Talk:London River Services

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the London River Services article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

London Mid‑importance

	London portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Transport High‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

30 metres?

The article contained the following statement:

The River Thames is generally no more than 30m wide as it runs through central London, ...

Now I know the Thames isn't a hugely wide river, and I don't disagree with the general sentiment of the sentence containing this statement, which is making the point that the river is easily bridgeable. But 30 metres is only the length of three London buses parked nose to tail, and I'm sure you could park many more than that across (say) London Bridge. Also Thames Clippers latest boats are 38 metres long (http://www.thamesclippers.com/fleet/view/193) and would have serious problems turning in a river only 30 metres wide.

I'm therefore going to remove the 30m claim. If you can see a flaw in my reasoning, and can cite a decent reference, please feel free to reinstate. -- Chris j wood (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, using Google maps I now suspect that this was a typo. Throughout central London, the river width seems to vary from around 250m to just under 300m, suggesting that 300m was the intended 'generally no more than' width. I shall reinstate, with amendment. -- Chris j wood (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right place to mention

I deleted this statement from the leisure services section as not being relevent to the transport services.

"During the summer, the Scottish paddle-steamer PS Waverley operates tourist services on the Thames.^[1]"

This is already mentioned in the "operators" section along with other private tour companies. The said section I removed it from is about the tour services that are operated by Transport for London. trainfan01 9:58, 22 August, 2010 (UTC)

Lines

Shouldn't you mention the lines (I mean RB1, RB2 etc)? They are so frequently mentioned when talking about river buses that I suggest they also be mentioned in Wikipedia. The sources are the official TFL website and the official ThamesClippers website: here (TFL), here (TFL) and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.215.120 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference rivtim was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[rivtim-1] Cite error: The named reference rivtim was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]