Talk:London Underground

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the London Underground article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Former featured article London Underground is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2004.
This article was the showcase article of the London Portal in January 2006.
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1 (Beginning to June 2005)


Contents

[edit] Yearly ridership

According to a TfL news report, ridership for the LU in march passed just over 1 billion for the first time in 144 years. And yet if looking at just released figures for 2006 entries and exits, the figure comes to 2235.349 million (or just over 2 billion). So which is correct? Second link: here, click on 2006 if it is not there and then total. Simply south 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The second figure is twice the first because people need to enter/leave the system? For example if I commute from Newbury Park to Mill Hill East, I need to make four individual "entries and exits" daily, even though I make only two journeys daily. Sunil060902 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Simply south (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disused Stations

There are a number of disused stations dotted around the network and the article makes passing reference to these. This is a fascinating subject that, IMHO, should be covered, either within this article, or as a separate article. I do not know enough about it (I was looking for it to find out about it) but I wondered if there was anyone out there who would want to turn their hand to drawing something up....or is it only me who thinks it's interesting?!! ;-) --hydeblake (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Closed London Underground stations seems to cover it quite well already. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
DOH!!!!! Thanks! --hydeblake (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Longest underground railway in the world ?

So claims the introduction, but much of the London underground is not underground at all, so what's the basis for this claim ? The "Métro" + express network ("RER") in Paris (where I live) covers over ~400 miles of tracks, and they're similar in scope. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia page for the New York City Subway, it covers 656 miles of track and a larger percentage of the new york subway is underground than the tube, so, even if new york is not the longest, London couldn't be. 99.236.47.52 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To be somewhat clearer, however, the length given is the route length, not the track length, which in any high capacity system is always at least double that of the route length. The NYC has some routes which are even quadruple tracked. The New York City Subway page lists a route length of 368km. JamesFox (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Light Rail?

I see that the article has had the UK Light Rail template put on it. Does that seem correct? I would not have thought that the Underground was classed as Light Rail. Should it be removed? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, I have put this template up for merge with Template:Britishmetros. See Template talk:UK light rail#Merge. Personally i would also see London Underground as "heavy rail". Simply south (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operating hours and train frequency

I would like to see a section for operating hours and train frequency in this article. What line have the highest frequency, and what parts have the lowest? -- Kildor (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem Monday to Friday, most services operate from around 5 am to 1 am, but this depends on the line. There are also different operating hours on weekends and some lines close early, most notably the Waterloo & City Line. The lines with the lowest frequencies are probably the Waterloo & City Line and the Hammersmith & City Line. Please note that the LO and DLR are not part of the London Underground and also the East London Line cannot be included as it has now been closed. Simply south (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First day passengers

Does anyone have a reliable source for the number of passengers carried on the first day of the Tube's operation? I've seen both 30,000 and 41,000 in the article at different times.

  • This Time Out article [1] gives a figure of 30,000, but is unsourced.
  • This [2] is a student journal article which gives the figure as 38,000, and appears to cite a contemporaneous copy of The Times (specifically: January 2, 1863, p. 5.) as source; which is a bit tricky, because that's 8 days before the official opening.
  • This [3] says 40,000, but is unsourced.
  • This [4] says 30,000, and references The Subterranean Railway: How the London Underground Was Built and How It Changed the City For Ever by Christian Wolmar (ISBN 1843540223, or ISBN 1843540231 ?); if that's, as I suspect, the actual source for the figure, this might be the best source, and might even cite a primary source.

In the meantime, I'm going to move the figure back to 30,000, because all the figures above agree that it was at least that much, it's the most commonly used figure within the article to date, and I suspect that the LRB review might well be sourced from Wolmar's book, which is cited elsewhere in the article.

Can anyone give a better source or more accurate figure? Does anyone have Wolmar's book to hand, to verify the cite? -- The Anome (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolmar's book states 30,000 for the first day (Chapter 3, page 41) although he does not give a source. He also mentions that there were 120 trains in each direction on the first day although this was not enough to deal with the crush of passengers. --DavidCane (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East London line

The East London line (with its stations) is no longer part of the London Underground—it should now be removed. --Redaktor (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it is still shown on the TFL tube maps, along with the London Overground... acasperw (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The DLR's also shown on the Tube map though... As TfL list it in the Tube not the rail section in the "Service Updates" section on their site, I think it'd be better to keep it as a Tube line until they change it. D-Notice (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at this in terms of the different companies. At the top we have TfL, which is the body responsible for all public transport in the capital. Under this are the various bodies that report to TfL for the different modes (bus, rail, tube, tram, riverboat etc.). This includes the DLR, LUL, and London Overground. London Overground is quite separate to London Underground, and can be considered as the "railways" side of the TfL business, as opposed the the "tube" and "sub-surface" lines. Turning to the East London Line, this WAS (past tense) a part of LUL. It is now closed for re-construction, and will return (future tense) as part of the London Overground. So, I think that you can mention the East London Line as being a "former" part of LUL, and being a "future" part of the London Overground. Olana North (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organisations

Firstly, is there any information on London Underground Limited, other than a brief mention in the lead?

Secondly, I think a category should be created on organisations directly involved\associated in the London Underground (hopefully without going overboard) such as Metronet, TfL and Tube Lines (and the other above). Maybe titled Category:London Underground organisations or, Category:Organisations associated with the London Underground.

Thoughts? Simply south (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be documented. The ownership/responsibility/franchise structure for both TfL and National Rail operations is mindbendingly complex and a lot of transport related articles get bogged down in misunderstandings of this type of thing. I don't think categories are the best way because the organisation structures are hierarchical. Something a bit more like a corporate org chart would help clarify this a lot. In theory a single chart starting with the DfT could describe the entire transport organisation hierarchy in the UK (and would probably expose its insanity ;-) ). --DanielRigal (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
However, if we had it with the DfT, there are an enormous number of organisations, past and present, that are associated with it e.g. TOCs, engineering groups etc. The chart would be HUGE. Simply south (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I was only half-serious in speculating about the complete org chart starting from the DfT and covering everything. What would make sense is to do a set of partial org charts covering each transport type. For example the the Underground one could have DfT over TfL over LUL over the three PFI franchises with (Metronet and Tubelines shown as incumbents) with any other key contractors also shown. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I know but i wasn't meaning to come over as a serious tone. Anyway, Tube Lines is still in operation and it's only Metronet which went into admin. Simply south (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synagogue on the tube?

I have been commuting from Newbury Park tube station since 1994, but haven't noticed the Ohel David synagogue. Where is it exactly? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There isn't one - see the note at Talk:Newbury Park tube station#Synagogue --DavidCane (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Mystery solved, thanks! Sunil060902 (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Justification?

[I had added this discussion point to the wiki in October 2007, and noticed that it wasn't pursued. Was this due to bad etiquette on my part? Apologies if so. I have since become a member, and have signed the posting below.]

I would like to see the historical section expanded to include a justification for the building of an underground system. Were traffic conditions in London already so onerous to justify the construction of alternative transport system? Also potentially fascinating would be the origin of the initial concept: who initially thought of the concept of building a transport system underground. Also, to have convinced people of the benefits of travelling in damp, probably badly lit, claustrophobic and smoke/steam-filled tunnels must have been a supreme marketing exercise in itself.

Ppmoore (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]

Your query was answered on 24 October - see here. --DavidCane (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I've noticed there is no good map of the Tube. Are there copyright restrictions on the map? Æetlr Creejl 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many (see here for archived previous comments). --DavidCane (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small review

Well, i am no GA-reviewer but i can definitely see some issues here. Here are a few:

  • Many of the paragraphs and sections throughout the article are not referenced. There are also some places with "citation needed" tags.
  • The cooling section needs to be expanded
  • Some of the safety parts could also go in the History section, such as about the 2005 terrorism.
  • Something should be mentioned about the conversion of the East London Line.
  • There seems to be enough information in Safety for it to have its own article.
  • Are all the external links important enough to be kept?

Simply south (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A curious linkage

1) Can anyone explain why the link on "London Passenger Transport Board" is not to the article with that title but, via a redirect, to "History of transport in London (1933-2003)"?
2)That epoch's end seems odd.--SilasW (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No-one explained but link was corrected. So I struck through.--SilasW (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tenuous connection

The See Also list includes "2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse" whose only connection with LU is that it was "near" LU's HQ. By that reckoning is not almost everything in London "near" the LU?--SilasW (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interchange Stations

At present all lines on the Underground have Route Diagram Templates. On the National Rail diagrams, there is a specific symbol used if there is an interchange with the Underground (or another Light Railway). Would it be a good idea to replace symbols for Underground stations which have interchange with the National Rail with the same symbol? Anywikiuser (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Camden Town and Covent Garden

We cannot rely on a third-party site for the claim that Camden Town is exit-only on Sundays, since the TFL site currently states only: "Sunday, no down escalator between 1000 and 1730" (it also says the same for Saturday), which is self-evidently quite distinct compared to Borough being described as specifically "exit only".[5]. Tube maps and line diagrams still warn against overcrowding at Covent Garden, although there are no specific regular restrictions.[6] Nick Cooper (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This section needs additional citations for verification

Is it really necessary to tag every section of this article? I think it is better to discuss it here instead of slapping tags all over the article. --Kildor (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, i did not tag every section in the article, just sections which had references few and far between and those which have no references at all. Simply south (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Although this article may be improved in many ways, can't we just have a discussion here? (which, in fact, is what this page is intended for). This article is fairly good with quite a lot of references, but the tags give an impression of an disputed and unreliable article. Lets talk about its flaws instead. --Kildor (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The tags are still good there to remind people and also show that this is not up to standard. I am still going to say see my review above which highlights some things although i am going to go to Peer Review to get a better review in order to get this article back to at least GA (in my opinion it is a long B). But there is also more to think about than the grading. I do dispute this at its current status. The Cooling section has had the expand tag for ages (in a slightly different way). I hope i'm not waffling Simply south (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This article had a staggering 18 (!) {{Refimprovesect}} tags, which is way too many in my opinion (if cleanup tags are useful at all...). If we tag every section on every article that fail to meet the GA and FA criteria, we would end up having hundreds of thousands tags all over Wikipedia. I think it is better we discuss here what parts of the article that are in need of improvements. If it is really necessary to tag the article, I think it is better to narrow it down to a few sections which lack references the most.
please Kildor could you not remove the tags until they have been sorteed. Also note that not all of the tags are reference tags, there is also an expand tag and a split tag. The sections with no refernces in at all are most of the history, infrastructure and travelling, including a new area just created on the operation hours and imagery. Btw i have mentioned before why i think Safety should be split so i ask you now could we discuss that before you remove that tag. Simply south (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not get my point, did you? Anyway, if I am the only one that thinks it looks ridiculous with 20 tags on this (almost) good article, I will leave it as it is... --Kildor (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be better to put one at the top of the page to say that the article as a whole lacks references, than have one in almost every section. At the moment to the general reader it looks really messy and makes the article look much less reliable. Chris_huhtalk 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead with asing for a Peer Review. Simply south (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It is absolutely not necessary. It adds nothing but a mess. Get a sense of proportion please. Citations do not prove anything is true, they just create a false sense of complacency in the minds of those who have excessive faith in them. It is not necessary, or at all desirable to reference every fact. Any particular concerns should be addressed individually. Just looking for so many citations per section is absurd: if five citations were added to each section, it is quite possible that all the errors in the article (if there are any) would be missed, yet the article would allegedly be better. I just don't see things that way. We are here to produce an reliable encyclopedia, not to engage in a footnote writing competition. Luwilt (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tunnel Diameter: What if....?

The Northern City Line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate was built in 1904 to a "main-line" diameter of 16 feet (4.88 m), so would it have been possible financially and physically to have built all the other central area tubes to this diameter? And what alternative services would have been available due to the interconnectivity afforded between the "tubes", sub-surface and main-line railways? Of course sections of "narrow" tube were built outside the central area too. Anyway, what if these had all been built to mainline diameter too?

Bakerloo line: Queens Park to Elephant & Castle

Central line: White City to Leyton, Leytonstone to Newbury Park

Jubilee line: Finchley Road to Charing Cross then Canning Town

Northern line: Golders Green or East Finchley to Morden via Bank or Charing Cross

Sorry forgot the Burroughs Tunnels north of Hendon Central!

Piccadilly line: Barons Court to Arnos Grove, Southgate, Hounslow West to Heathrow

Victoria line: All

Waterloo and City line: All

Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The original diameter of the first deep tube railway, the City & South London Railway (now part of the Northern Line), was 10 ft 2 in (3.099 m), but this was quickly realised to be too small and a diameter of 10 ft 6 in (3.2 m) was used for the rest of the line. In 1892, the standard tunnel size was set at the minimum diameter of 11 ft 6 in (3.505 m) by the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee considering the applications for a number of new tube railways, although tunnel engineer James Henry Greathead had recommended a diameter of 12 ft (3.658m) be used.
The problem is that the cross sectional area of a circular tunnel increases as the square of the diameter. Thus the volume of material that must be excavated and disposed of increases rapidly as the diameter of a tunnel is increased. Obviously, the excavation cost will go up at a similar rate.
The increase in material excavated when the diameter increases from 10 ft 2 in to 11 ft 6 in is 28%. An increase of 6 inches to 12 ft would increase the material excavated by another 11% (39% more than for a 10ft 2 in tunnel) and tunnel of 16 ft diameter would need 148% more material to be excavated than a 10 ft 2 in tunnel.
Physically, it would have been possible to excavate the tunnels to main line proportions but most of the tube railway companies found it very difficult to raise the money needed to construct their tunnels at a diameter of 11 ft 6 in and the additional cost of digging a 16 ft diameter tunnel would very likely have meant that the companies could not have raised the funds and the lines would simply not have been built. There is a section in Anthony Badsey-Ellis's excellent book London's Lost Tube Schemes (isbn: 185414-293-3) where the choice of tunnel diameter is discussed. --DavidCane (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting stuff, though I wonder why, if money was an issue, the New Works Programme tube tunnels, such as Leytonstone to Newbury Park, were narrow-bore. It always seemed incongruous to me that such small trains made it out into the sticks as far as Ongar and Hainault. As far as the original companies go, did the GNCR have special backing or subsidy to enable them to build their tunnels? Didn't they fall out with their "parent" the GNR? I guess 16 feet maybe a bit too generous, given that the height of subsurface A-stock is 12 ft 5 in (3.70 m) approximately. The only other mainline tube tunnels I can think of are the Merseyside tunnels In Liverpool. Are they 16ft too or slightly smaller? I take it the Tyne and Wear tunnels in central Newcastle are narrower given the reduced height of the rolling stock used. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not just the increase in the amount of material that has to excavated that adds to the cost. A larger tunnel requires a thicker lining to support the load of the earth above it. Hence the cost of the tunnel lining also adds to the costs. I would guess that that the cost of a tunnel must also increase as the sqaure of the diameter. Olana North (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree that might well be the case - but if it was good enough for the GNCR, why not the others? BTW, here's a pic of Liverpool Central railway station on Merseyrail:
Liverpool Central - an example of "mainline" tube tunnel
Liverpool Central - an example of "mainline" tube tunnel
best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The increase in the cost of the tunnel lining is directly proportional to the increase in the diameter (2πr compared with πr²). So if the tunnel diameter increases by 10% the circumference will also increase by 10%.
There were generally no government subsidies for the construction of the railways at the beginning of the 20th century, they were commercial affairs which either succeeded or failed on their own merits and their abilities to raise the capital to construct their routes. In fact, the parlous state of the GNCR's finances meant that the contractor digging the tunnels ended up paying a substantial part of the cost which it was reimbursed for in company shares. The other tube lines did not build bigger tunnels because they simply did not need too - they had no plans for direct connections to main line companies.
Although the GNR and the GN&CR had fallen out, the GN&CR probably expected to restore relations at some point and continued with the larger tunnel diameter when it constructed its tunnels in the hope that the GNR would relent on its restrictions over a connection to the surface. The GN&CR did originally run trains of a similar size to those on the sub-surface lines and after its take-over by the Metropolitan Railway in 1913 used some of that companies stock before it changed over to tube-sized standard stock in the 1930s. As the tunnels were not used for mainline trains as intended until the Northern City Line was connected to the surface at Finsbury Park in the 1970s - long after the line had been nationalised - it could be said that the original investors saw no benefit for their extra expenditure on the larger diameter tunnels.
The tunnels for the Central line extension in the east were constructed at the standard tube diameter because the purpose was to enable through running from the central area and the west. There would have been no point constructing the tunnels larger as any larger train that could be accommodated there would not have fitted in the 11 ft 6 in tunnels already in existence on the rest of the line. The existing tunnels could not have been enlarged to accommodate main line sized trains.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
All very interesting stuff, David. I had a peek at Moorgate and Old Street deep-level platforms this morning, and at least at a first glance the old GN&CR platforms are very similar to the Northern line ones, though the tunnel diameter at each end of the station is visibly different of course, but not by a huge margin! Gone off at a slight tangent I know, but I guess my initial question "What if...?" was more of a "Fantasy Railways" type question. What if the central area tubes had been built to 15 ft or 16 ft diameter? So of course that would cover the question "what if the funding was available?" and also, from an operational standpoint "what if the companies had the foresight to make mainline connection?".
Note: The following is just for a bit of fun! But having built large diameter tubes and then:
exploiting existing twin-track connections at Barons Court and Finsbury Park
* Cockfosters branch to the District line
* Heathrow branch to the District
* Walthamstow branch to the District line
* Brixton branch to the District line
* District restored Uxbridge to Ealing Common (or transfer branch to Met at least as far as Acton Town)
exploiting existing twin-track connections at Wembley Park, Finchley Road and Baker Street
* Met trains restored to Stanmore
* Met trains to Stratford via North Greenwich (also Charing Cross via Green Park!)
* Met trains to Watford Junction via Willesden
* Met trains to Elephant & Castle
exploiting lifted twin-track connections at Ealing Broadway, Bromley-by-Bow and Leyton
* Mainline trains Ealing Broadway and beyond to West Ham and beyond via District
* Mainline trains Ealing Broadway and beyond to Leyton and beyond via Central
in addition, restoring lifted twin track connections at Liverpool Street and Ilford/Seven Kings and Newbury Park
* Met trains to Newbury Park and Shenfield via Stratford (GER) and Ilford, taking over the slow lines (possibly?)
* Newbury Park to Shenfield (possible Central line?)
Northern line has only single track links to the Piccadilly, so no passenger trains can use these
* so this just leaves subsurface/mainline size trains running on the line
however, in addition, restoring lifted track and connections in north London will give:
* Northern City line to Alexandra Palace
* Northern City line to East Finchley via Highgate High Level
* Mill Hill East to Edgware (GNR)
Waterloo & City
* remains isolated irrespective of tunnel bore and restored links - there weren't any!
Note I have only included a small number of lifted links, but hopefully the above is a fair selection of possible services, using the "what of...?" principle! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy Underground - 16 ft tube tunnel network

Following on from the "What if..." section above, if all of the deep-level tubes had been built to larger diameter, 16ft (like the Great Northern & City Railway) or approximate to that, and employing the main twin-track inter-connections between lines, you could have the following Fantasy Underground Lines:

  • Piccadistrict line
This would incorporate the present District, Piccadilly and Victoria lines, all presently interconnected. 6 cars of present D-stock dimensions, 7 cars possible Walthamstow to Brixton (same length as 8 1967 stock cars), though only 5 cars between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road.
Main-line, Uxbridge to Upminster, branches to Ealing Broadway, Heathrow, Richmond, Olympia, High Street Ken/Edgware Road, Wimbledon, Cockfosters, Walthamstow and Brixton.
  • Bakerpolitan line
This would incorporate the present Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan, Circle, Bakerloo and Jubilee lines, all presently interconnected. 7 cars of present D-stock dimensions, though 6 cars only south of Queens Park (same length as 7 1972 stock cars), 5 cars only to Hammersmith and round the Circle (equivalent to 6 cars of C-stock)
Main-line Amersham to Barking, branches to Chesham, Watford, Uxbridge, Stanmore, Euston, Watford Junction, Hammermsith, Charing Cross (reinstated), Elephant & Castle, Aldgate, Stratford (via Canary Wharf), as well as Circle.

Not affected, but nonetheless would benefit from larger trains:

  • Northern line - no present interconnections save for single track to Piccadistrict between Euston and Kings Cross. 6 car D-stock dimensions (similar length to 1995 stock).
  • Central line - siding connections only at Ealing Broadway (Piccadistrict) and Ruislip Depot (Bakerpolitan and Chiltern mainline). 7 cars of D-stock dimensions (equivalent to 8 cars 1992 stock)
  • Waterloo & City line - no connections at all. 3 or 4 cars of D-stock dimensions (smaller 1940 trains were 5 cars, 1992 trains 4 cars)

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-class?

How is it possible that an article needing cleanup and citations could be A-class? I think it should be re-evaluated. Jubilee line (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if you read the above discussion(s), you will see that we are re-classifying it! But we need to actually discuss first, as it's A and not B, Start etc!
Thanks,
BG7 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, now I see. I have looked just at the template at the top, omitting much of the discussion. Thanks for notification. Jubilee line (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change "rapid transit" to "public transport" or "metro"?

