Talk:London Underground/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Cover south of Thames

If disregarding from London's most central parts , the City, Westminster etc, anyone who knows why the areas south of the river are much poorer covered compared to northern London ? Like to Croydon, Woking, and Bromley - not more remote than for instance Uxbridge, Watford or Barking. Before the latest extension of Jubelee Line, not even Southwark had any tube station, I believe. Is there a known reason for this ? Any known plans or ideas for an extension of Victoria Line south of Brixton ? (It also seems a bit strange, that Northern Line is the one which has most stations south of the river) Boeing720 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Easy. The London and South Western Railway, the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, the London, Chatham and Dover Railway and the South Eastern Railway had all built extensive networks of suburban lines which covered the whole of south London, and with the exception of the LSWR, they all had termini right in the City, or as close as physically possible (like London Bridge). There was no need for any Underground railways, with the exceptions of the Waterloo and City Railway and the City and South London Railway, both of which linked south-of-the-river termini with the City. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Northern: there is more of the Northern line that is north of the river than there is south of it. So it's not that strange. But the origin of the name Northern is covered at our article Northern line#Naming. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Underground. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130701060420/http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2013.htm to http://www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk/2013.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404003728/http://robb19y.altervista.org/JavaLondonTube/ to http://robb19y.altervista.org/JavaLondonTube/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Oystercard.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Underground. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170816003842/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-2016-17-draft.pdf to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-2016-17-draft.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-group-statement-of-accounts-for-201617-27-june.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Duboious

I appreciate that a national newspaper is the reference, but my count of the number of stations south of the Thames puts the total at 28 (Richmond, Kew Gardens, Wimbledon, Wimbledon Park, Southfields, East Putney, Morden, South Wimbledon, Colliers Wood, Tooting Broadway, Tooting Bec, Balham, Clapham South, Clapham Common, Clapham North, Stockwell, Oval, Kennington, Waterloo, Elephant & Castle, Borough, London Bridge, Brixton, Vauxhall, Lambeth North, Southwark, Bermondsey, Canada Water). Not a massive difference, but still incorrect, no? Julianhall (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You missed out North Greenwich, which makes the total 29. I have edited the article so it states the exact number of stations rather than the (incorrect) percentage. Dubmill (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

First contactless payment system is a false

The given sentence is far from being a truth. Hong Kong MTR implemented Suica-based contactless payment in 1997. Tokyo implemented in 1998. Moscow Metro implemented Mifare-based (NFC) in 1998. Elk Salmon (talk)

It means payment via a standard contactless credit/debit card (or smartphone app) rather than using a bespoke smart card like Oyster, Octopus etc. That's how "contactless payment" is usually understood in the UK although I understand it could be ambiguous (and contactless payment is primarily about that but does also mention smart cards). Any suggestions on how to word it better? the wub "?!" 21:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Elk Salmon: @The wub: I've changed it to "contactless bank cards" directing to contactless payment. Thought this would rule out any confusion. Turini2 (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

But it's not exactly true either. As Suica is in fact a banking card that can be used in shops either. Just because it's not a western system, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Elk Salmon (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Suica isn't a bank account though - wonderful though it is! That's why I changed the sentence to refer to "contactless bank cards". Suica/Octopus etc are contactless payment, sure - but your salary doesn't get paid into your Suica account! Turini2 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Upgrades over the last 20 years

I note that the "Transport for London" years doesn't really explain the substantial changes and improvements to the Tube in the last 20 years or so.

Unprecedented investment compared to previous decades, massive station upgrades, step free access, large orders of new rolling stock, automatic signalling, the Olympic Games etc - and most importantly the huge growth in riders since the 2000s - given that TFL's era of the Tube is 20 years old, I think this counts as "history" rather than "recent developments"!

I tried to wordsmith a sentence or two but couldn't sum it up very well. I wonder if anyone would have a go? Turini2 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Londerground

Hello I fundamentally disagree with @C2A06: most recent edit - claiming that "occasionally the Londerground" is what the London Underground is called. I initially reverted this as incorrect, especially without reference. Personally, I've never heard anyone in London ever say it. The newly added citation is a reddit post from 2015 with no upvotes and just 2 comments (one which disagrees, the other is a crude joke). It does not back up the assertion that the Tube is "occasionally [called] the Londerground".

