Template talk:Closed London Underground stations

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London Transport This template is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport Trains: Stations / Rapid transit / in UK Trains Portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject Stations. This template is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit. This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

Should this box have a section for currently open National Rail sections with closed London Underground stations? The Bakerloo Line to Watford, and the District to Southend spring to mind, as do a few former stations on the Metropolitan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Cornwallis (talk • contribs)

Many of the stations on the National Rail network are still open, just no longer served by the London Underground. I just want to clarify to you that not all of the stations had separate London Underground stations. It could be a good idea though. Btw, formerly on the Central Line, Ongar and North Weald are open but are not served by National Rail, rather they are part of a heritage railway. Finally, don't forget to sign. Simply south (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added these as construction work was started on both before being abandoned.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Lothbury tube station be included in the Northern Line section, as that was what the Northern City Line was affiliated to in its London Underground days Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its an interesting point. I set it up as the GN&C catagory because the proposal dates from its pre-northern line days. True, it would have ended up a northern line station at one point, but it was never considerd whilst it was in the Northern's remit; only whilst an independant tube line and as the MR's tube.

OutrageousBenedict (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone have any objections if I were to start adding other schemes to the template? The schemes I have in mind are in a very similar vein to that of the C&BR; construction received royal assent but finance was not raised in the time required. I was thinking of the North West London Railway and the North East Suburban Railway.

OutrageousBenedict (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the second of these should be the North East London Railway. Ideally, the template should not contain any red links, so it would be better to create articles on these two first. An article on the NELR would be quite complex as it would need to make reference to the City & North East Suburban Electric Railway, the Hammersmith, City & North East London Railway as well as the earlier but unrelated North East London Railway all of which attempted to get plans approved for routes in the north-east of the capital.--DavidCane (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they sound like they should be included, though if there are too many they might deserve an article of their own. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a handful that I can see (6 max), but then again my sources are (very!) limited. @ David, I probably do mean that; they all have such similar names! Perhaps the artical for the NELR would make better sense as more an overview of aspirations to connect the area with a tube? But then again only one line until the Victoria ever received Royal Assent, so it would be more pertinant to the genre to make it more specific to that scheme? OutrageousBenedict (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fascinating subject but I must say that I do find the layout really hard to read, with all the lines and stations laid out horizontally. They would be better divided up for readability. Prior to an edit in January 2009 they were older layout separated by line breaks. I have a neat idea for improving on the layout using the navbox format - does anybody have an objection to an update? If it's widely disliked you can always revert. Cnbrb (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody seems too concerned so I've improved the layout anyway. It's much easier to read now, I reckon.Cnbrb (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]