Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 6

Crowlands

Is Crowlands the only unopened mainline station?

Simply south (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In what sense? If you mean "work started but it never opened", Queens Road (about halfway between Hackney Downs and Clapton) was built but never opened, and eventually demolished in 1965. Work started on Lullingstone (technically a few hundred yards outside Greater London) as well, but didn't get as far as that at Queens Road. – iridescent 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was having trouble finding other stations that weren't underground related and was curious. The platforms at Crowlands apparently are in situ, according to Brown. And yes essentially "built but never opened". Simply south (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There aren't many I can think of aside from Queens Road that were actually built but never opened, other than North End on the Northern Line. There are a lot of stations that were only open for a few months, like the original Farringdon Street, and stations like Smithfield that were open to goods but never served by passenger trains. – iridescent 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you reckon the stations should be included in List of former and unopened London Underground stations with article name changed or even a separate article created to cover those that were built but abandoned on the NR network only? Also have you heard of Crowlands before? Simply south (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't—was it on the site of Romford Stadium?

AFAIK the only part-built but unopened stations to have their own articles are North End tube station and Brockley Hill tube station, so I'm not sure the issue will ever arise. An entry on Queens Road would never be more than a permastub—there's nothing to say about it other than construction and demolition dates—while all there is to say about Lullingstone is the two lines currently at Eynsford railway station. – iridescent 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There may be more to Lullingstone than that, if this is anything to go by. Seems to have a lot of history behind it. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If i remember correctly, it was just off Justums Lane, between Romford and Chadwell Heath. (Crowlands) Simply south (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Abandoned rail transport projects in the United Kingdom and its curiously-named subcats. North End is definitely in there. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any more info on Crowlands (there was something briefly on Ian-Allan publishing but this has been removed before i could act) other then the dates as well. Maybe just for now a separate article should be creatyed on the built but not opened stations. Simply south (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowlands' home would be List of closed railway stations in London rather than a renamed List of former and unopened London Underground stations. Amongst the redirects in the planned section of the latter list, there are a few stations that have articles such as Ludgate Circus tube station, Harefield Road tube station or Lothbury tube station, but I think Iridescent has named the only two where construction was started and abandoned without opening. The tunnel works south-east of Elstree South tube station almost qualify it, and there was the never opened bit of the third tube platform at South Kensington tube station.--DavidCane (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed would imply that it opened at one point and it never did by the looks of things. Simply south (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I renamed the list of defunct tube stations from Closed London Underground stations. As the list has a number of stations which are still open for main line services, the current name is a bit more cumbersome but it is accurate.--DavidCane (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we rename that one as well? Simply south (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit much mainline stuff, but I don't see why not. The list does need a good clean-up and some modernisation of the formatting to make it sortable and comprehensive referencing.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowlands is mentioned in "Ilford to Shenfield", Middleton Press. Says foundations were laid but that was just about it. I presume it was to one side of Jutsums Lane, but doesn't say which side! The only other mainline station that I can think of is the second "Poplar" (1851) which would have been located just south of the current All Saints and due east of the depot on the DLR (All Saints itself occupies the site of a later Poplar station (1866) not to be confused with the very first Poplar (1840) on the London & Blackwall Railway, which is just south of Blackwall DLR). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh forgot to add that the 2009 edition of the Joe Brown atlas mentions that foundations were laid to the west of Jutsums Lane in 1900. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a start on Crowlands railway station article. I even went to the site on Jutsums Lane at the weekend :) Sunil060902 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

District Line Route Map

I would like to propose this revised version of the route diagram. I think it shows the branches more clearly than the current version. Useddenim (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could state which bits have been changed.--DavidCane (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• changed to a -2 table (labels on both sides of diagram)
• added blank column between main line and branches/Circle line
• shortened overall height
• evened out station spacing Useddenim (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• detailed mainline connections
• got the missing icons uploaded & in place
• realigned east end of line & added St Mary's Curve
• am reasonably happy with how it looks (unless anyone else has more comments…) Useddenim (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

District Line
West London Line (to Clapham Junction) West Kensington West Brompton West London Line (to Willesden Junction) File:BSicon uACCa.svg Kensington (Olympia) Earl's Court

Just noticed a topoligical error at Kensington (Olympia), but not sure this solves it, either, as the direction still isn't correct (not to mention the missing icon) … Useddenim (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strike the previous paragraph; I'm happy with it now (even if others may not be…) Useddenim (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw, there is a major feature or two missing from the Earl's Court area that must be added - the depot and sidings. Simply south (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Triangle sidings added; Lillie Bridge to follow. Useddenim (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Added all the fiddly bits around Earl’s Court station; need BS icons CPICAre, ueUWl, utÜWor and utÜWo+l Useddenim (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that there is a similar thread at Talk:District line#Route Map, which pre-dates this one. Really, only one main thread is required (see WP:MULTI), although there may be short notices placed on other appropriate talk pages linking to the main thread. The proper place for this discussion would have been at Template talk:District Line RDT; but it's too late for that now, so I have put a suitable note there, linking back here. To avoid different people looking at and commenting on similar (but subtly different), proposals, please rationalise so that only one proposed template exists. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Brown, Lille Bridge depot joins the Hammersmith branch of the District Line to the east of West Ken station but west of the junction with the othter lines. Another line from the same depot also goes to both a siding (not really important) and the Kensington Olympia branch. Simply south (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rome wasn't built in a day, so that will have to wait a bit (while I figure out the best geometry). Useddenim (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

How are you deciding what is and isn't shown? If you're showing the defunct lines to Hounslow Town and South Acton, why not the defunct lines to Windsor, New Cross and Southend? And what's happened to the Uxbridge branch? – iridescent 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Those are all pre-LT. And yes, the District wasn't independent in the UERL era, but they referred to it as the District Railway not line, so I feel that it's beyond the scope of this map. Useddenim (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

{{MDR route map}} which I have created for my pending rewrite of Metropolitan District Railway shows these by the way. --DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(re Useddenim) Not buying that. If you take the LT era as starting on 1 July 1933, then the Uxbridge branch (ran to 23 October 1933) and Southend extension (to 30 September 1939) both fall under it. If one were being really nitpicky, District Line trains jointly operated the Inner Circle until 1990 as well, albeit only as a flag-flying symbolic train on Sundays by the end. – iridescent 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Added Uxbridge branch. Useddenim (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Closed Circle line; added HUB at Paddington Stations. Useddenim (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tried to fix spacing error when expanding PIccadilly extensions; added CONT arrows at Whitechapel. Useddenim (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary any longer to maintain a running update of the changes you're making to the template. This could probably be moved to the template's talk page now.--DavidCane (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Also please note, the proposed template should disappear from talk pages, and instead go to the template's sandbox, which is where it should have been right from the start. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where it was in the first place, and it was totally ignored... Useddenim (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not in the template's sandbox, which was, and indeed still is, a red link. Therefore, it does not exist, and most likely, never has existed. The discussion thread was not even started at Template talk:District Line RDT, but at Talk:District line. Until yesterday, the only non-banner posting at Template talk:District Line RDT was my own notice that this thread existed.

If you wish to alter the RDTs for other lines in the future, please observe the following:

1. Create your proposed version in the template's sandbox. The name of this is always the name of the template, with "/sandbox" appended. So, the sandbox for Template:District Line RDT is Template:District Line RDT/sandbox.
2. Start a discussion on the template's own talk page; in this case, Template talk:District Line RDT.
3. Place a notice inviting contributions to the above discussion on the talk page of each article which uses the RDT, and also on the talk page of interested WikiProjects. In this case, they would be at Talk:District line and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Note that these notices are not discussions in their own right, but pointers to an existing discussion, per WP:MULTI.

--Redrose64 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Project - Four Years On, Some Statistics

The project is now four years old. Here's some statistics looking back on how it has developed since September 2006:

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Participants	9	47	69	77	84 (46 active)
Articles Assessed	0	1,415	1,714	2,153	2,654
Good Articles	0	4	5	10	21
Featured Articles	1	1	4	10	23
Statistics are for 30 September in each year except 2010.

--DavidCane (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

London Transport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the London Transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left some additional suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.8#WikiProject_London_Transport. If members of the project can think of anything else that should be added, I suggest you add them to this list. --DavidCane (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Charles Holden

I've uploaded a new version of Charles Holden, the architect behind 55 Broadway and many of the best tube stations. The V&A has an exhibition on his work starting on 2 October and running until 13 February (details). --DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. It's probably worthy of a run as the Portal's Featured Biography imho. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

He was the selected biography in March, before the update.--DavidCane (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Topic

In case he's too modest to mention it; congratulations to Iridescent for achieving Featured Topic status for his Brill Tramway series.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Brill Tramway

8 articles

Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway

Quainton Road railway station

Waddesdon Road railway station

Westcott railway station

Wotton railway station

Wood Siding railway station

Brill railway station

There is currently one article missing from this - Church Siding. Simply south (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Church Siding does not and never will warrant an article; it was a short-lived "station" which consisted on nothing more than a pile of dirt to make it marginally easier to get off the trains. The paragraph at Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway is literally all that it will ever be possible to say about it. – iridescent 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Selected Articles, Images and Biographies

Votes and nominations are needed for the selected articles, images and biographies at Portal:London Transport/Vote. --DavidCane (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Still need some votes.--DavidCane (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

London Transport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the London Transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Colours, again (II)

Follow-up to WT:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5#Colours, again

I note that once again, the colours specified on {{LUL color}}, {{DLR color}} and {{LOG color}} have been altered (see Template talk:LUL color#Colours tweaked) and I since I can find no consensus for this change, let's discuss. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Colours tweaked I have changed this template to match the RGB for screen colours specified in TfL's Colour standard (Issue 3). Previously the "web safe" specifications from the same document were used, but the limited web safe palette is now something of an anachronism. No Wikipedia guidelines or up to date web content guidelines that I can find still mandate its use. The number of people still viewing the web on systems limited to 256 colours is vanishingly small, and I think the increased accuracy of the RGB representations for almost all users is more important. … the wub "?!" 01:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support (for the change). After all, we're not using HTML 1.0, either. Useddenim (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support change to RGB colours.--DavidCane (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note this is an entirely different change from that in the previous discussion. That was an attempt to convert the Pantone specifications to RGB, and was rightly rejected IMO because of the differences between print and screen. Whether to use the "web safe" screen colours or not wasn't even considered then.

Also as an outsider can I just say what a great job this project is doing. I'm not a Londoner, but I still spent hours clicking round the Underground articles yesterday! the wub "?!" 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Vanguard Works

The page on London General Omnibus Company states that in their bus manufacturing phase, they had taken over the Vanguard works in Blackhorse Road. I was always under the impression that the Vanguard works were in Chingford Road where the former Walthamstow bus garage was located. Can anyone put me right, please? Haynestre (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Annual entry and exit

is it desired to see all Total annual entry + exit' (2003-2009) or should only three years be seen? --Niklas1207 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Generally, when I edit the infoboxes, I put just the most recent three years on display with any earlier ones hidden by <!--commenting them-->. That way the older data remains in place if needed, but the box does not get overly long.--DavidCane (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But I know the data of 2006 so I don't have to put {{pad|1em}} infront of the year 2007, right??!!--Niklas1207 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Selected Articles, Images and Biographies (Again)

The nominations for selected articles, images and biographies for the portal need votes again at Portal:London Transport/Vote. If project members don't want to vote or nominate, I can convert the portal to use a random choice from a fixed list of previous selections. This is the way the DYK? section currently works. Let's have your thoughts below.--DavidCane (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As no one has commented or made any further nominations. I have disabled the nomination page and have modified the Portal page to use a random selection from our previous selected articles. Changes will be made to the selected pictures and biographies in due course.--DavidCane (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, could they be restored? I am thinking of adding a note to Signpost requesting help or interest in the portal. There have been suugestions that i could also try the community portal or some place called the Reward Board. Simply south...... 11:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Great North Road

Proposing a split from A1 road (Great Britain). See Talk:A1 road (Great Britain)#Great North Road (Split?). Simply south...... 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan line GA nomination

Just to let you know, I've nominated the Metropolitan line article for Good Article status. Hugahoody (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to review it, but I think you're likely to get some comments on the prose, content and references. See my comments on the article's talk page. --DavidCane (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TFL

Would anyone mind if we took this redirect away for use elsewhere? We're about to start having a "Today's Featured List" section on the Main Page, and I think you'll agree that although the TFL acronym is connected to London Transport, it's not the most obvious abbreviation for here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It stands for "Transport for London", which is the name of the body presently coordinating London's trains, buses, trams, boats etc. Indeed, that organisation gives the acronym semi-official status, see the URL for their website http://www.tfl.gov.uk/ --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but that's a couple stage removed from the name of this WikiProject. Of course, if the acronym was usurped, there'd be a disambiguation link back her.e =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking traffic stats shows that WP:TFL only gets used 25–35 times a month, about the same number as WP:LUL. WP:TUBE is used about a dozen times a month. WP:LT is the most common alias with about 50–80 uses per month. As those using WP:TFL are almost certainly active members of this project, I think, with the disambiguation link in place, this could probably be conceded.--DavidCane (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. We have plenty of better shortcuts already, so losing this one would be no bad thing. In fact, it would probably increase the presence of the project, as I suspect rather more than 25 users per month would click through the disambig link. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I count 15 incoming links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:TFL. I guess we should amend those to WP:LT instead - but some of those are archived pages, would they be amended too? I also note that WP:TfL also exists, with no incoming links; but WT:TfL has exactly one, and it's from this page - it's in the shortcut box at the very top. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to amend the ones on the archive pages - with a relevant summary of the reason of course.--DavidCane (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