My brief google/twitter search comes up with very few results - it seems that no one actually calls the Tube this. Given WP:RV, I've come here for some consensus on the issue. Should the edit be reverted? Turini2 (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support removing it. Nobody calls it that and some random person on Reddit isn’t a reliable source. Blythwood (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see it has been reverted - no hard feelings, discussion about these things is good! :) Turini2 (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have been travelling on the tube on and off for 50 years. No, I've never heard it either. Guy (help!) 14:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• 60 years in my case, and me neither. -- Alarics (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Turini2: @JzG: Btw I never made the term the Londerground up I actually heard Geofftech say it in a youtube video (who also has a Wikipedia account). I don't know if it was intentional, but i do remember hearing it and thought about adding it in. I'm not going to re-add it though, because it's clearly pointless. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 08:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the reason why you lot have never heard it before is because you are much older than me and didn't have the Internet, Wikipedia, Youtube, whatever when you were all my age......but I still never made the term up. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 07:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's best if you (and we as a collective) move on from this... Presuming anyone's age on the internet is never a good idea. Turini2 (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Underground Stations outside Greater London

I think there are only 7 on the Central line. Buckhurst Hill, Chigwell, Debden, Epping, Loughton, Roding Valley and Theydon Bois.

Wikipedia correctly says Grange Hill Station (which was outside Greater London) is in LB Redbridge - this has been the case since the 1990s boundary change https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2091/made?view=plain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.135.239 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The boundary runs parallel with the railway, between the railway and the road named Long Green. Long Green is in Redbridge LB; the railway and the station are both in Essex. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @redrose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.135.239 (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

How many stations does London Underground own?

a) The panel on this page says that LU serves 270 stations but owns 260. No source is given for the 260, and I think it is incorrect. With help, I deduced that these 13 stations are served by LU, but as they are not (according to the National Rail website) managed by LU it seems likely they are not owned by LU:

1 Barking 2 Ealing Broadway 3 Heathrow T2/3 4 Heathrow T4 5 Heathrow T5 6 Kensington Olympia 7 Richmond 8 Stratford 9 Tottenham Hale 10 Upminster 11 West Hampstead 12 Willesden Junction 13 Wimbledon

b) 29 stations owned by NR but run by LU:

1 Amersham 2 Blackhorse Road 3 Canada Water 4 Chalfont & Latimer 5 Chorleywood 6 Farringdon 7 Greenford 8 Gunnersbury 9 Harlesden 10 Harrow & Wealdstone 11 Harrow-On-The-Hill 12 Highbury & Islington 13 Kensal Green 14 Kentish Town 15 Kenton 16 Kew Gardens 17 Moorgate 18 North Wembley 19 Old Street 20 Queens Park 21 Rickmansworth 22 South Kenton 23 South Ruislip 24 Stonebridge Park 25 Wembley Central 26 West Brompton 27 West Ham 28 West Ruislip 29 Whitechapel

The conclusion seems to be that assuming it serves 270 stations, it owns 228. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.135.239 (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Please note that "owned by" is not the same as "managed by". A station can be owned by one company and managed by another. This is particularly the case with stations outside London, the vast majority of which are owned by Network Rail but managed by one of the train operating companies that serve the station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Track access controller inbound redirect

Noting @Sandstein's good faith and reasoned redirect of Track access controller when closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Track access controller (2nd nomination) here creates a WP:SURPRISE that really needs to be addressed and I feel concerns attempts to address in this article might (I stress might) easily be WP:UNDUE, marginally disruptive and not an improvement Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Denote Edgware-Charing Cross-Morden in Wikimedia tube map or not

In the latest update of my tube map for Battersea Power Station extension, I adjusted few routes including those around Kennington, so it would be easier to add a little spur path between the Charing Cross and Bank branches south of Kennington, if you guys believe this should be done. In TfL's official tube map, this detail is not denoted, not even with a dagger. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Tube cf London Underground

I have issues with Wikipedia using the designation "tube station" in its headings for articles about LU stations, whereas for other * stations it uses "railway station".

As we know, "the tube" is a nickname derived from the use of tubular tunnels on what is now the Underground. I don't think it is "encyclopedic" to use the term on Wikipedia.

The London Underground is a system of railways - trains running on rails, so its stations are (logically) railway stations.

All the lines on the Underground were called railways on first opening.

Many parts of the Underground network were taken over by LU when already existing railways. For example, Stratford <-> Epping was a branch of the Great Eastern Railway. Upon takeover, the stations didn't stop being railway stations and the line didn't stop being a railway.

Stations like Upney, Becontree, Dagenham Heathway etc on the District Line are not historically LU stations, and are not under ground and the trains do not run in bored tunnels on any part of the line. There is no difference in the character of (say) Becontree Station and that of (say) Forest Gate Station that makes the tube/railway distinction worthwhile or informative.

