Talk:London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

Car Classification

I changed DT to CT, which is the commonly accepted designation, as DT is often an abbreviation for Double-Truck (or 'bogie'). Useddenim (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by C2A

Moved from User talk:Useddenim

As you have asked, I have now discussed why I was removing the mention of ELL. You have not replied though for almost an entire week. If there is no reply to that discussion in the next few days I might have to make the same change again. C2A (About | Call | Edits) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopaedia is supposed to be complete. Just because something happened before you were born doesn't mean that it's not important (even though it may not be important to you). You may (or may not) have noticed that four editors (Lochinaness, DavidCane, Rodw & Redrose64) have revised the page (two substantially) but chose to retain mention of the East London Line despite much rewording. Also, veiled threats are not appreciated, so I suggest that you think long and hard before resuming your edit war. Useddenim (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@C2A: Discussions about the content of an article belong on the talk page for that article, i.e. Talk:London Underground rolling stock numbering and classification. Recent discussion there is ... er, nil. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Despite this discussion being over a year ago, I think I now have a better reason why to remove the mention of the East London Line. See my points below.

Firstly, this is the only article besides the main London Underground to include the East London Line formerly being part of the Underground. It's not relevant to the article, it's pointless information, and is already mentioned on the main London Underground article.
The East London line was often just treated as part of the Metropolitan line. It used the same rolling stock, was built by the Metropolitan Railway Company, was built as an East London branch of the Metropolitan line, and was classified that way until 1990 when it received its distinctive orange colour on the Tube map, and was classified as a separate line.
It was also an extremely short line, second shortest overall, and of course, as we all know, is no longer part of the Underground and should not be necessary to mention in this article, which is about the history of the numbering and classification system used by the London Underground.
Also, despite not being that relevant to the discussion, I would like to point out that several editors, e.g. Cards84464, started to oppose me after I repeatedly made those changes, start classing my edits as being disruptive (when they obviously weren't), and tell me to read extremely vague links, especially WP:NOTGETTINGIT. He was simply wikistalking me, and simply chose to butt into a topic which they knew absolutely nothing about (see diffs [1], [2], [3] and [4]).

Anyways, as per my points above, I personally think that the mention of the East London line is pointless and unnecessary in an article like this. I will wait for a while before making my change, but if I don't get a response, I will make the change to notify other editors of the discussion on this talk page, and they will hopefully give their opinions on whether it should be included. Thanks, sent from C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 10:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The East London line was often just treated as part of the Metropolitan line. It used the same rolling stock, was built by the Metropolitan Railway Company, was built as an East London branch of the Metropolitan line Wrong, very wrong. The East London Railway was incorporated in 1865, opening in 1869 with passenger trains worked by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, and goods trains by the Great Eastern Railway; from 1880, passenger trains were also provided by the South Eastern Railway. There was no connection with the Metropolitan until 1884 when a connecting curve was opened at Whitechapel, soon after which the line was leased jointly to no less than five (later six) railways, of which the Metropolitan was just one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still was eventually classified as part of the Met until the 1980s, during which time it was a branch of the Metropolitan line and eventually did use the same rolling stock, London Underground A60 and A62 Stock. In the 1980s, it did become its own line, but closed in 2007. So from 1869 until 1884, and from 1990 until 2007, it was a seperate line. However for the remainder of the time it existed, from 1884 until 1990, it was part of the Met for around 100 out of 140 years. So it was still part of the Metropolitan line for the majority of its period of existence. Also, what about my first point? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 15:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see diff [5] which was part of a much earlier discussion on this topic. Thanks, C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, I may have been wrong on some of my points, and thanks for pointing out the correct statements, but I have opened this discussion so I can hear about other editors opinions about whether the mention of the East London Line is necessary in the article or not. I think it's pointless and unnecessary, but what is your opinion on whether we should include it, unless you are only here to add a general comment? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 07:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A60/A62 stock wasn't used on the East London until 1977. I suggest that you obtain two books:

Day, John R.; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. "The East London Railway: the Birth of the Tunnelling Shield". The Story of London's Underground (10th ed.). Harrow: Capital Transport. pp. 34–37. ISBN 978-1-85414-316-7.
Bruce, J. Graeme (1983) [1970]. "The East London Line". Steam to Silver: A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. pp. 44–45. ISBN 0-904711-45-5.

Both of these have run to several editions; the later editions give a more complete story, and not just for later events. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK Thanks C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]