Talk:London Underground/Archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Passenger Numbers

To enhance the table of the lines with their lengths and number of stations, it would be nice to have an average for passenger numbers (perhaps annualy) for each line. The article on the Paris Metro has this and it's interesting to compare the usage. Does anyone have these figures? --Rob2000 13:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

These figures are found on the articles of each line or check out the TfL website. Simply south 13:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Simply south. If the authors don't think it'll look too cluttered then it might be an interesting addition to that table (cf Paris Metro); I personally think it would be a nice idea, but I'm afraid I don't have the editorial skills myself!--Rob2000 14:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it does look interesting. I will probably add them. Simply south 17:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Street

Does anyone know what Borough Old Street tube is in? Its article says Islington, but all the maps I've seen suggest Hackney.86.0.203.120 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Entrances to street level at Old Street station are at all four corners of the Old Street roundabout. According to this map [1] (the purple line being the borough boundaries) only the North East exits are in Hackney, the rest in Islington. I know the tube station isn't directly beneath the roundabout, but I can't remember exactly where it is. If it is where it is suggested on this map I would say it's Hackney. Mister Ant 22:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've asked on a London Underground forum, and it turns out it is in Islington - "I have a book and map pre-war that says Old Street was in the borough of Shoreditch. As Shoreditch became part of Islington I should think it was the same now. "
Also, the very useful Interactive Islington site was linked to. This seems to show that station is in Islington - choose the "zoom to postcode" option and enter EC1Y 1BE and set the scale (bottom right) to be 750. Thryduulf 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And it is in Islington, "Having spent all afternoon researching and being in contact with City of London Corporation, Islington, and Hackney councils and studying up to date maps I can tell you that the whole of Old Street including the tube station is in ISLINGTON. All three councils say the same thing." [2]. I'll add this to the Old Street page as well. Thryduulf 19:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Station article names

All the stations are called x tube station - i.e. Bank tube station. This seems like the wrong choice for the official title of an article - the real name of all stations is x Underground station or x London Underground station - tube is a nickname, even if it is used officially by LU from time to time. Has there been a discussion about this before? Tompagenet 12:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is to distinguish it from other metro systems, amongst other things. Plus also the LU is commonly called "the tube". Simply south 18:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Simply south, but surely Wikipedia article names should be as encyclopaedic as possible - i.e. using the 'proper' name where practical. Most other world Metros are called 'Metro' anyway, so this wouldn't be a problem - it'd be Bank metro station on those networks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompagenet (talk • contribs)
Tyne and Wear are Metro, Glasgow Subway are subway, across the pond, many of their stations on their metro systems in Wikipedia are named after the line on which they are on.
I think tfl may use tube station. Simply south 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that LU don't use tube station as any form of official nomenclature. Do you have any source for this? Tompagenet 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
TfL Tube website. I am pretty sure when looking through here they used tube stations. Maybe look under the tube facts under "about LU". Simply south 21:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I can understand the reason behind this opinion (after all, 'tube' originally referred to the deep level lines only) but London Underground refer to the system themselves as 'the Tube'. Until it's merger with TfL, the LU website was 'thetube.com' (that URL still takes you to the new LU website) and some versions of the map have been called 'Tube map' (the Wikipedia article is called Tube map). I can't see any reason for changing this and it's only going to make the titles very long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.183.109 (talk)

Another thing to point out is that many of the world's metros use "underground" in general for theirs. This may be eith ambiguous or ambituous. Simply south 13:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The decision to use the "x tube station" naming convention was taken as part of a wider naming convention for all stations in London, by the London Wikiproject a while ago. It was also incorporated into the defacto naming convention for railways in the UK. "x tube station" is also the most common unambiguous usage. TfL use a mixture of "station", "underground station" and "tube station", and "x underground station" implies it is actually below the ground - which the majority of stations are not. Thryduulf 17:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
'Tube' is by far the most common/popular term, however some enthusiasts get vey pedantic and insist Tube is bored tunnel only (not the 'cut and cover' sections). A friend who does passenger survey work for a company employed by TfL tells me that there are 2 ticket halls at King's Cross one of which is distinguished from the other by calling it 'the Tube booking hall'. Esthameian 06:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why no map?

Surely using the tube map on this page counts as fair use under copyright law, it is kind of integral to the whole system, and it is also a great piece of artwork. --Differentgravy 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask this myself... surely the map is work of the British Government..meaning we can use it, right? --Dom0803 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Pushing the boat out? London Underground#Network --Dom0803 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See "Tube map" for an explanation. The map is protected by copyright. In the U.S., most works of the national government are not protected by copyright. In the U.K., the story is different. British banknotes bare the "©" symbol. Many things that one might thing of as productions of the national government are actually produced by other different groups. The U.K.'s Royal Mail, for example, is a state-owned company, rather than a government department; the story is similar with the United States Postal Service, which replaced the U.S. Post Office Department. The typeface used on the Tube map is also protected by copyright. — President Lethe 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's not allowed even though I clearly show (on three occasions?) that it's copyrighted? --Dom0803 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. It depends on the U.K. copyright laws that protect the map and how those laws interact with the law in the U.S. and specifically Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are. I was just pointing out that the map is protected by copyright. Have a look at "Wikipedia:Copyrights"; it may help.

(Also, I'm not sure whether you also have this idea, Dom0803—but it seems that many persons think that it's O.K. to reproduce copyright-protected content without permission as long as they just acknowledge that the work is protected by copyright; in fact, this not only doesn't make it suddenly O.K. to reproduce the work, but also can be used in court to help prove that the person violating the copyright knew that the work was protected by copyright.)

