The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at 44 tons, the locomotives of the Central London Railway's first underground trains were so heavy that they shook buildings as they passed 60 feet below and were scrapped after three years?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
"the disused L&SWR tracks north of Hammersmith Grove Road station […] were eventually used for the westward extension of the Piccadilly line from Hammersmith in 1932" – surely that's not right? The Piccadilly line is entirely to the south of Grove Road; the disused L&SWR tracks north of Grove Road were completely abandoned and are now covered in tower blocks. – iridescent21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified this. It was the L&SWR lines from Ravenscourt Park (where the L&SWR line from Grove Road was met by the MDR) to Turnham Green (where the MDR separated from the L&SWR to continue to Chiswick Park). --DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise: the MDR met the LSWR at Studland Road Junction, 38 chains (760 m) west of Hammersmith (MDR) and 6 chains (120 m) east of Ravenscourt Park. See this 1911 map where the LSWR lines are in dark blue, the MDR in orange, the Picc in pink/white, and the Central London in green/white. It's poss that the Picc used part of the LSWR route east of Studland Road Jc, but certainly not all of it: the disused LSWR viaduct may still be seen on the north side of the line between Ravenscourt Park and Hammersmith (Dist/Picc). The situation in the Turnham Green/Chiswick Park area is a bit more complicated, see this 1913 map. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the low-level edit-war erupting on the article, can we please reach some kind of consensus about whether the measurements are given in miles or km? This is a ridiculous thing to editwar over. For the record, I vote km; that's what the sources generally use for the tube lines (the MR/MDR worked in miles and chains). – iridescent20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kilometres. Whilst the construction of the early tubes would also have been in miles and chains. The current records use metric and with no specific reason to prefer an alternative it's best to use what can be proven.--DavidCane (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give whichever one can be reliably sourced, and use the {{convert}} template throughout. Unfortunately, this probably means that historic distances will be in miles (km) and definitely means that modern distances are in km (miles), but it's either change systems midstream or violate WP:NOR. After all, we don't apply the modern term "Central line" to pre-1933 events (I hope). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we describing a railway or a company? Obviously we are descirbing both to a certain extent... but I would argue that the railway is the more important of the two. This distinction matters when considering this undo. I think my edit should stand because when the railway opened is more important than when the company was formed. Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "company that operated a railway", not "railway operated by a company". The railway itself has its own article at Central line; to me, this is an article about the company that built it. – iridescent12:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a fairly neutral commentator, I reviewed this article at WP:GAN and awarded it GA-status. The article is obviously about both the line and the company; but most of the detail is about the physical construction (and funding) of the line. I would argue that it is not really an article about the company (as a company): i.e. there is no mention of (and no information provided about) the shareholders, number of shareholders, number of stocks, price of shares, profit and loss, lists of directors, etc. I would not have awarded GA to this article, if it had been presented as a company history (inadequate scope for the reasons hinted at above). Its really an article about the construction of the line by a company set up for that purpose. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth mentioning that most printed works about railway companies cover the construction and operation, with little given over to the shareholders and other matters mentioned by Pyrotec (except possibly in appendices). That doesn't mean that there are none - the Railway Gazette concentrates on such matters, as does a book I have right here entitled Universal Directory of Railway Officials Railway Year Book 1949-1950, but they're very much in the minority. I believe that our readers will also be primarily interested in construction and operation, not on share prices from 100 years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your usual blunt reply. Robertson (1983) The origins of the Scottish Railway System: 1722-1844, which I have right here is "your" sort of book about railway companies but it also includes the costs of land, the price of shares, the costs of construction per mile; and the break down of capital expenditure. I did not say that that article was unworthy of GA (since I awarded it), nor of being an FA; but it is hardly a history of a company: it is an article about the construction of a railway by a company: discussing design, construction, enginering, Parliamentary processes and relations with other railway companies. Comparable to that of David and Charles "Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain" series (which I and many many other readers like), but not a history of a company. Pyrotec (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a substantial amount of detail about the line c.1900 in "Electric railway engineering" [1] eg see index , plus extensive plates and photgraphs as well. see list starting .. most relates to the electrical parts of the line - more detail than is currently in the article. There are many images and technical diagrams that may be useful as illustrations (it is easy to remove any sepia or staines using a free image editor if needed) - the best quality images will be found in https://ia600309.us.archive.org/1/items/electricrailwaye01pars/ - in particular the files containing jp2 (jpeg2000) files eg electricrailwaye01pars_jp2.zip and electricrailwaye01pars_orig_jp2.tar (more than 200M filesize). It could also be added as an external link. Not going to do this myself, so please make use of this as you see fit.77.86.76.76 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