London Underground

...is currently a being reviewed - all help with any sources to fill the article with citations would be insanely appreciated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal updated and nomination

I have overhauled the portal page and nominated it as a Featured portal candidate.--DavidCane (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Brown

Just a minor comment but i don't like the new brown colour scheme. Could we have anything lighter? Simply south...... 23:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was trying for a red, but it didn't quite work. I will change it.--DavidCane (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Simply south...... 07:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned proposals

If a station is proposed, we put it into Category:Proposed London Underground stations. If the project is later abandoned, we put it into Category:Never constructed London Underground stations; but should it remain in Category:Proposed London Underground stations as well? I'm thinking mainly of Denham railway station and Harefield Road tube station here but I expect there are others. Likewise for lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I view "proposed" as those which might one day be built, or for which there's a credible current scheme to transfer to LT (Northumberland Park railway station, Camberwell tube station and the like). For those like Brockley Hill tube station which were abandoned prior to opening and have no realistic chance of being completed, and those like Cranley Gardens railway station where a transfer to LT was once proposed but is vanishingly unlikely ever to happen, I wouldn't consider them "proposed"—virtually every mainline station in and around London has had a proposed service from LT or one of its predecessors suggested at some point. (The Metropolitan Railway in particular had its finger in a lot of pies.) – iridescent 13:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

I think never constructed should be a sub-category of proposed. That said, proposed stations fall into several types:

1. In the early days of the tube system, many tube railways were proposed, but failed to complete the parliamentary approval process. Most of these had routes and stations planned but which were obviously not built.
2. Some lines gained parliamentary approval, but couldn't raise the funds to build.
3. Some lines that were built planned alternative routes or extensions which were rejected or cancelled.

The unopened stations section of List of former and unopened London Underground stations includes all of the tube stations that had legislative approval, but were never built (e.g. the Central London Railway's Emlyn Road). It does not include stations which were planned and rejected (e.g. the Central London Railway's St Mary Axe) or those that are pending like Ascot Road or Nine Elms.

One day, I'm going to create a list of all of the many unsuccessful tube line proposals.--DavidCane (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LU list

I've reopened it again. See Talk:List of London Underground stations#Ah, that age old question. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Frank Pick

The Frank Pick article has been rewritten and nominated for Good Article status. --DavidCane (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This has now been passed as a Good Article.--DavidCane (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

2010 LU usage

As the title says, the 2010 LU usage is now available and needs adding in. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 00:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Source London

Source London is TfL's newly launched electric vehicle charge point network. If any project members find themselves near one of the charge points (mostly in NCP car parks at the moment), it would be useful if a picture could be taken to add to the article.--DavidCane (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Colours, again (III)

	Coaches_roundel.svg
File:Overground roundel (no text).svg&oldid=52049973 Overground roundel (no text).svg previous version	Overground roundel (no text).svg	Overground_roundel.svg
	London_Overground_logotipo.jpg

Fry1989 has uploaded a new version of Overground roundel (no text).svg (in center, above) with colours that he claims "... are closer to the original than any of the updated versions". (As far as I can tell, it's actually closer to the 'Coaches' roundel, but ...) All the roundels were standardised to match TfL's Design Standards some time ago, but these regressive recoloured version keep popping up — do thefiles need to be protected, or what? Useddenim (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted the change above as it's clearly the wrong colour. It probably is worth protecting the files to stop this, but you'll need to ask on Commons as that's where they're stored. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the previous discussions was prompted by the actions of Useddenim (talk · contribs). His userpage implies somebody from Canada; and so does that of Fry1989 (talk · contribs). Perhaps Canadian colours look different from ours.