• We need a term to distinguish different types of station - bus, police, sewage pumping, life boat. I submit that "railway" station is the best term for what Wikipedia calls 'tube' stations and what it calls 'railway' stations taken together.

Although, for the most part LU trains do not run on National Rail tracks, the Underground is not meaningfully separate from London's other railways. The common distinction used in publicity - "nearest tube" and "nearest rail" is bewildering, even without the ambiguity of "rail". If one is in South Woodford, say, what help is it to him to know that the nearest so-called railway station is Wood Street? For what reason would he not take South Woodford as his nearest station *? It is not under ground ( it's a former GER station); perhaps he might object to the form factor of the trains, but there is little else to distinguish the tube from other railways at this point.

With the District Line the distinction gets even sillier, with Barking called a 'railway' station while the next stop east on the LU (Upney) is called a 'tube' station. If one is at Dagenham Heathway station, the nearest "railway" station is Dagenham Dock, but this information is next to useless. Both stations are served by electric trains built by Bombardier. On one line the power is picked up from AC overhead wires and on the other DC rails, but is this technical difference anywhere near enough to warrant distinguishing them at network level?

TfL publishes a map which it calls the 'tube map' that shows all TfL run services - Underground, Overground, TfL Rail, DLR and Tramlink. Thus the term "tube" is further muddied.

Wikipedia should drop it except to explain the nickname and its origin and applied use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinal 1962 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cardinal 1962: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the specific page London Underground - it is not the place to bring up more general matters. That said, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), the London portions of which were (I believe) agreed more than fifteen years ago - long before I joined Wikipedia (in May 2009). Thryduulf (talk · contribs) was around at the time, I think. Anyway, the place to discuss changes to that convention is at its own talk page, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The London portions of that naming convention pre-date my time on Wikipedia (I joined in late December 2004) - as far as I can tell, they were first written down in one place with this edit by an IP editor in September 2002. The only discussion about it I can find is from mid-2004 which basically agreed with it - Morwen and Timrollpickering from that discussion are still around. The UK station naming conventions were an extension of the London standard based on existing (de-facto) standards where they existed that I proposed following parallel discussions in multiple places. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

12th busiest?

The citation for London having the 12th busiest metro is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems however, by ridership, London's 296 million doesn't even place in the top 30 on that list. I hesitate to edit, however, for fear I am reading the list in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skalchemist (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skalchemist All of the world's metro ridership numbers are up in the air right now - because of COVID-19 pandemic. Note the number of systems with 2018, 2019 or 2020 figures. Comparing ridership levels pre pandemic, London was just off the top 10, yes. Turini2 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at the list as it stood in November 2019 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_metro_systems&oldid=925153763 That list shows London at #13. So I guess what I am questioning is the idea of saying London is definitely the 12th busiest and at the same time saying that metro ridership numbers are up in the air without some extra qualification or citing a specific point in time where that was true, especially when the current list that is being referenced by that very statement does provide any evidence to the claim. Skalchemist (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I deliberately made no claim to the exact number! :) Turini2 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. I see that now. Skalchemist (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Like, saying it is "one of the busiest" or "in the top 50 busiest" or some kind of similar statement would seem to me more accurate. Skalchemist (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Properly, there should be no such claims for London's or any other city's system without support from reliable sources; and so you may wish to remove any claims you find without such support. Bazza (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm just changed the phrase to "one of the busiest". That seems to me a true statement that is supported by the linked list, and avoids the dubious specificity of "12th busiest". Skalchemist (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skalchemist: Twice above, you gave Wikipedia as a citation. You cannot do this, it violates WP:CIRCULAR. You need to use reliable secondary sources. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not the one citing wikipedia, the article is citing wikipedia as the source for the "12th busiest" claim. I'm just reporting what is already in the article. Skalchemist (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize now my wording might be a bit confusing. The article is not referencing the claim to wikipedia (in the sense of a number and an item in the reference list at the end of the article). In that sense there is no reference for the claim. It is hyperlinking the claim to the list on wikipedia mentioned above. Skalchemist (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth line

As a (generally) non-geeky non-Londoner - like most readers - I would have expected to find in this article some mention of other lines that are closely related to (not part of) the London Underground. Readers should not be having to scratch their heads wondering why a new line in London is not covered, or even mentioned to any significant extent, in an article where many would expect to find it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Should be listed in See Also, along with the Overground, DLR etc. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure that's enough. A paragraph on the Underground's relationship with other lines would not go amiss. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The history of the London Underground is inextricably entwined with other railways. The first London Underground line - the Metropolitan - began as a link between other railways: its line from Bishop's Road (where it made an end-on connection with the Great Western) to Farringdon and Smithfield Market included a link to the Great Northern at Kings Cross. One paragraph is far short of what would be required: whole books have been written on, for example, the routes between Finsbury Park, Highgate, Edgware and Barnet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

As an example, the Paris Métro article goes into some reasonable detail about the RER development and how that impacted the Métro. Turini2 (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How about something like this in the TfL era section - some summary sentences, but enough to interest the reader to click further for more.

Under TfL, London's public transport network became more unified with the creation of London Overground in 2007. Throughout the late 2000s and 2010s, existing suburban rail lines across London were upgraded and rebranded, with the former East London line became part of the Overground network. Many Overground stations interchange with Underground ones, and Overground lines were added onto the Tube map.

In the 2010s, the Crossrail project was built at a cost of £XXbn to connect two mainline railways with a new east west tunnel under central London, similar to Paris' Réseau Express Régional. Designed to increase rail capacity and reduce cross London journey times, the line opened as the Elizabeth line in May 2022. Although not part of the Underground, the line connects with many stations, with the project rebuilding and expanding several central Underground stations including Tottenham Court Road.

The history section also needs some more on the 1970-80s malaise (collapse in ridership, spiral of decline, lack of maintenance etc) and the 2000s/2010s resurgence in ridership & upgrade works (including more on the PPP, accessibility etc) Turini2 (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

So I made these edits - and some more about recent TfL era stuff. Tried to be succinct - but made sure to cover the major stuff (PPP and upgrade work, record ridership, 7/7 etc). Still needs more on the 1970-80s malaise (collapse in ridership, spiral of decline, lack of maintenance etc) to be an actual history section rather than just events. Turini2 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Sorry, I forgot we'd actually talked about this and sought consensus on Overground/Elizabeth line inclusion (at a cursory, explanatory level). Sorry about that. Turini2 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Tbh, the DLR could be mentioned, but it would be a bit of a shoehorn. Perhaps in the JLE bit? The Jubilee Line Extension also further connected the Underground to the Docklands Light Railway, which first opened in 1987 to serve the Docklands redevelopment in east London. or in the "TfL has integrated everything" bit. Turini2 (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Murgatroyd49 - only needs to be in See Also. If it's not part of the Underground - and that's made expressly clear in the article - why does it need to be there? The article makes out the EL (and Trams, LOL, DLR) are not part of the Tube/Underground, so any mention of them is (imo) superfluous and a waste of space. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

And if there's some discussion about it, feel free to send a link... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic Ah, but I think it's relevant to the history of the Tube - given the whole purpose of the EL is to reduce overcrowding on the Tube and improve the transport network generally. It gives enough information and context to allow readers to explore further, without going into super detail. As I mention above, the Paris Metro article has a good way of discussing the RER - why it was built and how it impacted the Metro. That's what I was going for!

The Overground gets mentioned because it was part of the Tube, of course. The case for mentioning the DLR ... less so. Turini2 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think it needs quite the same emphasis, is what I was/am trying to say. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turini2 No problem, and I understand the need to mention the EL poaching LU passengers. But I do think that the detail about the cost and being similar to Paris is off-topic for the LU article. (And "connects with many stations" suggests a lot more than "several" which might be more accurate.) Perhaps In the 2010s, the Crossrail project built a new east–west railway tunnel under central London. By increasing rail capacity, the line aims to reduce overcrowding on the Tube and cut cross-London journey times. The railway opened as the Elizabeth line in May 2022. Although not part of the Underground, the line connects with several Underground stations, and the project involved rebuilding and expanding several central Underground stations including Tottenham Court Road and Whitechapel. Bazza (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 That looks good - the reason I left the cost in there was to provide some context about scale of the project - it's not an easy £50m thing, it's a multi billion pound megaproject. Again, just to provide enough information/context to be useful without being overly detailed. Turini2 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Turini2 Glad we agree. I've changed the article to use the text above with the addition of the cost, and a reordering of the sentences to place project first, aims second, and result third.

I haven't looked into the figures, but if the EL has indeed resulted in the anticipated shift of passengers, then a final sentence to reflect that might usefully be added. Bazza (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Great - I think we might have to wait a little for that :) Turini2 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

One option - the absolute minimum necessary, it seems to me - would be to have a subsection in the "See also" section, that lists the other lines (like the Elizabeth line) which link with, and by non-experts are easily confused with, the London Underground. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

There should be more than that. The EL, DLR, Overground, Tramlink and even Thameslink these days appear on the tube map, so a brief section noting what they are is IMHO essential so people new to the tube or looking at the map for the first time know what's going on.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References