Talk:Old Street station

Older discussions

I have reinstated the claim that there is no trace left of the original station building. A local history book shows a photo of this building: it is a single-storey building, faced with light-coloured tiles and with a curved frontage so that it goes round one corner of a crossroads. This is clearly a major junction, with traffic lights and tram tracks, and must, I feel, be the Old Street/City Road junction. Looking at old maps makes it clear that the main alignments of the roads have not changed radically and this would place the original junction somewhere near the centre of the present roundabout. As far as I can see there is no trace of any building resembling the original station anywhere near the current junction and consequently I have no hesitation in restoring the claim. The photo in question is held by a local history collection and if I can get a copy of it for the article I will do so. Reference: Tames, R, Clerkenwell and Finsbury Past, Historical Publications Ltd, London, 1999. ISBN 0 948667 56 7. Plate 172, p. 122: "The old ground-level Old Street station". --Nevilley 09:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have been there and there is very obviously a building on the north side of city road now disused and grey. It is directly above the original emergency staircase (which is still in use) to the platforms, making it the prime candidate for a station building.

Do you mean the staircase which is still in public use as the non-escalator access to the platforms? That you get to, on your way in, by turning right after the ticket gates? Or is this some other staircase? Do please elucidate, I'm very confused. Thanks. Gonegonegone 17:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, where exactly do you mean? City Road, being a road that runs N-S, tends not really to have a north side. Do you mean the north side of Old Street perhaps?? Gonegonegone 07:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

However, it does not look like the original building, but rather a later replacement, apparantly used for ventilation purposes to the platforms. This is notable by the large airvents and grills, and apparant lack of other use.

These buildings are a dead give-away for the original tube station buildings, and are visible at city road, waterloo, st. pauls, kings cross, and many other places besides.

I'm sorry but I don't think any of this, and the user's rather sarcastically phrased edit in the article (not really encyclopaedic), really add much to the question of where are the original station buildings, which has been addressed. They are gone, because where they were is now smack bang under the middle of the roundabout: this is indisputable. If there is some bit of building that looks like it once had a lift shaft or something then fine, document it (with some evidence please - a personal opinion based on how it looks to you won't really do) but even so this is not, repeat not, the original station building, of which nothing remains (oops I am repeating myself now). If the comments claiming the original buildings are there are added again, I'll revert them, sorry. Having said that I note that the argumentative stuff from "Anonymous" comes from 81.156.181.83 some of whose other contributions at the same time were vandalism, so with a bit of luck he's gone. This is why, having had time to consider, I reverted some of my angrier comments initially made on this topic. :) 82.35.17.203 19:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So I suppose you owe the other person a pint. Anonymous 13:30, 24th October 2004 (GMT)

No, afraid he does not, but as they have both left ... 82.35.17.203 19:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good ... and I guess I owe you that pint sometime! --VampWillow 11:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cheers! :) --Nevilley 21:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note - all the above speculation was a touch unnecessary though well-meant. The London Transport Museum has astonishing amounts of detail on individual station histories and could confirm the above, along with dates, descriptions etc. I hope this is useful to future editors. Anon. --82.35.17.203 08:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hmmmn ... rather rude. Anon: part of the reason why many of us write and edit articles on WP is because we enjoy the discussion ... If we were just interested in "the facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts" then we'd probably go out and buy a 'pedia of some other sort. So far as London's Transport Museum (to give it its correct name) is concerned, I used to be an active member of its Friends' society, which included seeing some of the non-public-access route maps and station plans in the archive at Acton, so I doubt I will be 'astonished' at all. ymmv. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 18:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was rather under the impression that the Transport Museum was absolutely forbidden to allow people to view station plans on security grounds, especially with regard to terrorism. Anonymous

It was not intended as rude. You have missed the point, in a somewhat pompous way. Anon. --82.35.17.203 07:30, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As you hide behind anonimity it is difficult to tell, but I doubt anyone else would disagree that "a touch unnecessary though well-meant" would be seen as unreasonable (indeed pompous!) by most other editors, so hard to determine an alternative 'intention' on your part. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 09:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I really can't go on with this. Have it your own way: it seems to be what you are used to. --OldStreet 09:56, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Surface buildings

Here is the official word, the result of an enquiry at ltmuseum.co.uk:

1961 - 1985

In 1963, the area occupied by the station entrance and an adjoining substation was required by the London County Council (LCC) for a new roundabout at the intersection of City Road and Old Street.