Personally I'd go for whatever colours TfL actually approve; and furthermore, use the colour spec directly, without putting it through any color model conversion software. The link given above is dead, but here is the current version. In that, see section 2.4; and since we're neither printing nor painting, we can use either of the two pairs on the middle row entitled "Screen". The second pair on this row are easiest to use, because they're RGB hex triplets which we can use unmodified save for addition of the hash prefix (i.e. #000099   and #FF6600  ); the first pair need converting from decimal to hex but that's a simple task and so they come out at #0019A8   and #E86A10   which are both visibly different. Any other way of deciding on a colour is either WP:OR or guesswork. BTW I see nothing at User talk:Fry1989 like "... are closer to the original than any of the updated versions". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured status for the Portal

The portal has been promoted to a Featured portal.--DavidCane (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Tillingbourne Bus Company

Hi, I notice that you put the WPLT tag back on Tillingbourne Bus Company. I removed this because there is only the most minimal of relationships with transport in the London area. I admit that I'm not expert in buses, but is there something that I am missing that brings this within the remit of our project?--DavidCane (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's listed in

• Witton, A.M., ed. (1985). Fleetbook 16: Buses of Outer London (3rd ed.). Manchester: A.M. Witton. pp. 52–54. ISBN 0 86047 163 2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

which is a book that, generally speaking, covers the operating area of the former London Country Bus Services and stage carriage operators substantially within that ring-shaped area. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that simply operating in an area where another company operated that also ran buses in London is a sufficient connection. My test of whether this article falls under the WPLT remit would be something like: did Tillingbourne operate services into or within greater London? As it stands, the article suggests that the company didn't; London is not mentioned in the text or the infobox as being part of the company's service area. The only connection with transport in the London area is "the service to Peaslake" mentioned in the first section of history, which was "run jointly with the London Passenger Transport Board", although it is not clear where this Peaslake service originated. Is there anything from the Witton book that can be added to the article to provide the connection?--DavidCane (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading the paragraph previous to the phrase you mention suggests that the Peaslake service ran from Guildford:

Tillingbourne ... operated ... a service between Guildford and Gomshall. ... The route to Gomshall was extended to Peaslake ...

... From the early 1930s until 1964 the service to Peaslake was run jointly with the London Passenger Transport Board; ...

I have all three editions of Witton's book, the others being:

• Witton, A.M., ed. (1979). Fleetbook 16: Buses of Outer London. Manchester: A.M. Witton. ISBN 0 86047 161 6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Witton, A.M., ed. (1981). Fleetbook 16: Buses of Outer London (2nd ed.). Manchester: A.M. Witton. ISBN 0 86047 162 4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Whilst there is significant variation in some portions of text, they all note basically the same thing: that from 1 December 1930, route 44, Guildford-Peaslake (subsequently 448) was operated by Tillingbourne jointly with three other operators. These were Aldershot & District Traction, East Surrey Traction, and Magnet Omnibus Service, a local independent. East Surrey Traction became part of the LPTB when that formed in 1933, which explains how LT came to operate a route jointly with Tillingbourne. For post-1933 events, the wording varies, but since it's quite significant, I'll quote them in full:

In 1934 the firm was successful in avoiding takeover by the LPTB which had refused the necessary consent for Tillingbourne Valley buses to carry local passengers within the Guildford area - the rest of the firm's operations being outside the LPTB's 'Special Area'. The Board backed down after a wave of protests from angry Tillingbourne passengers, and granted the consent annually until 1969 when new legislation removed the need for it. (Witton 1979, p. 51, para. 2)

In 1934 the Tillingbourne firm successfully avoided takeover by the LPTB which had refused the necessary consent for Tillingbourne to carry local passengers in the Guildford area. The Board backed down after a wave of protests from angry Tillingbourne passengers, and granted consent annually until 1969 when it ceased to be required. (Witton 1981, p. 43, para. 2)

In 1934 Tillingbourne Valley avoided takeover by the LPTB, which had refused consent for local passengers to be carried in Guildford. The Board backed down in the face of protests from Tillingbourne passengers, and granted consent annually until 1969 when it ceased to be required. (Witton 1985, p. 52, para. 2)

Only the first edition mentions the LPTB "special area", but it's clear from each of them that the LPTB influence extended to Guildford in times past. Until the Transport (London) Act 1969, London Transport's operating area was much bigger than the GLC area. See London Passenger Transport Board#London Passenger Transport Area - the Tillingbourne routes fell partially within the red line delineating the "London Passenger Transport Area" and, it seems, also fell within the broken black line delineating the "LPTB special area", within which "no person or undertaking was allowed to provide a public road service without written permission from the LPTB". This necessity for LPTB consent means that the company operated within the London Transport area.

