Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport

Underneath the arches

(Reposted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, where there was no response.)

In urban Britain, railway arches are almost ubiquitous. Searching online finds no end of shops in arches, cafes in arches, businesses run in arches, light industry in arches, arches for rent - almost all contemporary.

But railway arches have been around for at least 187 years. A search on WP finds them all over the place, but the information is all scattered. Does any one know of a history, or other deeper analysis, of railway arches? Sadly, this documentary is focussed on the homeless people in the arches, not the architecture - but they are still part of the bigger picture.

So: a book? website? PhD thesis? Photo essay? Radio or TV documentary? Is there anything out there that gives the arches the attention they surely deserve? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Reposted to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 18:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the ref desk resulted in Draft:Railway arches in London being started. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No progress: I have therefore Userfied the article to User:Verbarson/Railway arches in London, awaiting time and resources to chase it up. If anyone else wants to take it on, feel free. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 13:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility of transport in London

Hi all, I'm working on an expansive draft article on accessibility of transport in London – in a similar style to articles for NYC, Boston and Toronto. Still got a fair bit to go – currently writing the 2010s and 2020s. A few bits that I'd like help on:

• I'm particularly struggling with photos – lifts and wheelchair ramps are not usually photographed, and I haven't found a good photo of the height of the "step" at the rear of a Routemaster, or entry of a high-floor London bus. Managed to get a cabbie to show me his wheelchair ramp though! Suggestions welcome, even for things I should go and photograph myself!
• When did Tottenham Hale LU become accessible with lifts to the Victoria line platforms?
• Did any other stations get retrofitted with lifts for step-free access before 2000?

Other than that, comments on the draft are welcome! Turini2 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on this blurry Routemaster drawing (which is a metricated version of this even more blurry image), the height to the top of the step appears to be about 1' 4" (406 mm).--DavidCane (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The earliest map I have that shows step-free access is dated August 2006 and Tottenham Hale LU is already step-free at that point. I've not found anything more Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to have been installed in 1999. Clive's Underground Line Guides has a list of all the lifts on the network. Going back to the earliest version of the page archived on the Wayback Machine (date stamped 20 January 2000), there is a list of lifts as at 31 December 1998 which does not include a lift at Tottenham Hale. The page archived on 18 June 2000 (date stamped 22 May 2000) has a list of lifts as at 31 December 1999, which does include a lift at Tottenham Hale DavidCane (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

According to page 203 of The Story of London's Underground (Day, John R; Reed, John (2010) [1963]. 11th ed. Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-341-9), the lift works and improvements to the station ticket hall were funded by a £4.5 million investment from Haringey Council and the European Union. It was one of the first step free projects.--DavidCane (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you! Turini2 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is now live at Accessibility of transport in London - edits and links to it welcome! Turini2 (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

And was in Did you know yesterday! Thanks for all your help on this! Turini2 (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Bus maps

Hi all - @Dr. British12 has added a map of bus stops and stations to Kingston bus stations. I'm personally not a fan (especially given the mobile website incompatibility) - but wanted to gain wider thought on the map before I revert it. Turini2 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ajf773 has now reverted this. Turini2 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Albert Redux!

8 August is the 150th anniversary of the birth of Lord Ashfield Chairman of the Underground Electric Railways Company of London from 1910 to 1933 and Chairman of the London Passenger Transport Board from 1933 to 1947. Having previously been a Today's Featured Article in 2011 it has been selected to make a rare second appearance as Today's Featured Article on the main page that day. DavidCane (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Map inaccuracy

I hope this is the right place to post. I came across File:London north-south circulars.svg and it had a note about factual accuracy disputed. On the talk page someone said that the north-eastern bit is not exactly accurate, and after a quick look on maps I think they have a valid argument. It was posted back in 2022 and nobody has replied, so I am raising it here for attention and for anyone who wants to check and maybe correct the lines on the map. Plarety2 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The image is hosted at Commons, so technically doesn't exist here on English Wikipedia. Its talk page is c:File talk:London north-south circulars.svg. However, File talk:London north-south circulars.svg also exists here - its content should be moved to Commons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the background which was woeful and positioned the roads so they more closely correspond to reality.DavidCane (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for British Airways

