Talk:Jubilee line/Archive 1

Archive 1

River Line?

River Line redirects to this article, but nothing in the article suggests that anyone calls it the River Line or that the name River Line was ever proposed for it. Can anyone explain the usage and maybe provide a citation? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

References to River Line found in Google.

For example http://www.lurs.org.uk/un/Jubilee.html

N12345n 09:08, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Stations table

The stations table is ugly and a waste of space. It's going. --88.110.235.235 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Line

There could be some more on this aspect of the Jubilee Line.

"I remember" going past a car park at Ludgate Circus which had a sign to the effect that it had been acquired for the Fleet Line. (This being a historical note.) Jackiespeel 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Fleet Line have it's own [age? It was a major proposed transport project in the 1970s and 1980s, and even today the proposed route from Green Park to Fenchurch Street and on to Thamesmead may be used in some form by future train routes.

Rolling stock POV

The Rolling stock section has a number of POV comments about changes to the passenger information displays. I recommend this be modified and sourced. See WP:NPOV - Wikipedia policy. Jpp42 23:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted some text and added a citation needed tag to this. DrFrench 23:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding external link?

I broke wiki rules and added a link to my own website, yes I know " Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion" But I still feel the article would benefit from a link to some high quality images of the line. what do the gate keepers think? I wont add the link myself. photo Rob 17.55 1 June 2007(GMT)

http://winstainforth10.foliosnap.com/?goto=jubileelineextension&thumbs=ok

You have some good photographs on there that would benefit the article. However I do not think that this website is appropriate to link to from the article as it is just another personal collection of photographs. I too have a collection of photographs of the JLE, I know of many other people who do as well, and we cannot link to every single page. I recommend that you upload some or all of your photographs to Wikimedia Commons, if you are happy to license them under the GFDL, a free Creative Commons license (e.g. cc-by-sa) or other free license (see commons:Copyright tags for a full list). The photographs can then be included directly in the article (add them to commons:category:Jubilee Line so they can be easily found). Thryduulf 13:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats a fair point, I am considering adding some unprocessed images to commons. Would love to see your collection of images, could you provide a link. Cheers photo Rob 18.12 3 June 2007(GMT)

If you do add unprocessed images to Commons, then you can link to your website of other images from your userpage there. Linking in the image summary is generally allowed to better versions of the same image or same subject only.

As for my images, well while I'm pretty good at taking photographs I am lousy at organising them (and recently lost a lot through failing to back them up - a lesson I should have learned a decade or so ago at least). The best I can do is recommend you browse through Commons:Category:Photos by Chris McKenna. Thryduulf 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I travel to work in class 350, they're great except they can never get the air con temp right. Buy an external hard drive and back up once a month. photo Rob 23.58 4 June 2007(GMT)

Rob, we have been through this topic elsewhere already. I'm pleased to see that you are now considering uploading some of your images to the Commons (as was suggested to you on numerous occasions) instead of constantly trying to add a link to your website. You have some good images, helping to build the encyclopaedia by licensing them and putting them on the Commons is a 'good thing'! DrFrench 09:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Financing news link

I found this link on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Rail transport today: (BBC News, 23 March 2005) £60m fraud case collapse probed. Since it deals with financing for this line, it seems more appropriate to integrate the information here than to create a new article. Slambo (Speak) 11:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

To Jubilee line as per TfL's official naming convention.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Page moved, per request. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Line/River Line Revisited.

A few notes on the above subjects which perhaps someone may wish to intergrate/correct on the main page (my source is the London Rail Study Part 2, GLC, 1974, ISBN 7168 0648 7).

Phase three of the Fleet Line would see it continuing from Fenchurch St via Surrey Docks to New X / New X Gate and onwards to Lewisham. Phase 4 would see the take over of the BR branch line to Addiscombe and Hayes.

The River Line (more properly River Line South), however, was a seperate proposal which was suggested could be the appropriate outlet for the Fleet Line instead of phases three and four. It took the Fleet from Fenchurch St to St Katherines Dock, Wapping, Surrey Docks North, Isle of Dogs, North Greenwich, Silvertown, Woolwich Arsenal, and onto Thamesmead.

Hope this helps! OutrageousBenedict (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Diagrams

Is it not a bit misleading to have a diagram of a failed proposal before the actual route diagram? The skim reader might thing the line does go to Lewisham via the City. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image to add

Hey, Ive got an image to add to the subject, but I'm not sure how to do it without the page being distorted in shape. The image in question is called 'Fleet Line.jpg' and I'd be most greatful if someone could help out! OutrageousBenedict (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Charing Cross

Little has been said about Charing Cross tube station here, or about the Jubilee Line on the Charing Cross page, so I edited both pages. I hope the solution of putting Charing Cross after Green Park but in italics with opening and closing dates and "Former terminus" is satisfactory. ProhibitOnions 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC) It is still possible for Jubilee Line trains to run to Charing Cross Station, although this is only kept open for emergencies and anecdotal evidence suggests 'for people coming back from football games at Wembley'. Obviously doing this would mean that trains do not proceed along the JLE, although there are sometimes operational advantages to this. It is thought that the new signalling system has been installed to Charing Cross as well, although this needs to be confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.32.157 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

The article as it stands[1] is highly confusing, because it opens with discussion and a diagram(!) of a line that was not constructed and was never used. The opening information and diagram should be of its current construction (the "thing" WP:COMMONLY referred to as "Jubilee Line"). Ideally the Fleet Line digram should be moved to the bottom—as a point of historical interest... or split out entirely. Either way, it does not belong at the top of an article entitled "Jubilee [Ll]ine". —Sladen (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the Page

Hey, can I second an above proposal to split the main artical into a page on its history and a page on the line as it is? Considering the number of schemes for connecting the Docklands and East London to the tube can I further suggest that such an articals mandate include the Fleet Line (Stages 2, 3, 4), River North Line, River South Line, Bakerloo extension, Waterloo and Canary Wharf Railway and Olympia and Yorks involvement. I'd be happy to help write an artical, but doesnt an admin have to be involved with a proposed split? How can one 'nominate' such a thing? OutrageousBenedict (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You add [[Template:Split]] to the top of the article page and create a section on the talk page where you make your proposal giving reasons and ask for comments. Users can then respond in support or opposition to the proposal. Once a reasonable period of time has passed and, if the consensus is for a split, the article may be split into parts. --DavidCane (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconding the above, I'd also been thinking about it needing a split and the incongruence of having the 'planned' map above the real one. I'd suggest moving all the history stuff to a 'Fleet line' page as the most logical way to do it. --AlisonW (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on the extension. See Jubilee Line extension. Simply south (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against a split because of the inescapable historical interconnectedness of the plans and their eventual fruition. Rather than a separate article that the reader might miss, doesn't a well-written and illustrated main article give a better overview and an easier-to-understand timeline? – Kieran T ^(talk) 23:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit pointless. There isn't enough on it to warrant a separate article and it fits well in this one. It is more likely to complicate matters and confused people considering how closely it is linked.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)