Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Tramlink naming

People here might be interested in looking at Talk:Tramlink#Merging_Tramlink_and_London_Trams_pages,_dropping_Tramlink. G-13114 (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Deadlinks for cleanup list etc

I noticed that there are currently two dead links for the tools used to display the cleanup list and the other one. Is there any way to bring it back to life? VKZY^LUFan (talk) (Mind the Gap!) 08:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vincent60030: The tools concerned (CleanupListingByCat.php and wikiproject_watchlist.py) were hosted on Toolserver, which was taken down - permanently - at the end of June 2014. You could ask the providers of those tools, i.e. svick (talk · contribs) and tim1357 (talk · contribs) what the replacements are. You could check the archives of WP:VPT, starting round about Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Toolserver shut down and if you still can't find out the replacements, start a new thread at VPT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Over at Talk:London Buses route 328 we seem to have the usual anti-bus article editors insisting that London Buses route 328 has a notability tag slapped on it, but refusing to take it to AfD to demonstrate its non notable, just edit warring to add the tag back in. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen anyone refusing to take it to AfD. This post looks like canvassing for support among a particular interest group.Charles (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why they do not just fix the issues that led to the tag being placed? Or is it easier to sweep the problem under the rug by removing the tag when you think nobody is watching? Reyk _YO! 13:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification and User:C2A

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Current only vs. complete historical information
Useddenim (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Opening and renaming of Burnt Oak tube station

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Burnt Oak tube station#Opening, renaming and comment there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Night buses in London

A proposal to rename List of night buses in London to Night buses in London is being discussed here. Toweplus (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:London Underground patronage by line

Someone is spamming the {{London Underground patronage by line}} onto multiple articles. I personally don't think it has any value whatsoever since it's counting one-stop short-hops equally to long commuter journeys (and besides, I don't see how LT could even get this information; the entire point of the current massive wifi monitoring exercise is that they currently have no idea what routes passengers are actually taking between any given two points). I've removed one from Metropolitan line where the clutter it was causing was beyond ridiculous, but before I rollback the rest can anyone see any grounds for keeping it? ‑ Iridescent 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems ok at London Underground, with a better caption & placing, imo. If the figures are meaningful. The low figures for the Bakerloo perhaps suggest you are right, and this collects beginnings and ends of journeys. One could ask Ms Emma Flint how they are gathered (see link on image file). Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning architects

Is this advertising, or not? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, we're just saying in a neutral tone who's been appointed to carry out the redevelopment. It's not like we're saying "highly sought after luxury flats" or the like in Wikipedia's voice. Besides, I would hope that it's not the case either that London Transport choose their architects, or potential customers choose where to live, on the basis of Wikipedia pages. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd also say it's OK. The article already mentions in note 2 several previous sets of architects that have made attempts to come up with development proposals. These were all fairly big names in the industry and the latest,Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, is Richard Rogers practice, so they're not in need of advertising. --DavidCane (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's okay. When writing about historical station buildings I tend to mention the architects, if known. Mackensen (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits by Briantist

• Template:TfLstyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The recent edits by Briantist (talk · contribs), mainly (but not entirely) concerning this template are causing concern for myself, DavidCane (talk · contribs), Dubmill (talk · contribs) and others. Main discussion is at User talk:Briantist#Template:TfLstyle. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Also causing concern for SovalValtos (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This was eventually removed from all of the articles and I has been turned into a basic external citation template, which might be useful for something.--DavidCane (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bow / Bethnal Green sockpuppet damage

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Bow / Bethnal Green sockpuppet damage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal:London transport

Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Annual review

Since 30 September 2018, the project has added 28 articles, 17 good articles and three new featured articles. Membership has increased by 2 and active users is static.

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Participants	9	47	69	77	84 (46 active)	80 (40 active)	84 (45 active)	85 (36 active)	86 (32 active)	91 (28 active)	93 (30 active)	94 (31 active)	97 (27 active)	99 (27 active)
Articles Assessed	0	1,415	1,714	2,153	2,656	2,830	2,933	2,996	3,021	3,311	3,369	3,856	3,930	3,958
Good Articles	0	4	5	10	21	24	27	31	33	44	59	79	87	104
Featured Articles	1	1	4	10	24	31	33	33	33	33	33	34	36	39
Statistics are for 30 September in each year.

--DavidCane (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Route diagram templates

For anyone interested, I've created a table of the official colours and the closest standard icon colours for anyone who cares about those diagrams. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Northern line southern extensions

In researching North Cheam tube station I've been reading in a number of sources that the Northern line was planned, albeit surreptitiously, to be extended to Epsom, with a station at Castle Parade in Ewell, however I'm not sure if any of the following sources are reliable:

and fairly obviously all my local libraries have shut. Does anybody own any books which talk about this?--Launchballer 00:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The UERL's policy in the 1920s and the LPTB's policy in the 1930s when building extensions was to extend lines to areas not already served. Ewell already had two railway stations, Ewell East and Ewell West, so extending to Ewell would have been pointless and would have been hugely resisted by the Southern Railway whose area of operation this would have encroached into. The reason the City and South London Railway (C&SLR) and District Railway were not extended to Sutton via the Wimbledon & Sutton Railway (W&SR) as desired was the objection of Southern Railway to the route and a compromise deal was made to extend the C&SLR only as far as Morden with SR building the W&SR to Sutton line. Stoneleigh railway station was constructed in the 1930s for the new suburban development in the area.

• Looking at the sources:
  • Source 1. Suggests that it was the local authorities that were pushing the idea. I grew up in Morden and so did my father in the 1930s and I remember him mentioning the idea had been considered. But work was never carried out and certainly no secret tunnels were dug. This would be recorded in one of considerable number of books on the Underground if it had been.
  • Source 2. This does not say anything about an extension beyond Morden, but the article linked in the PS does discuss some of the wider issues. It talks about the reasons this would not have happened.
  • Source 3. This is somewhat contradictory and sounds like a mis-repeated anecdote. It says it was "built" and suggests Castle Parade as its location. Castle Parade is a very standard 1930s suburban shopping parade similar to dozens built in the decade. The space is not large enough for a station and if it had been built as a station in the 1920s or 1930s it would almost certainly have been designed by Charles Holden or in the style he and Frank Pick championed. The social housing in Morden described would be the St Helier estate, which was not started until after the London Underground opened in Morden and took advantage of the Wimbledon to Sutton line being opened through its area. There was a line under construction from Raynes Park to Leatherhead via Chessington which was stopped by the war and not restarted.

--DavidCane (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What DavidCane said. Thanks to the Northern Heights fiasco, the expansion plans for the Northern Line are probably the best-documented unbuilt railway schemes ever (with the possible exception of some of Watkin's pipe-dreams), and there are a lot of well-researched books on them. This isn't even mentioned in Murphy's Northern Line Extensions, Beard's By Tube Beyond Edgware or Blake & James's Northern Wastes, and I'd expect it to get significant coverage in all three if it had been seriously considered, if only as something in competition for funds with the ultimately-accepted Aldenham proposal. (Expanding a tube line isn't a case of just building some extra stations; by the 1930s the Northern Line was running at capacity, so any extension wouldn't have been possible without massive infrastructure works. The main economic driver of the abandoned constructions towards Elstree wasn't to provide Elstree with a railway service—the area already had a direct fast LMS connection to central London—but because it was the only practical site for the depot which the electrification of the Northern Line extensions required.) In general, UERL/LPTB ignored South London; because the terrain was mostly unsuitable for tunnelling they had no advantage over mainline operators, and the SR and its predecessors had been feverishly active building the spiderweb of suburban branch lines that largely still exists, and ferociously resisted anything that might compete with them. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wilfrid Newton

Following the appointment of Andy Byford as Commissioner today, I had a go at writing a wiki article for former LRT chair Draft:Wilfred_Newton? Would appreciate if anyone can take a look! Turini2 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

I have started a discussion here regarding the MCV EvoSeti article which ay be of interest to editors here given the prevalence of the bus in London. Elshad (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

London Underground RDTs

Moved from User talk:Redrose64

I draw interested editors' attention to Briantist's activities at turning LU RDTs into detailed track and platform schematics. Currently this affects Template:Jubilee Line RDT and Template:Victoria Line RDT. I could simply revert but have found alerting others first to be productive in the past. Bazza (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm really interested to know which Wikipedia rule I've broken. They seem to be a valid format for the page, they are verifiable, referenced and accurate. In particular they add relevant details to the articles they illustrate. What's not to like?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: I tend not to watch RDTs that are in {{Routemap}} format, the syntax is incomprehensible. Apart from that, have you informed WT:LT? Also, my comment of 20:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC) at Template talk:Northern line map is relevant.

