Talk:Waterloo & City line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image

The picture is not the Waterloo & City Line stock - it is Central Line 1992 stock. There is a picture of the W&C stock on the British Rail Class 482 page. Our Phellap 18:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, LU seeem to regard them as exactly equivalent; see their 1992 stock page. Hmmm.... have I seen that image somewhere before? Copyvio ahoy! --rbrwr^± 19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded a photo of a '92 stock train at Bank to replace the above. I've captioned it as 'modified 1992 stock' because the two types are now sufficiently different (the Central now has ATO and the Drain doesn't, for instance) that they can't interoperate fully. Mpk 21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Livery and gauge

I can't say I agree with Moilleadóir's reversion of my deletion of [[User::Greaterlondoner|Greaterlondoner's]] paragraph. I made it go away because it's ambiguous and confusing on two counts:

• The LUL standard livery is not used on all LU stock other than the W&C anyway. Off the top of my head, at least unrefurbished D stock is still in bare metal, although this will change as the refurb programme gets underway.
• "The (smaller/larger) of the two sizes used on the network" is pretty simplistic and implies that there are only two sets of dimensions used across the entire LU fleet. Not so - for instance, while the Circle and District are both subsurface lines, D stock is not cleared around the entire Circle Line due to clearance issues at junctions. Maybe a more rigorous treatment of thie entire area is needed?

-- Mpk 11:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of this subject (mine is close to zero) and applaud the inclusion of more detail, however I still think the inclusion of some more simplistic or summarized information would be worthwhile. I don't see anything wrong with making some generalisations (using words such as most) so long as the details are given further on.

Maybe some kind of info box at the start of the train section, describing the stock used on the line and the livery, would be the way to go. It's worth noting that the line you deleted is the only content in this section for many lines.

I think the inclusion of two levels of information is a good idea because I have to confess that as I was skimming the articles for the different lines I did not want to read the 3 or 4 paras in this section, just the first one which was formatted the same as the other articles. My Dad worked in the railways most of his life and so I'm somewhat interested in trains, just not that interested.

If you do take this on I'd encourage you to also include it in the articles for the other lines, even if it's in an incomplete form, because that will encourage others to complete it and will make all the articles look more consistent and professional.

—Moilleadóir 06:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree with you - a standard 'data box' for Underground lines would be a nice thing. I'm not that good at these things, but will see how they're done elsewhere and see if I can come up with something suitable that could be applied to all LUL line articles.

Mpk 18:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Fake Buildings

Sorry if this sounds foolish but I heard some while ago that a certain part of the london subway - not sure which line, may even be gone now - was made in such a way that they couldn't have real buildings up anymore so they built fakes to either side of the road. I don't know much more about this but if it's true can you give me the name? Chooserr

You're thinking of 23/24 Leinster Gardens, which are located above the Circle Line between Paddington and Bayswater; more information - including pictures - can be found at: http://underground-history.co.uk/cutncover.php#leinster 195.92.40.49 11:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Stations

The Wikipedia convention on LU topics seems to be to put details of stations in the appropriate article on that station. For that reason I think we should remove all references to station details (refurbishment, whether they have lifts etc.) to the appropriate station topic. As an aside I think the history of the line could do with expansion as it seems to be currently dominated by Rolling Stock.--Pedantic of Purley 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming of Bank station

I've twice reverted claims that the Bank station was not originally called City. See - firstly - further up in this talk page (City became Bank in 1940) and - secondly - The Waterloo and City Railway by Gillam, Oakwood Press 2001, which is the mammoth 464-page comprehensive history of the line. Please don't remove that sentence again without citing reliable sources. --Mike 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm the original use of the name 'City' for the northern terminus. I have a modest collection of maps of the London Underground system. All the maps from 1900 (my earlier ones predate the line), to 1930 show the northern terminus as 'City'. My 1940 map (believed to have been produced in December of that year) shows the northern terminus as 'Bank' and also shows a previously absent interchange with the Central and Northern lines. It further shows the escalator connection with monument, which is also absent from the 1930 map (built circa 1933, I believe). Unfortunately, I have no maps of my own between 1930 and 1940, but others that I have seen would suggest that the changes probably occured in 1940. This would appear to coincide with the conclusion of the replacement of the lifts on the Central Line with escalators which moved the Central Line's ticket hall to more or less the top of the Waterloo and City's fixed staircase (later paralleled with a pair of 'Travolators'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.192.146 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The name change from City to Bank occured on the 28th October 1940. The Bank to Monument escalator connection opened on the 18th August 1933. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.201.190 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Unwanted Editing

Wikipedia encourages the addition or correction of the information. It also encourages correction of grammar (assuming the corrector is actually familiar with the rules). But editing the literary style just because you don't like it, is the height of downright discourtesy. I have been writing technical articles and documentation in the aerospace industry for the last 35 years. The board of trade, really were horrified as you would discover if you read what they said about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.201.190 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed in 1994?

City opened: August 8, 1898. Renamed: (Bank): October 28, 1940. Closed: March 31, 1994. Reopened: April 5, 1994. Waterloo opened: August 8, 1898. Closed: March 31, 1994. Reopened: April 5, 1994.

The closing dates look suspiciously like Easter weekend to me - is this really a closure, even if the ownership was transferred at that time?

Also wasn't the line temporarily closed in late 1993 to change the trains, refurbish the travelator and tidy up the stations? Timrollpickering 13:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CULG agrees with you on the 1993 closure, and also lists a few other minor closures. Clive does count the 1994 changeover as a closure, but I think you do have a point, if the line would have been closed during that time anyway. Has the Drain run on Easter Saturday morning in other years? --rbrwr^± 17:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whlst the line was run by Network South East and even previously under British Rail, the line ran Monday to Friday and Saturday mornings only. It did not run on Public Holidays, and it did not run on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Monday, as the City was mainly closed. The line would therefore have been closed anyway for this weekend, so It doesn't count as a 'closure' as such.

86.133.8.129 14:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reopening Date

Metonetrail originally announced the reopening date as 1st September. They even had a countdown clock on their website which has now gone. However a careful read implied this is when they were due to hand it over. As it is extremely unlikely that the W&C would be reopened on a Friday, the 4th September seemed much more likely. This is consistent with the fiasco over Queensway reopening where Metronetrail quote completion as the handover date which does not allow for LUL/HMRI safety checks and approval before allowing the public to use it.

I am fairly certain I saw 4th September being quoted on a LUL or TfL press release. Unfortunately I can no longer find it which probably means it has been quietly withdrawn.

I originally altered 1st September to 4th September as I believe that was more accurate. I strongly suspect that "they" are now struggling to meet this deadline. We will have to wait and see.

So the basic answer is the 4th September is not necessarily correct but it was believed to be the intended date and more accurate than 1st September. Personally if someone wants to change the planned re-opening date or be more vague I am quite happy.--Pedantic of Purley 09:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Blackfriars a red herring?

I'm a bit unhappy with the inclusion of the Blackfriars reference. The link is to a blog, and just says that a Blackfriars station was "mooted". I think this means a few people who worked at Blackfriars were in the pub one evening and said "Hey, wouldn't it save us a lot of travelling time if the W&C had a station here?" I was never aware of any meaningful proposal to do this, and the construction costs would be horrific, to save half a mile.

If someone could track down a more authoritative reference that would be great, but otherwise the inclusion of this just reduces the authority of Wikipedia. Afterbrunel 20:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! (Link from article on Blackfriars station) D-Notice 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thuderbirds episode

I've reverted the recent addition of this to the "filming location" section, as it isn't really appropriate. What is seen in the episode are model sets of platforms at Piccadilly Circus and then Bank, with puppet characters moving from one to the other to access a vault in the Bank of England. It may be OR, but the most logical supposition would be that they "changed" at Holborn between the Piccadilly and Central line, and it is the latter's platform at Bank that is shown, not the W&C one. In addition, there is an LU-style roundel on the platform, and although set in the future, when the episode was made the W&C was part of British Rail. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a proposal to move all the articles of the Transport of London tube lines, capitalizing the "L" of "line". Please see the centralized discussion at Talk:Victoria line#Requested move. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now closed. --DavidCane (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The lifting opening?

Does anyone know where the picture of the tube being lifted out by the crane is? As in a map location or link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.164.189 (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of text

I see that someone has (within a few minutes of my edit) deleted

This article deals with its construction by the Waterloo & City Railway Company, and the subsequent story of the line.

As the article doesn't otherwise refer to the company name until much later, I think this is essential. Maybe that editor would explain the thinking behind this deletion. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Curious inclusion.

The gap at the City crossing was 44 feet (13 m), longer than the spacing of the collector shoes on one vehicle.

Why is this worthy of inclusion? It is not even correct. The collector shoes were not at opposite ends of the motor carriage. They were at the two ends of the assembled train (motor - trailer - trailer - motor) and the collectors at those two ends were connected together by a cable that ran the length of the train deliberately to avoid current interuption at that or any other gap. The arrangement was subsequently banned by the Board of Trade forcing the Central London Railway to revert to locomotive operation. This information was in the original section on rolling stock history before someone removed it. 86.150.66.211 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Change in voltage

@Redrose64: With reference to this edit. I do not have your quoted references to hand, but it is likely that the references or yourself have misinterpreted the situation.

The Waterloo and City Railway was a 500 volt railway right up until the time it changed to 600 volts. The confusion may have arisen because the dynamos used to energise the live rail were compound wound machines and were specified to output 500 volts at no load but 530 volts at full load. This is a convenient property of compound wound dynamos that the terminal voltage can rise as the machine is loaded (an example of negative resistance). This was not done so that the live rail became energised at 530 volts, but mainly to overcome the volt drop in the feeder cables as the current draw rises maintaining a 500 volt supply at the rails. The article actually contains some of this information towards the beginning.

It was very necessary in these early railway systems to maintain a relatively tight control over the third rail voltage. This was not because of the traction motors, which were largely unfussy with regard to their applied voltage, current being of greater import. It was the filament lamps used for the carriage lighting that required the tight voltage control. The early carriages were lit by 55 volt carbon filament lamps which were fairly dim to start with, so further avoidable undervoltage was undesireable, but they were very intolerant of over voltage. They were connected in sets of 10 in series connected directly across the traction supply. The 550 volt rating of the series string gave an extra degree of 'elbow room' in the traction voltage while, at the same time, artificially extending the life of the lamps.

This tight voltage control was required on this line right up to the adoption of the Class 482 stock in 1993 as the previous 1940 stock (later class 487) continued to use series lighting circuits though with the brighter tungsten lamps (I have no information but I assume that the original stock changed to tungstem lamps when these became available). Other railway systems had moved to driving filament lights from a motor generator set which could be locally regulated allowing the traction supply to have the much wider voltage limits that we are used to today (typically up to around ±33%).

As a piece of trivia, the 55 volt filament lamp somehow became a railway standard in the UK and even though latterly the lamps were not fed directly from the traction supply or even in series. Even British Rail stock used 55 volt lamps right up to the adoption of fluorescent lighting. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Traction cables in rolling stock

I do not agree with the statement that "gapping" exist on all third rail railways to the extent of what it is on London Underground. On the Southern Railway for example traction cables are used in each EMU 'unit' (4 or 5 cars for the new SW trains' Desiros) but not between these units when coupled. At renewals the layout is designed to minimise gapping, though it is not possible at complex junctions. Quite why this has not yet been transferred to London Underground I do not know but I have been told it is related to fire safety in tunnels.

I think the leading case was a fire in East Berlin in the 1950's in which there were multiple fatalities (i.e. people burnt to death). Two units were coupled, but the traction cables between them had been imperfectly coupled, so that there was a resistance in the connection. When several hundred amps are passing through a coupling, a few ohms in the connection can genrate a few kilowatts and this soon makes a merry fire. If non-tehnical operating staff are coupling and uncoupling units routinely, the risk is that eventually this will happen. If only the control cable is connected, then the power and heat generated (if a poor connection is made) are obviously much less.

The pre-war SR units did have traction connections down the whole train, but the post-war designs, 4-EPB onwards didn't, as you imply, I presume from this reason.

You're right that LUL trains seem to lose traction power more frequently than main line stock; guessing, I would suggest that this is

(a) where there is S&C, it tends to be more concentrated, i.e. several connections in very close succession; (b) of course the gapping can be either the positive or the negative rail, whereas in main line practice there is only one rail to cause gapping; (c) I think that LUL units don't have traction power lines between vehicels at all, whereas the 4-EPB's (for example) do have a power line within the four-car unit. This may be driven by the more hazardous environment of sub-surface running, requiring more caution.

May I add that I have never heard the term "gapping" used for the situation where the lights go out when all the shoes are in gaps but the train is moving; in my experience "gapping" refers only to the situation where a train has come to a standstill in this situation, and therefore can't restart.

Afterbrunel 20:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat late I know but... Gapping is more of a problem on London Underground lines because it is not permitted to carry traction current cables from one car to another. Lighter current circuits such as lighting and control circuits are permitted. Thus when a motor car's collector crosses a gap in the conductor rail, power to the motors and lighting powered from it is momentarily lost. A train that has stopped with all of its collector shoes in gaps in the conductor rail is said to be "gapped".

Most surface railway stock, these days, has one power car for each set of 4 or 5 carriages. The power car is usually one of the non driving carriages, but the collector shoes are invariably at the two ends of the set, traction current being carried between carriages as required. In the case of overhead powered stock, the pantograph is always mounted on the power carriage. 86.145.151.125 (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

To be slightly more accurate, the SE Suburban units of SR continued to connect their EMUs when fitted until about 1970. The connection fairings at the ends of the units were then gradually removed during overhauls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced section The Future

The section "The Future" is lovely, but effectively unreferenced. If you follow the ref given, it is to a gorgeous but very speculative blog which is full of wonderful ideas but appears to fall well short of being a WP:RS. I propose that the section should be removed quite soon unless reliable sources for it can be found. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The section and the blog it stems from is entirely speculative, boarding on the fantastical. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The documented reality of proposed projects only extends to CrossRail 2. Until some current discussion emerges from one of the regulatory authorities (ie the European Commission, HMG/Ministry of Transport, TFL/London Assembly, POST/IMechE) any such debate is hypothetical. The debate fails to take into account, for example, that an existing service, the Jubilee Line, interconnects with the DLR and Overground at a number of points, servicing Waterloo far faster than a DLR connection through Bank would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maps links recursive

The Maps links at the end point back to missing bookmarks in the meme itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The drain

Surely it's known as the drain because it smells! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) 11:19, 6 August 2002

(unfortunateley that aspect did not appear to have been a part of the renovation of the line as last night it still did! Johnmarkh)

Originally because the carriages had no windows worth talking about, and only dim lighting (see below) which, when allied with the infrequency of bathing at the time it was built and the overwhelmingly male clientele until the 1960s, meant the claustrophobia and odours were far worse. It's probably one of the reasons the 1940s stock had to be replaced, there are limits to how much you can expunge the tobacco fug which was the only thing which masked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.142.238 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Tunnel size

are the tunnels significantly narrower than the rest of the tube? AFAIK they're now using stock from the Central Line. I also heard that it was called The Drain because of the general squallor of the carriages when it was a British Rail line. -- Tarquin

The W&C tubes are actually slightly larger than most of the older deep-level lines: 3.70m instead of the 3.56m that was standard for the Yerkes group tubes.

As for the origins of the name, this Usenet thread [1] suggests it's due to the smell of the marshland on which Waterloo was built. The name seems to be quite old, so probably isn't connected to the condition of any particular stock.

Oh, and I think "It has only two stations, Waterloo and Bank, running under the River Thames" is a slightly odd turn of phrase, given that neither station is actually under the Thames. I'll change it.

--rbrwr

Should this be at Waterloo and City Line? It it officially "and" or "&"?--ALargeElk 09:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, checked it myself - it is correct. I'll correct the reference in the article. --ALargeElk 09:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Travolator or Travelator

A recent edit by Mvpo666 (talk · contribs) has altered five instances of "Travolator" to "Travelator", claiming British spelling. Only one source has been offered, but this does show

(also travolator, trademark Trav-o-lator)

When I check my copy of

• Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1526. ISBN 0-19-860259-6.

I similarly find

travelator ... (also travolator) •n. a moving walkway, typically at an airport ...

travolator •n. variant spelling of travelator

So both are valid British English. What we need for this article is a non-dictionary source, one that directly discusses the installations at this station, and we should use that spelling. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Such a source was provided in my edit summary. [2] is Collins English dictionary which is a British English dictionary. It has 'travolator' but does not offer 'travelator' as an alternate spelling. I might also observe, that if they do turn out to be alternate spellings, there is still no need to change the spelling in the article as it would appear to be perfectly valid. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is also worth noting that the altered version reads, "... a travelator (at the time often written Trav-O-Lator) ..." reads as nonsense. This is an encyclopedia. Otis called the machine a 'travolator' and it is not an encyclopedia's function to change the name of it. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You have it wrong I'm afraid. The word 'travelator' (and indeed 'travolator') does not appear in Websters dictionary (a US English) dictionary. In fact any attempt to locate either in US English sources leads to 'moving walkway' or 'moving sidewalk'. The Americans never use a short word when a longer version will do. Both forms of the word appear in several Britsh English dictionaries, but some list 'travolator' but not 'travelator' (including Macmillan and, as noted, the highly respected Collins dictionary). I suspect that the latter is a relatively recent corruption of the original spelling.

However, on one point I have to agree with LiveRail. Otis called the devices that they installed at Bank a 'travolator' (even if they did style it as 'Trav-O-Lator') and an encyclopedia is obliged to use the name of the device as given. If I chose to replace the word (say) 'Radio' with 'Wireless' in any article containing same (after all they are equivalent words for the same thing), there would soon be howls of protest. I B Wright (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

STOP PRESS: Just found it. 'Travolator' is a registered trade mark of the Otis company. When Stannah Lifts Ltd. of Hampshire, England decided to get into the moving walkway business, they could not call them 'travolators' (at least not without being sued for trademark infringement by Otis - and this may explain the absence of the word in American English). Although they generally refer to their product line as 'moving walkways', they also use 'travelator' as a search key, side-stepping the trademark problem (and introducing the alternate spelling). In fact Googling 'travolator' brings up various sites including Otis Elevator Co (but not Stannah). Googling 'travelator' brings up almost the same sites but also the Stannah Lift Co. Ltd. (but not Otis). I B Wright (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting. You learn something new every day. As we use a lot of lifts around our network, I had a good rummage through some of the old catalogues and advertising bumph that we get a hell of a lot of. I could not find a Stannah brochure that referenced moving walkways before around 2009-2010. If Stannah did coin the spelling (and this seems highly likely as only Stannah and Otis seem to supply them - at least in Europe) then it is a very recent introduction. The 26 volume edition of the OED that I have available, lists 'travolator' but not 'travelator'. However, it is the 2006 edition, so that may be supporting evidence if not entirely conclusive. This may also explain why some dictionaries do not list 'travelator'. –LiveRail < Talk > 14:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The new machines at Bank were provided by the French company CNIM. However, as far as I can tell, they have never called them 'travolators' or 'travelators' (though if they tried, I'm sure that the Academie Français would soon stamp on it) so your Stannah origins holds up. I B Wright (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is why I asked for "a non-dictionary source", and I have now found

• Day, John R. (1963). The Story of London's Underground (1st ed.). Westminster: London Transport. p. 61.

which says "a long moving platform like a flattened-out escalator, known as a Trav-o-lator". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Which reinforces my point above nicely. –LiveRail < Talk > 22:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Travolator, again

I was wondering whether this section should be moved or copied to the Bank and Monument stations article. It seems relevant only to that station, and I think that it would be more appropriate in the Bank and Monument stations article. Epic Genius (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to an obviously incorrect speed for the Travolator. Probably a decimal point error, but I do not know where the original number came from. Ideally the sentence should be put back with the correct speed in, when someone can determine this, but I reckon that, until a correct speed is found, no information is better than false information. --MalcolmStory21 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur: 18 feet per second is in excess of 12 miles per hour or nearly 20 kilometres per hour which is shifting somewhat. I doubt that your average passenger could run that fast when they reach the end! I have found various references for a general speed of 1.5 to 2 miles per hour, but nothing for the speed of the travolator in question. I B Wright (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victoria line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Waterloo & City line. 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/20060505103149/http://www.metronetrail.com/default.asp?sID=1079001987756 to http://www.metronetrail.com/default.asp?sID=1079001987756

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Queuing

One of the remarkable things was how people queued in the days before the old Southern Railway stock was replaced. There were marks on the platform opposite where the doors opened and long lines formed along the platform past the queues for the marks for other doors. Everyone used to follow their own queue when boarding, even if you passed a nearer door on the way. The change in rolling stock changed the culture and it just became the usual crowd round each door, like other Tube lines. Has anyone got a reference for this behaviour? JMcC (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Rolling stock query

I wondered if the various bits of rolling stock history would be integrated into the history section or not? The 1993 refurbishment bit feels like it would be more relevant in the history section. Turini2 (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I rather if it's about rolling stock history it'd be in the rolling stock section itself. See what I did at Piccadilly line. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Closeure

Is it worth noting that since march 2020 it has been close because of the lockdowns?

on the Tfl website its displaying "closed until further notice"

82.41.54.27 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)