The first sentence refers to the London Underground as a "rapid transit" network. This is not a good phrase to use because it violates WP:ENGVAR. In particular:

  • "Rapid transit" is a term used in North America and some parts of Asia, but not in Britain. This is an ambiguous term and its exact meaning might not be well understood by some Brits - it sounds like something a plane does when flying over a country, and not like a public transport system. WP:ENGVAR states that this article should use British vocabulary since this is a Britain-related article.
  • The term "metro" is used (or at least well-understood) all over the world, be it North America, Europe, Asia, or South America. WP:ENGVAR suggests that, where possible, we should use words that are common to all varieties of English.

I therefore suggest changing the definition to "public transport" or "metro". These were also the words used when this article was promoted to a featuread article. "Metro" would actually be better than "public transport" because it is more specific, and most people in the world have a clear picture of what a metro is. I have noticed that this definition has been changed many times over the article's history, but surprisingly this hasn't been brought up on the talk page yet. It would be nice to reach a consensus. Cambrasa confab 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. On the rapid transit article, I have just spotted that the consensus is to use this term for such systems. See Talk:Rapid transit/Article name discussions. Still, does that mean we should apply the term to Britain-specific articles? Cambrasa confab 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus on using the term rapid transit. However, a proposed rename to metro failed to gain consensus, but that is not the same as there is consensus for the current name. I think metro is the better alternative. --Kildor (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
One vote (I know, I know) for public transport. Metro is accpetable too. Pacific Coast Highway {Spring • ahead!} 02:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Metro" is not a universally recognized term in English. To many in North America it is the name (not a descriptive term) that some specific systems use, while the ordinary descriptive word for any such system is "subway" (which of course means something else in Britain). The fact is that there is no short term in English for the thing that will please everyone. This is partly because there isn't agreement about what "the thing" is: is it or is it not an essential characteristic that lines through the city centre run underground? "Rapid transit" or "public transport" does not imply that; "subway" or "underground railway" does; people who would use "metro" probably disagree on the point. You can't win. --207.176.159.90 (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The review

I've listed this article for peer review because… i feel the quality of this article has slipped significantly. I have tagged it with reference tags plus a couple others and left a small review on the talk page. It would be useful to se what could be improved more and where.

Thanks, Simply south (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: MIND THE GAP! (sorry, couldn't resist) The semi-automated peer review has a lot of good MOS suggestions. Here are some more:

  • For as long as this is, it has few refs and there are several sections marked as needing refs. I would make sure every paragraph has a ref, as does every quote or statistric or extraordinary claim.
  • The references that are there need to be formatted to meet WP:CITE - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. {{cite web}} helps, as do the other cite templates.
  • I think a map of the whole system early on would be very useful.
  • The lead is very choppy, but I would fix the whole article and then make sure the Lead summarizes it properly.
  • Per MOS, please don't repeat the article title in a header, so Travelling on the London Underground needs to be changed
  • The FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/London Underground/archive1 has some excellent suggestions for improvement
  • The German Wikipedia article is featured there and offers some idea on organization that are lacking here. Here is a quick and dirty translation of their Table of Contents:

1 Rail network 1.1 Individual lines 1.2 CLosed stations and parts of lines 2 Operation 2.1 Operational numbers (figures) 3 Technical (engineering) 4 History 4.1 First plans 4.2 Metropolitan Railway 4.3 Metropolitan District Railway 4.4 First Tubes und Electrification 4.5 Expansion 4.6 Second World War 4.7 Further development 5 Future plans 5.1 New rolling stock 5.2 Cooling (air conditioning) 5.3 Expansion of the lines / network 6 Accidents and catastrophes 7 The logo 8 Map of the network 9 Mind the Gap 10 Fare system 10.1 Oyster 11 Handicapped access 12 See also...

Hope this helps Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And

[edit] London Underground

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 km, use 7 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7&nbsp;km.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 408 km.
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), fibre (B) (American: fiber), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), signalling (B) (American: signaling), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ), sulphur (B) (American: sulfur).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent mistake

I've been told, by Olana North, that I was in the wrong in reverting this edit yesterday as vandalism, despite the user's other contribution yesterday appearing to be in the same vain. If the "fluffy train" thing is true, as Olana North states, then I'm wondering why nothing is showing up in a web search. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in the discussion at the Village Pump, I have reviewed the edit in question [7] [8], and while it was probably a fairly trivial addition that I may have reverted myself, it was certainly not vandalism. (Adding "OMG I'm f***ing up wikipedia" or "jason smells hahahahaha" woould be vandalism: this isn't.) So I don't think you were wrong to revert it, but your edit summary describing it as vandalism probably was a breach of WP:AGF and WP:BITE.
As for the content, I think that LU do indeed have some kind of "vacuum cleaner" train for this kind of purpose, but have never heard it called the "fluffy train", which may explain the lack of google hits. --RFBailey (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of 14 May 2008

A simplification of the text started. Some links changed to avoid redirection. "By 1850" Shoreditch had been renamed Bishopsgate (1847). Annual 3,000,000,000 seemed to lead to "28 million per year", perhaps a slip for "per day" but it is an unnecessary restatement. ELL closure might confuse the number of stations but "numerous closed" is hardly encyclopedia talk. Talk sorely needs another Archive. Have all the "official owners" been listed? wasn't there an LTE? There is no article "London Underground Limited" but "LUL" redirects, surely unhelpfulfully, to this, the London Underground, article.--SilasW (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linking Dates

WP agreement is that years by themselves, or with an "s" for a decade, should not generally be linked. Should the reader need to be astounded that Muggleworth's Fudge Company was founded about the same time as the Yumber Bridge Disaster all it takes is to enter the year or decade in Search.
However when day, month and year are given as [[day# month]] (or [[month day#]]) and [[year]] the date is presented in the format specified in the reader's preferences. I think that when date of birth is in those d m y link sets the system can calculate present age.--SilasW (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Linkages on stand-alone years were chaotic. All "1907"s were linked, many recent years were properly not linked. Links on dayless month and its year are pointless except to show that the exact date has not been written (in most cases a little effort would have found it). Any I've missed are due to the sandman's arrival.--SilasW (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total route length

Please see footnote 1 in the article.

I've changed the route length given to an "approximate" number, for the second time, since we can't trust this official source for the reason indicated. I also note that the length in kilometers was given differently in two places in the article, one as per the source page and the other by taking the miles figure as precise and converting to kilometers.

Can we find a better source on this, one that is up to date for the East London closure?

It occurred to me to try computing the route length from first principles using the layout tables in Clive's Underground Line Guides. This is what I came up with:

23.55 Bakerloo:      Harrow & Wealdstone - Elephant & Castle
 2.88 Central:       Ealing Broadway - North Acton Jct.
54.68 Central:       West Ruislip - Epping
15.69 Central:       Leytonstone - Woodford
 0.26 Circle:        Minories Jct. - Aldgate Junction
 0.08 Circle:        District bdy. near High St. Ken. - Gloucester Rd. Jct.
43.32 District:      Ealing Broadway - Upminster
 1.54 District:      Kensington (Olympia) - Earl's Court
 5.33 District:      Richmond - Turnham Green Jct. 
13.33 District:      Wimbledon - Praed Street Jct.
13.88 Hammersmith:   Hammersmith - Aldgate East Jct.
 7.24 Jubilee:       Stanmore - Wembley Park
22.71 Jubilee:       Finchley Rd. - Stratford
38.08 Metropolitan:  Amersham - Baker Street
11.25 Metropolitan:  Uxbridge - Harrow-on-the-Hill
 3.31 Metropolitan:  Watford - Watford South Jct.
 6.35 Metropolitan:  Chesham - Chalfont & Latimer
32.00 Northern:      Edgware - Morden
24.56 Northern:      High Barnet - Kennington
 1.48 Northern:      Mill Hill East - Finchley Central
16.49 Piccadilly:    Heathrow Terminal 5 - Acton Town
25.37 Piccadilly:    Tube mouth near Earl's Court - Cockfosters
 6.10 Piccadilly:    Terminal 4 loop Jct. - Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3
11.42 Piccadilly:    Rayners Lane Jct. - Acton Town
21.28 Victoria:      Walthamstow Central - Brixton
 2.37 Waterloo&City: Waterloo - Bank

I tried to count shared-track (Uxbridge) or side-by-side (Wembley Park - Finchley Rd.) sections once each.

That all adds up to 404.55 km if I haven't mucked anything up. But there's clearly some imprecision here: there are actually quite a few places where it's questionable exactly what is to be counted (where to end each segment, whether something should count as side by side), and then not only is CULG an unofficial source, its distance numbers are specifically noted as not always being official ones.

I say again, we really want an official source that has been updated for the East London closure.

--207.176.159.90 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (time of edit)