@Briantist: I've looked at Template:Victoria Line RDT and one thing that immediately strikes me is that all the "crossovers" are drawn as if a reversal were possible - that the train could proceed south along one tunnel, and then loop back into the other tunnel and return northwards - but I know of only one place on the Underground where this is possible, at Kennington on the Northern line (Charing Cross branch).

Looking now at the north-eastern end, I see one obvious problem - Northumberland Park depot is drawn as if it had just two tracks which are physically separate. Looking more carefully, I can't reconcile Seven Sisters with reality - about the only thing that is correct is that there are three platforms, numbered 3-5. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The new format is much much harder to understand at a glance. Platform numbers are irrelevant at the line level, and the diagrams have got way taller and wider than they used to be, with descriptions spread across multiple lines. While a track diagram like this may be of use, it should not be the primary RDT for a line. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have now made the changes suggested. I have created a new form of the crossover which makes it clear that the lines are one-above-another, not at the flat level. I agree with Redrose64 that the stock symbol for a crossover wasn't really as clear as it could be. I think the change now makes it clearer. I have fixed the Seven Sisters layout, I made an error with both the numbers and the layout, but the "SEP~L","SEP~R" for multi-level I just can't get to work, so I have not put that in. I have changed the depot to a ellipsis+connector as I feel their layouts is out-of-scope for here. I defend the use of the track layout as they are very interesting for the general reader because of the work put in at every state to make cross-platforming work for the Victoria line, and the Jubliee Line extensions. What is mattbuck Wikipedia rule that he's trying to state? It's not clear to me.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cite a wikirule, just that from an at-a-glance these new RDTs are worse than those that came before. As for level interchange, I don't see why that's useful on the line diagram, it's a prose thing and a station-level diagram if necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've had a go at resolving the problem. I restored the conventional route diagrams, but moved the detailed track diagram down below into its own section (which is collapsed when transcluded, but displayed in full on the template page for ease of editing). Briantist's edits were certainly bold, but I don't disagree with his thought that the information is worthy of inclusion. Hopefully this is a reasonable compromise. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, AlgaeGraphix what is the reason for duplicating the information? It's just adding redundancy.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Briantist: Did you even read the comment I just wrote? I believe the 'rule' that Mattbuck (et al.) is trying to articulate is that RDTs are intended to provide an overview of a line to help the reader orient themselves and understand the relationship between key locations and elements. It is necessary to keep context in mind with respect to the amount of detail shown, which is why Clapham Junction is marked with a simple  (INT) icon on a line diagram, but every crossing and crossover is illustrated on Railways around Clapham Junction. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry AlgaeGraphix... what's the WIKIPEDIA rule you are stating? Sorry, it's not clear to me which one you are usinig.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Briantist: There's no codified rule (which is why I put it in quotes), just a general understanding (which you seem to be missing) of what an RDT is and is not supposed to be used for. Keep in mind that the general sentiment seems to be to revert your changes, and I am trying to help preserve them for you. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

So, AlgaeGraphix I can revert you changes as they are based on your own preferences, not an actual Wikipedia editing rule? 15:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Only if you want to create ill will, turn people's opinion against you, and get into an edit war. You seem bound and determined to force your version onto the project, even if it's not appropriate nor wanted. Besides which, I get the feeling that you would (incorrectly) cite WP:IAR and go ahead anyway even if there were a formal rule. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Briantist: So it appears that you really DO want to start an edit war. I see you reverted my changes just one minute after I replied to you here. My comments were not intended to give you leave to do whatever you wanted.

