In urban Britain, railway arches are almost ubiquitous. Searching online finds no end of shops in arches, cafes in arches, businesses run in arches, light industry in arches, arches for rent - almost all contemporary.
But railway arches have been around for at least 187 years. A search on WP finds them all over the place, but the information is all scattered. Does any one know of a history, or other deeper analysis, of railway arches? Sadly, this documentary is focussed on the homeless people in the arches, not the architecture - but they are still part of the bigger picture.
The image is reversed. It appears to be the Northern line on the maps above the doors, but it's actually the District line and Circle line. The closest map on the left (right if corrected) shows the Ealing, Richmond and Wimbledon branches with the top of the image cutting through Earl's Court. The carriage is an R Stock carriage (see File:Inside-R-NDM.jpg). The small label underneath says "To open window pull down handle" which would not have been practicable or safe on a tube carriage. --DavidCane (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'm working on an expansive draft article on accessibility of transport in London – in a similar style to articles for NYC, Boston and Toronto. Still got a fair bit to go – currently writing the 2010s and 2020s. A few bits that I'd like help on:
I'm particularly struggling with photos – lifts and wheelchair ramps are not usually photographed, and I haven't found a good photo of the height of the "step" at the rear of a Routemaster, or entry of a high-floor London bus. Managed to get a cabbie to show me his wheelchair ramp though! Suggestions welcome, even for things I should go and photograph myself!
When did Tottenham Hale LU become accessible with lifts to the Victoria line platforms?
Did any other stations get retrofitted with lifts for step-free access before 2000?
According to page 203 of The Story of London's Underground (Day, John R; Reed, John (2010) [1963]. 11th ed. Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-341-9), the lift works and improvements to the station ticket hall were funded by a £4.5 million investment from Haringey Council and the European Union. It was one of the first step free projects.--DavidCane (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this is the right place to post. I came across File:London north-south circulars.svg and it had a note about factual accuracy disputed. On the talk page someone said that the north-eastern bit is not exactly accurate, and after a quick look on maps I think they have a valid argument. It was posted back in 2022 and nobody has replied, so I am raising it here for attention and for anyone who wants to check and maybe correct the lines on the map. Plarety2 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
British Airways has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops
It appears we currently have no List of Tramlink stops, which would probably be a helpful navigation aide regardless. At present, all stops have a standalone article but I'm not convinced that most of them meet the general notability guideline (ie that each individual stop has been written about in depth). Most of them are short articles (between one sentence and a couple of paragraphs) and contain no third-party sources at all. I have looked for coverage of George Street tram stop (because it's currently at AfD) and found mentions but nothing substantial, which leads to two questions: first, is there coverage out there that I haven't found that members of this project might have access to, and if not, how best do we go about merging the articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of coverage, the Tramlink handbook (ISBN 978-1854142221) discusses the stops, but ... they are just stops, it's not substantial detail. In my opinion, the vast majority of the stops are not notable - other than ones that used to be stations. Turini2 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely should have a List of Tramlink stops with at least basic details about each, We could either model it after List of London Underground stations (adjusting the columns as needed), or have a short prose section for each stop (effectively merging the stub articles into one combined article. Both might be possible, but it might be too much for a single article - in which case we could have two articles or the prose-style could be split (Wimbledon-Wandle Park; Sandilands, Lebanon Road and the loop; Lloyd Park to New Addington; and Addiscombe to Beckenham Junction and Elmers End would be the obvious divisions but I don't have any suggestions for naming ottomh). Obviously we should link to any standalone articles or sections that exist (regardless of whether they should).
Beckenham Junction, Elmers End, Birkbeck, East Croydon, West Croydon, Mitcham Junction and Wimbledon should be, and from a quick look, apparently are covered on the article about the railway stations with the same name (Wimbledon, Birkbeck and Elmers End are unambiguously part of the station), and any that were previously heavy rail stations should almost certainly have a single article to cover both. Addiscombe tram stop could perhaps be merged with Bingham Road railway station and similar could be considered for other stops on/adjacent to the site of former stations.
Tramlink#Stops could probably be expanded slightly to discuss the different types of stops (e.g. on and off street, integrated into the station), or this could become part of a prose introduction to the list?
I think it's probably worth getting this/these list(s) set up (after agreement on structure) as a first step and then consider the notability of individual stops as we'll then know what the overlap between current articles and the list(s) is and the merge target will exist for any that are found not to be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example would Line 6 Finch West in Toronto - a substantial table in the article that sets out what the stops are, their configuration, any relevant notes and transport connections. In that article, two of the stops have articles due to the size, location and therefore notability. Turini2 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the creation of an article similar to List of Manchester Metrolink tram stops for the Tramlink. However, for the sake of consistency, all should be linked to that page unless they form part of an open station. I would oppose merging any of the Tramlink articles into existing closed station articles. Bingham Road station and Addiscombe tram stop are very different creatures: one was on a 20ft embankment by an overbridge, the other is at street level some distance away. A mention of the tram stop in the closed station article is enough. The same would go for Coombe Lane and Lloyd Park. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The Metrolink list is a very good one to use as a guide. Thankfully Tramlink is a smaller system so should be less of an undertaking. I also agree that Tramlink stops should be treated as separate entities to long-disused stations unless they're on almost exactly the same site/trackbed (and we should defer to the sources on how we treat them). Once the list exists in a useful state, we should probably redirect all the individual articles to it, except possibly those that are part of a National Rail station. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable to take a representative sample as a basis for redirecting the whole lot. The history will be fully preserved so there's no barrier to someone re-creating the article if they find sources we've missed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading edits to articles on the London Overground lines
I've noticed multiple editors editing articles recently to claim that the six lines of the London Overground are in fact "services" and not "lines", such as this edit by User:Waltforest. This is not only contrary to the use of all reliable sources such as the BBC here, but also contrary to established practice on Wikipedia (e.g. the Bakerloo line article does not state that it is a "service on the Watford DC line"). I understand that there are technical definitions of the term "line" within railway enthusiast communities, but Wikipedia needs to follow the practice of WP:RS in everyday usage. I'm putting this here as a centralized place for discussion rather than using multiple individual article talk pages. Chessrat(talk, contributions)16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect to refer to each of the newly named London Overground services as a "railway line". Your example of the Bakerloo line is a false equivalence as it only uses Watford DC line track for a portion of its route. Better to say "The Weaver line is the service operated by London Overground on the Lea Valley lines between London Liverpool Street and Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield Town", rather than your version which says "The Weaver line is a London Overground railway line which runs from London Liverpool Street to Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield Town" and removes Lea Valley lines entirely. 'Weaver line' is the name of the service, whilst 'Lea Valley lines' refers to the railway line. Additionally, it is worth remembering that LO is an operator on the National Rail network and that these lines are not part of a separate system like the London Underground. Waltforest (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we shouldn't refer to these services at all as "lines", especially as reliable sources do refer to them as lines, and "line" is included in all the new names. What is indisputable is the fact these "line" names are names of services operating on railway lines that already have names and Wikipedia articles. Waltforest (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the document that allows Arriva Rail London/London Overground the right to access the Network Rail Infrastructure & Line of Routes detailed within, for the provision of passenger rail services. What London Overground will brand as 'Lines' are referred to as 'Service Groups' - EK01 to EK05, and are detailed extensively as to what they cover. There is no mention of an 'Overground Line' within it.
A London Overground 'Line' is how TfL / London Overground refer to their own services and how they present themselves, it is not uncommon for train operators to have their own 'lines'. However they are still just one operator/service provider among many that make use of Network Rail Infrastructure, that is undeniable. It is easier for outlets such as TfL & the BBC to refer to them as Lines, but we should try not to obfuscate what is a service provided by London Overground, and the Line of Route & infrastructure that they run along, which is part of the national network owned by Network Rail. Major Midget (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> Your example of the Bakerloo line is a false equivalence as it only uses Watford DC line track for a portion of its route.
I don't see how that's any different to e.g. the Mildmay line only using the West London line track for a portion of its route. Oddly enough it doesn't actually mention anywhere in the Bakerloo line article that its infrastructure for part of its length is known as the "Watford DC line"- which seems to be a bit of an omission.
In common parlance/the use of RS, the existence of a railway "line" as a service says absolutely nothing about the technical administration of the infrastructure in question.
One idea I think would be very useful is for each of these articles to have an "Infrastructure" section- categorization of railway infrastructure is a technical topic which the average reader most likely knows very little about, but it is still definitely useful information that we should report on. In other words, an Infrastructure section on the Bakerloo line article might consist of something like "Between Harrow & Wealdstone and Queen's Park, the Bakerloo line's track infrastructure is operated by National Rail and is categorized as the Watford DC line; between Queen's Park and Elephant & Castle the track infrastructure is operated by the London Underground", potentially going into more detail on the operation of the individual stations and so on.
In the articles on the London Overground lines, such an infrastructure section could explain to the average reader that e.g. the services are operated by Arriva Rail London, the track infrastructure is operated by Network Rail, and that Network Rail's internal classification of its infrastructure is different to the public branding of the lines in question. That would actually provide a good explanation to readers, whereas starting off the lede of an article with something like "the Lioness line is a service on the Watford DC line" provides precisely no explanation to the average reader of what the term "Watford DC line" actually means and assumes that the reader is familiar with the technical terminology of railway infrastructure. Much better for the lede to provide an easily accessible summary of the article, and the article body to go into detail on things like infrastructure.
I wouldn't really be knowledgeable enough to flesh out such infrastructure sections in detail myself- but doing so would explain to the average reader how the internal management of the railways differs from the services that people interact with. Chessrat(talk, contributions)22:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO one way to address the issue is to make separate articles for the service and the infrastructural lines respectively. For example,
East London Line and South London Line cover on their historical development (e.g. ELL started identity as ELR and once belonged to LU), with minimal mention of their service amalgamation after LO takeover, using {{main}} to direct readers to Windrush Line for that matter.
Windrush Line briefly mentions the infrastructural history (with a {{Main}} template directing readers to read East London Line and South London Line), but focuses on what TfL has done (i.e. SLL trains running to ELL upon the link's opening in 2012, and then using one name to identify the services in 2024) and the current service details.
I may rollout a strange opinion: Infact even some of the lines on Underground, are more like "service" rather than "line". Like, the Hammersmith & City and Circle lines simply share all stations and nearly all tracks to each other, also with Metropolitan and District lines. I don't know how to define "line" on these sub-surface network. And in history H&C is just a service branch of Met, and Circle is a combination of Met and District, which it was a "virtual service" until officially showed on map in 1948. Awdqmb (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little unclear why we have the London Overground line/service articles under these names at all? I thought the consensus was these are not yet the common names? There was a requested move that was withdrawn but the consensus had not changed. MRSC (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I agree. The RM to move the three lines Watford DC, Lea Valley and Goblin was strongly opposed, and there has been no discussion or consensus about a potential split. I have reverted those splits, which should not go ahead unless there's agreement to do so. Personally I see no reason to change the longstanding arrangement that those line articles also cover details on the London Overground services that run on them, since there is basically complete overlap between the two (I understand the caveat that some other services such as Balerloo and Greater Anglia services may use sections of those lines, but that has never been an issue before now and shouldn't be one now). — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for perhaps seeming a little dense, but why are we not treating these new entities in the same way as we have the Elizabeth line; fundamentally, the new named services (for that is what they are) are no different, as most of them operate on infrastructure in between services of varying types operated by other operators, just like the Elizabeth line. Or am I wrong in this conclusion? Hammersfan (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the Elizabeth line has a long section of dedicated track under central London that is exclusively that line. And in fact, the article you mention, like that of most of the tube lines, is effectively covering two aspects - the physical infrastructure (or at least of that portion which isn't shared with the GWML or the GEML) and the services that run on the line. Watford DC line is essentially the same thing - it's a discussion of the infrastructure, with the service pattern also mentioned. I don't see the logic of splitting that out into a separate Lioness line article when they're one and the same thing, and for the vast majority of other railway lines in the UK we don't provide a dedicated article for the services operating on said line. Looking at this logically, for the past 20+ years Wikipedia has had an article on Watford DC line, which covers both the line and the service; nothing has fundamentally changed to it with the recent rebranding - it's still the same line with the same service - and although there are arguments both ways for which name we give to the article (the recent RM clearly failed to rename it), there isn't a reason to split it out. Unless a solid consensus determines otherwise we should stick with the status quo. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Only just saw this comment. The discussion back in February (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport/Archive_12#New_London_Overground_lines) was about whether separate articles are needed for the physical infrastructure and the service, or whether the two should be covered in the same article- those being the two main options- so I took the lack of support for a move in the RM as implying that the other option (creating new articles) was the way to go. It didn't ever occur to me that anyone might oppose several of the London metro system's lines having their own articles at all because the very idea seems so ludicrous.
The usual process to follow in the event of not supporting the creation of a new article is taking it to AfD rather than unilaterally redirecting. I'd be amazed if there is consensus that several of the lines on one of the world's biggest metro systems should not have their own articles, but I think that's the way to determine it as AfD is more widely viewed than this talk page. Chessrat(talk, contributions)15:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the real problem is: How should we define between services and infrastructre? Just like I mention the sub-surface lines, when H&C and Circle lines simply share most tracks and all stations with each other, along with Met and District lines, I don't think we can consider 4 sub-surface lines as infrastructre. Although mostly we consider a railway line as "should have both independent infrastructre and service." So it's very tricky here. Awdqmb (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Chessrat: thanks for your comment. However, I'm not sure why you would infer from the lack of support for your RM that the articles in question should be split. We don't in fact lack articles for the Suffragette and Lioness lines as you suggest, merely that those topics are redirects, with the topic in question discussed at the target article. As you said yourself at the top of the recent RM, there was consensus to split Mildmay and Windrush but nonsuch consensus in the case of the three mentioned. To be clear, just because TfL has brought in new names for these lines, nothing fundamental has changed and we rarely see separate articles for lines and services. The outcome of the RM (and indeed the one you raised earlier in the year) was emphatically against your proposal to rename the lines, which should have been the end of the matter. Clearly MRSC was surprised by this above too. I don't think AfD is appropriate here as this was not a new article situation but an undiscussed split which I have now reverted. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is not an article. If Bakerloo line were to be redirected to the Watford DC line article, it would be appropriate to say that the Bakerloo line itself has no article, even if the topic of the service in question were covered on the article about the physical infrastructure.
The article creation was not undiscussed as the discussion on this talk page back in February was fairly clear that either new articles need to be created or existing ones need to be restructured/retargeted. There was never any suggestion that the Overground lines should not have their own articles at all until your unilateral decision.
I'm not sure it's worth me engaging further here; I don't think I can assume good faith editing given the obvious extreme logical flaws in the arguments you express, the sheer ludicrousness of the claim that some of the metro lines in one of the world's largest cities (which have widespread media coverage) should not have Wikipedia articles, and the fact that there has been right-wing politically-motivated opposition to the use of the Overground lines' names involving people e.g. referring to the Suffragette line as the "Goblin line", an entirely fictitious term, solely to avoid having to use the lines' actual names. Chessrat(talk, contributions)16:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Goblin line" is a "right-wing political name". It's just a nickname, but more from popular culture rather than official naming. Awdqmb (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia.org has said that calling them lines are fine I have contacted Wikipedia and they have allowed me to call them lines.
I have discussed with him about his reckless movements on NLL page. And strangely he only change NLL page, and forget the Mildmay line also had through service to WLL, which he simply "ignore" the WLL. After this I don't think he will have further movement for now. Awdqmb (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After making the same edits again this morning, I have repeated the offer to discuss here. I have also requested page protection as his edit warring is disruptive (and now past 3RR) 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freight services that run over the line are not part of London Overground. They run on the infrastructure that would be the North London Line or Gospel Oak to Barking Line etc. I fail to see how they run on e.g. the London Overground's Mildmay Line or the Elizabeth Line. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to apologise please reply to me once you have reached a consensus in the meantime i will contribute and Yiqhvkfb is a close friend of mine i will go and talk to them Faisalisonline (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to apologise please reply to me once you have reached a consensus in the meantime i will contribute and Yiqhvkfb is a close friend of mine i will go and talk to them Faisalisonline (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Station to be identified
?
Any ideas for this image; one of the London termini. Could it possibly be Paddington? I don't recall any others where parking so close to the platforms was possible. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_13.jpg)
_PILKINGTON_GLASS_LONDON-DIVAN_HOTEL_600581_(48354038531).jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
