Talk:East London line extension

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationalisation between this and the main ELL article[edit]

I'm sure it's right to have created a separate article on the extension(s). However, this has led to a situation where it's problematical to maintain the two articles in respect of the ongoing work. That's a situation I've contributed to by changing the main ELL article when this page would be more appropriate! This article should, I think, focus on what is actually happening, rather than what might have/could still happen; this is consistent, I believe, with the article's introduction.

My outline proposal for rationalisation is as follows:

East London line article (ELL)[edit]

Change Extensions section title to "Proposed and actual extensions"[edit]

Replace the current Proposals and problems subsection with the similarly named subsection from ELLx plus the Alternative routes subsection. Possibly include Funding from ELLx. Replace the subsection title Commencement of the project with something like Project authorisation and initiation, selectively retaining existing content. Detail on speculative and superseded proposals under the bottom-level headings (Northern extension, etc) should be moved to Alternative routes above. The remainder of these bottom-level headings should be moved into ELLx and merged with detail covering the same topics.

Include appropriate Wikilinks into the ELLx subsections.

East London line extension article (ELLx)[edit]

Remove Project overview heading

Promote Phase 1 heading[edit]

Create the subsection headings: Original northern extension, Further extension to Highbury & Islington and Southern extension, and merge in any relevant additional detail from the displaced ELL sub-subsections (and add more detail on the H&I extension, as this is a bit lacking).

Promote Phase 2 heading[edit]

Merge in any relevant additional detail from the displaced ELL sub-subsection on Western extension.

Existing subsections 1.3 - 1.6[edit]

Promote and rename Train services and rolling stock to Rolling stock and possibly expand the detail. Move the info on proposed services to ELL.

Remove heading Transfer to London Overground and move detail (probably to ELL?).

Move Contractors subsection to Phase 1 and add a similar heading with any known info under Phase 2 section, or promote heading and include any other known info.

Move Funding to ELL article (possibly?), or promote within ELLx.

Project history[edit]

Delete this heading.

Move Proposals and problems and Alternative routes to ELL.

Move and merge detail in Commencement of the project to Original northern extension under Phase 1, as I think all the info. is relevant specifically to that topic.


How to proceed[edit]

If agreeable this would probably best be tackled by two persons working co-operatively (me for ELL, ANOther for ELLx?). Obviously need to be careful not to inadvertantly delete relevant detail.

Ivanberti (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalisation of this article and ELL article (again)[edit]

I note the above suggestions from a year ago to rationalise the articles. They do seem to be in pretty good shape now except that there is still a lot of duplication of background to the extension between this article and the ELL article. I am proposing to strip a lot of 'EEL Extension history' content out of the ELL article for that reason leaving that article to focus on the early history of the line and the practical effects of this current work on the operation of the line. This article will be the only one with a blow-by-blow account of the background and construction of the current engineering work. PeterEastern (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have now gone through the ELL article removing duplicate content and have moved any new content to this article. The ELL article now contains a summary focused on what was actually built and is planned to be built. PeterEastern (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion[edit]

There are 3 main reasons why I am proposing the deletion of this article.
1. The East London line has now been extended. Therefore, there is no need for an article which talk about the East London line extension which is going to happen, especially since it's no longer even called the East London line - it's part of the London Overground network.
2. The new section of the London Overground network, part of which was formerly the East London line, is well covered in the London Overground article.
3. The entire article is written in the present tense, whereas it should be written in the past tense.
If anyone objects to the deletion of this article, please say so below and why. Thank you.
If no one objects to the deletion of this article within 7 days of now - 28/06/10 - this article will be deleted.Beeshoney (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be kept, because only phase 1 is completed. Phase 2 is still under way. I have changed the tenses where appropriate. Alarics (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be kept. I worry that (Alarics) you've almost overdone the tenses a bit as it's now all in the past, but the project, as you note, is ongoing. I'm not sure how this can be fixed as it seems to float between past, present and future a bit and may be tricky to nail down. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have changed some of the tenses back to the present, as appropriate. Alarics (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Reads much better now, thanks.
I also agree that it should be kept. I think Beeshoney is misunderstanding the purpose of the article. The project itself is called the "East London Line Extension (ELLX)". The article is about the project, not the line. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite. I've looked carefully and sincerely at the arguments for deletion and cannot, with all due respect, see that they are right. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battersea station???[edit]

I know there is no money earmarked for a Battersea Station, but a guy down the street from me works for an architectural firm which he says keeps drawing up/revising preliminary architectural plans for a station in Battersea located here:

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=SW11+5AT&countryCode=GB

You see where Culvert Road appears to go under the railroad tracks??? Actually, it only goes under half of them, but there is a foot bridge built over the remaining tracks, so residents can actually get to either side. I'm told this foot bridge was built many years ago when there were previous plans to site a station here. Now, this guy says his architectural firm has drawn up plans for such a station, so SOMEBODY must be thinking about this - and paying the architects to draw up preliminary drawings. Anybody know anything about this??? Is whoever is behind this thinking of just having a platform for the ELL Extension, or all the tracks??? I know all of this is far off because there is no money earmarked for it, but there must be some buzz going on about this. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.203.210 (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the footbridge first. I would say that it was built as a legal obligation, and not as part of a station (real or proposed). If a rail line cuts across an existing right of way, the right of way must be preserved for, at the minimum, pedestrians; this may be by either a footbridge, level crossing or underpass. Thus, prior to the line being built, Culvert Road may have been a right of way; the earlier lines (which nowadays have twelve tracks) crossed it by bridge at the higher level, but when the lower level lines were built, they cut through Culvert Road, so a footbridge would hav been necessary. The footbridge crosses four tracks; two are on the route from Clapham Junction to Longhedge Junction (the "Ludgate" line, ref FLL); and two are on the route from Latchmere Junction to Longhedge Junction (the "Kensington" line, ref CKL).
I would say that should a station be built, it would serve just two tracks: the Kensington line. For those at the higher level to be given platforms would involve a lot of work; and since the position would be very close to the existing Clapham Junction railway station there would be little point, similarly there is little point in putting platforms on the Ludgate line. Thus, it's likely to be only on those tracks not served by Clapham Jct - the Kensington line.
For those trying to relate this to actual railway layouts: see this RCH diagram; the Kensington line is the purple one linking Latchmere Junction with Longhedge (points A, B, C); the Ludgate line is the pink one below that; and Culvert Road crosses under the blue and green lines just east of Pouparts Junction. If you have
  • Yonge, John (2008) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 5: Southern & TfL (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. ISBN 978 0 9549866 4 3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
see map 1R, bottom right corner; or map 2L, just left of the centre of the double-page spread - in both cases it's the double track indicated as CKL "Up Kensington" and "Down Kensington" which run parallel to the Up & Down Ludgate (FLL).
However, to mention all this in the article, we need a reliable source - see the verifiability policy. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... Yes, you are quite right - some of the lines (on the north side) are elevated, and the ones on the south side (covered by the foot bridge) are at ground level. My guy who works at the architectural firm says the architectural plans (I think they are only drawings at the moment) is only for the ELL line (I guess that is one of the elevated lines on the north side). I suppose "elevated" is more expensive than "ground level", but there is plenty of room, and it isn't that high. As for it being "close to Clapham Junction", actually, Latchmere Road cuts off any easy way to walk to Clapham Junction. There is a small "short cut" that locals know about (it's that gray dashed line at the bottom of the "A" "in Latchmere", but it is still a hike and not direct - and as the crow flies, it would be no more than the distance between Clapham Junction and Wandsworth Town Centre. I see the point about the footbridge possibly being a legal requirement, but the footbridge appears to be made out of pre-cast concrete and circa 1960's vintage, i.e. long long after those lines were put in at ground level. I need to talk to my guy again and find out where this is all orginating from, because somebody IS proposing a station there - even if it is 20 years away due to lack of funding. I know our former MP Martin Linton and mentioned in Parliament a couple of times that Battersea needed a BR train station (there was talk for a while of re-opening/re-using the long-disused "Battersea High Street" station that is inbetween Clapham Junction and the new Imperial Wharf station on the north side of the Thames:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_station
But that idea is now dead. I will try to find out more information about who is behind these architectural drawings that have been drawn up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.94.109 (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found out some more information. These architectural drawings are being drawn up in conjunction with drawings of the redevelopment of the Battersea Power Station. As you may know, the current owners of the disused Battersea Power Station have proposed to connect it via a spur from the Northern Line - the developers are proposing paying for some large portion of the Underground link. But apparently there is some question as to whether there would be appropriate transport capacity, so the extra station/platform on the East London Line Extension is being proposed. I have no idea who is being proposed to pay for this. Obviously this is way off in the future because the redevelopment of the Power Station would take years to complete (hasn't even started - in fact, I don't think a final plan has been agreed upon). The guy I know said that there is already some tunnel under the Thames that was dug years ago but was never put into use because of lack of money etc. Does anybody know what tunnel he is talking about??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.148.11 (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms at Clapham Junction[edit]

[moved here copied from Alarics talk page]

I see you have deleted my edit again. I see you have a habit of centering a large part of your life around Wikipedia. If you want to take that approach, then go through the entire article and delete everything that is not sourced - don't just delete the latest edit. Actually, large chunks of that article are written by me. I put the latest edit in - noting that it came from station staff - because you wanted a source. I am going to revert your edit. If you want to delete it, then somehow leave in the part about the unusual design of having Platforms 1 and 2 actually being physically on the same side of the track.