The surface building completely disappeared during the subsequent alterations, whilst the booking hall was reconstructed to support the new road and extended so that it directly linked into an extensive subway system connected to a large number of stairwells on the edge of the roundabout.

[snip - not relevant thereafter]

82.35.17.203 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islington or Hackney

There was a question rasied at Talk:London Underground about which borough the station is in - apparently quite a few people assume it is in Hackney, which is contrary to what the article says.

I asked on a London Underground forum I read, frequented by many current and former LU staff (amongst otherS), and one of them went decidedly out of their way to find the answer, "Having spent all afternoon researching and being in contact with City of London Corporation, Islington, and Hackney councils and studying up to date maps I can tell you that the whole of Old Street including the tube station is in ISLINGTON. All three councils say the same thing." [1].

I have added this as an external reference to the article. Although forum posts are not normally consisdered reliable sources, that the poster (who posts only using a pseudonym) has cited his sources, which are undoubtedly reliable, I feel makes this acceptable. Thryduulf 19:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The poster on LU forum only gives one link, a map.[2] This shows that the North-East quarter of the roundabout is in Hackney, this is also where the map puts the symbols for the tube and rail stations and from my own recollection where the ticket hall is. The Master Atlas of Greater London shows the same boundary. The ventilation building on the NE corner of the roundabout is certainly TfL property, as they were criticized for painting over a banksey mural on it.[3] Could it be that the station is physically in the LB of Hackney but administered by LB Islington?-Grim23 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:First logo cropped F.gif

Image:First logo cropped F.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 20:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Borough

I was interested by this edit. I don't want to get into crazy amounts of detail but the map I looked at, here, shows the border approaching the roundabout from the east in the centre of Old Street. It then turns north once it is level with the centre of City Road - which means that the middle of the roundabout really is right on the border. Is there something more definitive that shows the border doing something else? Because, if not, then perhaps the article was correct before? Or am I missing the point here? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand it's discussed above too, years ago. I think I'll just give up at this point on the grounds that it doesn't really matter. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going by the Ordnance Survey map, which is (generally speaking) a more WP:RS than the A to Z. It is Government-sponsored, after all. Start off here, then from that zoom out one. This changes the scale from 1:25000 to 1:50000, and also makes the L.B. boundary stand out more (because it becomes black instead of grey). Then return to the original zoom level, and zoom in one. The dashed grey line indicating the L.B. boundary can be seen running along the southern side of Old Street, crossing over to the island (but running around it, not entering it), crossing again to run along the western/southern side of City Road.

The London Borough boundaries were drawn to avoid cutting through buildings wherever possible: this would have resulted in the building owner or tenant being liable to pay rates (council tax, etc.) to two different authorities. Boundaries can be seen to wiggle around other stations, such as Falconwood railway station and Lower Sydenham railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very interesting. I'm happy to leave this how it is. Cheers DBaK (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered:, @Redrose64: Don't really want to open this ancient chestnut, but I just had a look at this, after adding a source from Islington Borough Council saying they intend to put in a new station entrance as part of the remodelling work on the roundabout. For me, that trumps any map - councils don't have a tendency to want to spend money on areas that aren't their problem! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Old Street 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110607020354/http://www.atoc.org/retail/_downloads/NFM98/NFM98_Common_A.pdf to http://www.atoc.org/retail/_downloads/NFM98/NFM98_Common_A.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)