Talk:Clapham Junction railway station

Busiest

'It is possible that measured in numbers of trains, it may be the busiest railway station in the world.' - it would be good to have some more clarification on this. It's possible that pigs may fly, but it would be nice to have some concrete evidence :) Can anyone provide some? Andrewferrier 17:56, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites claiming that Clapham Junction is Europe's business railway station. For example [1] but I can't find any data to back that up. --Etimbo 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The figure of 2,000 trains passing through each day looks correct. Since nearly all pass through between 6 am and midnight it works out as a train every 30 seconds. Obviously, the question is, what station can beat that? None in the UK obviously. The obvious candidate is Shinjuku Station in Japan which is undoubtedly the winner in terms of passengers dealt with per day (2 million) - but not necessarily in number of trains passing through.

Exile 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that Shinjuku Station has far more than 2000 train movements per day. A quick count of the number of trains on the Chuo and Yamanote lines gives a total of 1400 train movements, and that is only for 2 of the 4 train lines from 1 of the 6 companies that operate trains from that station. I think JR alone could beat the 2000. The Odakyu, Keio and Sobu train lines are each easily as busy as Chuo, which would make it at least 3200 train movements. An example of the Yamanote timetable in one direction: http://www.jreast-timetable.jp/0605/timetable/tt0866/0866100.html Mattopia 00:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Clapham Junction is only the name of the station, not of any particular junction in that locality. The names of the junctions I can find are:

• Falcon Jn (at the south end of the station where the WLL joins the Brighton Slow Lines)
• Ludgate GW Jn (at the eastern end of the Windsor Line platforms with the WLL and the LCD)
• Latchmere Jns (where the three curves join the WLL)
• West London Jn (the junction that Eurostar empty stock leave the Windsor Lines at to get onto the WLL)
• Pouparts Jn (where the low level and high level approaches to Victoria split)

82.36.26.229 01:27, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought Clapham Junction claimed to be the busiest Junction station in Europe, not the busiest station. There is a slight difference Simply south 10:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as I can remember thae claim has been that it is the busiest station. However it can probably lay claim to being the busiest junction in the world as most other contenders for busiest station are terminuses. Jooler 12:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Still in discussion. This may still be able to claim the busiest junction in the UK as according to the Office of Rail Regulation station Usage 2004-05, Clapham Junction was the busiest station in terms of number of people interchanging. This figure came to 8,682,661 interchanges. Simply south 02:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The 2005-6 figure was 9,453,333 interchanges. Assuming these were mainly between 6am and midnight, this is 1,800 transfers per hour or one every 2 seconds.

Exile 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reopening the debate - according to bahn.hafas.de 140 trains stop here every hour during most of the day, and 120 per hour in the evening. So - 140 per hour 6am to 6pm (1,700), 120 per hour 6pm to midnight (700) plus about 100 midnight to 6am - 2,500 train movements per day, not including those which pass without stopping.

I certainly would claim this is a record for Europe, for a "surface rail" station, and indeed for anywhere outside Japan. India has some very busy stations but has very long trains packed to capacity (and more). Caveat - Zurich Hbf appears to have up to 100 departures per hour. Do we count 2 for each ie is an arrival and a departure a separate train movement?

However subway/metro stations with several lines meeting might beat this - for instance Kings Cross/St Pancras has a train every 2-3 minutes in each direction on these lines

1. Circle/Hammersmith and City/Metropolitan 2. Northern 3. Piccadilly 4. Victoria.

which would be 280 trains per hour. If Kings Cross/St Pancras is regarded as a single interchange including the main termini plus the Thameslink station this would rise to around 350 per hour... Chatelet/Les Halles in Paris has 3 RER lines and 6 metro lines - which would suggest about 400 trains per hour.

