Talk:Bakerloo line extension

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

Change scope?[edit]

Given that the Bakerloo line probably isn't going to Camberwell, and there is a lot of recent news in this on extensions, maybe this article should just be changed into a Bakerloo line extensions article? Camberwell, Hays, Watford etc.?- J.Logan`t: 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate track diagrams[edit]

I've just noticed that all the diagrams on this page incorrectly show the branch off to London Road Depot as being between Lamborth North and Elephant & Castle, when in fact it's between Waterloo and Lambeth North. Can someone more au fait with the formatting correct them ASAP? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The depot's drawn on the wrong side of the line too - the depot exit leads into the westbound line, not the eastbound. Have amended all four; note that Template:Bakerloo Line RDT has been amended previously. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

"Bakerloo line extension" isn't descriptive enough. It needs to be Bakerloo line Southern extension or Southern extension of the Bakerloo line to distinguish it from the proposed re-extension to Watford, the 1930s extension to Stanmore and the 1984 extension from Stonebridge Park to Harrow & Wealdstone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.240.243 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bakerloo line extension. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the content inaccurate?[edit]

The Bakerloo line is planned to be extended beyond E&C station to Lewisham, then to Hayes, isn't it? Why does it say Beckerham Junction station? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiquelonAtTheMochi (talk • contribs) 07:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC) Apologies. I misunderstood it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiquelonAtTheMochi (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updates and edits to this article[edit]

A to do list, of sorts

  • Geographical map showing the current proposed route of the extension to Lewisham instead of current header image - similar to Green Line Extension map
  • Additional of "current proposal" section describing the current safeguarded route, proposed stations, potential benefits (new homes, jobs, journey times etc), political support, cost, timeframe, access to Burgess Park and Old Kent Road areas without high quality public transport, step free access, depot at Lewisham, other relevant information and news - including more details on the current status of the proposal (on hold)
  • RDT of current proposal
  • Reworking order of article, with development of current proposal over time first, and placing historical proposals at the bottom. (perhaps separate if there's enough content for that?)
  • Additions of Cross River Tram proposals for area in early 2000s
  • PPP preventing extensions
  • Details regarding development of the scheme in the early 2010s, Lewisham Council, Canary Wharf lobbying
  • First TfL consultation and variety of routes proposed why Old Kent Road route chosen?
  • Why does Bromley Council not like the extension?
  • Additional consultation on route in 2016 - what was consulted on? What were results?
  • Updated details on most recent (2019) TfL consultations and further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction. Noting loss of fast trains to Central London.
  • Details on Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre development and construction of ticket hall to serve the proposed extension
  • Photos of Old Kent Road? Burgess Park? New Cross? Lewisham?
  • Edit London Underground, Bakerloo line and other related articles to ensure up to date regarding extension
  • Details on further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction
  • Sainsbury's at New Cross Gate

Turini2 (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

first load of edits made Turini2 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Second load of edits made (including infobox map, thanks Berrely!) - added stuff to to-do list Turini2 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Third load of edits made Turini2 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth load of edits made Turini2 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically done, I think - any feedback? Turini2 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historic RDTs[edit]

As part of the substantial rewrite and additions I did to this article in the spring of 2021, I removed 3 RDTs from this article that Useddenim created. (Template:Bakerloo line extension via Camberwell RDT, Template:Bakerloo line extension via Peckham Rye RDT and Template:Bakerloo line extension via New Cross RDT)

I did this as I believed they cluttered up the article, they provided far too much detail for a historically proposed & conceptual route; and that the conceptual routes were better explained in textual form. The more 'concrete' proposals in 2014 and the safeguarded 2021 route have RDTs which are in the article. Useddenim reverted this change stating "that's merely your opinion", however, given the length of time since their removal - and substantial increase in article length (and quality!) since they were last in the article - I would counter we seek consensus in the talk page prior to the reinsertion. Turini2 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Turini2: So you're faulting me for taking a Wikibreak? And I may ask why you did not seek consensus before removing the templates? Useddenim (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: Hello, at no point do I (or did!) fault you for taking a break from wikipedia (nor would I know that you did/did not). I removed the templates in late March, as part of my rewrite. Regarding consensus, I wrote a plan above in early March outlining my plans for a rewrite of the article. I then edited substantially over about a month, editing the post above as I went. (I must also note that Alarics and Redrose64 fixed errors/issues as I edited over the period. Thanks!) When I thought I was finished, I asked for feedback as an edit summary on the article, as well as on the talk page (above). The page has been mostly stable since that date. I therefore think its fair to say that I sought consensus for my edits. Turini2 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the three templates have been nominated for deletion here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 October 18 Turini2 (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the templates have been nominated for deletion because they are unused, a direct result of them being removed from the article. It's a bit of a cyclical argument, and not a valid rationale for deleting from this article. Cnbrb (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an equal argument for seeking consensus before removing the templates, but now that we're here, my view is that the templates should be retained. The arguments that these templates "clutter up" the article and provide "too much detail" are entirely subjective, and not particularly strong reasoning for removing valid content from an article. The rationale that this information is "better explained in textual form" is also not particularly strong - by that reasoning, every RDT and image could be removed from Wikipedia. Some readers (such as dyslexic people) can benefit from diagrammatic explanations over text explanations. And personally, I find them genuinely interesting and historically significant.
If there is a genuine policy issue or technical reason why these interesting diagrams should be removed, then that should be discussed properly. In the event that the consensus is reached to remove the templates, I would suggest that they by substituted by image files conveying the same information. Cnbrb (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the references - the first concrete proposal by TfL was in 2014, which has an RDT in the article. Early proposals (Transport 2025 report, 2010 Mayors Transport Strategy, Lewisham consultant and Network Rail RUS) are more conceptual with much less detail on station locations and exact routes. The more conceptual routings with much less detail would probably be better shown as an image, yes - general arrows pointing towards Camberwell and Lewisham from Elephant and Castle. Unfortunately I don't have the talent to create that! Turini2 (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If other editors agree to replacing these with image(s), I could look at generating something relevant. Cnbrb (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While Turini2 certainly added more content to the article, it also appears that he glossed over and reduced the early-2000s coverage. Having said that, I do admit that the three RDTs side-by-side-by-side do occupy a large amount of space on the page—would a single diagram encompassing all three proposed routings be an acceptable compromise? Useddenim (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Setting aside that Useddenim reverted the article to reinstate the RDTs when I requested we go to the talk page to talk this over first...) I think I'd prefer Cnbrb's suggestion of an image, personally - given the several vague and conceptual proposals in the early 2000s from a variety of sources (as I detail above), a combined RDT would probably not be very readable/understandable at a great level of detail. An image of routes would also allow for primary sourcing - rather than using a blog.
With regard to why I split the history of the current article into two sections - there's a difference between the historical extensions (i.e. to Camberwell) and the current proposal for an extension down the Old Kent Road that has been developed over the last 10/15 years or so. At the very least, the two sections should be separated into "prior proposals" and a history section, as those historical extensions are not connected to the current project. For example, the Northern line extension to Battersea article briefly mentions a potential of a extension to Peckham in the 1980s as an aside, but does not go into detail as it's not the main focus of the article about that particular project. The reason I wrote the order as Background > Proposed Route > History was that made logical sense to me. Other articles such as the Green Line Extension and (GA) Second Avenue Subway take this approach too. Turini2 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

What do people think about nominating this as a good article? Any thoughts? Despite it being a future project, TfL's financial issues mean it will be pretty stable for a while...Turini2 (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error in SVG Route Map - "New Cross" should be "New Cross Gate"[edit]

Proposed route map SVG has an error - "New Cross" should be "New Cross Gate". Would be good if we could have an accurate map. Ricky6565 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I requested edits to the map but they didn't get back to me. Turini2 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky6565 has now been resolved! Turini2 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Ricky6565 (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future Current Extension Plans Uncertain[edit]

I swear that I recently read that the Lewisham extension has been cancelled. Furness804 (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the lead of the article "work to implement the extension is currently on hold" - this is supported by the TfL reference. Turini2 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bakerloo_line_extension&oldid=1205645822"