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. – iridescent16:25, 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. – iridescent17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
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. – iridescent18:14, 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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? – iridescent00:11, 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)
(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. – iridescent11:16, 28 August 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)
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.
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!
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. – iridescent19:36, 1 December 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!
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.) – iridescent13:16, 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:
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.
Some lines gained parliamentary approval, but couldn't raise the funds to build.
Some lines that were built planned alternative routes or extensions which were rejected or cancelled.
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".[1] (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)
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)
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 ...
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.
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.
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject London Transport for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 09:19, 11 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
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:
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 years22:04, 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:
.svg)
.svg%26oldid%3D52049973){kind=link}