British Airways has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops

It appears we currently have no List of Tramlink stops, which would probably be a helpful navigation aide regardless. At present, all stops have a standalone article but I'm not convinced that most of them meet the general notability guideline (ie that each individual stop has been written about in depth). Most of them are short articles (between one sentence and a couple of paragraphs) and contain no third-party sources at all. I have looked for coverage of George Street tram stop (because it's currently at AfD) and found mentions but nothing substantial, which leads to two questions: first, is there coverage out there that I haven't found that members of this project might have access to, and if not, how best do we go about merging the articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Streetcars#RfC: Notability and Tramlink stops which concluded that "There does not seem to be any consensus whether these stops are/not notable by themselves".

In terms of coverage, the Tramlink handbook (ISBN 978-1854142221) discusses the stops, but ... they are just stops, it's not substantial detail. In my opinion, the vast majority of the stops are not notable - other than ones that used to be stations. Turini2 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We definitely should have a List of Tramlink stops with at least basic details about each, We could either model it after List of London Underground stations (adjusting the columns as needed), or have a short prose section for each stop (effectively merging the stub articles into one combined article. Both might be possible, but it might be too much for a single article - in which case we could have two articles or the prose-style could be split (Wimbledon-Wandle Park; Sandilands, Lebanon Road and the loop; Lloyd Park to New Addington; and Addiscombe to Beckenham Junction and Elmers End would be the obvious divisions but I don't have any suggestions for naming ottomh). Obviously we should link to any standalone articles or sections that exist (regardless of whether they should).

Beckenham Junction, Elmers End, Birkbeck, East Croydon, West Croydon, Mitcham Junction and Wimbledon should be, and from a quick look, apparently are covered on the article about the railway stations with the same name (Wimbledon, Birkbeck and Elmers End are unambiguously part of the station), and any that were previously heavy rail stations should almost certainly have a single article to cover both. Addiscombe tram stop could perhaps be merged with Bingham Road railway station and similar could be considered for other stops on/adjacent to the site of former stations.

Tramlink#Stops could probably be expanded slightly to discuss the different types of stops (e.g. on and off street, integrated into the station), or this could become part of a prose introduction to the list?

I think it's probably worth getting this/these list(s) set up (after agreement on structure) as a first step and then consider the notability of individual stops as we'll then know what the overlap between current articles and the list(s) is and the merge target will exist for any that are found not to be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Another example would Line 6 Finch West in Toronto - a substantial table in the article that sets out what the stops are, their configuration, any relevant notes and transport connections. In that article, two of the stops have articles due to the size, location and therefore notability. Turini2 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I would support the creation of an article similar to List of Manchester Metrolink tram stops for the Tramlink. However, for the sake of consistency, all should be linked to that page unless they form part of an open station. I would oppose merging any of the Tramlink articles into existing closed station articles. Bingham Road station and Addiscombe tram stop are very different creatures: one was on a 20ft embankment by an overbridge, the other is at street level some distance away. A mention of the tram stop in the closed station article is enough. The same would go for Coombe Lane and Lloyd Park. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The Metrolink list is a very good one to use as a guide. Thankfully Tramlink is a smaller system so should be less of an undertaking. I also agree that Tramlink stops should be treated as separate entities to long-disused stations unless they're on almost exactly the same site/trackbed (and we should defer to the sources on how we treat them). Once the list exists in a useful state, we should probably redirect all the individual articles to it, except possibly those that are part of a National Rail station. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

All the stops that are part of an NR station and covered on that article redirect there (e.g. Wimbledon tram stop → Wimbledon station, Birkbeck tram stop → Birkbeck station) and I wouldn't change that. For the rest I'd only redirect if a BEFORE failed to find anything - I suspect it will in most cases, but my guess isn't a substitute for looking. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to take a representative sample as a basis for redirecting the whole lot. The history will be fully preserved so there's no barrier to someone re-creating the article if they find sources we've missed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Misleading edits to articles on the London Overground lines

I've noticed multiple editors editing articles recently to claim that the six lines of the London Overground are in fact "services" and not "lines", such as this edit by User:Waltforest. This is not only contrary to the use of all reliable sources such as the BBC here, but also contrary to established practice on Wikipedia (e.g. the Bakerloo line article does not state that it is a "service on the Watford DC line"). I understand that there are technical definitions of the term "line" within railway enthusiast communities, but Wikipedia needs to follow the practice of WP:RS in everyday usage. I'm putting this here as a centralized place for discussion rather than using multiple individual article talk pages. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

TfL call them lines, all other reliable sources I've seen call them lines, therefore we should call them lines. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It is incorrect to refer to each of the newly named London Overground services as a "railway line". Your example of the Bakerloo line is a false equivalence as it only uses Watford DC line track for a portion of its route. Better to say "The Weaver line is the service operated by London Overground on the Lea Valley lines between London Liverpool Street and Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield Town", rather than your version which says "The Weaver line is a London Overground railway line which runs from London Liverpool Street to Chingford, Cheshunt and Enfield Town" and removes Lea Valley lines entirely. 'Weaver line' is the name of the service, whilst 'Lea Valley lines' refers to the railway line. Additionally, it is worth remembering that LO is an operator on the National Rail network and that these lines are not part of a separate system like the London Underground. Waltforest (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, editors on the discussions at Talk:Watford_DC_line#Requested move 15 February 2024 and Talk:Watford_DC_line#Requested move 20 November 2024 pointed out this same distinction between lines and services. Adding editors involved in these @MRSC @Blythwood @Awkward42 @DankJae @Redrose64 @Bazza 7 @SHB2000 @Lawrence 979 @MBRZ48 @51.155.116.191 @189.222.202.233 @TedEdwards @Lollipoplollipoplollipop @Patrickov @Elshad @Hammersfan @Sjakkalle @Major Midget @I Like The british Rail Class 483 @10mmsocket Waltforest (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Waltforest do you have any reliable sources backing up your position? Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't refer to these services at all as "lines", especially as reliable sources do refer to them as lines, and "line" is included in all the new names. What is indisputable is the fact these "line" names are names of services operating on railway lines that already have names and Wikipedia articles. Waltforest (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The Network Rail sectional appendix might be of help as it is a reliable sauce which has the railway line names. https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/ I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The Consolidated Agreement (Track Access Agreement) between Network Rail & Arriva Rail London (operator of London Overground for TfL) can be found on the Office of Rail & Road website here; https://www.orr.gov.uk/rail-guidance-compliance/network-access/regulated-networks/network-rail/consolidated-agreements

This is the document that allows Arriva Rail London/London Overground the right to access the Network Rail Infrastructure & Line of Routes detailed within, for the provision of passenger rail services. What London Overground will brand as 'Lines' are referred to as 'Service Groups' - EK01 to EK05, and are detailed extensively as to what they cover. There is no mention of an 'Overground Line' within it.

A London Overground 'Line' is how TfL / London Overground refer to their own services and how they present themselves, it is not uncommon for train operators to have their own 'lines'. However they are still just one operator/service provider among many that make use of Network Rail Infrastructure, that is undeniable. It is easier for outlets such as TfL & the BBC to refer to them as Lines, but we should try not to obfuscate what is a service provided by London Overground, and the Line of Route & infrastructure that they run along, which is part of the national network owned by Network Rail. Major Midget (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

> Your example of the Bakerloo line is a false equivalence as it only uses Watford DC line track for a portion of its route.

