naming, and layout, of railway station articles need a standard. For WJ the article might well be "WJ stn" because of its mixed use, though Richmond as "R tube stn" is, despite LO & LU, really the SR station. But I aim to get "Willesden railway station" for re-use with a hatnote linked to WJ's article, as everyday speech often loses the "Junction".--SilasW (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * E 92.40.219.18 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Snaps
I do wonder if snaps of every platform at a railway station really bring value to a WP article--SilasW (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say no, but in this case, where the parts of the station are so radically different (high level/low level/demolished high level/demolished low level), I'd say it's warranted. –  iride scent  19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's such an idiosyncratic station that such pictures are helpful. The weirdest thing, of course, is that it's a hub on the WCML but the WCML doesn't stop there - not even local trains from Milton Keynes. There's a greater argument for WCML platforms there than at Harrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.207.205 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Map relocation
The interesting early 20th century map should be moved so that it does not intrude into History and break up the sequence of bulletted points.--SilasW (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rebuilding
The LL station is closed from 29 Oct 2014 to 2 Nov 2014 for rebuilding, reported in uk.railway newsgroup as P.2 being converted to a through platform. When the precise nature of the work has been confirmed by observation the article will be updated along with other items now out of date. Unknown details to be confirmed include - fully "through" to north or just stops; transition height or normal height. P2 does not seem to be involved in any new timetabled passenger services when checking the winter WTT via realtimetrains.co.uk.MBRZ48 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

1936 accident
doesn't tally with the Ministry of Transport accident report. Discrepancies include: These are so different that it's as if another accident was described - but no others are listed at The Railways Archive for Willesden Junction in 1936; and the chances are small that there would be two accidents at the same location in that timeframe with one train damaging another and causing a single fatality to a first-class passenger. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the date - the edit has June 1936, the report has 29 May 1936
 * number of passengers injured (but not killed) - edit has four, report has five
 * direction of the passenger train - edit has "to Watford", report has "Bletchley to Euston"
 * the object that struck the the passenger train - edit has "a piece of equipment sticking out", report has "one of the pair of upper doors"
 * type of train where the fault occurred - edit has "the milk train", report has "the 7.45 a.m. Horse and Carriage train"
 * direction of that train - edit has "heading to Euston", report has "from Euston to Carlisle"

Accidents section
While incredibly well sourced, this still reads like a list of trivia. Compared to most other station articles, it's bordering on the obsessive, with every possible accident no matter how unnotable covered. Specifically, I have a hard time seeing the argument to keep every single random accident and especially suicide that's taken place at this station, as opposed to any random place nearby.

This should probably be rewritten as flowing text, where a couple (no more than half a dozen) of the most notable incidents are discussed, as opposed to just mentioned in a list.

CapnZapp (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)