Talk:History of the London Underground

The Public-Private Partnership section needs updating, for example it contains nothing about TfL buying Tubelines. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

in the first paragraph we have bizzare USAmerican pseudo history the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel in New York City is in no way relevant to underground rail transport, it is in no way a world first and claims it is such are just fake history made up by USAmericans, these people do need to be corrected and wikipedia needs to be about relevant facts not USA bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.45 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please calm down and refrain from making spurious allegations about the behaviour of editors. That being said, it does indeed seem undue to mention that tunnel in the lead, at the very least it belongs in a "Origins" (or something similar) section in the article itself. But since it is also completely unsourced, and it is making some very strong claims about the definitions of underground railways, I would be inclined to remove it altogether as WP:OR. At least we need some secondary reliable sources that contains all of the following information 1) the claim of Atlantic Avenue Tunnel being "the oldest subway tunnel in the world" 2) that it doesn't meet the criteria for being an "urban underground passenger-carrying railway" 3) that the London Underground does. If such a source is not found, then it qualifies as WP:SYNTHESIS and should not be included in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can not see how any "spurious allegations about the behaviour of editors" has been made, infact what other credible reasons are there to explain the behavior of the editor that added that irrelevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.45 (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I went through the history and figured out that the information was originally added 27 April 2005. It was added by Peter Shearan who says he is from Kent. This looks like it is not a US biased act at all. GB fan 13:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Making claims about percieved intentions of other editors is highly discouraged. Judge edits, not editors. If the edit doesn't live up to Wikipedia policies it can be removed or changed. There simply isn't any need for drama, especially not over this kind of stuff. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article itself is big enough and we have a large section dealing with the recent history of PPP. This means that the few years 2003–2010 takes up more space than say the section on London Passenger Transport Board that deals with 1933–47, which means that it's WP:UNDUE. While the sourcing needs attention (and if taken to FA, sourced to history books rather than contemporary news sources), I suggest that this section be split out per WP:SUMMARY. Edgepedia (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although the text re-added looked like it had sources, when I checked the sources I found sections that were unsourced, not verified by the source given and a copyright violation. I manage to move one section to the Metronet (British infrastructure company) article.

This article is 6000 words long, in thinking about the amount of coverage to give the subject I've looked at Day & Reed (2010) which covers the subject in four pages out of about 200 (2%). Edgepedia (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The current section is just over 200 words long and the article 6000 words, i.e. about 3% long. Edgepedia (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This content was moved from London Underground, and in the process of that and other editing, some sources were lost. I've fixed most of the problems I think; if you find others, let me know. As to WP:UNDUE - this is an important episode in LU's recent history, and as such there is obviously more documentation about it. Instead of removing significant information (and in the process turning the article mostly into a history of the technical side of the Tube), expand other parts. If the article gets too big, we can talk about using summary-style. Rd232 ^talk 20:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I jumped the gun too quickly. I removed the copyvio you restated, and replaced the tags you removed. I also replaced two sourced sentences that you removed. My opinion is that, as an overview article 6000 words is long enough. There are plenty other articles out there for the details.Edgepedia (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed the various issues (I think). I'm fine with it as it is, but if you want to create London Underground PPP, then the whole section can be moved there, and a shorter summary here will be OK. The same approach of splitting into subarticles would also make sense for other sections, like Early history of the London Underground, London Underground (1947-2000), etc. There's plenty there that can and should be expanded, and as you say, this should be an overview article. Rd232 ^talk 10:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have placed a disputed decription tag on the picture at the head of the article (File:London Underground 1890.jpg). This cannot be a photograph of a station in 1890 because all stations before the Central London Railway opened were gas lit and it would have been quite impossible to photograph using only the station lighting with the photographic materials of the time. The Central London were the first company to light their stations electrically, and the bright Crompton arc lamps that they used made photography possible. The station shown is Queens Road which did not open until 1900. Further information at File talk:London Underground 1890.jpg. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems a bizarre claim that the first underground railway companies that pushed the bounderies of electrical engineering resorted to the use of gas lighting in the stations. Surely they would have used their electrical supply to power electric lighting. 86.186.11.34 (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I might seem odd to the casual observer, but there were a number of reasons why this was the case. The City and South London Railway built a power generation station that was barely adequate to power the trains and there was certainly no spare capacity to provide electric lighting for the stations. Mr Edison had only perfected his incandescent lamp in 1880, but it was a carbon filament lamp which was very inefficient by today's standards and it would require a considerable amount of electrical power to provide a lighting level in the station even approaching that which could be obtained with gas. The gas mantle had been invented around the same time and this made the gas lamp as bright as the carbon lamps of the day but they required far less energy.