Exile 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Zürich Hauptbahnhof has according to many internet references more than 2900 trains per day. That seems significantly more than any estimate for Clapham 86.26.2.200 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As well as the rail traffic (2915 per day according to its wikipedia page) Zurich is a much bigger station, & includes shopping complex, tram termini. Mattymmoo (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Gatwick Express at Clapham Junction

Does the Gatwick Express now stop at Clapham Junction? If so, is there now a part of Clapham Junction for passport checks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec - U.K. (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 October 2006‎

No & no. --Tagishsimon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 10 October 2006‎

You don't have to go through passport checks to use the Gatwick Express anyways... It's only a train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.85.130 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Access improvements to CLJ

Network Rail has recently announced a major package of improvements to access at Clapham Junction, including re-opening the Brighton Yard entrance on St Johns Hill and installing lifts to the platforms by 2009. See [2] at page 20. Dmccormac 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good news. I saw some simple but well done handrail improvements at Weybridge station this morning. Nice when a railway station is better than it was when last you used it. --Tagishsimon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 11 April 2007‎

via Gatwick Airport ?

The list of train services (which is probably unnecessary for an encyclopedia) says that trains from Clapham to Southampton (among other places) go via Gatwick Airport. I'm sure I'd have noticed if my train home went to Gatwick. In reality I think the Southampton train is the right one if you wanted to go to Gatwick Airport, but to actually get there you need to change, maybe at Basingstoke? So the train certainly doesn't go _via_ Gatwick Airport. 82.68.41.201 22:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just South West Trains that go from London to Southampton. Some Southern trains go from Victoria to Southampton via Gatwick Airport - the 08:17 Mondays-Fridays, for example. [3]. As for the list of train services, yes, it is perhaps excessive. If you're willing to come up with a way of demonstrating the wide variety of services without the long list, it would be useful. Cheers, A bit iffy 07:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There's 1tph all day every day from Victoria to Southampton via Gatwick Airport. Has been since they were diverted from Sutton in the late 80's. You just haven't noticed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.85.130 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2014‎

Blue, fetching? I prefer green.

The end of the history section states the follwonig abuot the Arding & Hobbs store "The cupola is now illuminated at night in a rather fetching shade of blue." Surely stating a colour as being fetching or attractive is a personal preference and has no place in the article? Deckchair 11:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly POV and should be removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 29 June 2007

naming issue

It is myth that the station was named Clapham Junction as Clapham was more desirable, it is the sort of thing townies say in Clapham.

Clapham Junction was the name of the railway junction, ie, the railways have names for the junctions and it is this point that the route to Clapham is junctioned off. It's like, the Wandsworth Road is not in Wandsworth, it is the road to Wandsworth.

They didn't have to name it Clapham Junction, even though that makes sense, but they couldn't call it Battersea Junction as there already was one. When it came to building a station, well, there where already 3 stations called Battersea, so, that would be a little confusing, and back then there was only Clapham High St, or not even, not sure. So. 84.13.161.96 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem with your assertion is that none of the railway junctions around Clapham Junction are called Clapham Junction - see Clapham_Junction_railway_station#The_junction and the 1914 map of junctions provided. If I recall correctly, the naming story is asserted in a History of Battersea book in my possession, but not to hand right now. Other problems with your account: CJ station was opened a few years before Battersea Park station and before Queenstown Road (Battersea). CJ and Battersea Railway Station were opened in the same year. And whereas now, CJ is pretty much the centre of Battersea, 150 years ago it was not, and the High Street and village were. Municipal buildings congragated around CJ because of the station. So it is reasonablee that the Battersea name was given to the High Street railway station.

And, of course, the junction between the east-west lines going through CJ, and the north-south line going through Clapham is about a mile east of CJ. Way back, Ludgate Junction was the point at which eastbound trains could be pointed in the direction of Clapham. So there's again no good fit with your theory.

In fact, on pretty much all points you seem to be wrong, talking out of your hat, and generally in error.