I don't see how that's any different to e.g. the Mildmay line only using the West London line track for a portion of its route. Oddly enough it doesn't actually mention anywhere in the Bakerloo line article that its infrastructure for part of its length is known as the "Watford DC line"- which seems to be a bit of an omission.

In common parlance/the use of RS, the existence of a railway "line" as a service says absolutely nothing about the technical administration of the infrastructure in question.

One idea I think would be very useful is for each of these articles to have an "Infrastructure" section- categorization of railway infrastructure is a technical topic which the average reader most likely knows very little about, but it is still definitely useful information that we should report on. In other words, an Infrastructure section on the Bakerloo line article might consist of something like "Between Harrow & Wealdstone and Queen's Park, the Bakerloo line's track infrastructure is operated by National Rail and is categorized as the Watford DC line; between Queen's Park and Elephant & Castle the track infrastructure is operated by the London Underground", potentially going into more detail on the operation of the individual stations and so on.

In the articles on the London Overground lines, such an infrastructure section could explain to the average reader that e.g. the services are operated by Arriva Rail London, the track infrastructure is operated by Network Rail, and that Network Rail's internal classification of its infrastructure is different to the public branding of the lines in question. That would actually provide a good explanation to readers, whereas starting off the lede of an article with something like "the Lioness line is a service on the Watford DC line" provides precisely no explanation to the average reader of what the term "Watford DC line" actually means and assumes that the reader is familiar with the technical terminology of railway infrastructure. Much better for the lede to provide an easily accessible summary of the article, and the article body to go into detail on things like infrastructure.

I wouldn't really be knowledgeable enough to flesh out such infrastructure sections in detail myself- but doing so would explain to the average reader how the internal management of the railways differs from the services that people interact with. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

IMHO one way to address the issue is to make separate articles for the service and the infrastructural lines respectively. For example,

• East London Line and South London Line cover on their historical development (e.g. ELL started identity as ELR and once belonged to LU), with minimal mention of their service amalgamation after LO takeover, using {{main}} to direct readers to Windrush Line for that matter.
• Windrush Line briefly mentions the infrastructural history (with a {{Main}} template directing readers to read East London Line and South London Line), but focuses on what TfL has done (i.e. SLL trains running to ELL upon the link's opening in 2012, and then using one name to identify the services in 2024) and the current service details.

German S-bahn routes and the railways they run on are often written in separate articles (e.g. S41/42 (Berlin) and Berlin Ringbahn). Maybe the same can be done here. Patrickov (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

We also do this. Consider: we have London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, London, Tilbury and Southend line and c2c, all dealing with the same general area. Similarly, Great Western Railway, Great Western Main Line and Great Western Railway (train operating company). I could go on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I agree with that, yes. I think the question is just one of wording.

And also what to do about the Liberty line article specifically, as there had been prior consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport/Archive_12#New_London_Overground_lines that only one article would be required in that particular case thanks to the level of overlap between infrastructure/service, but another user has since reverted the move of Romford–Upminster line to Liberty line so it clearly requires more discussion. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I may rollout a strange opinion: Infact even some of the lines on Underground, are more like "service" rather than "line". Like, the Hammersmith & City and Circle lines simply share all stations and nearly all tracks to each other, also with Metropolitan and District lines. I don't know how to define "line" on these sub-surface network. And in history H&C is just a service branch of Met, and Circle is a combination of Met and District, which it was a "virtual service" until officially showed on map in 1948. Awdqmb (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear why we have the London Overground line/service articles under these names at all? I thought the consensus was these are not yet the common names? There was a requested move that was withdrawn but the consensus had not changed. MRSC (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. The RM to move the three lines Watford DC, Lea Valley and Goblin was strongly opposed, and there has been no discussion or consensus about a potential split. I have reverted those splits, which should not go ahead unless there's agreement to do so. Personally I see no reason to change the longstanding arrangement that those line articles also cover details on the London Overground services that run on them, since there is basically complete overlap between the two (I understand the caveat that some other services such as Balerloo and Greater Anglia services may use sections of those lines, but that has never been an issue before now and shouldn't be one now).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Forgive me for perhaps seeming a little dense, but why are we not treating these new entities in the same way as we have the Elizabeth line; fundamentally, the new named services (for that is what they are) are no different, as most of them operate on infrastructure in between services of varying types operated by other operators, just like the Elizabeth line. Or am I wrong in this conclusion? Hammersfan (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that the Elizabeth line has a long section of dedicated track under central London that is exclusively that line. And in fact, the article you mention, like that of most of the tube lines, is effectively covering two aspects - the physical infrastructure (or at least of that portion which isn't shared with the GWML or the GEML) and the services that run on the line. Watford DC line is essentially the same thing - it's a discussion of the infrastructure, with the service pattern also mentioned. I don't see the logic of splitting that out into a separate Lioness line article when they're one and the same thing, and for the vast majority of other railway lines in the UK we don't provide a dedicated article for the services operating on said line. Looking at this logically, for the past 20+ years Wikipedia has had an article on Watford DC line, which covers both the line and the service; nothing has fundamentally changed to it with the recent rebranding - it's still the same line with the same service - and although there are arguments both ways for which name we give to the article (the recent RM clearly failed to rename it), there isn't a reason to split it out. Unless a solid consensus determines otherwise we should stick with the status quo. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Only just saw this comment. The discussion back in February (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport/Archive_12#New_London_Overground_lines) was about whether separate articles are needed for the physical infrastructure and the service, or whether the two should be covered in the same article- those being the two main options- so I took the lack of support for a move in the RM as implying that the other option (creating new articles) was the way to go. It didn't ever occur to me that anyone might oppose several of the London metro system's lines having their own articles at all because the very idea seems so ludicrous.

The usual process to follow in the event of not supporting the creation of a new article is taking it to AfD rather than unilaterally redirecting. I'd be amazed if there is consensus that several of the lines on one of the world's biggest metro systems should not have their own articles, but I think that's the way to determine it as AfD is more widely viewed than this talk page. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the real problem is: How should we define between services and infrastructre? Just like I mention the sub-surface lines, when H&C and Circle lines simply share most tracks and all stations with each other, along with Met and District lines, I don't think we can consider 4 sub-surface lines as infrastructre. Although mostly we consider a railway line as "should have both independent infrastructre and service." So it's very tricky here. Awdqmb (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Chessrat: thanks for your comment. However, I'm not sure why you would infer from the lack of support for your RM that the articles in question should be split. We don't in fact lack articles for the Suffragette and Lioness lines as you suggest, merely that those topics are redirects, with the topic in question discussed at the target article. As you said yourself at the top of the recent RM, there was consensus to split Mildmay and Windrush but nonsuch consensus in the case of the three mentioned. To be clear, just because TfL has brought in new names for these lines, nothing fundamental has changed and we rarely see separate articles for lines and services. The outcome of the RM (and indeed the one you raised earlier in the year) was emphatically against your proposal to rename the lines, which should have been the end of the matter. Clearly MRSC was surprised by this above too. I don't think AfD is appropriate here as this was not a new article situation but an undiscussed split which I have now reverted. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A redirect is not an article. If Bakerloo line were to be redirected to the Watford DC line article, it would be appropriate to say that the Bakerloo line itself has no article, even if the topic of the service in question were covered on the article about the physical infrastructure.

The article creation was not undiscussed as the discussion on this talk page back in February was fairly clear that either new articles need to be created or existing ones need to be restructured/retargeted. There was never any suggestion that the Overground lines should not have their own articles at all until your unilateral decision.

I'm not sure it's worth me engaging further here; I don't think I can assume good faith editing given the obvious extreme logical flaws in the arguments you express, the sheer ludicrousness of the claim that some of the metro lines in one of the world's largest cities (which have widespread media coverage) should not have Wikipedia articles, and the fact that there has been right-wing politically-motivated opposition to the use of the Overground lines' names involving people e.g. referring to the Suffragette line as the "Goblin line", an entirely fictitious term, solely to avoid having to use the lines' actual names. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "Goblin line" is a "right-wing political name". It's just a nickname, but more from popular culture rather than official naming. Awdqmb (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia.org has said that calling them lines are fine I have contacted Wikipedia and they have allowed me to call them lines.

If you have any criticism please reply and I will be happy to answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisalisonline (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverted your removal of this entire section under WP:TPO. Editors don't ask "Wikipedia.org" for content disputes. DankJae 16:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

...and Faisalisonline's behaviour has been rightly rewarded with a one week block for disruptive editing. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

hey! Faisalisonline (talk) 07:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We now have another actor on the scene, Yiqhvkfb (talk · contribs), who appeared only yesterday and whose edit summaries seem... insistent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I just reverted their Watford DC line edit. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have discussed with him about his reckless movements on NLL page. And strangely he only change NLL page, and forget the Mildmay line also had through service to WLL, which he simply "ignore" the WLL. After this I don't think he will have further movement for now. Awdqmb (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

After making the same edits again this morning, I have repeated the offer to discuss here. I have also requested page protection as his edit warring is disruptive (and now past 3RR) 10mmsocket (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Why the ####### #### do you think they called them line in the first place Yiqhvkfb (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So using your logic we should rename the section of the Great Western Main Line east of Reading the Elizabeth line? Service and infrastructure are two fundamentally different things. Give us a reasoned argument why you believe it to be different? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Freight services that run over the line are not part of London Overground. They run on the infrastructure that would be the North London Line or Gospel Oak to Barking Line etc. I fail to see how they run on e.g. the London Overground's Mildmay Line or the Elizabeth Line. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 19:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

West London line have other NR services by Southern, just like Lea Valley lines. And Elizabeth line simply use the tracks of NR when out of Crossrail section. Awdqmb (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I have come to apologise please reply to me once you have reached a consensus in the meantime i will contribute and Yiqhvkfb is a close friend of mine i will go and talk to them Faisalisonline (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

has the consensus been finalised or is there a date we have to wait for before wikipedia has to make their changes official?😕 Faisalisonline (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I have come to apologise please reply to me once you have reached a consensus in the meantime i will contribute and Yiqhvkfb is a close friend of mine i will go and talk to them Faisalisonline (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Station to be identified

?

Any ideas for this image; one of the London termini. Could it possibly be Paddington? I don't recall any others where parking so close to the platforms was possible. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The track is third-rail electrified, and the rolling stock is 4-VEP. It's certainly not Paddington. Another negative clue is the presence of that cab road - at Padd it comes down between platforms 8 & 9, but platform 8 does not have that swerve in it. So, we want a Southern Region terminus with a cab road coming down between two platforms - that eliminates Charing Cross and, I think, Blackfriars also Cannon Street and Waterloo. This leaves London Bridge or Victoria. I'm not familiar with London Bridge prior to rebuilding, but the geography suggests that a cab road (if there was one) came up from below. I'm going for Victoria. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The National Library of Scotland OS maps are no help here unfortunately! https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=17.4&lat=51.49486&lon=-0.14581&layers=170&b=ESRIWorld&o=100 Turini2 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: It's Victoria, specifically the present platform 15 or former platform 7 (on the Brighton side). In LBSCR days, platforms 2, 5 and 7 had swerves like that, but only 7/8 were broad enough for a cab road. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64 (talk · contribs). I've been using Victoria since the late 70s and don't recall a cab road on the Brighton side at that time. Checking my copy of London's Termini (1969), I can see that there were indeed two - one for each side of the station. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Since 1970 the cab road has been dug out, and two more tracks added (present platforms 16/17) in its place. What was platform 16 when the cab road existed has become the present platform 18. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)