Right now we are—or should be—in the 'discussion' phase of WP:BRD. Let me remind you of how others feel about your changes to the route diagrams:

• Bazza 7: I could simply revert
• Redrose64: This is a route diagram, not a track layout.
• Mattbuck: The new format is much much harder to understand – the diagrams have got way taller and wider … it should not be the primary RDT for a line … these new RDTs are worse
• AlgaeGraphix: RDTs are intended to provide an overview of a line

Looking at your history, I see that this is not the first time that you've tried to impose your personal vision of what is 'correct' onto the project. You came close to being blocked over that (which wouldn't have been a first for you), and keep in mind that Redrose64 is an admin who has very little patience with WP:Disruptive editing. I strongly suggest that you self-revert your most recent edits. And what exactly is your nonsensical edit summary changes made were valid form of RDT. As per the "template=Template:Railway track legend" removed! supposed to mean? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Except, I've never been blocked, have I? Not in the decades I've been here (since 2 November 2006‎). I am perfectly entitled to make changes to these pages. What my "nonsensical" comment meant was the you, AlgaeGraphix, removed the reference to template=Template:Railway track legend from the page WHILST claiming here that you know of no such thing! I must also strongly suggest that you leave my edits alone, you have no relevant privilege over me. I'm sorry you are being so accusative and disruptive.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1) You seem to have a selective memory. The Block log shows that you were blocked not once but twice.

2) You are not 'entitled' to do anything; you are allowed to make acceptable changes, but the consensus is against you regardless of whether you choose to heed me or not.

3) You don't seem to look carefully at the changes I made. I did not remove the link to Template:Railway track legend, but moved it to the Detailed track diagram, where it was appropriate and relevant.

4) I don't understand why you continue to dig in, push back, and are now descending into a personal attack, when you should instead be trying to convince others why your changes merit keeping. Your 'My way or the highway' attitude is only working against you. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Briantist, the diagrams you made are interesting, but they are not suitable as the main RDT. The point of the main RDT is to give an at-a-glance view of the railway in question. In some cases that's more extensive than others, but the general way these work is you treat the route as a single entity (no matter how many roads), and to only show elements which are necessary (junctions with other routes, etc).

Now I do see the use of diagrams like these - I work for LU, and know how valuable track diagrams are - but they are much harder to read. There is a reason that when you travel by train (if any of us can remember such a thing) the route doesn't show switches and crossings. Someone wanting to know where the Jubilee Line goes will find a basic diagram with  (uHST) much easier than seeing all the individual platforms. That doesn't mean they don't want to see the detail, but it's not something suitable for the "this is where the line goes" RDT. Such information can be contained in another RDT, which can be collapsed to save space.

As for you, you have spent this entire conversation being nothing but WP:TENDENTIOUS towards everyone else. Consensus is against you, raging against that will just get you a long walk off a short plank. You need to work within the consensus if you want to find a way to keep the detailed information. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the information in these diagrams may be useful to some people. I also agree that they are not suitable as route summary diagrams because, as has been pointed out, they are not a summary and are difficult to take in at a glance. The substantially increased sizes (around 180% the length and width) requires more vertical scrolling to take in the information as well as horizontal scrolling on mobile devices. They are unclear; for example, Euston on the Victoria line has two boxes labelled 65 and 34: what are these numbers? (Yes, we might know, but other readers will not.) Should this new design prevail, then it will be interesting to see how other lines look when they are converted. My personal feeling is that someone has thought "this is a nice idea" without any due regard to the requirements of article editors' and readers' needs. Editors may be aware of precedent elsewhere, and the solution adopted: Template:East Coast Main Line has a sister article East Coast Main Line diagram to which it has a link for readers who wish for more detail. Bazza (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Incident at Chalfont & Latimer station

There was an incident at Chalfont & Latimer station on 21 June which resulted in two trains ending up metres from each other and damaged trackwork. My addition of this incident was reverted, so I've opened a discussion at talk:Chalfont & Latimer station#Accidents and incidents re its reinstatement. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

London Underground C Stock

See Talk:London Underground C Stock#Requested move 30 June 2020 (only two editors have participated in the discussion so far). C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 08:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the ORR station usage data

According to the ORR website, there was an error with the source data which has affected a number of stations, mainly in wales and the north of England and resulted in an overestimation of usage. Both the 2018/19 and 2017/18 data has been affected so someone (or multiple people) will need to go over all 2000+ stations to check if data is correct. It is hard to tell how many stations were affected or which stations they were so it may be best to unfortunately go over the whole lot. see here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difficultly north (talk • contribs) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Navbox

Has anyone considered changing the navbox? The colour scheme of black and red doesn't go very well. Perhaps changing the text to white? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Nav then I don't have much trouble with the black on red (although white would be clearer) but the blue on red is problematic and should be changed I agree. If you are referring to a different template, then please can you link it here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, for anything other than fixing the most egregious errors, maintenance of the project page would be a deckchairs-on-the-Titanic exercise. For whatever reason this is the epitome of a dead wikiproject—the only part of it that's still serving any kind of useful purpose is this talkpage, as a space for announcements and communications. ‑ Iridescent 04:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thamesmead extension

Hello all - I wonder if any of you can help on the Docklands Light Railway extension to Thamesmead and Template:Thamesmead_RDT, as a map of the current proposals would be very helpful. The current RDT has many more stations than are currently proposed, as well as an Overground extension that is no longer proposed. I have no idea how to edit the RDT and I don't want to break it, can someone have a go and edit the RDT or make a simple map? I take it I can't screenshot the map in the link below and insert that, right? Map link - https://ibb.co/1vHDhG9

Page 41 of the long term funding submission by TfL to HMG (released 30th Sep 2020) shows the current proposal. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/fc-20200930-supp-agenda-public.pdf Turini2 (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Annual review

Since 30 September 2019, the project has added 39 articles, three good articles and no new featured articles. Membership has increased by two.

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020
Participants	9	47	69	77	84 (46 active)	80 (40 active)	84 (45 active)	85 (36 active)	86 (32 active)	91 (28 active)	93 (30 active)	94 (31 active)	97 (27 active)	99 (27 active)	101 (29 active)
Articles Assessed	0	1,415	1,714	2,153	2,656	2,830	2,933	2,996	3,021	3,311	3,369	3,856	3,930	3,958	3,997
Good Articles	0	4	5	10	21	24	27	31	33	44	59	79	87	104	107
Featured Articles	1	1	4	10	24	31	33	33	33	33	33	34	36	39	39
Statistics are for 30 September in each year.

--DavidCane (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Mike Horne

Reading the London Underground House Magazine On The Move edition for July (Issue 68), I see that Mike Horne, author of several books on the London Underground, died aged 66 on 26 March 2020. The short obituary states that he briefly worked at the Metropolitan Police's forensic laboratory then joined London Underground as a station foreman. He was later an area manager and very involved in the changes to the system following the 1987 King's Cross fire. He left London Underground in 2000 and set up a transport consultancy. His most recent book was his second volume of the history of the District Railway.

I've certainly made extensive use of his six books from the Capital Transport "Illustrated History" set, which have helped make articles substantially better than they might otherwise have been.--DavidCane (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What a great loss. He does awesome books. I have so far only managed to get his Piccadilly book posthumous. Better than nothing but his legacy shall move on. Remembering. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For those who wish to track them down on second-hand websites, I got these at the Covent Garden museum some years back

• Horne, Mike; Bayman, Bob (1990). The First Tube: The Story of the Northern Line. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-128-7.
• Horne, Mike (2000). The Jubilee Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-220-8.
• Horne, Mike (2001). The Bakerloo Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-248-8.
• Horne, Mike (2003). The Metropolitan Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-275-5.
• Horne, Mike (2004). The Victoria Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow: Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-281-X.

DavidCane, what was the sixth? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, it is:

• Horne, Mike (2006). The District Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow: Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-292-5.

There's also:

• Horne, Mike (2009). The Northern Line: An Illustrated History. Harrow: Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-326-6. which updates "The First Tube".

--DavidCane (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Curious, I have:

• Connor, Piers (1993). Going Green: The Story of the District Line. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-157-0.

which is certainly in the same series. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Mine is the 2007 Piccadilly book. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this. I have cited Horne's books extensively in several GAs, and I really want to get his Victoria one in order to get every station on the line to GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If I have enough information for every station article I would do that too! Count me in if you are doing Finsbury Park (or just any other and I'll try to help) since I have the Piccadilly book (Green Park is already FA) :D @Ritchie333: Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've got the complete set. Some of them are now getting quite pricy on Ebay and Amazon as they are out of print. I wrote a lot of Finsbury Park and Highbury and Islington station articles a long time ago and did the GA for Euston and FA for Green Park. I've got another FAC going through at the moment for Charing Cross tube station--DavidCane (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate template issue

I thought, given the remit of this project, that I should flag up here that I have discovered that there seem to be two almost identical templates relating to London Bus and Coach Stations - namely Template:London bus and coach stations and Template:London bus, BRT and coach stations. I may be wrong, but they seem to be doing the same thing, so I do not think both are needed. Dunarc (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You could WP:BEBOLD and simply merge them, or you could be formal and file a WP:TFM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I have proposed a merger here Dunarc (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

S stock: Surface or Suburban?

Please can we get this revert by Bazza 7 (talk · contribs) checked? I always understood that S stood for Surface. Suburban seems rather strange, since all of the Underground lines (except the W&C) are partially suburban.

The source is a TfL Research Guide, which includes a number of doubtful claims - for instance In Dec 2007, after 18 months’ planning, a new service pattern was introduced (the ‘Extended Circle’) which increased the scheduled service on the Hammersmith Branch by 70%, from 7.5 to 12 trains per hour. I am certain that the "Extended Circle" occurred after I joined Wikipedia, which was in May 2009; and indeed our article on the Circle line shows December 2009 as the change. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

IMO the S always stood for Surface. Nightfury 08:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to see "Surface" used if there's an equivalent or better reference than the current "Suburban" one. On the extended circle: [1] hints at various experiments prior to 2009 but gives no firm details. Bazza (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There were (and still are) assorted experiments with extending the Circle literally since the original circle was completed—they don't advertise the test services but if you keep an eye on the API (or services like Google Maps that feed from the API) in the very early or very late hours or at times when a train has suffered a fault and another needs to be brought into service, it's possible to get a Circle Line train from Upminster to Hammersmith by way of Kings Cross, Victoria, and Kings Cross again, from Wembley Park to Victoria calling at the disused platforms at Willesten Green, from Victoria to Parsons Green by way of Paddington, or even on occasion to get a Circle Line train from Upminster to Upminster. I wouldn't treat the pre-2009 experiments as "services" for Wikipedia's purposes. (There's still the very occasional—as in about three times a year—Chiltern passenger service to the Met's long-abandoned outpost at Quainton Road, but it doesn't mean we consider it "open" in any meaningful sense of the word; likewise, we shouldn't be treating these unadvertised experimental services as official route extensions.) ‑ Iridescent 07:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

On the stock, Rail magazine says it stands for "sub-surface", which is what I'd always assumed. City Monitor agrees. FWIW, a Google search for "S stands for suburban", in quotes, gets mainly results about the S-Bahn in various German cities, and I couldn't see anything about the Tube. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Crossrail images

Just a note that the Crossrail YouTube channel is uploading videos with a CC license, so we can take screenshots and upload to Commons. SK2242 (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

191 or 192 S-Stock trains?

Hi - I have a query on the S-Stock talk page that I hope some of you can help with - exactly how many trains were delivered? Because sources differ between 191 and 192! Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Former bus route redirects nominated for deletion

I have nominated the redirects for former (now non-existent) routes London Buses route 48 and London Buses route 387 for deletion. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_29#London_Buses_route_387 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_29#London_Buses_route_48. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Longest Underground train

82.10.86.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and their meatpuppet 78.149.214.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are insisting on the inclusion of this and this in the lead sections of two articles, despite the total lack of sources and the apparent violation of WP:NOR. They've reverted myself and Elshad (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted them again on the 1992 Stock article but if they continue to add their unsourced material with different IP addresses some of the articles may need temporary protection. Elshad (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

They've also reverted Alarics (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted them and semi-protected the 1992 and 2009 stock articles for 3 days. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

London Buses route 167

An editor who appears to be engaging in a crusade to remove all bus route articles from Wikipedia has turned his sights on this one. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 167. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:London Transport articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:London Transport articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox colour issue

Some of the colours used in {{LUL colour}} are not fully compliant with WP:COLOR, as their color contrast with black or white text may be difficult to see for certain readers. This is fine for the template's intended use, for route maps etc. But when they are used for the heading in an infobox, as they are in 13 London Underground stock articles, the articles are placed in Category:Articles using Template:Infobox train with invalid colour combination. I commented at Template talk:LUL colour#Colour issue and was told that They aren't intended for use as text colours, nor as backgrounds for text. With that in mind, I'd like to go through these articles, remove the color template and add a similar hex color code that is fully compliant with WP:COLOR. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)