Given all of that, I am interested to know why it is you think it is a myth, and/or what sources you have to back up your assertions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to reopen a closed issue with some unverified information... I heard that it was called Clapham Junction after a stop on the coach route mentioned in the article e.g. that the fact it is called Junction is not because of the trainline. I will try to find something to back this up. 82.23.150.147 (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

I have uploaded and added four more images, and have also taken the liberty of changing the 'main' image in the infobox to one of the south western entrance, on the grounds that (1) it's more illustrative of the Victorian architecture that still makes up the majority of the station than the modern northern exit, and (2) the southern exits are far more heavily used and therefore probably the 'main' part of the station (the previous northern exit photo's now in the Gallery). Not sure where the Gallery best sits in the flow of the article - I have added it after the explanation that there are multiple exits, but it may sit better at the very end. The article could possibly do with an aerial photo of the station, given that the sheer concentration of lines is one of the station's most distinguishing features, if anyone is aware of one that can be suitably sourced.Curran2 (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Galleries. Galleries are normally placed towards the end, but before the appendix sections such as References. However, since these images are all in commons:Category:Clapham Junction railway station, a {{commons category}} template is usually preferred to a gallery; and the article already has one. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB Malfunction

Can someone help fix this page's issue that it just displays the infobox?

Thank you.Vincent60030 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It was not an AWB malfunction, since your edit that broke it was not an AWB edit. I have put the infobox back to how it was before: please don't rearrange it again without good reason. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Bad writing

"The railway companies, to attract a middle- and upper-class clientele, seized the unindustrial parish calculating that being upon the slopes of Clapham's plateau would only re-inforce this distinction, leading to a long-lasting misunderstanding that the station is in Clapham."

What is this actually attempting to describe — the siting of the station, the naming of the station, both or neither? Whichever, it's one of the most pretentious passages I've read in a long while. Harfarhs (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clapham Junction railway 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/20150213065312/http://www.tfl.gov.uk:80/cdn/static/cms/documents/richmond-and-clapham-junction-to-stratford-timetable-december-2014.pdf to https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/richmond-and-clapham-junction-to-stratford-timetable-december-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122073856/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/pgr/rail/passenger/stations/betterrailstations/pdf/report.pdf to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/stations/betterrailstations/pdf/report.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Clapham Junction Railway Station Housing Estates

Moved from User talk:Bazza 7

Hello, are you currently aware that the railway station page already had a section on the (more general) housing estates for the entirety of the wider area of Battersea? "The large Battersea Power Station brought slums, the population of which rose from 6,000 in 1840 to 168,000 by 1910 [this population figure is for the whole former Borough of Battersea, not just the far more specific area that I tried to include by the way]. Battersea's slums unfit for human habitation were entirely replaced with council and charitable housing between 1918 and 1975."

As you have chosen to leave this unchanged, could you also please explain to me the significance of those dates please? The only three housing estates that have any obvious or more tenuous links to the station today are the: Winstanley and York Road Estates, Latchmere Estate and Shaftesbury Estate, none of which were started in 1918 (the end of the first world war!?) or finished in 1975. The Winstanley Estate has an obvious link to Clapham Junction because it is the immediate Northern exit and entrance of the station on Grant Road, has been linked with crime levels on the Estates by the Metropolitan Police and the London Riots of "CLAPHAM JUNCTION" in 2011 originated on the Estates. Unfortunately, the associations with the Shaftesbury Park Estate and Latchmere Estate are not as strong. However, the Shaftesbury was built between 1872-1877, almost immediately adjacent to the Brighton Yard Entrance and largely due to the new workers that the station attracted, especially when the area around the station was not particularly developed and is also one of the earliest examples of social housing in the UK. The Latchmere was the brainchild of John Burns, who not only worked at Clapham Junction in his youth, but also grew up in a house on Grant Road, on what is now part of the Winstanley Estate.ref>Thom, Colin (2012–2013). "Battersea" (PDF). Survey of London. 50 (Draft): Chapter 8, pp2-4.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)</ref>

Please respond or I will change the page to include reference to the Winstanley and York Road Estates using some of the references that I have already provided for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kip1234 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kip1234: Please sign your edits and contributions using four tildes (~). I reverted your edit because it added information not immediately pertinent to the article's topic, which is Clapham Junction railway station. I stated this in my edit summary. Yes, I was fully aware of the "History" section in the article. You have been selective in your quote above: the article actually states: "Whereas the station brought wealthy streets to Battersea its adjoining (entirely modernised) manual railway works and the large Battersea Power Station brought slums". The section makes a general observation of the effect the station's construction had on the surrounding area, the "Clapham" name being used by the railway companies to improve the marketing of their product, and the negative aspects of its being built. No further expansion is needed in this specific railway-related article. There are other articles where your information might be better placed (such as Battersea, which is linked from the railway station article). If you have enough referenced information for a new article on your specific subject, then be bold and create it. I see you are a new editor on Wikipedia: please remember to be courteous, and not issue ultimatums such as "Please respond or I will change the page". Bazza (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that there is an article Winstanley Estate. Bazza (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: I haven't been selective at all. The first sentence includes a far more general area and population (the entire former Borough of Battersea and its population), rather than the specific page that I wanted to add, i.e. the specific streets next to the station that then became the Winstanley and York Road. The second sentence is also far more general in talking about unspecified council housing (again in the entire Battersea area), additionally using some dates that have no relevance to any council housing associated with Battersea or Clapham Junction railway station for that matter. I am not seeking to expand the article, merely improve a section that is already there (in the second sentence that you haven't contradicted) with valid referencing and a link to a relevant page, considering that the immediate "slums" around the station DID become the Winstanley and York Road Estates. I would suggest that you either remove all reference to the public/council housing section as it is much more general than my correction or actually include some valid references so that it is not considered a factual inaccuracy. As it is a very small section of the page and is already included, I'm not sure that a new article is needed under the content splitting policy, if that's what you're referring to. Additionally, doesn't the acceptable content forking policy of related articles allow for relevant information to be published on more than one page, without creating unnecessary multiple pages? If I am not aware of something because I am a new user, as you appear to be inferring, I would just like an explanation of why you would oppose an edit that has multiple sources whilst allowing statements that are inaccurate and have no sources whatsoever to remain. I also apologise for my lack of courtesy and will say that the signing suggestion is appreciated. Kip1234 (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kip1234: You are indeed seeking to expand the article (by adding information not currently there). I have no problem with your material, nor the references you've provided. But they do not belong on the page about Clapham Junction railway station. See WP:OFFTOPIC. I have already suggested two pages where your material might better fit, including one directly concerning the Winstanley Estate. If you think even the general two sentences about housing development directly related to the railway station are likewise inappropriate, then remove them. Bazza (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: Last set of questions: Why are they "directly related" when there isn't even a reference provided to support that? Why is linking the Winstanley Estate in a small correction with references considered "WP:OFFTOPIC" but linking: Lavender Hill, Guildford The Falcon and Battersea Power Station considered "directly related" or "on-topic"? Why are you automatically opposing any page expansion when the WP:BOLD policy to which you earlier referred me to, also says that editors should be "bold" in updating pages as well as creating new ones? I would be tempted to remove quite a lot more of that section apart from the third paragraph and half of the fourth, due to the fact that it is not WP:V and could be considered WP:NOR for the history of "Clapham Junction" that you would like to be true, but actually is unsupported by any WP:RS. Please don't ask me to read any of the Wikipedia policies that you have already mentioned, none of these will directly address the questions that I've put to you (as I have already read them). The WP:OFFTOPIC policy in particular advises editors to "err on the side of caution", which would be especially true considering that I have included multiple valid references and writing from a nuetral point of view.

Thanks Kip1234 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: Since you haven't had a chance to answer any of my questions, just notifying you that I will be WP:BOLD and delete parts of the history section based on the criteria that you have proposed. These will be for all the sentences that have no WP:RS and are therefore not WP:V and also have links that are apparently WP:OFFTOPIC according to your reversion. Please see the WP:NOR policy for why this is necessary.

Kip1234 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)