Talk:Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters

message: Why is this categorised as hackney? Since the extension does not run through the borough as far as I knew? Jt spratt 22:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line runs through Hackney from Finsbury Park to just north of Manor House station, which is situated within the LB Hackney. But you´re right, it somehow doesn´t feel like it. Most people think there are no tube stations in Hackney. There aren´t as such, as Manor House was originally in the Met. borough of Stoke Newington!.  IsarSteve 23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The extension runs directly beneath Harringay Green Lanes railway station, which was already in existence when the new Picadilly line tunnels were built. Given the quite sizeable gap between Manor House and Turnpike Lane stations, does anyone know why the decision was taken not to build a station beneath Harringay Green Lanes, to provide a direct interchange with GOBLIN? Grunners (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it was for the same reason/s as the deletion of the originally planned link up with Harringay Station. I've written about that in one of the Harringay articles. HughJLF (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  A station was originally planned slighty further north at the junction of Green Lanes and Colina Road, N15 3JA. Now the site of Ventilation shaft. The reason given by Frank Pick for the station's cancellation was new investment in adequate, high frequency electric transport (trolleybuses) between Turnpike Lane station and Manor House station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsarSteve (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no interchange with Green Lanes? 

message: I have recently added content to the Piccadilly line article which makes this article rather redundant. I would like to hear your thoughts on merging this into the main article. Courtesy ping , , , , , . VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't have a problem with a merger, as long as all the points made in this article are covered. Not sure what the Harringay correspondent  feels about this. I'd like to hear his opinion. IsarSteve (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: From my point of view, I have no problem with the merge. I think it might actually be advantageous to include all the info in a single article. the content of this article can be clearly signposted by adding it in a separate section. Hi . HughJLF (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For your information , most (if not all) of this information is cited on the main article now. :D VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I've been surprisingly busy with commercial photography work this year, and have had less time to read and analyze than I would like.  I will try to set aside time later in the week to look more closely.  But, I trust the opinions of the other editors who have also been pinged. Slambo (Speak) 13:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been a little stagnant here. I appreciate if I am able to receive more feedback. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

text:   I've completed the main article. Feel free to take a look at this. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with  on this one. I don't think there's enough information to warrant a dedicated spinoff article. It's less than a tenth of size of its parent now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal