Talk:London Underground/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about London Underground. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Tracks

I was on the underground a few days ago, and noticed that each line had four rails rather than the standard overground two. There doesn't seem to be an obvious reason for this, and the trains appeared to only use two. The article on infrastructure doesn't seem to mention this. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the infrastructure section of the main London Underground article. Have a look at railway electrification system, third rail and fourth rail for more detail. DrFrench (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey. The Track guarge is not 1.435 mm it is 1.435 m !!! ( Jonas, Germany) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.209.24 (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hackney

It is not strictly true to say that L. B. Hackney is "not served" by the underground: Finsbury Park and Moorgate stations are each within a few yards of the borough boundary, and I think one of the exits of Old Street station is in the borough. Ehrenkater (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been queried before. The local councils all say that the whole of the station is within LB Islington D-Notice (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The station physically straddles the border with Haringey, the postal address of Manor House station is in Hackney. It is therefore misleading to claim that Hackney is not served by the Underground. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

LIRR nonsense

The claims being made that the LIRR counts as an "underground railway" simply be viture of the fact that it included a short cutting that was later turned into a tunnel are clearly unwarranted. It's clear from Cobble Hill Tunnel that the original cutting was built to overcome the local topography for a small part of the original line's length, rather than being - as with the Metropolitan line - a conscious decision to place an railway almost entirely underground because it could not be run on the surface. There are plenty of places where railway tunnels pass under parts of towns or cities - e.g. Tunbridge Wells - but we rightly do not regard them as "underground railways" in the accepted meaning of the term. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for LU being the oldest underground railway in the world, including many google scholar hits where even just what's displayed in google scholar supports the fact that LU is the oldest. There are also many reliable news sources that also think it is the oldest:

I'm sure I could go on but I think I've made my point. There's so many I'm not even sure which is the best source to put in the article. Dpmuk (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Roundelfamily.jpg

The image Image:Roundelfamily.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

W&C Line Operating Date

In the table under "Infrastructure", "Stations and Lines" the Waterloo & City Line has a "First Operated" date of 1898. However it was not operated by LUL until 1994 (previously operated by Southern Railway, BR), surely this should be changed? mallardtheduck (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The first operated date is supposed to be when the line came into use rather than when London Underground started operating it but I have added an extra note for the W&CR date of 1898. --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Underground London (discussion moved from User Talk:DanielRigal & Cobble Hill Tunnel)

Note: The context of this discussion is whether the Cobble Hill Tunnel pre-empts the London Underground as the first metro system or underground railway.

Lets compromise. How bout we say longest continuously run underground railway system (although the first built was the Cobble Hill) ? 208.120.47.96 (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Because Cobble Hill isn't an underground railway system. It is just a railway tunnel in an overground railway line. If it really is the first ever railway tunnel then it can be mentioned in that context, perhaps as a precursor to the talk of cut and cover tunnelling. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind me chipping in, bear in mind that the Metropolitan must surely be considered an Underground railway because it opened with most of its stations below ground. On the other hand, Cobble Hill contained no station or platform infrastructure below ground. It was just a tunnel, as pointed out above. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. According to Newsday it was extended 2,750 feet and was 30 feet below the ground. [1]. Built in 1844 under the direction of Vanderbuilt [2]. It ran until 1859, a few years prior to the opening of the London Underground.
According to the dictionary a subway is : an underground way: as a: a passage under a street (as for pedestrians, power cables, or water or gas mains) b: a usually electric underground railway c: underpass [3] [4]. It ran below traffic, underneath city streets [5].
A railway is by definition [6] ; especially : a railroad operating with light equipment or within a small area. It is a railway!
The Cobble Hill Tunnell was in fact an underground railway, as well as a subway. It is officially the world's oldest subway tunnel. [7] [8] . Just because something doesn't fit your definition does not mean its not what the conventional definition is. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition the links will tell you that it is infact a cut and cover tunnel. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just read Tunnel#In history. Guess what? It lists several railway tunnels prior to 1844. One in 1794 carried horse drawn vehicles on rail track and one in 1804 carried steam trains. It is also clear that longer and more advanced tunnels than Cobble Hill existed prior to it, which isn't even listed in the article. Two railway tunnels were running under the streets of Liverpool by 1830. I am not sure what Cobble Hill might actually be the first of, but it isn't the first railway tunnel by a long stretch. I am almost tempted to remove its claim of priority from other articles, but I will wait and see if it can be clarified first. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

good research. the box tunnel didn't run underneath city streets. we need further research on Lime St Station tunnel. the [Wapping Tunnel]] appears to have operated trams not trains. the Crown Street Station might be a strong possibility. the slight problem is that its one source is a WIKI [9]. If any of these are approved than the claim by both the underground and cobble hill will be for not. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Were any stations on these tunnels below ground? If not, then the Metropolitan was first! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

having stations underneath means nothing. you are creating your own definition of what we are discussing. the dictionary says differently. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] The assertion that Cobble Hill tunnel is the "earliest underground railway system" in the world relies on:

Ignoring earlier railway tunnels because they didn't run under streets, e.g. Box tunnel (1836-1841) and the Sapperton Railway tunnels (1839).
Ignoring earlier railway tunnels that did run under towns because you don't like the given source, e.g. The tunnels on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&MR). Here's another source for that one. And another.

The evidence indicates that clearly:

There are earlier railway tunnels than Cobble Hill.
There are earlier railway tunnels than Cobble Hill that run under towns.

So the Cobble Hill tunnel claim fails on both of these criteria. However, none of these tunnels, Box, Sapperton, L&MR or Cobble Hill, or any other tunnel still to be suggested represents an underground railway system as such; they are, all of them, just railway tunnels. An underground railway system, constitutes more than just a route between two points taking the shortest line by digging through a hill; it involves a deliberate plan to place the railway underground out of the way of surface activities including, most importantly, the stations. It is this that makes the London Underground the first such system in the world. --DavidCane (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

a WIKI is not a reliable source. i saw the other sources, they aren't much more than blogs. There are earlier tunnels than cobble hill, but are they necessarily a subway ? a subway is an underground way: as a: a passage under a street (as for pedestrians, power cables, or water or gas mains) b: a usually electric underground railway. the [[London Underground#Rollry/subway . Cobble Hill is the first underground subway tunnel as per numerous sources. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are chosing the facts to suit your preference and have also changed your claim that Cobble Hill tunnel was the world's first underground railway system to it being the first subway. I have ignored the Liverpool wiki site, but the two subbrit sources are clearly not blogs. They are certainly more rigorously written that the advertorials for the Cobble Hill Tunnel.

The Merriam Webster definition of subway is interesting:

If we consider the first, general, definition; a subway is just "an underground way". There were numerous of these in existence before Cobble Hill - going back to the times of antiquity - some for pedestrians, some for canals, some for railways
If we consider the second, more specifc definition; a subway is "a passage under a street" for pedestrians, cables or pipes - then, again there were many of these in existence before the Cobble Hill Tunnel, e.g. The Thames Tunnel in London.
If we consider the third, specific, definition; a subway is "a ususally electric underground railway" (my emphasis), we still have a problem with the Cobble Hill Tunnel being considered the first subway:
- If it has to be an electric underground railway, then Cobble Hill Tunnel fails the test and the London Underground is still the first, through the City and South London Railway which opened in 1890 (incidentally, its original name "City of London & Southwark Subway" is the origin of the use of subway for an underground railway). This line is now part of the Underground's Northern line.
- If it does not have to be an electric railway then we come back to the original definition that a subway is simply an underground railway - note that this definition of subway does not specify that it has to be under a street or in an urban area. We have already demonstrated that there were earlier railway tunnels than Cobble Hill so it fails the test in this respect as well.
- If we take a broader definition of "railway" to mean not merely a length of track but the whole of a railway company, then Cobble Hill Tunnel's claim fails the test again because it was just a single tunnel for part of a system not a railway constructed completely below the surface as the Metropolitan Railway was.

Hopefully, that clears up any issues. --DavidCane (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

cobble hill tunnel makes only one claim. that is it is the worlds first subway tunnel. for that definition it is. [10]. thames is underwater not under street. ok, what is the difference between a subway and a subway tunnel? cobble hill is the first contruction of a subway tunnel... or portion of a subway. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that there is a definition of "subway" being contrived so that only Cobble Hill fits it but, letting that pass, it also seems that it doesn't belong in the London Underground article as that never claims to be a "subway" but a "metro system" and an "underground railway system", which is clearly a much more advanced thing that Cobble Hill definitely is not. I am removing cobble hill from the intro to London Underground. It can be mentioned as a precedent for cut and cover tunnelling but not as a precedent for the whole Underground system. I am also moving this discussion to Cobble Hill's talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I admit I knew nothing about this subject until I saw this discussion. Anyway... I think there are some points to be made. To start, I don't think the Long Island Rail Road was ever classified as a rapid transit system. The Cobble Hill Tunnel was used for streetcars and steam trains by both the LIRR and the Brooklyn and Jamaica Railroad. I think the problem is I haven't seen a mention of streetcars, trams, or trolleys in this discussion.

I would surmise the claim for "the world's oldest subway" is due to the fact that the tunnel provided grade-separation, was covered, and provided access to streetcars. The last part is the key: it is not the LIRR that made the tunnel a subway, but the streetcars. In the U.S., we have systems in which trolleys (modern light-rail) operate underground, like the Newark City Subway, Muni Metro, SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Lines and MBTA Green Line. Although the Cobble Hill Tunnel did not have any stations, it still was a line for streetcars, so this would make it the reason why it was called a subway tunnel. (One of the key primary sources I was looking at, a reproduction of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, July 23, 1911, has the bottom of the article cut off. I'm interested to know the rest of the article.)

As for the "official" claim of this being the first subway tunnel, I would like to know who says it is official. So I am not going to say one claim is right over the other, but do with my information as you will. Tinlinkin (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but remember it's the below ground stations (and other infrastructure, like sidings) that make subway systems different from "proper railroads" that happen to pass through a tunnel. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This has, of course, been addressed previously under "LIRR nonsense" above. An important consideration to the talk above of Cobble Hill being "cut and cover" is that it clearly wasn't constructed with that intention, since it was only covered over five years after opening. When originally opened in 1844 it was simply a length of railway in an open cutting barely half a mile long, with no stations within it. The rationale behind its construction was completely different from the conscious decision to build an underground railway system as per the Metropolitan in London. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New York and Harlem Railroad built the Park Avenue Tunnel (roadway) and completed it in 1834. http://piercehaviland.com/rail/harlem.html

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/july/harlem-railway-affair.htm

208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Again the criteria has changed, this time to make use by street cars the defining criteria. Whether that is the case or not, the argument is clearly no longer that the Cobble Hill tunnel is the "world's first underground railway system" as originally promulgated at the top of this discussion. User:208.120.47.96 now even seems to be challenging his/her own argument for Cobble Hill's pre-eminence by presenting the Park Avenue Tunnel which was constructed as a cutting earlier but roofed-over at about the same time.

Let's Review again:

The claim for Cobble Hill Tunnel is now reduced to it being the first use of street cars/trams underground. This may be true - but needs confirmation as trams had been around for some time before the 1840s.
The claim that it was the first use of street cars underground is then being extended to mean that it was the first subway/rapid transit system. This is spurious - street cars/trams are not rapid transit systems. See the different definitions of these two transport types in their relevant articles.
Therefore, the claim that the Cobble Hill tunnel was the first to be used by street cars does not translate into it being the first subway system.
Cobble Hill Tunnel, may have grounds to claim to be the first cut and cover tunnel, but this needs to be proved.

--DavidCane (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It probably fails on the latter, given the five year gap between the "cut" and the "cover"! Having an open cutting and then deciding, "we can cover this over to form as tunnel," is completely different from the Metropolitan being constructed with this intention from the outset. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Long Island Rail road operated trains. The Brooklyn & Jamaica operated small underpowered locomotives. [11]. It provided grade separation since early LIRR the trains lacked brakes good enough to operate on city streets, and to eliminate vehicular and pedestrian traffic conflicts and delays. [12]. The oldest subways as a pair are Cobble Hill and Murray Hill Tunnel. [13] 208.120.47.96 (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But we are not talking about "subways" here. It simply is not relevant in the context of this article. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The lengths of straw-clutching going on here would be funny, if not for the fact that 208.120.47.96 seems to be so serious. The irony is that they have constructed a definition of "subway" so as to "count" Cobble Hill and Murray Hill, yet both are pre-dated by the Wapping Tunnel. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! but 208.120.47.96 discounts Wapping Tunnel further up this page because he/she doesn't like the references, which are, of course, fine. --DavidCane (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Sub-Brit is certainly a far more rigorous source than most of the ones they have come up with. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for additional input from WT:NYCPT, in case the IP is still unconvinced. Tinlinkin (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's some input from NYCPT. Presumably the IP is restricting the definition to tunnels built under streets, and calling any such tunnel a subway tunnel. But most Underground lines don't follow city streets, if I'm not mistaken, since they were built as deep bores.

Two clarifications:

The Brooklyn and Jamaica Railroad never operated its own trains, since it was leased on opening to the LIRR. Later, after the LIRR built a new route between Long Island City and Jamaica, successor Brooklyn Central and Jamaica Railroad operated horse-powered streetcars on the old B&J, but using a new track laid on the street surface, never through Cobble Hill.
"Rapid transit" was applied to the LIRR's frequent local "steam dummy" services near the end of the 19th century, long after Cobble Hill closed. The same term was used for similar services on other Brooklyn lines, both surface and elevated. The term would later evolve into its current definition, applying only to the elevated services.

The fact, as far as I can tell, is that London had the first underground rapid transit ("subway") system (but ours is bigger ). Calling it the "first underground railway system in the world" may be slightly misleading if there were any mine railways predating it, but adding "passenger" should fix any such issues. --NE2 08:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that mine railways do not count.MarineMania1 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

London underground was "one of the" first passenger mass rapid transit systems to start operating. ^^ Just get ahead with your lives ... simply add the "one of the" to it Sotavento (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I forgot to add that here we use the word "metropolitano" instead of undergroud/subway for rapid transit even when it's fully undergroud so always remember to use the broad definition of "rapid transit(heavy)" when defining what is (or isn't) a proper undergroud.Sotavento (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fact table

The article has a table with information about each line including number of journeys per year. Where does this come from? I can't find any evidence that it's right or contemporary. tompagenet (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai metro now the worlds longest

Should we be waiting for there to be a reliable source showing that Shanghai is the worlds longest, or should the change be made now and just sourced when the information becomes available? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This article claims Shanghai's network to be "the country's longest" at 420km. Should be enough http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=433681&type=Metro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.147.31 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Given China is not the same as the world, that article isn't making the necessary claim - and unfortunately for inclusion in Wikipedia it needs to be verifiable.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS For what its worth you shouldn't re-add content that has been removed until time has been given for a discussion to take place and a consensus to be found. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

How is it not verifiable (I'm not too familiar with process here to be honest-- but it is a legit newspaper article from the largest Shanghai based English language newspaper)? And sincd the article claims that the system is 420km (ie. longer than that of London's), it makes it the longest in the world (and from now on longest in China actually means the longest in the world when talking about metro systems ;-)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.147.31 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Because if Shanghai Daily thought the Shanghai metro was now the longest in the world they would say so - rather than just saying it was the longest in China. It also seems unlikely that they are just making a mistake as the rest of the Chinese media (such as this) appear to be saying the same thing.

I suspect the problem is that line 3 and 4 are double counted where they share track in Shanghai's figures, whereas in London they don't double count the track that is shared between different lines (or even things like the Jubilee Line between Finchley Road and Wembley Park where the lines are parallel but separate - see this). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the Shanghai metro itself - http://www.shmetro.com/node49/201004/con103569.htm - has said that the London Underground is longer I'm reverting for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well deduced Eraserhead. Given than Shanghai will almost certainly be the largest metro in the world if not now then in the very near future one should continue to closely monitor all events and update accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well done. So London's Underground network is 439km using Shanghai's counting method. Joe2008 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If Shanghai adopt London's counting method, i.e., don't count the overlap line, definitely London Underground is the largest system as of April 2010. But what about if we include the Shanghai Maglev Train as a part of the metro system, which is the longest ? Joe2008 (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times has said Shanghai is the world's longest: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30shanghai.html, so I've changed it to the new figure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortest distance

I've just undone this edit in the grounds that the ref states "Shortest distance between stations Piccadilly line - Leicester Square to Covent Garden - 0.26km (0.161 miles)". This got me investigating, so I checked

Yonge, John (2008) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). 5: Southern & TfL. Railway Track Diagrams (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. figs. 39B,41B,45C. ISBN 978 0 9549866 4 3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

where we find:

Line	Stations				Figure
Piccadilly	Leicester Square	40.84 km	Covent Garden	40.58 km	45C
Northern	Charing Cross	37.03 km	Embankment	36.77 km	39B
Bakerloo	Charing Cross	43.28 km	Embankment	42.91 km	41B

Those station kilometrages may be given in articles and refd to that book, no problem there. Now, if I were to do the subtraction and compare them (and do so for all other pairs of stations) to find the shortest, this would count as WP:OR, so is not admissable:

Line	Stations				distance
Piccadilly	Leicester Square	40.84 km	Covent Garden	40.58 km	0.26 km (0.16 mi)
Northern	Charing Cross	37.03 km	Embankment	36.77 km	0.26 km (0.16 mi)
Bakerloo	Charing Cross	43.28 km	Embankment	42.91 km	0.37 km (0.23 mi)

That is to say, my WP:OR shows that the IP editor was correct in pointing out the Northern line, but incorrect in both his method of so doing and in his distance. However, this raises the question "why would LUL give only one pair of stations, excluding the other"? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Autochthony humbly suggests - an answer to the question "why would LUL give only one pair of stations, excluding the other?" might - only might, I stress - be that LUL actually knows the distances between stations [end of platform to end of platform, I guess, but don't know]; and knows that although, per table, each is 0.26 Kilometres, one distance is actually shorter than the other. Hey - "0.26 Km" is actually betwen about 265 and 255 metres, if the original points are dead on the 0.01 Km mark, otherwise it si approaching 269.9m to 251.1m. And the dfference between those two measurements is the length of a cricket pitch (more or less)! Autochthony humbly suggested - 2047z 02.04.2011. 81.132.188.132 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are identical to the metre (which is unlikely) they could be highlighting the Piccadilly Line as Covent Garden station is significantly more overcrowded than either Charring Cross or Embankment, so it would suit them to highlight this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth of "London Underground"

When did "London Underground", as opposed to such terms as "the London Underground", become a designation for the tube operation? Several WP articles use "London Underground" about long past events, even in reference to the system before the LPTB came into existence. I trawled WP desultorily and unsuccessfully for a definitive date, era, or epoch. Was the creation of London Underground Ltd. the origin?

Should the article "London Underground" be "The London Underground"? It's such an overblown article with despite its "Main article" is "This" and "That" its own virtual reams about This and That that it is just about unreadable and unscannable by eye for a particular detail.--SilasW (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Underground" as a brand for most of the system was first used in 1908. "London" in connection with "Underground" as a name can at least be dated to the Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL), established in 1902. With regard to whether the definite article should be included in the article name, the manual of style says not. --DavidCane (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See Day, John R.; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. The Story of London's Underground (10th ed.). Harrow: Capital Transport. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978 1 85414 316 7.; it seems that a February 1908 meeting of the London Passenger Traffic Conference agreed to use "Underground", as more accurate than "Tube", and to officially drop the latter. By about 1913 it had become "UndergrounD". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I asked when the very term "London Underground", which is used in hundreds of WP articles for the present entity which owns/controls/dictates about an easily definable set of railway operations became official (and parenthetcally I would point out could be abolished, as it was created, at the whim of our political overlords).
I see a clear difference between it (that is "London Underground" with or w/o "Ltd.") and, no matter what WP guidelines have about definite articles, "The London Underground" meaning the network itself. I did not ask when "Underground" became a brand. though I note that the book given as settling the matter (whose quoted extract is not relevant) is titled "London's Underground".
WP go to "London Underground Ltd" redirects to "London Underground" (possibly erroneously by comparison with the grossly lengthy History section which would have you go to a separate History article). "London Underground" starts "The London Underground is a rapid transit system serving ...."--SilasW (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Served/ Owned/ Managed

270 Served and 260 owned? What are the ten stations that aren't owned. Please include as a list/ separate article AsparagusTips (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

London Underground serves and owns 260 stations according to their official facts and figures page [14] Hugahoody (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Richmond and Wimbledon aren't owned by LUL. So that's 262 served at the very least. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Likewise Kew Gardens, Gunnersbury, Barking, Upminster, Stratford, West Ruislip and Bakerloo Line stations between Queens' Park and Harrow and Wealdstone are owned by Network Rail, which would make the total 277 stations served by my maths (assuming the 260 owned figure is correct) so something doesn't tally. Could it be related to the East London Line stations' ownsership being transferred to a different part of TfL? Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

London Underground hits 3.4 billion?

According to the London Evening Standard, 3.4 billion people used the Tube last year! I'm wary of adding this to the article as LU/TfL haven't put this on their website. Likelife (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a WP:RS so why not? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be clarified that the 3.4 billion is for all London's public transport. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Became a single entity in 1985"?

The lead says "The underground network became a single entity in 1985, when the UK Government created London Underground Limited (LUL)". I find this a surprising statement, and it is not backed by the source cited at the end of that sentence. I should have thought the "single entity" dates from 1933 when all the companies were brought under the control of the new LPTB. Any views? -- Alarics (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a legal entity with a unified system. AFAIK, in 1933, all the underground rail lines, trams, trolleybuses, buses and coaches were brought together as London Transport, with the underground lines forming one or more divisions of the LPTB. My guess is that as part of the abolition of the GLC (and also other Mets and bus deregulation), London Transport was split between the Underground and Buses (and others?). It appears that neither Boris nor Ken have attempted any re-merger of LU with other legal entities (such as LO, DLR, buses), and so it remains a single entity.