President Lethe 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/maps/#copyright - "Except solely for your own personal and non-commercial use, no part of this document may be copied or used without the prior written permission of Transport for London". Seems abundantly clear. --Khendon 07:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not get someone appropriate to ask TfL for permission to use a small-resolution Underground map which can then link to an official one ? --MBRZ48 01:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Heads-up on London Underground trivia AFD

There's currently an AFD going on for London Underground trivia, because apparently it's not encyclopaedic enough. I thought I'd mention this as it's of interest to editors of this headline article. Discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London_Underground_trivia - please go and contribute! My view is that it should stay, as otherwise London Underground would become even more bloated than it is. --Mike 23:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The result was keep. Simply south 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Line opening dates

The table of lines says the year is "the date the first section opened". But I don't think that's what they are, since the Jubilee Line says 1979 and sections of it are much older. It's the definition that needs changing rather than the years, but I can't think of a suitable wording. --87.82.21.198 15:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's the date that needs changing - using the 1979 Jubilee Line logic, the H&C & ELL should both be in the 1980s, which is when they became known by those names. Finchley Rd to Willesden Green opened in 1879, so I'm changing the date to that, & clarifying the definition to "the date the first section opened (not necessarily under the current line name)", which is the definition that seems to have been used for other lines' dates. Birdhurst 12:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Saying the Jubilee Line opened 100 years before it did looks a tad odd. Perhaps you could add things in brackets like '(actual line opened 1979)' next to the years, then that could cover the 1980s East London line 'opening', the 1990 'opening' of the Hammersmith and City line, and the 1994 transference of the Waterloo & City line from British Rail to the London Underground. BillyH 12:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Practically every line opened under a different name from the one it currently operates under (the only exception being the Victoria Line, I think), so the Jubilee Line situation is by no means unique. It would require some research to get all that information - and Wiki skills I haven't got to modify the table! Birdhurst 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(Wiki tables are often best-edited in an external editor. Atlant 14:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
Whoops. I did not edit using an external editor (how do i?) and can someone please double check the figures. I've had a go at the table, only by breifly looking at each line. They are probably incomplate, especially ELL. Please check Simply south 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Part of the problem comes, I think, from the perception that the Underground system has always been one organisation rather than the collection of individual companies that it started as. Likewise, no single line was ever opened completely as it currently stands. The lines as they now are grew organically over many decades - parts of some lines even existed as mainline railways before becoming part of the Underground; for example the Northern Line north of East Finchley which was opened in the 1860s and 1870s some twenty years before the City & South London Railway opened in 1890 from Stockwell to King William Street.
My view is that three date columns are needed:
  1. The date of the "first section opened" whether it be under the current line name or another and irrespective of when it became part of the Underground.
  2. What we think of as the "classic" opening date for a line - when the first "foundation" or core section of the line opened which later accumulated the other bits. This would be 1863 for the Met, 1890 for the Northern, 1900 for the Central Line and so on.
  3. When the line attained its current name.
This would need explanation by way of footnotes to the table. All the information needed is in the table on the List of London Underground stations article. DavidCane 23:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my message on User talk:ShakespeareFan00

Yes, the Jubilee Line did open in 1979. However the actual railway it now occupies was opened in 1879 which was on the Metropolitan Railway. It then went through a series of changes between companies and then lines on what is now the London Underground (most notably the Bakerloo Line) before finally becoming the Jubilee Line. THEREFORE the railway section opened in 1879. There is a big difference in naming the Jubilee Line opening dates and when that section of railway actually first opened.

Simply south 21:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

London Underground used to publish a historical map show past lines, station opening/name changes and closed stations. This may still be available Esthameian 06:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Map

I'm surprised that there isn't a standard tube map image on this page. Does someone want to put one on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.140.39 (talk)

No, because the copyright is held by the London Underground and putting the official map on Wikipedia would probably be a copyright violation. Cynical 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding incredibly naive, wouldn't it be possible to approach London Underground (or London Transport) and ASK them whether the map could be used for what is after all non-commerical uses? Pheasantplucker 10:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, wikipedia pictures have to be cleared for commercial use, to allow for future sales of Wikipedia CDs, etc Bluap 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Distances

Sorry, but i thought the distances seemed to be under or over-estimated. This seemed especially true for the H&C. However, has this made the box rather complicated? Simply south 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the distances there. I've split it into two columns and moved the units to the headings. I think that looks clearer now. Carcharoth 13:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It looks good. Simply south 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Numbers of stations

Could someone add total number of stations (as of 2006) to the table of the different LU lines? Also, if it's not recorded anywhere in the article, the total number of stations across the network would be a nice figure to have. Carcharoth 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

275 stations. It was there. Now, I know the Waterloo and City is 2 stations, but does anyone want to check the pages for the other lines to see if they give number of stations? Carcharoth 02:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Carcharoth 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There are now 274 stations including terminal 4. Lenny 13:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status of Johnston?

Edward Johnston designed TfL's distinctive sans-serif typeface, in 1916. A version of the typeface, modified to include lower case, continues in use today, and is called "New Johnston". The new typeface is noted for the curl at the bottom of the minuscule l, which other sans-serif typefaces have discarded, and for the diamond-shaped tittle on the minuscule i and j, whose shape also appears in the full stop, and is the origin of other punctuation marks in the face. TfL owns the copyright to and exercises control over the New Johnston typeface, but a close approximation of the face exists in the TrueType computer font Paddington.

I'm not sure this is right. Certainly it is not copyrighted in the US as typefaces can't be copyrighted. And I suspect there is a 25-year typeface copyright term in UK law, (e.g. in the 1998 act) although I don't know how the EU directive extension may have affected that. Of course it could well be protected by trademark law, the name in particular. (Although there certainly exist "ITC Johnston" and others.) -- Blorg 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted typefaces (considered artistic works) created outside of the US are protected in the US under the reciprocal arrangements of the Berne Convention which the US signed-up to in 1989. Only typefaces created in the US are not protected, as the US Copyright Revision Act, 1976 [3] does not cover them (see [4] for comment on this).
In the UK, the appropriate law is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [5]. If the New Johnston typeface was a commercial typeface marketed for sale, the copyright term would be 25 years from first sale (section 55.(2) of the act) but, I don't believe London Underground or TfL has ever sold the typeface commercially so it is more likely to be dealt with as an artistic work and to have a copyright of 50 years from the death of the author (section 12.(1) of the act).
If Johnston was working for whichever company (LER group?) had the typeface created then ITYF his death-date is irrelevant and the clock starts from the date of creation as it counts as the company's creation.--MBRZ48 01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If the New Johnston typeface has ever been sold commercially it could, possibly be out of copyright already as it was created in 1979 (by Eiichi Kono who has recently designed a font named Meiryo for Microsoft).
By the way, the Paddington font referred to above is this freeware version, not this quite different Linotype font of the same name by Freda Sack. DavidCane 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
London's Transport Museum, sells Edward Johnston's original font.
Although it doesn't say as much on that page, I think you will find that the font is only sold for private, non-commercial use. If you used it on a website (such as WP) or on a commercial product, you'd have their lawyers to deal with! (I vaguely remember this from looking at the CD at the LT Museum shop).
EdJogg 12:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Strikes!

