Talk:London Underground/Archive 1

message: Buses in the UK were deregulated in 1985, except in London and Northern Ireland where contracts are let for specified services on specified routes by public bodies. In these areas there is a degree of stability and the promotion of network maps, zonal fare schemes and the signage of stopping places and timetables is therefore relatively practicable. 
Deregulation is by contrast really very messy, and I hope it isn't extended. In Edinburgh for example it's virtually impossible to work out some of the routes! There is also a lot of wasted capacity due to competition, etc.
On the same subject, some reference should be made to Transport For London, the new umbrella organisation that has now got the Docklands Light Railway and London Transport under one roof (excuse the pun). -- Dweir
The entry may lead some to confuse LT Cards with Travelcards. Travelcards allow the user to travel on most forms of public transport within the zones for which they are valid (including National Rail trains), whereas LT Cards allow travel only on most Tubes and buses. Some services remain outside the LT Card and Travelcard schemes. -- Robert Brook 20:26, 18 November 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write that bit - I changed it from "farecards" to LT Cards; remember Travelcards are off-peak only, and no mention is made here to suburban rail or non-tube/DLR services, so I thought LT Cards would be the best drop-in replacement for the ambiguous farecards until I can refactor that bit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweir (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 November 2001 (UTC)

text: Sorry! I've always felt like a second-class citizen having used one day travelcards on each visit. Now I know why. Also, any ideas why the Bakerloo is so hot and stuffy north of Regent's Park? And, any Londoners (perhaps you Robert) who know how to get a cheap trip on the tube want to refactor the ticketing paragraph? --Dweir 21:24, 18 November 2001 (UTC)
thread_title: Deregulation

message: I removed "Sadly" from the Access area because that just plain POV emotion. Paul Weaver 22:01, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's a bit mawkish. But you could have replaced it with 'unfortunately'. -- Tarquin 22:50, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Good call. For something as clear cut as that you probably don't even have to boterh mentioning it on the talk page. But thanks anyway. :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Why does the first para need to explain that London is the capital of the UK? If every article which mentions London did this, it would be somewhat annoying, to put it mildly. People reading the article who don't know what London is need only to click London to find out that it is indeed the capital of the UK and England. As that's what wikipedia is good at, it seems a bit odd to make this article's opening paragraph inelegant with this extra wording. --Nevilley 08:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it: it has only been in since the 21st and I think the article read fine without it. --Nevilley 08:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital of the UK? 

message: If in doubt about some matter of detail like a station history, you should probably check with the London Transport Museum. When stuck, I did, and they have more detail than I thought possible. They have a research service and self-service stuff at the museum site and so on - details on their website. I hope this is helpful. Anon. --82.35.17.203 08:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to editors - station histories etc 

message: I just visited London for the first time and was impressed at the care taken to incorporate station-name-related tilework in many of the stations.  I didn't see anything anywhere about when these designs were added or by whom or whether there was some kind of art subsidy or-- I dunno, anything about them at all.  Anyone know anything about these?  Elf | Talk 00:15, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tile wall decor in stations 

message: Revised the text in expansion to relate the current state of the T5 project (a.k.a. PiccEx).  I will alter when various milestones (e.g. completion of the bored tunnels or T5 station) happen.
Apologies here to VampWillow for disconnecting her addition from the T5 project: while LUL may be planning to add extra Picc line tracks to increase capacity between central London and Heathrow, the extra tracks are not required to open T5, which expects to be well-enough served by the existing two roads.
20:31, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) User:Ecb
:no ptob to me (I don't remember adding anything about T5 int he first place!). btw. if you use four '~' is will add your name to the date which helps people in following threads. --VampWillow 21:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heathrow Terminal 5 expansion

message: Accoriding to b3ta.com[] (not appropriate for all ages), tannoy announcements on the underground that direct "Inspector Sands" to a specific location indicate that this location has had a fire alarm trigerred. Is this still in use? Should it be included?
--Joshtek 00:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's very much still in use. I often hear it at Canada Water. It's normally "Would Inspector Sands please come to the operations room", jguk 15:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tannoy Terminology

message: Is "St John's Wood is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'mackerel'." some sort of inside joke among Brits? --SPUI (talk) 01:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, I'm not in on it. Rd232 11:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It came from a quiz question, which - for what reason I do not know - became quite popular and was used in more and more quizzes, making it (but not necessarily the answer) quite well known. It's not a joke. It was presumably added so that if anyone is coming to the page looking for an answer to "what is the only London Underground station that does not include any of the letters in the word mackerel" they will find the answer. Kind regards, jguk 12:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mackerel?

message: The changes I made today were mostly tryng to develop a better structure, plus minor additions. The History section still needs a summary from the daughter article, but I've had enough for now. Rd232 11:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring