Talk:Metropolitan Railway

message: The route map doesnt make sense to me (Do they ever?) Where are all the stations mentioned in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.86.83 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To make the route map more compact, it contains concealed sections. You need to click on [show] on the right hand side to see the hidden bits.--DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why I drew it like this; perhaps it was just a copy from the Metropolitan line. At the moment the directions are right: up is up and down is down! Please let me look and see if there's a reason. Edgepedia (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dkbottomley. I've taken a look at the route maps on West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line articles, and they have London on the bottom, so I'm sure what you suggest would be fine. I'm going to be away for a couple weeks, but I will check in when I get back. Edgepedia (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, it would have been better to start a new section for this discussion; would have made it easier to find. No problem though. Edgepedia (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Suggested by  on 12 December 2009 to split into Metropolitan Railway and Metropolitan District Railway. MRSC (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somebody had better get on with fixing all the bad District-specific links. I've just found and fixed  piece of utter tosh. How many pages link to Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways and thus redirect to Metropolitan Railway when they should really link to Metropolitan District Railway? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  there are no longer any pages in Article or Template space which link to Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways; I've amended them all to point at the relevant one, and in some cases both, see for example . --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: Did the Met have a King's Cross station. The 1874 OS map shows a station south east of the main station, which is named on an 1899 map as King's Cross (Metropolitn), located on the Widened Lines. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the original building is still there, though a bit disguised. The platforms were moved in 1941.--DavidCane (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, that means the East Coast Main Line diagram is about as accurate as I can get it around King's Cross (at least, it was!). The  needs the station adding, and the King's Cross railway station needs a section adding on the Metropolitan station. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At King's Cross, the 1863-1941 Metropolitan station and the Widened Lines/Midland City/Thameslink station were essentially two halves of the same four-platform station, with a wall down the middle - a situation akin to the present Farringdon station. Indeed, Butt makes no distinction - see p. 134, entries titled "KING'S CROSS Met", "KING'S CROSS AND St PANCRAS Met", "KING'S CROSS St PANCRAS LPTB", "KING'S CROSS MIDLAND CITY BRB", "KING'S CROSS THAMESLINK" BRB". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I have a 1913 photo which shows no wall, just an island platform in the middle, Widened Lines one side, Met and Circle the other. Also there are some images here Edgepedia (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, that means that the wall was a later addition, possibly dating to around the time that the present Met/Cir/H&C station was opened. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: King's Cross

message: I've made a major update over the last few days, based heavily on Green, Oliver (1987). The London Underground — An illustrated history. I will be coming back in a few days to write a lead based on the current article, but I'm going to look for more sources; for example Green mentions freight but gives no details. The first underground railway will be 150 years old on 10 January 2013, it would be great to get this to featured status and on the main page on that day. Edgepedia (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I have spotted "Extension east to Aldergate (now Moorgate) had already been planned as quadruple track between King's Cross and Aldergate so the City Widened Lines were built.  Moorgate  opened on 23 December 1865". My problem is that there wasn't an "Aldergate" station. There was "Aldersgate", but that is now Barbican, not Moorgate. According to Rose, both "Aldersgate Street" and "Moorgate" were opened 23 Dec 1865, so the date is correct anyway. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, carelessness on my part; should have looked at the map. Hopefully I now have the correct dates; Green and Bruce say Moorgate Street 23 Dec 1865; Bruce says the widened lines opened to there 1 July 1866.Edgepedia (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aldergate? 

message: Does anyone have a source for this? There is , but this appears to self-published. My books are silent on this. Edgepedia (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tfl will do. Edgepedia (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about The Story of London's Underground by John R. Day? Any edition will do: in the first (pub. 1963) it's on p. 1, similarly with the 2nd (1966), 4th (1971) and 6th (1979) eds; in the 10th (2008) it's stated twice, on pp. 7, 8; it's certain to be in all those in between, and is probably also in the 11th edition (2010) too. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've put that one before someone suggests that TfL has a COI. Edgepedia (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Underground Railway in the World 

message: My intent is to list this article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates in the next few days, unless anyone has any adverse comments. Edgepedia (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: ;London Passenger Transport Board, 1933 section
The text in the article is "In 1913, the MR had refused a merger proposal made by the UERL and it remained stubbornly independent under the leadership of Robert Selbie"; the next reference is Green p 43 which starts After rejecting the Combine's proposals for a merger in 1913, the Metropolitan maintained a determined independence from its fellow Underground operator for 20 years. The Metropolitan's development for this period ... guided by its able General Manager Robert Hope Selbie .... Not seeing the problem at the moment. Edgepedia (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the two sentences are on such different subjects, it is not obvious that they can both be supported by the same citation. Just repeat the source at the end of the first sentence. --DavidCane (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed tag 

message: There is a brief reference to Metropolitan Railway Country Estates under the heading Metro-land  1914-32.  MRCE was floated on the Stock Exchange in 1919 and became a substantial housebuider in its own right - possibly one of the largest in the 1950s. Its main operating associate, Whelmar, was sold to Christian Salvesen in 1968 and the remainder of the business was taken over by Guardian Royal Exchange in 1971.
Is there a case for a separate entry on MRCE?
Bebington (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean an Metropolitan Railway Country Estates article I believe that the company is notable. It became independent in 1933 on the creation of the LPTB. Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRCE 

message: Which was the first station built for the Metropolitan Railway? Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years  15:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Simply south. When the Metropolitan Railway opened on 10 January 1863 (as detailed at Metropolitan Railway#Opening), all seven stations opened at the same time. Jackson doesn't give much detail as to their construction except to say that Farrington Street was a temporary wooden structure (this moved a couple of years later) and they do not appear to have been well received at the time.(see Jackson, pp. 24&25 for more details) I don't see that building one station is of much use to a railway company as they needed all seven to run a service. Does this help? Or perhaps you could re-phase the question if I have mis-understood. Edgepedia (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Station 

message: Some aspects of the map at File:Completing the Circle.svg look wrong:
# Whitechapel has a circle on the green and grey lines, presumably indicating that it is an interchange station, but it is not shown as an interchange station on the black line. The article on Whitechapel station suggests that it was an interchange station from 1884.
# The circle for Whitechapel on the green and grey lines is shown as some distance away from the station mark on the black line, but in fact the platforms are in the same location, at the scale of this map.
# The closed Tower of London station has the label "Tower of London St." but there is no Tower of London Street, and the station was never called anything except "Tower of London" until it was reopened in a larger form as "Tower Hill". The "St." should be removed.
Winstonsmith99 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Winstonsmith. I think the 'St.' was supposed to mean station, but I've removed it as it's confusing. Regarding Whitechapel station, as far as I can make out, the District Railway station opened in 1884 as Whitechapel (Mile End) (according to Rose), or Whitechapel & Mile End (according to Crossrail), separate from the East London Railway station, see the previous link. To try and capture this I've placed two circles as close as I can. This is what Jackson has done in his diagram on page 111 in his book. Edgepedia (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that looks much better. I haven't read Jackson, but at least the map looks plausible now.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map File:Completing the Circle.svg 

message: Is it really necessary for this article to specify that London is in England? I thought there was a "too obvious to specify" clause for world cities, and the like. I've reverted it twice, though, so will leave others to decide what to do. I am not up for a fist fight over it! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it needs to be linked. I've looked for guidance that I read some time ago saying that it too well known, but can't find it. Edgepedia (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Edgepedia. Well, certainly, if we link it then we will help the unknown (but presumably, er, very large) number of people who could glance at the article, or read its lead, or whatever, and have absolutely no idea about where in the world it could possibly be. :)  (I must say that I had to read it right through several times before realizing it was not about London, Ontario, London, Minnesota or London, Kiribati). And I would certainly find just "London" a lot easier on the eye and ear than the repellent and alien formula "London, England" which I find ... challenging, in the extreme. So yes, why not just link the word? Then it doesn't read stupid, and if someone really really really doesn't know where they are then salvation is a mere click away. This sounds like a good compromise to me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! DBaK (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  London, England? 

message: There was a little confusion surrounding this word. Should I link it termini ? Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea - it aids clarity and doesn't harm readability. DBaK (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termini 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Metropolitan Railway. 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/20140626104202/http://kesr.org.uk/stock-register/coaching-stock/14-stock/coaches/109-no-100 to http://www.kesr.org.uk/stock-register/coaching-stock/14-stock/coaches/109-no-100
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407071607/http://www.spavalleyrailway.co.uk/enthusiasts/Stock_List/ to http://www.spavalleyrailway.co.uk/enthusiasts/Stock_List/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Metropolitan Railway. 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/20120204105155/http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/Met1.HTM to http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/Met1.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See  for article on opening which has image of opening likely in public domain.  Article is too nicely together for me to (possibly diruptively) add it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the pic of people sitting in two open goods wagons, lettered "S&K"? That is not the opening, it is "a distinguished party of people being conveyed in open wagons to inspect the Metropolitan Railway under construction on 24th May 1862" (Day & Reed, The Story of London's Underground (10th edn), p. 13), so the event concerned is more than six months before opening. This photo (which is © London Transport Museum) has been reproduced in several works, and has given rise to the mistaken impression that the early passenger coaches of the Met were roofless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference with image of opening 

message: In the lede; this sentence is confusing me...
Former Met tracks and stations are used by the London Underground's Metropolitan, Circle, District, Hammersmith & City, Piccadilly, Jubilee and <B>Victoria lines</b>, and by Chiltern Railways and Great Northern.</I>
What stations or tracks of the present day Victoria line are former Met line? I find nothing in the article to support the claim that the Met Railway built any infrastructure that was later used for the Victoria line.
184.13.79.204 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you open up the "Edit" tab to examine the passage concerned, you will find: and Victoria lines The GNCR here is the Great Northern and City Railway, which was owned by the Metropolitan for twenty years (1913-33), so it's technically true. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. 184.13.79.204 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoria line