Talk:London Underground/Archive 2

message: I'm trying to bypass links to Westinghouse. Which organization is now supplying signalling apparatus to the London Underground? --Wtshymanski 17:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd, part of Invensys Rail Systems, apparently - see http://www.westsig.co.uk/ --rbrwr± 18:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Wtshymanski 17:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Westinghouse? 

message: From the article it says 'Suicides are nonetheless common, at roughly one per week across the network, though it is estimated that only one in three attempts of this nature end in a fatality.' Does this mean there are three suicide attempts per week of which one is successful. Or that on average, there is a single suicide attempt each week, resulting in a fatality every three weeks? Could somebody with access to the source used to construct this section rewrite it without the ambiguity? --82.37.33.133 6 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
:There are around 50 per year . I will update the article. NickF 6 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
A recent edit says "There have also been a number of derailments in recent years, none of which have resulted in serious injury or loss of life."  Perhaps someone knows the longest temporal gap that has ever been between two derailments, so that the article can then say something like "Although no more than [x time] has ever elapsed without a derailment, those in recent years have not resulted in serious injury or death."  I love the Tube.  President Lethe 01:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: Where is the tube map we all know and love/hate? Is its copyright too restrictive? --Taejo 7 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)
I have added some links about TfL copyright policy to my talk page. I also made a start on a Tube diagram that could be developed as a royalty-free alternative to the official one. I note that Ed g2s has also made some significant contributions to this with his geographically-accurate diagrams, but this is specifically designed to be a jump-off diagram with clickable buttons for stations. --DominicSayers 13:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematic map 

message: I think there's an inaccuracies in the Trivia section:
Oxford circus and Bond Street also have no buildings at or above ground level.
In the case of Oxford Circus this is not strictly correct. The Exit from Oxford Circus on the corner of Oxford St and Argyle Place is through the traditional red tiled Underground building. Presumably the Bond St entrance was of a similar, long demolished design.
No, what was demolished at Bond Street had an elegant façade in Portland stone and glass, designed by Charles Holden. Demolition was only a few years ago, to make way for the shopping centre above the ticket hall. 
It's also not correct that Westminster station has no associated buildings at or above ground level. It was reconstructed for interchange with the Jubilee Line, and to be the base of Portcullis House above; the ticket hall occupies part of the ground floor of the new building. 80.2.144.114 17:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triva  

message: The main LU article seems to be suffering from a form of Wiki decay - in particular, the second half is degenerating into a list of conjecture, trivia and pop culture references, which I'm not too sure belong in the headline article. The style also wanders around all over the place - for instance, the Underground is probably what it should be called in an encyclopaedia, while the underground and the tube seem to crop up throughout the article. It seems to me that a little spring cleaning is necessary. I'm wondering if it would be a nice little project to try and bring a little more structure to the LU and related articles (lines and stations) - the line articles in particular are highly variable in quality, and while the lists of stations in them are useful, I can't help but wonder if they couldn't be presented in a slightly more elegant form.
There's a WikiProject dealing with London articles already, but I wonder if anyone else would be interested in working more specifically on an overhaul of London transportation (LU, DLR, etc) pages?  I think they could be a lot better than they are. --Mpk 22:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting a little messy? 

message: The headline article seems to be suffering rather from wikirot, and it's far too long. I'm tidying things up a bit in an attempt to get the page size down a little and remove some of the repetition. Most notably:
* Most of the PPP stuff has been moved to the LU History entry - frankly, several dense paragraphs of figures and political detail so high up in the main article isn't exactly appealing to the average reader, and I know it gave me a headache..
* Terrorist attack bits have been cleaned up - the 7 July things were duplicated, so I've moved them to one entry in the historical bit of the headline article. I'll also amend the 21 July stuff to "attempted explosions" as they didn't exactly work properly.
* The "popular culture" bit is on my hitlist for moving to a seperate page, and "Trivia" is mostly, er, trivial stuff. The links list could use trimming as well, as it's a little bloated with "Look, here's my page which happens to mention the Underground" entries. --Mpk 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying.. 

message: You know, there's something I missed as a first-time visitor to this page - it would be interesting and useful info to have some ticket pricing available - the only thing I (think) I saw was a smudgy £ 6,00 on the photo of the ticket...
--Janke | Talk 14:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of different types of ticket and a lot of different ticket prices, so a full list would make for a tedious and lengthy table which would very quickly go out of late. I've added a link to the Transport for London ticket pages. --Mpk 15:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link is good, but a bit buried in all the other stuff... No, I didn't mean that there should be a complete list, just an example or two - for instance, the New York Subway page states that the basic fare is $ 2.00 - and that's nice to know, I can compare it with the 2 euro fare here in Helsinki, for instance. So how about it - is the price of a single ticket within central London too much to keep updated? ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be found here Travelcard Zone 1. MRSC 10:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it's easy for the NYC Subway, which has a flat fare for virtually all journeys. The price of a Zone 1 single in London is going up to £3 next year (currently £2 if issued on paper), but since hardly anyone actually buys zone 1 singles unless they're planning on only making, well, one journey that day (even a one-day travelcard is enormously cheaper) it's not really appropriate for a direct comparison. The zonal system also makes it harder to compare fares across systems - you'd have to look at the various zonal variations of single fares (and they're priced differently if on paper or Oyster pre-pay) and Travelcards and so on. Direct comparisons of fares on different transport networks are, in short, very hard to do (unless you're the Daily Mail and know what result you're looking to show). --Mpk 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ticket prices 

message: While I can't forget the shock when the Underground went into attack (and  I don't want to go into detalis, but it affected me more than other tragedies of the new millenium - just one day after London won over Paris and my city and I enjoyed it!), I find the splitting of the history in "Atentats" and "The rest" a bit annoying. It's not like nothing happened in the last century. Plus it's feeding the tendencies in the kind of lunatics who might believe they will get a place in heaven and in civilized world history.--Luci S 07:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Atentats

message: I heard on CNN that the union there (the RMT, I think?) plans to call a New Years Strike. Does this count as a newsworthy story, seeing as how we just got over ours? Pacific Coast Highway(Spam me!) 31 December 2005
:The strike is on at the moment but it is only station staff and not the drivers so not anywhere near as major as the NYC one. Eight hours in and the stations highlighted in red on this page  are currently closed due to lack of staff (although this keeps changing). All lines continue to run and probably will througout the strike. MRSC 20:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Years Strike? 

message: The lists of trivia points about the Underground and pop culture references thereto are getting far too long to be on the headline page. I'm going to move them off onto their own pages if nobody objects. Well, if not too many people object, really. --Mpk 01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, nobody objected so I've done this, and categorised the various bits of information to boot - see London Underground Trivia and London Underground in popular culture.  --Mpk 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia / Pop Culture

message: I intend to split off most of the Ticketing section into a new article of its own, leaving a shorter summary in its place - there's definitely room for a quick rundown of ticketing in the main page, but the current section rather dominates the rest of the article. Also, the "Future developments" section might be best moved into the existing History page and a summary rolled into the current historical summary. Any objections? --Mpk 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Willkm 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done this today - see London Underground ticketing. --Mpk 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ticketing / History

message: User:Odong saw fit to slap an expert-review-needed tag on the article, which I think does it a bit of a discourtesy. If anyone can point out any major areas where factual analysis is needed then I'd be delighted to put it back, but I didn't really think it was fair to tag the article in its current state. --Mpk 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mind me, but there's a great start-up article about tunnels here.   Deano (Talk) 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A lot of the stuff you're talking about can be found in History of the London Underground (as linked from the top of the History section - it certainly covers the early steam workings and advances in tunnelling shields. If you want to point out inaccuracies, then feel free to do so, or hey, correct them. Tube map (also linked from within the article) covers the history of the Tube map. Thing is, this is the headline article — it's pretty big as it is — and so there isn't space for a full coverage of everything Underground-related, much of which is split out into other pages. I know a few places myself where the page needs a tidy (the Ticketing section is about to be split out to another page, for instance), but if you want to contribute, then of course you're more than welcome to do so. --Mpk 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Experts needed?