Should we mention the astonishing frequency of strikes?

etc etc etc Huseyx2 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Five strikes in the last 5.5 years isn't exactly "astonishing". --Mike 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, that depends on your standards, Mike... @Huseyx: If you find a reference stating that the number of strikes is "astonishing", we can include it in the article, I'd say. —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure many other metros of the world get strike action so i don't think this frequency is unusual. Simply south 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
You could make a new page called London Underground strikes but i don't see it as a very important piece of info. Ysignal 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I am involved with the WikiProject Filmmaking and found the Filming on the Underground stub. Although this could fall under our project, I think it would be more appropriate as a section of this article because I would assume anyone who was interested in the London Underground as a filming location would probably search under "London Underground" before searching for "Filming on the Underground." --GHcool 18:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a link would be useful in the "London Underground" article. However merging "Filming on the Underground." into the article would not be appropriate. Lots of films have used the Tube meaning the article could potentially be very big. User:ExULstudent 12:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote for Merge - I basically agree with both points, so how about merging the Filming on the Underground stub as it is (giving the basic definition), with the main LU page (the section Contribution to arts which I recently added, would probably the most appropriate place) but with a link to a separate page "List of films made on the Underground" which could feature a title list (with a sentence or so summary for each giving which station was used and where in the film it appeared)? - HTUK 15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, at least for now (therfore merge now, split later). There have been many films and documentaries on the London Underground, for example The Tube, Sliding Doors etc. This would make a suitable and useful sub-section. If it becomes too large then it can become its own article again, with mention from the main page. Simply south 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd delete it. It doesn't carry any information that isn't elsewhere (the rules for photography are in the Safety section of the main page, for instance, and the fact that the W&C is regularly used isn't exactly nowhere else on Wikipedia. It's a pointlessly duplicating stub. --Mike 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge since the article of "Filming on the Underground" just looks so pathetic as an article in its own right.

I definetly think that Filming on the Underground should become a section of London Underground, as this would provide a more suitable home for the information in this pathetic excuse for an article.

What do you think? Please reply!

Cheers

Anthony 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (Talk to Me/Contribs)

I think this talk section should be merged into the one above. :) Simply south 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thats happened. Simply south 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I vote for merge. "Filming" does not warrant its own article. Ianthegecko 23:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believed it should be merged as mentioned it doesnt really warrant as yet its own section can split it if it expands anymore. User:Mikechristopher

OK, I'm being bold and redirecting it to London Underground in popular culture#Film and television. Discussion here seems to have petered out, and the main article doesn't discuss pop culture Underground references (rightfully so, since there's a better main article for it). VT hawkeyetalk to me 20:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Lancaster Gate station

On the main London Underground page, it states that Lancaster Gate is closed for refurbishment until October this year, on Lancaster Gate's own page, the month stated is November. Whichever it is, it should be finished soon so will no longer be an issue. However, internal consistency is being lost here, which seems a pity. Perhaps someone with local and current knowledge of the situation could put one or other of the two pages right. As said, not a big deal. Pheasantplucker 10:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not had to go that way recently so don't know the details but I suspect October was target and November was actual! Esthameian 06:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Great Bear

I'm not sure where else to ask this, so I'll try here. An enormous number of tube articles have references to The Great Bear tube map eg:

On the 1992 litography The Great Bear, The Metropolitan Line is called Musicians Line. The main line runs between Telemann and Martin Heidegger. The branch lines runs to St.Joan, Corelli and Fontana

Is anyone else bugged by this? They seem a little out of place and aren't really very relevant to the articles they appear in, and having the work mentioned so often makes it appear enormously significant. Would anyone mind if these were removed, maybe by consolidating them in the Great Bear article itself? --Dtcdthingy 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Definately. Pull them. The info will be easily found in The Great Bear article which should link from the article on the tube map. Skittle 16:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Page length

I moved Accidents, Terrorism and cooling to new pages to cut down on the length of this article. The comment about Hackney being served poorly by LU is not very usefull in this article and could be deleted. Ysignal 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Station navigation templates

Hey guys, I'm currently in the process of looking for ways to improve Melbourne train articles. We have a similar wikipedia layout for Melbourne's train network. I recently looked at the South Kensington tube station and was wondering where can I find the templates or code to use for the branch lines so I don't need to duplicate things. Thanks heaps. --Lakeyboy 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Link to "Ghosts of the underground"

Hi, i just wanted to ask weather I could put a link to my website on the "london underground" page. I tried once but the link was removed. It is is an unofficial, non-profit, & non-commercial, hobby website, intended for free research & educational use only. Thank_you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.192.188.241 (talk • contribs) .

Actually you tried twice and on both occasions I removed the link. Please read our guidelines on external links. Your site does not appear to meet the criteria for a useful site. Sorry, Gwernol 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My site shows information about events that can directly effect the underground. It also shows images of stations and some information about them. Please let other users judge for thereself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.192.188.241 (talk • contribs) .

What's a "thereself"?24.131.12.228 20:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we might as well link it. What harm can it do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.117.95 (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Okay, "Criticism" sections in Wikipedia articles generally suck. They're basically a thinly-veiled excuse for NPOV whining, and this one read like someone had taken the Evening Standard's list of pet peeves and copied it down. Worse than that, a lot of the stuff it covered was duplicated elsewhere already, and chunks of it needed cites as well. Even more than that, this article is way too long already. I've taken the whole thing out. --Mike 09:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way about Trivia sections. Since when is trivia encyclopedic? It usually looks to me like obscure fun facts that don't fit in the article anywhere, so they get jammed into a section together. 24.131.12.228 20:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's why we hived off the Trivia stuff into its own article (London Underground trivia) some time ago. So far it's survived 'two' AFD processes from overzealous people who don't grok its purpose (for keeping the lists of trivia out of the headline article). --Mike 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think criticism is an important part of this article. Londoners who use the Underground frequently complain about the service. I suggest the section be put back, however each criticism must be met with a counter point in order to retain NPOV status. --82.35.37.18 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. This article is enormous enough already without a bunch of redundant, NPOV-dubious and most likely WP:WEASEL-laden stuff like that clogging it up. It's not exactly encyclopaedic either. --Mike 18:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there equally a risk of violating NPOV by leaving the criticism out, making the article too Pollyannaish and leaving out the genuine and probably verifiable complaints of customers? Rather than excising the entire section, might it not be better to focus on sourcing the complaints that, even though I'm not a Londoner, I'm sure exist? Greyfedora 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Londoner, and I could reel off a few complaints, yeah. That said, a common topic of conversation for people the world over is how old / expensive / unreliable / whatever they perceive their local public transport system to be. You could come up with a very similiar list of complaints about just about any other system out there - it's by no means unique to London. In a well-written article, criticism sections aren't necessary, and this article never needed one before. If if needs one now, that's a sign that the whole article needs a spring clean (for instance, the well-meaning but index-clogging list of sections under Safety). --Mike 06:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to source any criticism. Sprotch 12:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wimbledon & North Line

A new article at Wimbledon & North Line has been created - is this in any sense true, or is it nonsense? --Harris 12:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I have read about an extension of the Victoria Line to Northumberland Park but i have not heard of this line. Simply south 12:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a search with variations and i could not find anything. The closest i could find is info on the Chelsea - Hackney Line (which is known, possibly to become Crossrail 3) and a petition by residents for effectively a second Circle Line called the Olympic Line. Simply south 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've also looked, on google and on tfl.gov.uk, found nothing. I saw something on the news earlier today about a tram line development, but I can't remember where it was (running through Peckham?) I guess if its non-verifiable it needs to be sent to AfD? RHB 19:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not speedy nominate. The information is patent nonsense - completed in 2010, mainly deep level tube???? See here for the user's history. Regan123 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I've prodded it. WP:SPEEDY seems to explicitly disclaim hoaxes... Thank you for your help, everyone. --Harris 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If it gets deprodded, you could speedy as WP:CSD G3, vandalism. Silly vandalism - Creating joke or hoax articles is vandalism. Tubezone 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article describes one variant of the Chelsea-Hackney line (a long-discussed diagonal line to relieve the Victoria line using new tunnels in the centre and existing lines outside) with quite a lot of wishful thinking. It's not completely rubbish, though unsourced and not at the right title.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 13:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Replace network map?

User:ed g2s has created the whole network map, Image:London Underground full map.png, albeit in PNG format. Should it replace the zone 1 map on the network section or is it too big to put on for users with smaller monitor dimensions? --TheTallOne 10:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's way, way too big. --Mike 10:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Platform edge screens

A recent update to the article added the following justification for platform edge screens:

maintain the atmosphere within the station platform, so air conditioning or heating is more efficient

It is far from obvious that this is true, especially as said screens do not reach the ceiling. This can be clearly seen in this image. I have added a {{fact}} tag. -- Chris j wood 12:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to confess it was me that added that after an anon removed the part about containing the blast of air coming into a station and added the bit about air conditioning, whereupon I changed it so both were mentioned. Remove it by all means if theres no evidence to back it up. Thanks, RHB 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The platform scren doors undoubtedly aid the cooling of the station. If you've been to any of the new Jubilee Line stations you will immediately feel it. I have nothing to back up this statement in terms of hard fact, however. Maybe it should be re-worded to say that the platform doors aid air-flow, which in turn helps the cooling down of stations, rather than making air-conditioning or heating more efficient by maintaining an atmosphere. Samluke777 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're mistaking observed effects for conclusive evidence there. Most of the reason that JLE stations are cooler is that they're larger and built more openly (station box type construction rather than excavated tunnels like older deep tube stations), I've always assumed, giving more opportunity for hot air to escape rather than being trapped down below. --Mike 08:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The doors do not need to make the stations air-tight in order to help keep the stations cool. As you know heat rises. This means that cold air tends to go down (to fill the gap made by the hot air). In an underground station cold air that flows down will fall off of the edge of the platform onto the track (and into the suicide pit if applicable) and will also flow down the tunnels. The doors on the JLE stop the cool air from leaving the platforms apart from when a train is in the station.
If the doors were not there the cold air would constantly flow out of the station instead of filling up the area between the glass barrier and the rear of the platform. Cool air on the track has provides no comfort for passengers on the station platforms, but if you can convince the government (or other funding bodies) that you can keep the cold air next to the passengers you can justify a bigger spend on air-con equipment. (Imagine the stations being flooded by water if you want to get a mental picture of the way that cold air will flow with and without the platform barriers there.) Having said this the JLE stations mostly also have tall ceilings and large escallator shafts that I'm sure also help by allowing hot air to move up away from the heads of the passengers and then flow out of the gap at the top of the escallator shaft (without making people on the escallators hot). (In the event of a fire those gaps above the escallators might also prevent the sort of flash over that shot up the escallator shafts at Kings Cross and instantly killed people. Although I'm don't have evidence to back that claim up it is off-topic so doesn't matter.) (Imagine the stations being turned upside down and flooded with water to imagine the way that heat will flow out of them.)
I actually remember this being advertised as one of the features of the doors before these new stations opened. I can't find a page on the TFL page to confirm this (because they have recently dumped all their old pages) but here is a page from the LDDC that agrees with the air cooling argument (it is just one line and you need to scroll down a lot). I don't think that "heating" has ever been mentioned in connection with the doors on the JLE, but if you have travelled on the rest of the London Underground recently you will know that even in the winter the deep stations are pretty hot these days. Ken Livingstone says this is because the soil around the tunnels and stations has become saturated with heat and is now reflecting it back. Big Mac 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Its currently under FAR, so its still a FA at the moment but is being checked to ensure it is. See the FAR page here Thanks, RHB 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

odd phrase construction—due to deletion maybe?

These early lines used steam-hauled trains, which required effective ventilation to the surface.[2] These houses were demolished for the construction of the then District Line between Paddington and Bayswater. However, to 'keep up appearances' in what still is a well-to-do street, a 5-foot thick concrete facade was constructed to resemble a genuine house frontage.

It seems to me that a chunk of this paragraph has been deleted—specifically where the [2] lies. To begin by talking about steam-hauled trains and then to continue with the phrase "These houses were demolished..." is a non-sequitur. Could someone look into this and perhaps restore whatever part of the paragraph seems to be missing? —dragfyre 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's been no deletions. Basically, that's how it was written. I've modified the section, it should be much clearer now. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

external links

it seems to me the number of external links on this article is beyond the point of Wiki. There should'nt be more than one for each type of extra information and it should suport the article rather than be an added titbit. I would think this page is ripe for pruning. Thundernlightning 11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved an external link to this article from Image:Piccadilly Line.svg, referring to a site exploring the history of the Tube's Edwardian platform tiling. However, this link isn't imperative, and can be removed if anyone else thinks this section is getting too long. Andrew (My talk) 23:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage and others (possibly OR)

Okay, this is probably going to count as original research or something but i have just calculated the number of people on average at each station. Slightly skewed but this shows which line is the busiest (Victoria) and the least busiest (unsurprisingly still the East London Line).

Well if they are any use

here:

Number of people per station

  • Bakerloo Line – 3837880
  • Central Line – 3746571\2
  • Circle Line – 2536481\2
  • District Line – 2881316\7
  • East London Line – 1303625
  • Hammersmith & City Line – 1637321\2
  • Jubilee Line – 4725333/4
  • Metropolitan Line – 1579323/4
  • Northern Line – 4134680
  • Piccadilly Line – 3388019/20
  • Victoria Line – 10082437/8
  • Waterloo & City Line – 4808000

Simply south 14:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Exactly which boroughs don't have tube stations? The "South of the Thames" section says Hackney is one of them, but it has Mansion House is. I'd edit the article, but I don't know whether the other 5 are correct. --88.110.235.235 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mansion House station is in the City of London, some distance from Hackney, which as the article says has no tube stations. Birdhurst 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I mean Manor House of course, which according to this very publication is in Hackney. --88.110.235.235 11:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Simply south 14:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Hackney is in North London, so any article that claims it is South London needs to be fixed by someone.
Also according to this press release from TFL Manor House Station is in Harringay not Hackney. I have a friend who lives north of the station and recall him recently complaining that as he crosses the border from one borough to the other he goes over an area that Hackney Council never bother to grit.
Three out of four station Manor House entrances are within the borough of Hackney, as is the official address of the station.

See here: http://www.map.hackney.gov.uk/gismapgallery/Maps/Tom%20Duane%20Maps/Places%20of%20Worship/Places%20of%20Worship.pdf Address: London Underground Ltd, Manor House Station, Green Lanes, LONDON, N4 1BX. 77.99.141.219 11:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Names of LU lines

The Underground lines are referred to in this and related articles thus: "Northern Line" — with "Line" capitalised. TfL (and previously London Transport) write it "Northern line" — line name capitalised, but not "line" (so "Hammersmith & City line", "Circle line" etc.). We can, of course, disregard non-standard capitalisation, but as this appears not to have been discussed, I thought it might be a good idea to ask others' opinions as to whether we should consider following Underground practice and using lowercase "line" in the line names. ProhibitOnions (T) 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody? ProhibitOnions (T) 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Try search and replace "Line" with "line". ALECTRIC451 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, but I do know how to do this, being an admin and all. I was asking to see if there were any opinions on the merits of doing so. ProhibitOnions (T) 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Any other opinions? We would have, for example Bakerloo Line --> Bakerloo line, which is how the LU writes it. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, therefore we should AT ALL TIMES be guided by what is in the public domain. Hence, if TfL (of whomever) use "line" then we should do so. It really is THAT simple. Canterberry 12:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
All the signs on the underground do use "line" rather than "Line", so I would agree that we should also refer to them using the un-capitalised form. Edwin 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Is anybody going to do this? Should be a relatively straight forward SAR. Sunil060902 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that TfL doesn't capitalise "line" because it's not actually part of the titles. On the maps and websites, the lines are simply listed without the word "line" (ex: Piccadilly, Circle, District, etc). I think we should implement naming conventions like Bakerloo (tube line) for each of the tube lines. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page requested

"London Underground" is also the name of a song by the band Amatuer Transplants. Bobnotts 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you put it at the top, with something like "This article about the Lonon Transportation System. For the Amatuer Transplant album click here". A disambiguation page for something as famous as the London Underground compared to an album of the same name is not going to cause confusion, but a link to each article is better. London Underground (Album) is the the title of the album page I suggest. sheeldz 11.12, 5th March 2007 (GMT)
Frankly, if you dab to anything which mentions the London Underground, rather than - let's face it - a non-notable song - the page would need the disambiguation. However, it's so mind-bendingly unlikely that anyone would come to this page thinking "Huh? I wanted to find out about a hilarious song, but all I get is stuff about some railway system?" that cluttering it up with dabs isn't necessary. That's what search engines are for. --Mike 22:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Main article photograph

I noticed that the main article photograph at the top (Image:Underground_roundel_sign_at_Epping.jpg) has disappeared. To replace this, I have uploaded one of my own photographs (Image:Underground_sign_at_Westminster.jpg) and changed the article to point to this. EdwinH 17:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for article on Express Northern Line and other Ghost Lines

During the second world war work was started on an express line next to the Northern Line. Some of these tunnels were intended to be used as bomb shelters and then passed back to LU after the war. However, the British Government seized control of what little got built. I heard from a friend who worked for the Underground that this line was actually working and in use by the military, but Ken Livingstone told me it was just fragments when I challenged him about this on a radio talk show.

I've also heard stories of a pnematic underground line that shut down a long time ago and seen an article on the House of Commons website that said that their was a secret underground station underneath 10 Downing Street (obviously it isn't that secret if they post articles about it on government websites).

I'd like to see an article about this and any other other Underground Lines that never got finished or were later closed. Can we please also have some sort of list for Ghost Lines and Ghost Stations? Big Mac 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the pneumatic line crossed the Thames somewhere near Tower Bridge. There was even a company that provided pneumatic power across Central London via a network of pipes including possibly this line Esthameian 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The Tower Subway has its own article already. As far as the deep-level stations at Goodge Street et al are concerned, Ken is right - it's essentially just a few half-completed stations, and as far as I know the aren't any tunnels linking them. Actual genuine bits of closed tube railway are fragmentary at best (underground ones, that is, not on the surface). --Mike 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, were you thinking of the London Hydraulic Power Company which used the Tower Subway to run hydraulic pipes under the Thames? EdJogg 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
He's plainly thinking of the LHPC, but actually, there was a pneumatic underground railway - the Crystal Palace Atmospheric Railway. It was an experimental 600-yard line in the Crystal Palace Gardens - see http://fdelaitre.club.fr/Crystal.htm for more. It's definitely worth an article... -- ChrisO 09:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

London Underground construction and the expansion of London

The construction of the London Underground drove London to expand rapidly with areas like Southfields and Metroland and many, many more being undeveloped before the Underground made commuting possible. This needs to be addresses somewhere in this article as it is an area where the Underground was vital to the history of the city it serves. Big Mac 04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo Website in external links

I've added my non-commercial website of abstract images of the London underground, They have been removed a number of times now as as a "nonsignificant photo site" by Mpk. My person feelings aside, I've put the link back, take a good and if people feel the site serves no purpose I'll be happy to remove the link myself. The jubilee extension images are of architecture meret. Photo Rob 20.38, 10 April 2007 (GMT)

  • - Regardless of the quality of the site or the images, I feel that adding your own site as an external link is nothing more than spamming. If someone else feels it's relevant and wants to add it, then it should stand on its own merits. - fchd 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'ts spamming, the only personal gain I will get from the site is a few guestbook entrys every few weeks. Photo Rob 22.17, 10 April 2007 (GMT)

  • To be honest, the reason people keep removing it (please don't just keep adding it, not least because you're at risk of violating the 3RR if you're not careful) is because there are lots of photos out there, and the page is so huge already that keeping the links list short and discerning is the least we can do. That said, if you're particularly proud of some of the images of the Jubilee as you mentioned, a link on Jubilee line rather than on the already-bloated LU headline article might be better received. Why not try that? --Mike 14:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are noted and accepted. Photo Rob 00.28, 12 April 2007 (GMT)

photography is no longer permitted after 7/7???

I have recently completed a photography project of the London underground, and the article is wrong regarding shooting within the tube network. Since 7/7 you are liable to be stopped under anti-terrorism laws if you shoot/video anywhere within in the LU network, although the risks are low if you just take the odd snap. Anything more and well your in trouble.

You need permission from the film unit and the station supervisor before photography is permitted. A tripod can be used at the station supervisor (southwark,Clapham north permitted me to use one) discretion. I've amde a small change to reflect the reality.

You are allowed to take photographs as long as: there is no flash, no auto-focus light, no tripod and you are not allowed to be anywhere that may hinder the working of the railway (e.g in front of the signal so the driver cannot see) It is always best to ask permission first though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.117.95 (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo Rob 23.33 17 May 2007(GMT)

This is simply not true. Photography that is more than casual photography for personal purposes has always required permission as above, but pulling out a camera and taking a couple of snapshots is totally allowed (provided no flash or tripods etc). I checked this myself with the LU film office about a years ago. --Mike 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The actual policy of Transport for London can be found here. Basically, anybody wanting to film or take pictures must seek prior permission from the London Underground Film Office. Quite honestly, in this age of mobile phones and digital cameras, you can film/photograph anything you want ... just don't get caught!! Canterberry 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the two pages are rather confused. However, having researched it last year, the upshot was that commercial photography does require a permit, but "personal" photography does not, provided it sticks to the byelaws. The page you refer to above is about commercial work, while the more generic one is about general snapshottery. The film office said they were working on getting the pages updated ages ago, but that doesn't seem to have happened. --Mike 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Things have changed in the last few years, true if you take the odd snap you should be fine, however someone I know was stopped and arrested last year at Amersham station, they look the camera which took some months to get back. He is a middle aged accountant!! Unbelievable but sadly true. Most staff don't give a stuff, the transport police however do though. Photo Rob 00.17 19 May 2007(GMT)

This is a "sourced opinion" Check out rules regarding photography from the TFL film office, it makes it clear you need permission from them before doing ANY photography. Pehaps this article should be altered.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/1517.aspx ()

Photo Rob 20:45 12 June 2007(GMT)

That link is to the media section of the website, it refers to people who are doing commercial filing or photograhy and those who things on a scale that might interfere with the normal operation of a station - not tourists taking snapshots. (It's not Wikipedia's role to be an advice line for photographers.) For what it's worth the TfL conditions of carriage merely states that "For safety reasons, on our buses, in our bus stations and on London Underground stations and trains you must not... take flash photographs and/or use a tripod or other camera support equipment". DrFrench 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find it means any photography on the underground, altough in practice this is impossible to inforce. I am going to contact the film office directly to find out what the situation is for personal photography, hope I am wrong. Photo Rob 16:45 13 June 2007(GMT)

I think you will find it means what I said above - see here. "Do I need permission to film or take photographs on the tube? You may take personal photographs on the Tube, but you MUST NOT use flash. For information on filming or taking professional photographs on the Tube, please contact: London Underground Film Office... " DrFrench 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Thanks for that, matter closed. Glad I was wrong on this. Wish more station staff knew the rules, as I've been told you need permission to shoot from quite a few. Photo Rob 19:43 13 June 2007(GMT)

Removed link to Google Earth data

Just looking through the edit history and I see that the link to a collection of station locations in Google Earth format has been removed (11:17, 12 December 2006 Thundernlightning (Talk | contribs) (→Practical - this link adds nothing. It just shows stations on a google map.)

I don't agree that this adds nothing. Whilst I can understand that this appears to be simply a map of the stations, this is more importantly a geocoded data set that includes latitude and longitude pairs for each station and could be very useful.

I've not added it back yet - any thoughts?

Sounds fine to put back in, although don't expect it to their long. Photo Rob 16.21 30 May 2007(GMT)

Reinstatement of wiffly-waffly piffle

My removal of "The tube generally has two sections: deep-level (tube) and sub-surface." has been reverted. The sentence is poorly expressed. What does it mean? The Central Line is at once deep-level, sub-surface and overground, which section of the underground is it in please? The wiffly-waffly word "generally" is superfluous here. Remove the word "generally" from the sentence and it states that the tube is in two sections. This is patently untrue. Is the sentence trying to say that each section of the underground part of the London Underground may be classified as "deep-level" (bored) or sub-surface (cut-'n'-cover)? If so, perhaps it should say that? --Ferstel 15:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this: The system has three main types of route. The first are the bored tunnels from which the system derives its nickname the Tube. The second are the sub-surface tunnels, which were constructed using the cut and cover method. The third are the surface lines, which in fact make up the majority of the route mileage of the network. I think it is still redundant and doesn't belong in the lead, and I am apparently not alone. Problems with the passage include the following. It is only one way of many to classify the parts of the railway. Saying "the system has three main types of route" in the lead implies it is the most important classification, or is somehow "official" which is an unreferenced and inexpert assertion. "The first…", "the second…", "the third…" - we are not certain that it's merely an enumeration so "the first" could mean "the earliest" or "the most important". "Bored tunnels" - an unfortunate phrase, what about bored readers? The first paragraph has already said the Underground is called "the Tube" because of its shape, so that is redundant information. The first paragraph already said that most of the network is above ground, so this is also redundant. So in the first seven sentences of the article we are told two things twice. I notice that three users have now all independently removed this information from the lead (Mpk, me and, after it was rewritten following my comment above, an anon). I deduce from this a rough consensus to exclude this information from the lead (it is already in the main part of the article). After each of the edits to remove it, Canterberry (talk · contribs) has used the "undo" button as if the paragraph's removal was vandalism (here, here and here) which is very bad form. --Ferstel 06:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would caution you on the tone of your wording. It does not conform to WP:CIVIL in many aspects, and is highly condescending. (e.g. "... what about bored readers", "... an unreferenced and inexpert assertion.". I shall not re-insert the the wiffly-waffly piffle as you refer to it (again, a very insulting and demeaning experession, which is not WP:CIVIL in the slightest). I urge you to be more polite in the future. Canterberry 09:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Disabled Access

according to the TFL book i received on access a category "C" station has a step of 200-300mm therefore i have changed the maximum step height to 300mm on the main page.

Ianburnip 00:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Largest?

The lead paragraph says that the London Underground "is the largest in terms of route length" and the information box says the system length is 408 kilometres. Yet the information box for the New York City Subway says it's system length is 1056 kilometres (for revenue track). This seems to be a contradiction. --Gerry Ashton 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gerry, you are very biased and prejudiuced, and I am minded to issue you with a WP:CIVIL. As the Bible states, "take the plank out of your own eye, before removing the splinter from others". You have added a "citation needed" to the London Underground article, and questioned it's status as the longest by system length. Yet, the NYC subway article has no citation either ... yet you have accepted its authenticity without question. I suggest you add a "citation required" to the NYC subway article, and then we can discuss things on a "level playing field" as they say. Canterberry 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The New York Subway article does not claim that system is the longest in the world, only the London Underground article makes that claim. Also, I am not prejudiced; I have ridden both the London Underground and the New York Subway, and I liked the London Underground better. --Gerry Ashton 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Gerry, Gerry, Gerry ... you have missed the point! Both the LUL and NYC articles "claim" all sorts of superlatives ... but NEITHER has the citations/references to back them up. Score at half-time = nil-nil. Canterberry 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I found a citation from the BBC in 2000 which states "As it is, there are currently over 400 miles of track in the subway system, which makes the NYC subway the biggest in the world." This suggests the New York Subway article's claim of 656 miles may be exaggerated, but even so, 400 miles is longer than the 253 miles claimed in the London Underground article. --Gerry Ashton 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

subsurface

This is a silly term and deep level is a tautology. All underground lines are sub-surface. Better shallow and deep. It you want to talk about cut-and-cover, do so separately.

"Subsurface" and "deep-level" are the correct terminology: "deep-level" refers to the fact that the track and platforms are significantly under the ground, while "subsurface" refers to those which are nearer to the surface. D-Notice 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sub-surface may not be correct from a technical viewpoint, but it is the terminology used by London Underground to distinguish between lined tunnel sections (tube)and cut-and-cover tunnel sections (sub-surface). Canterberry 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

LU line names again

Originally discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_Underground#Names_of_LU_lines

It seems someone has edited all names with a capital L on line, which as previously discussed, is incorrect as TfL use lower case themselves. I suggest they are edited back to original names, and have the upper case name redirect to the lower case one.Ninjainabowlerhat 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start regarding main text occurances LOL! Sunil060902 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely onboard with this. While it's true that LUL puts "line" in lower case on their signs and publications, I don't think it automatically follows that anyone else has to. In other words, "Northern Line" is not incorrect, it's just not how TfL would write it. Personally, I think capitalising proper nouns is the way to go for a third party publication like this, for clarity and consistency. So I'd request we hold fire on mass replacements. --Mr Thant 10:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
These articles are precisely about LUL/TfL services! Best, Sunil060902 11:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we're not TfL and we don't have to follow their unusual typographical conventions. --Mr Thant 11:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My previous statement still stands, these are lines run by TfL. If these were eg. Paris or New York routes, which don't make the distinction in capitalisation, you would have a point. Best, Sunil060902 11:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but we have two conflicting ideals here - the standard convention of capitalising proper nouns, or the TfL convention of writing "line" in lower case. It's entirely a judgement call which we should go with. Clearly you think the TfL convention is the more important one, whereas I think the standard English conventions should be used for readability's sake. For what it's worth, the manual of style agrees with me. --Mr Thant 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, TfL would take precedence because that's exactly how visitors to London will find all the lines branded on maps, signs, and even the trains themselves on some services. Point noted regarding wiki rules, but let's take a simple example like c2c, the train company (London to Southend). Standard English abbreviation rules dictate that it should be "C2C". But they chose not to adhere to that rule! Yet should we call them anything other than "c2c"? Best, Sunil060902 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
c2c counts as CamelCase, which if you click through to the main trademark rules article, are the editor's discretion (though there's an argument to made that it should be written C2C here). --Mr Thant 14:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

SVG Sign/Logo

This page should have an SVG version of the Underground logo. There's one for the MBTA. —Ben FrantzDale 16:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --carelesshx talk 04:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Miles

I was wondering why all the distances/lengths are in kilometers followed by miles in brackets. It is a UK related article and in the UK miles are the units generally used for transport - in road signs, mph on speedometers - and is the unit that the British publuc are the most familiar with and would be the unit reported in the press. Additionally the London nderground site itself uses miles followed by kilometers in breackets. Not a major issue as long as both are stated - just wondering on the reasonling - is there a Wikipedia policy on transport units or was it just how the article was created? [[Guest9999 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)]]

Most of the world's population (including Australians, like myself) find miles foreign. Is the the London Underground article aimed at the British public?--Grahamec 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Without getting into an imperial/metric debate, i agree that distances should be in miles followed by kilometres (in brackets) as miles are the native measurement in the UK. Swarve 09:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the UK had adopted the metric system but had derogation under EU rules to continue to use km/h for speed signs (for some alleged safety reason, which did not affect other countries that have metricised) but not for road distances or for any other purpose for measuring distances. Is the concept of "native measurement" different from the legal system of measurements in that country? Besides I'm not clear that the native system of measurement in a small part of the world is relevant to a world-wide readership.--Grahamec 11:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Miles is still (unfortunately) the standard unit of measure in the UK, both for road and rail. As to your second point, UK English etc. for UK articles is defined as appropriate in the Method of Style. - fchd 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It might also be worth bearing in mind that if something has been built in one set of units, it is likely to be a convenient number in that set of units and make more sense when expressed that way. It is, of course, important to have both sets of measurements present, but if the km values are calculated from the mile values, it makes sense to put the miles first. Particularly since doing otherwise can result in the reader falsly assuming a certain degree of accuracy for the first number given. Skittle 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 27

Apparently the map that this citation links to is no longer available at the location provided. The page opens to a "whadda ya tryin' to find here?" page.
This is a link to a pdf of a map of the Underground:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/colourmap.pdf
I wasn't sure how to update the footnote.
Crocadillion 15:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Map?

Isn't there a glaring omission in this article: A map of the network? Zone 1 on its own really isn't good enough. 172.141.219.181 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:London_Underground#Why_no_map.3F Talk:London_Underground#Map Does this help? Skittle 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I can see why the copywrited network map isn't used, but why not use a geographical map of the whole network, rather than just zone 1? 172.200.0.98 01:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If I recall, the map of zone 1 took a long time, and a lot of effort, to create. So if you'd like to have a go at a full map, feel free! This is a wiki after all. I agree that it would be a great thing to have, but unless someone takes the time and effort to produce it, it won't happen sadly. Skittle 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Aha! There is a full map
full map of the whole thing
full map of the whole thing
, but it doesn't look that undergroundy. No doubt it is useful, but probably not as an illustration. But what do other people think? Skittle 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The full geographic map is very handy, especially when it comes to finding short-cuts that the "proper" Tube map doesn't show, e.g. walking from Royal Oak to Warwick Ave and so missing out zone 1, instead of changing at Paddington, or New Cross to Deptford Bridge DLR which seem really distant one the more famous version... D-Notice 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Name dates

This is probably minor but i am wondering when a coulple of lines got their names.

  • The District Line, which was originally the Metropolitan District Railway up until a certain point.
  • The East London Line.

Also, when talking about "name dates from" is that talking about the current name? If so, many of the dates contradict this. Simply south 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall do some research using my "library" ... but in the meantime have you tried the most excellent CULG [11] Canterberry 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New article about the roundel logo and its history?

This article (and the internet in general) seems to be lacking information about the history of the roundel logo. The logo has clearly evolved through several variants, starting with the solid red "disc" logo like this in the early 20th century. The geometrical proportions of the official logo have also changed, with older stations having a more "chunky" roundel (the red circle and blue bar are now thinner in proportion to the diameter: see this gallery, for example). I've often wondered why there's a white pole sticking up through the "Underground" roundel above the street at older stations, too (a flagpole?). However, I couldn't find any detailed history of this subject on the web, which is surprising given the iconic nature of the roundel. This page has a link to a now-defunct page hosted by the London Transport Museum; I searched around the museum site, but couldn't find the page. If someone out there has a copy of A Logo for London by David Lawrence, I suggest it would be worthwhile creating a new article on the subject. Naturally the article should include a table (with usage details and history, where available) of the new roundel colours for trams, riverboats, DLR, Overground, etc. There's a picture of these in the Transport for London article. I would suggest the title for the new article should be Roundel (Transport for London), unless someone has a better idea. Any thoughts? Mtford 13:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no objection to the article under the current name, although i think it should primarily focus on the London Underground logo and then talk about the others which have spun off from this design. Simply south 13:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, because nearly all of the roundel's history is concerned with the London Underground. However, in today's usage it would be incorrect to refer to the shape simply as the "London Underground logo", because the same shape appears on all modes of public transport and on TfL's general publicity. That's one of the reasons why I think the roundel deserves a page of its own. It doesn't belong in the London Underground article, because we want to list all the other modern uses of the symbol too (the Underground article is quite long already, without adding tenuous details about Croydon Tramlink signs); also, it doesn't belong in the TfL article, because most of the historical information will be about the Underground, and not about the 21st century local government body. Mtford 15:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The London Underground one was the original one. The article could start off as "There are many roundels used by Transport for London to represent the different modes of transport in London. The first roundel was designed for the London Underground. Other roundels have since been used for the different modes. " or along the lines of this anyway. Simply south 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something like that would be fine. I think the history section will be longest and most interesting part of the article, hopefully with several photos, if we can get permission to include them (there are several galleries of roundels on the web). Naturally, most of the history will be Underground-related, and this should be reflected in the introduction too. However, we also have to remember that the roundel is a current logo, not just an historical one, and all of TfL's roundels now have "equal" status, being owned by the same governing body. Any Wikipedia article about a present-day entity must give a full and accurate summary of the present status, even if the history is more interesting to most readers. The DLR and Tramlink might well have "stolen" the roundel from the Underground, but officially they do now share the same symbol, whether we like it or not, and that's the present-day situation. Whether the DLR has a "turquoise Underground logo" or the Underground has a "red DLR logo" is a purely historical question, and future generations of Londoners probably won't know the difference. Also, there are probably more roundels displayed on bus stops than in tube stations in London today! Anyhow, all of this discussion is rather hypothetical, as the article doesn't yet exist. I could try to write short stub based on this article, but it really needs input from someone with more knowledge. David Lawrence's book seems the most likely source, but I don't have a copy. Mtford 21:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Using the Internet Archive, the missing LTM page can be found from Dec 2004 here. Many of the image links are broken but the text is still readable. There are seven pages in all and these can be access by clicking on the missing logo at the bottom right to take you forward or the one to its left to go back. Alternatively just edit the last part of the URL to be "/page2.html", "/page3.html", etc.--DavidCane 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I think there's enough information there for an article. In view of the emphatic copyright message on page 7, we also need to sort out the image description of our roundel, which currently claims to be "ineligible for copyright". It probably needs a {{non-free logo}} template and a fair use rationale. Mtford 01:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

London underground sliding doors

I'm trying to find out when sliding doors on London underground trains were first introduced and on which line, who invented and developed the technology and what company manufactured the rolling stock. Any information would be very welcome. Peter59 20:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the relevant article, the first tube rolling stock with air-operated sliding doors was the London Underground 1920 Stock. The linked article has more information on these particular trains. Andrew (My talk) 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Original justification?

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 heavy? Also potentially facinating 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, claustophobic and smoke/steam-filled tunnels must have been a supreme marketing exercise in itself.

Traffic congestion in the City of London was indeed terrible by the mid 19th century. One of the first and most active campaigners for an underground railway for London was Charles Pearson who issued a pamphlet calling for such in 1845. For a detailed history of the creation of the Metropolitan Railway and what followed see Christian Wolmar's excellent book, "The Subterranean Railway: How the London Underground Was Built and How It Changed the City Forever" (Atlantic Books, ISBN 1-84354-023-1). --DavidCane 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Responding to an editor who fails to sign their edits is a waste of time ... Canterberry 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)