It is not as if I am putting up negative comments about, say, some actor - this is about an rail extension/refurbishment. Why don't you bother to go see the platform yourself and speak to rail staff yourself like I did. It seems that you get a kick out of reverting people's edits. What you are doing is not appreciated at Wikipedia. Perhaps you would do better if you found some other hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.236.254 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that my edit might help some people avoid getting on the wrong train, whereas your edit seems only to cause trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.236.254 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that station staff told me that, although the service is only officially to start at the end of the year, they will be conducting trials by the time of the Olympics, and travellers will be able to use the unscheduled service if they happen to know about it and show up on the platform. I did not put this in the article because there could always be something unexpected that might prevent this. But the two "platforms" being on the same physical platform is a fact, and, if you saw it yourself, you would know that there are going to be many people boarding the wrong train. It is unavoidable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.236.254 (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply applying the very clear Wikipedia rules, which you evidently have not yet understood. It is not a question of whether people will or will not get on the wrong train, it is a question whether concern about this issue has been published in a reliable source. Facts stated in WP must not merely be true, they must be verifiable by other WP editors. If staff concern about this issue has been reported in a newspaper, you can quote that and cite the source. If you are simply reporting what staff have told you personally, or what you personally have observed, it cannot be verified by other editors and is not admissible in Wikipedia. It is not enough for it to be true. It must be verifiably true from a reliable published source. Those are the rules; if you don't like them, lobby in the appropriate quarter for them to be changed, but meanwhile don't blame me for applying them. -- Alarics (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, I came here after Alarics asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#East London line extension. I do realise it's annoying when you know something is the case, you can see it's the case on the platform, you've confirmed it with the people who know (the station staff), et cetera. Unfortunately this is how Wikipedia works - it can't be mentioned here until it's documented elsewhere. WP:Verifiability is the policy in question, and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is the place to discuss whether the policy is a good idea or not.
You are indeed correct that adding unsourced material about railway stations is far, far less serious than adding unsourced material about living persons. But even so, it would also be nice if you toned down the ad hominem comments. What Alarics does on Wikipedia is indeed appreciated (even if he and I and others might disagree on occasion), and there's no reason he shouldn't make it his hobby just as you or I do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care if Alarics asked you to come to this page or not. I don't have a problem with any of what you say, except that I am not going to allow my one last edit to be deleted like that unless you or the other guy does the same for the entire article. For some reason, he has gotten a bee in his bonnet about me/my last edit. I figure he probably thinks this is my first edit on the page, when in fact, I wrote a giant chunk of the page. If you/he wants to gut the article, I have no problem with that - but you MUST act uniformly. I am therefore going to reverse the reversal, and if you want to go through the article and take out everything that is not directly sourced, then fine, I have no problem that. A giant problem with this entry (and MANY (most?)) entries in Wikipedia, is that the subject is not covered by "sources" - and I put that in quotes because many "sources" are now not allowed - for example, you can't put up anything from The New York Post because it is not considered to be legitimate (huh???). If you go look at many (most?) mathemetical theorem entries - particularly the obscure ones - there is virtually no sources on any of it, particularly the formulas. It really depends on the article - some articles like this East London Line extension entry attract flies who build their lives around making hundreds of entries/edits, often only minutes or seconds apart. Mathematical theorem entries do not attract this Wikipedia flies - mainly because they do not understand the material and therefore never look at those pages. Again, the action of these flies is not appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.31.119 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite true that this article, like many UK railway articles, contains some assertions that are not properly sourced but seem to be based on trainspotters' personal observations, which of course is WP:OR and not a reliable source. But they often tend to be left alone because people know them to be true (or at least plausible) on the basis of what people have read in railway magazines or even sometimes the maintream press, even if those sources have not been cited properly in the article. The statement about the likelihood of people getting on the wrong train at Clapham Junction when the new service begins in December 2012 is not that kind of statement: it is entirely speculative, because nobody actually yet knows what will happen. For all we know, enough signposts and announcements will be in place by then to make sure that passengers will know what they are doing. It is not after all particularly unusual for more than one service to be departing from a particular platform (e.g. Birmingham New Street a and b platforms; Cambridge; "front four coaches only" at Charing X; etc.) and yes, I do know that the new Platform 1/Platform 2 layout at CJ is oddly asymmetrical because I have seen a picture of it at http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/ellx2-testing-begins-on-the-overground/ (some of us are not quite so ill-informed as you assume), but I don't think that makes any material difference to the likelihood or otherwise of people boarding the wrong train, compared with those more common examples. The point is, this staff concern about what is going to happen, which I do not doubt has been expressed to you privately, has not so far been reported anywhere in a reliable sourfce as far as I know; if it gets mentioned in Modern Railways or Rail magazine etc. (and they are "reliable sources" for WP purposes, whatever may be the case about the New York Post, an example that is wildly irrelevant to the present case) then by all means it can be quoted in the article but until then it is not admissible in Wikipedia because it is not verifiable by other editors, and it is not a sufficient reply to that for you say that, if we want to, we can all go along to Clapham Junction in person and talk to the staff there. Going to Clapham Junction and talking to the staff is what newspaper reporters can do; if they publish their findings, we can quote them here; we cannot ourselves, as WP editors, act like newspaper reporters because that would be WP:original research. Also, I disagree with you that railway information is not adequately enough covered by sources for this policy to work. The railways in the UK are covered by the specialist press in enormous detail compared with many other subjects. I have a vast collection of railway magazines here going back more than 40 years and, using them, I could add sources to hundreds of railway articles if I had the time, which currently I don't. What I suspect you mean is that a lot of this stuff is not available online. But under WP rules, sources do not have to be online. This particular point is also the sort of thing that might get into a local weekly newspaper, if local concern is expressed, and that might or might not be online. One way or another, you need to find a proper source for it. Until then we cannot mention it in the article. -- Alarics (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank each of you above who written above who have engaged in an incredibly petty squabble and have thus ended up butchering this Wikipedia article. It is an article about a train extension, that will be deleted, or incorporated into the regular East London Line article when the extension is completed, yet all of you have spent lots of time engaging in this incredibly petty bickering, apparently because your egos are involved. Thank you for butchering the entry.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.20.146 (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give an indication of how petty all of you are, try taking a look at Wikipedia's entry for "Hydrogen Bomb": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb Note that very little of it is sourced. Why is there not a fuss about that on that page? Answer: Because the people who are interested in thermonuclear design are not petty people like people who are interested in train topics, and in particular obscure train topics like an extension project. You you look at physics and pure math entries in Wikipedia, you will find that the vast majority are largely unsourced . . . . and yet nobody complains - much less gets into a cat fight over it. The difference is in the type of people attracted to the type of topic. With trains, we have petty and pedantic people who build their lives around cat fights on Wikipedia. Have fun, train spotters!

Again, thanks for nothing. Nitwits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.20.146 (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a very interesting comparison! Presumably, railway engineers don't look upon the completion of an extension to a rapid transit rail line and quote, "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." On the other hand, there has indeed been plenty of "fuss", as you call it, at the related page Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over the years. Thank you for your thoughts! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
109.154.20.146, you should check the edit history more carefully before throwing accusations around. I am not the one who has butchered the article. The only bit I deleted was a purely speculative comment claiming that passengers would get on the wrong train at Clapham Junction when the new service starts. It was quite unencyclopaedic. My deletion of it came only after another editor had already asked that a source be provided. It was when it transpired the "information" was based on private gossip by staff that I deleted it. It was not, in any case, at all central to the subject of the article. All the other recent deletions of unsourced material were by that very editor (whose IP address is coincidentally very similar to yours), apparently in a fit of pique and without giving anybody else an opportunity to provide sources. I by contrast, so far from deleting great swathes of it, have meanwhile been adding more facts to the article, based on reliable sources, and I will be continuing to do so, having just found another relevant piece in a recent issue of RAIL magazine. -- Alarics (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I live in London and my internet service provider is British Telecom which has the lion's share of the UK internet market. I would assume most of the people contributing to this article live in London if not close to the East London Line Extension. I would guess that many of the posters fall into that category - perhaps you included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.4.80 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger usage numbers[edit]

Does anybody know where passenger usage numbers can be obtained? I would like to see them included in this article. Surely Transport for London has a webpage somewhere where it shows passenger statistics for the various Underground and Overground routes and stations? Maybe not. It would be nice to have a link in this article to such a page, to see how quickly/slowly passenger numbers have gone up for this new extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.24.140 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/london-overground/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


External links[edit]

Most of them seem to be non-operational. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on East London line extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on East London line extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on East London line extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_London_line_extension&oldid=1196318270"