message: * Will do soon, big question does anyone have a comprehensive list of disused stations and their dates of closure--Odong 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed stations 

message: I've clipped the historical factoids from the line table in order to keep its size down. The individual line pages include plenty of historical data anyway, and the footnotes were taking up a lot of vertical space. --Mpk 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical factoids 

message: So an anon changes the Annual entry/exit figure in the Tufnell Park tube station infobox. There is no source listed for this info, nor any date. I have no way of verifying it at all. I can walk to the station and verify every other fact except the opening date (which at least doesnt change). Inclined to just delete this info from the template if it remains uncited unverified and subject to change like this. Anyone prepared to fix this? Justinc 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 404 not found. Justinc 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/performance-update/entriesandexits.asp seems to work fine for me. --Mpk 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Working now, and it turns out that the current figure is correct. Still begs the questions of whether we want such information in infoboxes without references in teh box. Maybe they should all be footnoted. Personally I dont like undated information - its more almanac than encyclopaedia. If the figures are worthwhile, then they are worth having for every year so you can compare. If they arent, dont have them at all. Would be an improvement to add the year and a hyperlink to the source on each one. Justinc 23:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A hyperlink would be good, perhaps using the format: "<exits> (year) [link]" (e.g. "2.4 million (2005) "). Thryduulf 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox facts 

message: I reverted the addition of the tube map to this page as the copyright issues are dubious at best. --Mpk 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tube maps 

message: I wanted to add this box to the article, but I wanna check for some inaccuracies first. Correct at will. Pacific Coast Highway (blah) 03:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the name of the country is the United Kingdom. "London, England" is generally only a term used on the other side of the Atlantic. --Mike 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rail infobox 

message: I use the Tube nearly everyday. This article, although informative doesn't mention how frequent delays are (any data on the scale of this?). Perhaps a list of causes should be included: signal failures, defective trains, "passenger action", non-availability of staff etc etc. - the things that daily Tube users are all too familiar with. Snow & heavy rain are almost guaranteed to bring the system to its knees. Without this info, the article lacks something in the reality department.
:Feel free to add it if it is verifiable and can be written in accordance with the NPOV policy - i.e. report the facts that there are lots of problems, citing reliable sources for this, don't write a rant. Thryduulf 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Rose-tinted? 

message: # - Estarriol 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for 'full stop'

message: # - President Lethe 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for 'period' and 'full stop'

message: I have requested this page to be protected, so this pointless (ho-ho! :) edit war can be resolved calmly. Regards, MartinRe 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should use blobdot rather than period? (*ducks under cover - luckily the Americans won't get the joke*) Noisy | Talk 18:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) President Lethe 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe I'm too strict with my definition of reversion, but I think "Twenty" is hyperbole. Editors went back and forth with different things. Some edits were indeed simple reversions. But many other instances of 'reversion' were more like "A, B, modified A offered as compromise", not plain old "A, B, A". President Lethe 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe to help lighten up over this thoroughly ridiculous argument, users should zoom in on :Image:London Underground subsurface and tube trains.jpg and take a look at what the train driver things of this discussion ;) BigBlueFish 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) The train on the left brings back fond memories of the Metropolitan Line on its way south from Northwood and Moor Park. President Lethe 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm down folks

message: Despite loving care for full (or partial) stops, no info at all about fares on Tube. Surely the Mayor's strategy is lost: "Between 1984 and 1999 the real price of public transport fares increased by over 40 per cent, compared to a slight reduction in the cost of motoring."
This Yankee wonders: What has been the history, say 1925-2005, of fares on Tube?
Craig Bolon 00:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to do such a survey, I'm sure that it would fit best on London Underground ticketing rather than the headline article (which is getting rather bloated again - maybe time for another chainsaw edit..) --Mike 14:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fares