An additional problem was that the traction power was directly generated at the voltage required by the trains (500 volts DC). For several technical reasons, incandescent lamps are impractical at voltages in excess of around 300 volts. Although lower voltage lamps could be connected in series, one failure would darken a large part of the station (though this was the arrangement used on the trains themselves where there was much less space to light - and piping gas to moving trains was impractical anyway).

The Central London Railway was the first to generate its electrical power using AC (at 33 1/3 Hz). Each station was provided with its own substation and rectifier system (each placed in the bottom of the lift shaft to save having to excavate a special compartment). The substation was not only able to provide the DC traction supply but also a lower voltage DC supply to operate the station electric arc lighting. Such lighting had only recently become feasible because Crompton had invented a self starting and self regulating arc lamp. Previously an arc lamp had to be manually started and required constant attention to maintain the correct distance between the carbon rods as they burnt away - clearly impractical in a station environment. An AC supply was also available for other station equipment such as ventilation fans etc. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news84671.html

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the London Underground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120123023657/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/2881.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/2881.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426034334/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/london-underground-ppp-performance-report-2009-2010.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/london-underground-ppp-performance-report-2009-2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215094944/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/18090.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/18090.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the London Underground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504024645/http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Exhibitionsandloans/VARIBAArchitecturePartnershipexhibitions/UndergroundJourneys/ChangingthefaceofLondonUnderground/ChangingTheFaceOfLondonUnderground.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Exhibitionsandloans/VARIBAArchitecturePartnershipexhibitions/UndergroundJourneys/ChangingthefaceofLondonUnderground/ChangingTheFaceOfLondonUnderground.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

We seem to be completely missing a small section about smoking. Something like this:

The world's first underground railway, the Metropolitan Railway, opened in London in 1863, and is where the term ‘Metro’ for a metropolitan transport system originates. It is known at the Metropolitan line today. The District Railway, now the District Line, opened in 1868. These are ‘sub-surface’ lines (rather than tube lines), and built using the ‘cut and cover’ method (huge trenches were dug, the tunnels built in brick, and then covered over again to allow roads to be reinstated).

Because the early trains were coal-burning steam trains, where possible, and particularly at stations, these ‘cuts’ were left open to allow steam and smoke to vent to the sky. The trains were carefully designed to maximize their smoke emissions in stations and minimize them in the covered tunnels. Even so, they were inevitably smoky places. To avoid additional smoke, and to avoid the risk of fires, these private companies banned smoking on their railways.

However, with the intention of not restricting people’s freedoms, the government legalized smoking on the underground. And that’s now it rested until smoking on Underground trains was banned in July 1984, and following the Oxford Circus station fire on Friday 23 November 1984, a complete ban on smoking in all underground stations was introduced in February 1985. Habits die hard, and some were still inclined to ‘light up’ on the escalators on their way out of the stations, which gave rise to the King’s Cross fire on 18 November 1987 which killed 31 people. After that the ban was more rigorously enforced and fines were introduced for offenders. Perhaps, if the government had not legalized smoking in … the King’s Cross fire might have been avoided.

I would have added this myself but, I haven't yet managed to find a reference or date for the legalisation of smoking in the 1800s or early 1900s. I may have read it in a book, but don't recollect which one. Anyone know? Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply