Welcome!

Hello, OutrageousBenedict, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme)) before the question. Again, welcome! Regards, Accurizer (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there hasn't been any discussion or consensus to do so. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OutrageousBenedict, thanks for your question on my talk page. Sorry I did not get back to you sooner; I was away. I note that you already posted your question at Talk:Jubilee line, which was the right thing to do. I note you also received an answer. To that answer I would add that there are several templates that could be used based on the situation, see Category:Split maintenance templates for a complete list. Also, if the page is tagged with one or more WikiProject tags, you should consider placing a note on the project talk page with a link to your post on the article talk page. This will draw the attention of editors interested in the subject matter. This is important when you are discussing a page that is edited infrequently, or else no one may see your question. I hope this helps. Regards, Accurizer (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Fleet Line.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hate to bother you, but I think there were some mistakes made while creating this page. This article has many serious issues. Can you fix them or merge it? Bearian (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Lothbury to this diagram as per your request ( of last June?!) See what you think. Britmax (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note what you say about the possible reason for the branch to Abridge, but I still feel that the claim is anecdotal and unsubstantiated. There are a number of places were evidence should exist if plans for an extension were made, two good ones which can be searched on line are:

• The London Gazette, the government's official newspaper in which notices of all bills and government plans are published. Matters, such as land purchases, legislation are all recorded in some detail.
• The newspaper archives, e.g. The Times, which carried much more in-depth analysis and reporting of public plans than today.

Taking the issues in turn:

• Extension to serve an expanded Stapleford Aerodrome:
  • The Aerodrome was, according to its article, opened in 1933, so a plan to expand the airfield must date to after 1933. But there is nothing in the London Gazette or the Times on this subject at any time between 1930 or 1960 (long after the Green Belt was introduced). There is a report in the Times of 14 December 1937 (on page 8) of a proposal by the Corporation of London to buy land at Fairlop for an airport with four runways which would be conveniently accessible from the LNER's Ilford loop line, which the Underground was taking over. No extension of the railway would have been required as the terminal was to be within 200 yards of Fairlop station. link
  • The Greater London Plan produced by Partrick Abercrombie in 1944 (which was reported on by the Times included proposals for the future development of the London region. The report covered plans for the construction of several New towns around London (called satellite towns in the report), rail, road and air transport and the green belt. One of the sites proposed for a new town was Chipping Ongar, although this obviously did not happen. Heathrow had already been selected as the main airport for London and other airports were proposed at Heston, Malling, Lullingstone, Gatwick, Hatfield, Bovingdon and Fairlop (the only proposal for Essex). Stapleford Aerodrome was not a proposed airport site although the location of proposed new towns at nearby Chipping Ongar and the similarly named Stapleford in Hertfordshire may have confused the issue.
• Proposed extension of railway from Chigwell Lane to Abridge only:
  • At the time, all proposals for railway works had to be submitted to parliament for review and approval by way of a private bill, which had to be publicised in advance detailing the works proposed. The LPTB did this for its new works programme in 1935 and for subsequent works up to the start of WWII. Nor were there any notices from the LNER the previous owners of the line. Nowhere is there reference to an extension to Abridge. Once the war had begun all existing plans were put on hold until after the war when an extension of time act gave the LPTB more time to complete the works. Again there was no mention of an extension from Chigwell Lane.
  • If an extension had been planned and approved from Chigwell Lane to Abridge or to anywhere else, it would very likely have appeared on the tube maps in 1937, 1938 or later in the same way that all the New Works extensions were shown. Regarding the non-appearance of the other lines you mention; the City & Brixton Railway, the North East London Railway and the Metropolitan's Lothbury extension were all early plans which occurred before the tube map was fully formed, indeed the C&BR was defunct even before the Underground Electric Railways Company was up and running. The extension from Aldwych to Waterloo proposed in 1905 by the GN&PBR was rejected and the Fleet line phase 2 would have needed further legislation to proceed.

I don't, therefore, believe that there is a reason to include the speculative statement that a line was proposed to Abridge. --DavidCane (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG source is here: Image:London_Underground_full_map.svg. The canvas size is cropped to Zone 1, but if you zoom out, the whole thing is there... ed g2s • talk 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Only back at my computer this week, so progress isnt much. But its going well. Maybe another week or so and it'll be done! OutrageousBenedict (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OutrageousBenedict, thank you for your question on my talk page. Did you suggest your idea at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport? If not, I would post it there and wait a week or two. If no response is forthcoming, Be Bold and try to make the suggested changes yourself. If you struggle let me know and I'll try to help. Although, I do not check in here more than a few times per month so I may not always get back to you promptly. Good luck! Regards, Accurizer (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I didn't submit the speedy deletion, however, I only submitted the AfD because the article was basically a series of links to other articles which have already been deleted. But there's already a discussion for that of course. -- Atama^chat 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re this edit; true - indeed some must be under 100m otherwise why were the C stock cars so short? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, couldn't agree more! I'm currently on a fact finding mission to find out the rough range of platform lengths. This is proving to be difficult though as TfL cant do a submission under a FoI request, as apparently the data doesnt exist in a collated form...

However, I'm on the case. Trouble is even if I do find the information it might prove [i]very[/i] problematic to reference it, as I suspect such sources would be confidential. So I could put a range on the lines page, or something vague on each stations page, or even both. Which do you think would be more appropriate? Assuming such inof can be legally obtained... OutrageousBenedict (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you suspect, the main stumbling block would be WP:V. If you get TfL to send you a list, you can't really use it because nobody else would be able to check it. If you measure the platforms yourself, it would not only be considered WP:OR but you'd be banged up on security/counterterrorism grounds before you'd done two stations. Best thing to do would be to get TfL to publish the info on their website (although they may only release a min/max range for each line), or get Capital Transport Publishing, who specialise in TfL-related books - http://www.capitaltransport.com/ - to do similarly. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OutrageousBenedict. You have new messages at Alzarian16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks for uploading File:72ts Range Map.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]