So, it isn't wrong, but it is a bit misleading. The source says that London Underground was formed in 1985, so why not rephrase that sentence as: "In 1985, the UK Government formed London Underground Limited (LUL) as a separate entity." Tim PF (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "separate entity" makes a lot more sense than "single entity". -- Alarics (talk)

Fixed accordingly. -- Alarics (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead lacks any mention of the serious problems with the underground

Apparently adding any mention of problems in the lead lacks 'popular support' - not something that I thought wikipedia was about. Still - I'm sure the 95.2% of passengers who are regularly impacted would support some mention of overcrowding and other issues in the lead. Why is this something 'we' would want to push down ? It's like having no mention of the life shortening properties of Cigarettes in the lead. Megapixie (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Those are things that are fixed properties of cigarettes and part of their fundamental characteristics. The overcrowding problems on the Tube are not of that order. They are temporary difficulties, observed for the most part at peak hours only, and they are being tackled through the ongoing upgrade programme to increase capacity, which inevitably is taking several years. One can argue about how well the programme has been managed, but that is a separate issue. Also, keep a sense of proportion: peak-hour commuting is rarely a pleasant experience on any big-city rapid transit system: that is the nature of the beast. -- Alarics (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well track and stations and history are properties of all railway lines - perhaps we shouldn't mention them in the lead either? Actually, I've commuted in Tokyo for several years, and despite it's reputation for being crowded - I would take a 10 minute ride on the busiest rush hour line in central Tokyo over a 10 minute ride on the tube for the following reasons: The trains have air-conditioning, they actually ventilate the stations (which also have somewhat ineffectual air conditioning as well), and the trains run like clockwork. On the Central line I would be baked (or melted) - stuck in a tunnel for 20 minutes (yes that 10 minute journey just turned into a 30 minute one), forced to breath air worse than second-hand cigarette smoke, only to discover that when I reach my station - it's been closed due to overcrowding. That isn't a once off experience - that's _every day_. It's not just me either - as the linked report shows - the vast majority of passengers have exactly the same (terrible) experience of the London underground. What I'm trying to say - if it was just hot, or just crowded, or just unreliable, or just had air you could see and taste it would be bearable. But it isn't _just_ one - it's all of them, and there is no meaningful plan to deal with any of them.

The London Underground is the worst mass transit system I've ever experienced in the 'first-world', and it is the 'just live with it' attitude that keeps it that way. It is unfit for purpose. As such it needs to be pointed out in the lead. Megapixie (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I use LU frequently and it is not usually as bad as that. And it is not true that there is no meaningful plan to deal with the problems. But none of that is really the point. The point is that you are trying to push a line, and that is not what WP is for. We should just describe the facts, as they may be verified via reliable sources, in as objective a manner as possible. The overcrowding is already mentioned in the article. -- Alarics (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The London Underground doesn't have 20 minute delays every day... And basically all metro systems are overcrowded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be fair to mention the lack of AC. That is generally common. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And it is not true that there is no meaningful plan to deal with the problems ^{[citation needed]}. Well everything I've presented comes from independent, non-agenda driven research, which I provided citations for. Megapixie (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the citations you provided showed that there were no plans to deal with the problems. Conversely, the article itself mentions that upgrades are under way to improve capacity, the fact that the new S stock trains on the subsurface lines do have air-conditioning, and that a new generation of deep-level tube stock is to be developed that will have some form of air-conditioning. Some parts of the capacity upgrade plan have already been finished (extra carriage on all Jubilee line trains) or are well under way (resignalling to increase trains per hour on Jubilee, Northern, Victoria) so it is quite ridiculous to try to claim that nothing is being done. Meanwhile, as mentioned in the article, the Central Line, about which you are particularly complaining, will be greatly relieved by Crossrail when that opens in 2018. -- Alarics (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The capacity increases you mention are at best a 25% increase. If enacted today - they would reduce passenger density to merely extremely crowded, however most of them won't hit for several years, by which time demand will have, once again, greatly outstripped supply. Crossrail will not significantly increase capacity, as the timetables they are presenting are totally unrealistic. As usual a gradual climbdown will happen as we draw nearer to 2015 (or whenever the contractors involved have finished lining their pockets). I welcome the addition of air-conditioning, but without spending more money on forced air ventilation (which they don't want to do, because it's expensive) in the deep tunnels you are just going to melt the track. Will the tube still be terrible in 2020 ? You betcha.

You are quite right that the citations don't state their is 'no meaningful plan', and that's not what I added to the article. I added only a series of cited facts about the majority of passenger experiences on the underground - at the end of the lead. If you drew the conclusion that I'm painting a negative picture - then perhaps the facts speak for themselves. The experience itself certainly does. Megapixie (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly grinding an axe here, and that is not what WP is for. If you can cite reliable sources for a considered argument that the upgrades under way and planned will be seriously inadequate to match the scale of the problem, fine. I haven't myself seen that case made in the serious press. Meanwhile, just pushing your own POV is a complete waste of time. Your assertions about Crossrail are pure speculation and have no place here. I think most people well know that big-city peak-time commuting is pretty well always, more or less by definition, hell on wheels. I have 45 years' experience of it, in London and several other cities around the world. -- Alarics (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not addressing what I want to add. Here is what I added. Note that I focus on four points: Overcrowding, temperature during summer, poor air quality and unreliability. All four things have citations provided. Sure I have a POV - so do you. I added neutral facts you and several others removed them (I might suggest reflecting your non-neutral POV). You don't appear to disagree that the tube is overcrowded, hot, stuffy and unreliable, and that is the majority experience - it appears you just want to push those facts down the article so it doesn't appear so prominently (and embarrassingly). Why I am a POV pusher for wanting to introduce these prominent facts prominently ? You don't need to lecture me on WP:NOT - I've been here a while. Megapixie (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think mentioning the closures as a way of getting improvements and mentioning the lack of AC (as well as the plans to add it) seem like a reasonable compromise. If you want to complain about air quality find something from the last 2 years or so, rather than from 2002.

With regards to overcrowding, welcome to urban transport. If you want to include it a comparison study which covers other major world metros would be the only good way to do it.

With regards to a plan - see this on the TFL website - I found it in 10 seconds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was very interesting (warning RTF), also this (archive.org) Megapixie (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Something eight years old, and something ten years old? Not quite within the last two years timeframe Eraserhead1 suggested.... Nick Cooper (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I said 'I thought it was interesting' not 'eat this and die suckers'. Megapixie (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just clarify something - Nick - If I can find something within the last 'few' years indicating dangerous levels of dust in the tube tunnels, you would be supportive of adding it to the lead ? Megapixie (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FOI requests are in (don't bother sending them an e-mail apparently the associated addresses are ignored). Health and Safety law requires them to conduct regular risk reviews, I've requested these along with all related information on dust and gas levels in the tunnels since 2002. 20 days and counting. Megapixie (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Article out of date? PPP

In the history London_Underground#Public_Private_Partnership - shouldn't there be a new section eg http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/management/1580.aspx says "The acquisition of Tube Lines by Transport for London (TfL) effectively ended the Public Private Partnership (PPP)." The article currently only seems to go to the period before this acqusistion.

~~Some example news items bbc other wolmar in guardian -seem to have happened 2009/10Mddkpp (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)~~

Sorry my mistake - some idiot had put a news story from 2004 at the end of the section so I assumed that the history ran only to 2004, naively assuming that the article would be in some semblance of chronological order.Mddkpp (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The PMF Methodology

This section was discussed at Project UK Railways and it was agreed to remove it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Underground. There is a clear consensus that verbiage about the minutiae of project-management issues within LUL, especially when written in management-speak jargon, is not appropriate for inclusion in this important article. -- Alarics (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I can add to that - having read some of the links - it is clear that LUL's project management skills were "abysmal" or "non-existant" (my words) prior to recent times - as shown by the score of "under 1" (in 2007 http://www.railpro.co.uk/news/?idArticles=912) -this is similar to that of a slime mold, or amoebal blob.

the current score - 3 is average (management exists) the scale goes up to five. I've also said that if included the write up should give real world figures - like the saving of £400m.

If it can be written in an understandable form, including explaining that there were real project management issues before then it might be worthy of inclusion. But nobody is going to agree to the inclusion a near nonsensical bulleted list in marketting speak resembling a dictat from bullshit castle. One sentence should be enough - not a whole section. But it realy really should written in a form understandable at a simple level without having to read several (contextless) pdfs.Mddkpp (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alarics. This is twice I've explained this to you now. There is a team of 15 people working hard within LUL to roll out the PMF methodology across 20,000 employees. I can't see how you can make a decision on a whim to delete the piece of work referenced here. You don't even work for LU. Not sure what your job is (if you have one) but you already have my LU email address so you should feel free to email me and we can talk about the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When you say to me "You don't even work for LU", that shows that you have still not taken on board how Wikipedia works. It is a DISadvantage, and in general frowned upon, to be working for the organisation you are writing about on WP. Other editors who are not involved can be more objective. See WP:COI. I don't suppose Mddkpp works for LU either; see his/her comments above. It is not only I who object to this "internal" stuff being included, and this is not "on a whim": there is agreement between several editors. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Underground. -- Alarics (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just two editors doesn't make it several. And in any case how can you express opinion since you don't even know what the project is about? I'm happy to explain the details if you're happy to listen and learn but you seem not to be willing to do either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not two but six editors so far oppose you on this, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Underground. A single sentence stating that LU was reported to have saved £400m by improving project management, citing the June article in Rail Professional, might be acceptable. Anything more than that would be WP:UNDUE. -- Alarics (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To add my two-pennyworth, I think the relevant sections are much too obscure for a general encyclopaedia entry. They might have a place on an internal London Underground staff wiki, but they aren't useful here. A sentence or two, properly sourced, on previous project management systems and their improvement (or otherwise) would be sufficient. IxK85 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam (User:80.79.208.20), please don't edit war , see Wikipedia:Edit warring. Also please see WP:Conflict of interest - you appear to be saying that you are involved with the project. Please also read the rest of this article and other articles - and note how much coverage is given to individual topics, and how it is presented. Even if the subject you are adding should be included the way you are adding it goes into too much detail, is not written in an encyclopedic way, fails to give background and key details. Did you understand anything that was written about what you added being written in "management bullshit speak"? Mddkpp (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at making a short inclusion of the topic - see here in very rough form:

Between 2007 and 2010 London Underground's project management was improved from an initial low level (informal or no management) to a situation where a central overview of project planning existed .ref2 (from below 1 to 3 as measured on the P3M3 scale.ref 1) - as a result LUL estimatesd a saving of 400million over 4 years on an annual budget of more than 1000million.ref3

If included I would probably just insert it into the history chronologically.

I still have reservations since the sources are very close to internal (or associate) rather than actually being reported by independant - as such the 400million figure hasn't really been subject to scrutiny. I still also note a lack of context (can anyone supply more information?) - ie the information is presented as fact but without evidence, examples etc.Mddkpp (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are still ambiguities - ie in the period 2007-10 LUL was still using Bechtel/Amey PPP ? So what does this project management refer to? Wasn't the PPP responsible for this? Apologies if this is a stupid question - this isn't something I am expert on.Mddkpp (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Burial sites?

I just watched a documentary called 'Ghosts on The Underground', where burial sites that the tunnels were built though were mentioned. JUst wonderinf if it was worth including a bit more information about this? Nerter (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Jubilee Line dates

I notice that the Jubilee Line, started in 1979, is stated as having its first section opened in 1879 - is this correct? Francis Hannaway (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes: the portion of the Jubilee Line north-west of Finchley Road was originally Metropolitan Railway, and opened in stages: (Swiss Cottage)-Finchley Road-West Hampstead 30 June 1879; West Hampstead-Willesden Green 24 November 1879; Willesden Green-Wembley Park-(Harrow-on-the-Hill) 2 August 1880; Wembley Park-Stanmore 10 December 1932. The section between Baker Street and Finchley Road was built by London Transport for the Bakerloo Line, and opened 20 November 1939. It's only the sections south and east of Baker Street that were always Jubilee Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I queried it because it was only different by one digit. I'd considered what you've stated - so thanks for confirming it. Francis Hannaway (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ubergeekily speaking, Stratford to Canning Town section of the Jubilee line originally opened in stages between 1860 and 1892 - this was the quadrupling of the 1846 line whose tracks are now part of the DLR (ex-North London Line). The extra tracks were closed at some unknown date (60s?) and re-laid in 1999 for the Jubilee. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Service on Christmas Day

It says there is service to Heathrow airport on Christmas Day. It is wrong. Please see page 5 on the link below: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/festive-leaflet.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jura625 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

the history

It is way too long here. One has to scroll down half way through the article to find "stations and lines". I think that should be near the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.19 (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)