Talk:History of the District line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because...

This is does not duplicate any existing article. It holds the Railway Diagram Template for the District line that had become too complex for that article. Therefore, I have split the article following WP:SUMMARY STYLE. Similar articles exist for similar reasons, see East_Coast_Main_Line_diagram. Edgepedia (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

generally I still feel that this should be in the main article and not in a separate one, as it makes its use rather questionable, but I've removed the speedy tag for now. Travelbird (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I shall start a discussion on the District line talk page. Edgepedia (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration of deletion[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering if this article could be deleted or merged into District line. This line diagram doesn't seem to be any different from the one on the main article. Epic Genius 00:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by your last statement; this diagram has many more details than the {{District line simple RDT}}. When I created this article, I raised this on the District line talk page:
copied from Talk:District line
When looking at how to deal with this article, I came to the view that the line diagram had become too complex and was showing too much detail for the average reader of this page. Following WP:SUMMARY STYLE, I considered that this needed to be split from the article (rather than lost), and a simpler one used. However, when I created the District line diagram‎‎ page, based on East Coast Main Line diagram, it was considered a duplication. Any other thoughts on this?
I will be writing a history for this article. The first half (1868 - 1933) is a summary of District Railway, but from 1933 we could have too many details to fit into this article and a History of the District line may be needed, and the complex diagram be used in that article. However, I would rather see how far I get with the post-1933 history before making that judgement. Edgepedia (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One part of the judgement is the white space in the article. I have sandboxed the current text and complex diagram at User:Edgepedia/District line route Edgepedia (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder where you would intend to move it into that article? At the moment {{District line simple RDT}} is used to illustrate the description of the railway line. This can't replace that one as it is too complex, containing unnecessary information about the history of the line, as well as being too large for that section. The District line article needs to be an accessible introduction to the line. I'm afraid I haven't got round writing a History of the District line, but this diagram would be ideal for that article. Edgepedia (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a sandbox for the proposed article at User:Edgepedia/History of DR. Edgepedia (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if I write a lead for the above article and tag the second section with a {{expand section}}, then other people could expand that section. I'm a little busy on London Underground Rolling Stock at the moment, I think a history needs to be written there. Edgepedia (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think the opportunities for expansion of obvious. The page size is about 1300 words, I think the London Passenger Transport Board and Nationalisation sections could easily be expanded to four times their current length. Edgepedia (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the remaining redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#District_line_diagram Edgepedia (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of the District 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:

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) 13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

East London[edit]

"Upminster in East London" should be "Upminster, now in East London". In 1902 the outer boundary of the LCC north of the Thames was the river Lea, West Ham was an independent County Borough;East Ham and points further East were Essex.

Nationalisation[edit]

"The District line was overcrowded at the east end to Barking and beyond, but it was not possible to run more trains as the tracks were shared with British Rail steam passenger and goods trains to Fenchurch Street."

This is either unclear, imprecise or wrong. The 1950s grade separation works at Barking (still in use) comprise:

1) Westbound Underground - a single track flyunder to the east of the station, taking the track under the two National Rail tracks of the Fenchurch St route via Upminster. A single track flyover on the western side of the station reverses this crossing.

2) A two track flyover joins the Tottenham & Forest Gate railway (ie the line via Woodgrange Park) to the LTSR Tilbury branch.

Without the second of these two, trains going between the Tilbury branch and the T&FG (mainly goods trains nowadays if not then) would have to cross the District tracks, and the LTSR Upminster tracks by flat junctions, which would obviously slow things down, but the lines didn't share track more extensively than this.

The other flyover/under arrangement facilitates cross platform changes between the Underground and LTSR trains via Upminster. It has no role in removing track sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.163.160 (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_District_line&oldid=1202733981"