Although they do not explicitly state as such, the phrases "until 1969 when new legislation removed the need for it" and "until 1969 when it ceased to be required" refer to the restructuring of London Transport at the start of 1970, when the erstwhile London Transport Board was split into the London Transport Executive (GLC) and London Country Bus Services. It's not clear from WP:LT#Scope just what the boundaries are. If WP:LT's remit covers the whole of the area where the LPTB (and its two successors the London Transport Executive and London Transport Board) operated, then Tillingbourne is at least partially within that area (otherwise why would they have needed annual consent for 35 years), so {{WikiProject London Transport}} is a valid banner. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments above moved from User talk:Simply south. Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 01:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

TV drama mixup

Do we wish to point out errors made in TV dramas? Please comment at Talk:Embankment tube station#The Hour and "Embankment". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A1 road (London) is going through a GAR

Details here: Talk:A1 road (London)/GA2. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of station interchanges

Just to say that I've updated all relevant stations' infoboxes to show OSIs as of May 2011 (see Template:Citation London station interchange May 2011 and Special:Contributions/Davemnt).

Where there are individual articles for stations (e.g. Euston LU, Euston NR) I have linked them, but when they on the same page (seperate or compiled infoboxes), I've not bothered.

I've stuck to the naming system that seemed most prevelant (different to that ofKing's Cross St. Pancras tube station). Hope this is helpful. Davemnt (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A question of categorisation

As some Project members have already noticed, I'm part way through a task to place London Underground stations in a suitable category for the railway company which opened the station, i.e. Category:Former Metropolitan Railway stations etc. The question I have is: what should I do with stations opened on or after 1 July 1933? I see two options:

• six categories, one each for: (i) the 1933-47 period (LPTB); (ii) the 1948-62 period (LTE/BTC); (iii) the 1963-69 period (LTB); (iv) the 1970-84 period (LTE/GLC); (v) the 1984-2000 period (LRT); and (vi) the period from 2000 to date (TfL).
• one category for all stations opened on or since 1 July 1933

Which approach would be preferable to the Project? A parallel case is that of British Railways and its successors, which has three: Category:Railway stations opened by British Rail (1948-94); Category:Railway stations opened by Railtrack (1994-2002); Category:Railway stations opened by Network Rail (2002 to date). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One category. Useddenim (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One category. I think once the consolidation had taken place in 1933, the fact that the management went by a number of different names is not important for categorisation. --DavidCane (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, one category it is. Next q: how should it be named? The following are my suggestions:

• Category:Railway stations opened by London Transport
• Category:Railway stations opened by the London Underground. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

London Transport: "Underground" wasn't really pushed as a modern stand-alone brand until the mid-1980s or so, IIRC. Useddenim (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

London Underground: It's the more obvious category to search for if a user does not know the history of transport in the capital and it will be more consistent with the sub-categories in Category:History of the London Underground and Category:London Underground stations. The Underground brand has been with us for over a hundred years - it was first introduced by Frank Pick in 1908.--DavidCane (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

London Underground, note that I have now added the definite article to this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm split here because both went through a series of name changes before ending up here. I guess if the name of London Underground has existed since the 1930s, use that but with a note explaining it in the category. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Five and counting

The project is now five years old. Here's some statistics looking back on how it has developed since September 2006:

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Participants	9	47	69	77	84 (46 active)	80 (40 active)
Articles Assessed	0	1,415	1,714	2,153	2,656	2,830
Good Articles	0	4	5	10	21	24
Featured Articles	1	1	4	10	24	31
Statistics are for 30 September in each year.

--DavidCane (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Step-free templates nominated for deletion

Apparently these templates have been nominated for deletion:

• {{London Overground Stations with Step-Free Access}}
• {{London Underground stations with step-free access}}

I do not support or oppose this deletion, I am just notifying you. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for renaming

Category:Railway stations in London and Category:Railway infrastructure in London have been nominated for renaming to Category:Rail transport stations in London and Category:Rail transport infrastructure in London respectively. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 16#Railway infrastructure in London. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Cromwell Curve

I note that Cromwell Curve and Cromwell curve are currently redlinks. I think they should redirect somewhere, but there doesn't seem to be any coverage in the most obvious target, Circle line (London Underground). We do have some coverage at Gloucester Road#History, but only in the middle of the first sub-section. What are your opinions on the best way forward? Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created a stub article from that text, with links to extra resources from which that stub can be expanded. -- The Anome (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)