![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
According to a TfL news report, ridership for the LU in march passed just over 1 billion for the first time in 144 years. And yet if looking at just released figures for 2006 entries and exits, the figure comes to 2235.349 million (or just over 2 billion). So which is correct? Second link: here, click on 2006 if it is not there and then total. Simply south 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of disused stations dotted around the network and the article makes passing reference to these. This is a fascinating subject that, IMHO, should be covered, either within this article, or as a separate article. I do not know enough about it (I was looking for it to find out about it) but I wondered if there was anyone out there who would want to turn their hand to drawing something up....or is it only me who thinks it's interesting?!! ;-) -- hydeblake ( talk) 12:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So claims the introduction, but much of the London underground is not underground at all, so what's the basis for this claim ? The "Métro" + express network ("RER") in Paris (where I live) covers over ~400 miles of tracks, and they're similar in scope. 82.231.41.7 ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia page for the New York City Subway, it covers 656 miles of track and a larger percentage of the new york subway is underground than the tube, so, even if new york is not the longest, london couldn't be. 99.236.47.52 ( talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article has had the UK Light Rail template put on it. Does that seem correct? I would not have thought that the Underground was classed as Light Rail. Should it be removed? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see a section for operating hours and train frequency in this article. What line have the highest frequency, and what parts have the lowest? -- Kildor ( talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reliable source for the number of passengers carried on the first day of the Tube's operation? I've seen both 30,000 and 41,000 in the article at different times.
In the meantime, I'm going to move the figure back to 30,000, because all the figures above agree that it was at least that much, it's the most commonly used figure within the article to date, and I suspect that the LRB review might well be sourced from Wolmar's book, which is cited elsewhere in the article.
Can anyone give a better source or more accurate figure? Does anyone have Wolmar's book to hand, to verify the cite? -- The Anome ( talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The East London line (with its stations) is no longer part of the London Underground—it should now be removed. -- Redaktor ( talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, is there any information on London Underground Limited, other than a brief mention in the lead?
Secondly, I think a category should be created on organisations directly involved\associated in the London Underground (hopefully without going overboard) such as Metronet, TfL and Tube Lines (and the other above). Maybe titled Category:London Underground organisations or, Category:Organisations associated with the London Underground.
Thoughts? Simply south ( talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been commuting from Newbury Park tube station since 1994, but haven't noticed the Ohel David synagogue. Where is it exactly? best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 13:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[I had added this discussion point to the wiki in October 2007, and noticed that it wasn't pursued. Was this due to bad etiquette on my part? Apologies if so. I have since become a member, and have signed the posting below.]
I would like to see the historical section expanded to include a justification for the building of an underground system. Were traffic conditions in London already so onerous to justify the construction of alternative transport system? Also potentially fascinating would be the origin of the initial concept: who initially thought of the concept of building a transport system underground. Also, to have convinced people of the benefits of travelling in damp, probably badly lit, claustophobic and smoke/steam-filled tunnels must have been a supreme marketing exercise in itself.
Ppmoore ( talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed there is no good map of the Tube. Are there copyright restrictions on the map? Æe tlr Cre ejl 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, i am no GA-reviewer but i can definitely see some issues here. Here are a few:
Simply south ( talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1) Can anyone explain why the link on "London Passenger Transport Board" is not to the article with that title but, via a redirect, to "History of transport in London (1933-2003)"?
2)That epoch's end seems odd.--
SilasW (
talk)
13:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The See Also list includes "2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse" whose only connection with LU is that it was "near" LU's HQ. By that reckoning is not almost everything in London "near" the LU?-- SilasW ( talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
At present all lines on the Underground have Route Diagram Templates. On the National Rail diagrams, there is a specific symbol used if there is an interchange with the Underground (or another Light Railway). Would it be a good idea to replace symbols for Underground stations which have interchange with the National Rail with the same symbol? Anywikiuser ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We cannot rely on a third-party site for the claim that Camden Town is exit-only on Sundays, since the TFL site currently states only: "Sunday, no down escalator between 1000 and 1730" (it also says the same for Saturday), which is self-evidently quite distinct compared to Borough being described as specifically "exit only". [5]. Tube maps and line diagrams still warn against overcrowding at Covent Garden, although there are no specific regular restrictions. [6] Nick Cooper ( talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to tag every section of this article? I think it is better to discuss it here instead of slapping tags all over the article. -- Kildor ( talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be better to put one at the top of the page to say that the article as a whole lacks references, than have one in almost every section. At the moment to the general reader it looks really messy and makes the article look much less reliable. C hris_huh talk 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Northern City Line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate was built in 1904 to a "main-line" diameter of 16 feet (4.88 m), so would it have been possible financially and physically to have built all the other central area tubes to this diameter? And what alternative services would have been available due to the interconnectivity afforded between the "tubes", sub-surface and main-line railways? Of course sections of "narrow" tube were built outside the central area too. Anyway, what if these had all been built to mainline diameter too?
Bakerloo line: Queens Park to Elephant & Castle
Central line: White City to Leyton, Leytonstone to Newbury Park
Jubilee line: Finchley Road to Charing Cross then Canning Town
Northern line: Golders Green or East Finchley to Morden via Bank or Charing Cross
Piccadilly line: Barons Court to Arnos Grove, Southgate, Hounslow West to Heathrow
Victoria line: All
Waterloo and City line: All
Best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Following on from the "What if..." section above, if all of the deep-level tubes had been built to larger diameter, 16ft (like the Great Northern & City Railway) or approximate to that, and employing the main twin-track inter-connections between lines, you could have the following Fantasy Underground Lines:
Not affected, but nonetheless would benefit from larger trains:
best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 10:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How is it possible that an article needing cleanup and citations could be A-class? I think it should be re-evaluated. Jubilee line ( talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence refers to the London Underground as a "rapid transit" network. This is not a good phrase to use because it violates WP:ENGVAR. In particular:
I therefore suggest changing the definition to "public transport" or "metro". These were also the words used when this article was promoted to a featuread article. "Metro" would actually be better than "public transport" because it is more specific, and most people in the world have a clear picture of what a metro is. I have noticed that this definition has been changed many times over the article's history, but surprisingly this hasn't been brought up on the talk page yet. It would be nice to reach a consensus. Cambrasa confab 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… i feel the quality of this article has slipped significantly. I have tagged it with reference tags plus a couple others and left a small review on the talk page. It would be useful to se what could be improved more and where.
Thanks, Simply south ( talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: MIND THE GAP! (sorry, couldn't resist) The semi-automated peer review has a lot of good MOS suggestions. Here are some more:
1 Rail network 1.1 Individual lines 1.2 CLosed stations and parts of lines 2 Operation 2.1 Operational numbers (figures) 3 Technical (engineering) 4 History 4.1 First plans 4.2 Metropolitan Railway 4.3 Metropolitan District Railway 4.4 First Tubes und Electrification 4.5 Expansion 4.6 Second World War 4.7 Further development 5 Future plans 5.1 New rolling stock 5.2 Cooling (air conditioning) 5.3 Expansion of the lines / network 6 Accidents and catastrophes 7 The logo 8 Map of the network 9 Mind the Gap 10 Fare system 10.1 Oyster 11 Handicapped access 12 See also...
Hope this helps Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 km, use 7 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 km.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been told, by Olana North, that I was in the wrong in reverting this edit yesterday as vandalism, despite the user's other contribution yesterday appearing to be in the same vain. If the "fluffy train" thing is true, as Olana North states, then I'm wondering why nothing is showing up in a web search. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A simplification of the text started. Some links changed to avoid redirection. "By 1850" Shoreditch had been renamed Bishopsgate (1847). Annual 3,000,000,000 seemed to lead to "28 million per year", perhaps a slip for "per day" but it is an unnecessary restatement. ELL closure might confuse the number of stations but "numerous closed" is hardly encyclopedia talk. Talk sorely needs another Archive. Have all the "official owners" been listed? wasn't there an LTE? There is no article "London Underground Limited" but "LUL" redirects, surely unhelpfulfully, to this, the London Underground, article.-- SilasW ( talk) 10:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see footnote 1 in the article.
I've changed the route length given to an "approximate" number, for the second time, since we can't trust this official source for the reason indicated. I also note that the length in kilometers was given differently in two places in the article, one as per the source page and the other by taking the miles figure as precise and converting to kilometers.
Can we find a better source on this, one that is up to date for the East London closure?
It occurred to me to try computing the route length from first principles using the layout tables in Clive's Underground Line Guides. This is what I came up with:
23.55 Bakerloo: Harrow & Wealdstone - Elephant & Castle 2.88 Central: Ealing Broadway - North Acton Jct. 54.68 Central: West Ruislip - Epping 15.69 Central: Leytonstone - Woodford 0.26 Circle: Minories Jct. - Aldgate Junction 0.08 Circle: District bdy. near High St. Ken. - Gloucester Rd. Jct. 43.32 District: Ealing Broadway - Upminster 1.54 District: Kensington (Olympia) - Earl's Court 5.33 District: Richmond - Turnham Green Jct. 13.33 District: Wimbledon - Praed Street Jct. 13.88 Hammersmith: Hammersmith - Aldgate East Jct. 7.24 Jubilee: Stanmore - Wembley Park 22.71 Jubilee: Finchley Rd. - Stratford 38.08 Metropolitan: Amersham - Baker Street 11.25 Metropolitan: Uxbridge - Harrow-on-the-Hill 3.31 Metropolitan: Watford - Watford South Jct. 6.35 Metropolitan: Chesham - Chalfont & Latimer 32.00 Northern: Edgware - Morden 24.56 Northern: High Barnet - Kennington 1.48 Northern: Mill Hill East - Finchley Central 16.49 Piccadilly: Heathrow Terminal 5 - Acton Town 25.37 Piccadilly: Tube mouth near Earl's Court - Cockfosters 6.10 Piccadilly: Terminal 4 loop Jct. - Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3 11.42 Piccadilly: Rayners Lane Jct. - Acton Town 21.28 Victoria: Walthamstow Central - Brixton 2.37 Waterloo&City: Waterloo - Bank
I tried to count shared-track (Uxbridge) or side-by-side (Wembley Park - Finchley Rd.) sections once each.
That all adds up to 404.55 km if I haven't mucked anything up. But there's clearly some imprecision here: there are actually quite a few places where it's questionable exactly what is to be counted (where to end each segment, whether something should count as side by side), and then not only is CULG an unofficial source, its distance numbers are specifically noted as not always being official ones.
I say again, we really want an official source that has been updated for the East London closure.
-- 207.176.159.90 ( talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (time of edit)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
According to a TfL news report, ridership for the LU in march passed just over 1 billion for the first time in 144 years. And yet if looking at just released figures for 2006 entries and exits, the figure comes to 2235.349 million (or just over 2 billion). So which is correct? Second link: here, click on 2006 if it is not there and then total. Simply south 13:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of disused stations dotted around the network and the article makes passing reference to these. This is a fascinating subject that, IMHO, should be covered, either within this article, or as a separate article. I do not know enough about it (I was looking for it to find out about it) but I wondered if there was anyone out there who would want to turn their hand to drawing something up....or is it only me who thinks it's interesting?!! ;-) -- hydeblake ( talk) 12:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So claims the introduction, but much of the London underground is not underground at all, so what's the basis for this claim ? The "Métro" + express network ("RER") in Paris (where I live) covers over ~400 miles of tracks, and they're similar in scope. 82.231.41.7 ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia page for the New York City Subway, it covers 656 miles of track and a larger percentage of the new york subway is underground than the tube, so, even if new york is not the longest, london couldn't be. 99.236.47.52 ( talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that the article has had the UK Light Rail template put on it. Does that seem correct? I would not have thought that the Underground was classed as Light Rail. Should it be removed? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see a section for operating hours and train frequency in this article. What line have the highest frequency, and what parts have the lowest? -- Kildor ( talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reliable source for the number of passengers carried on the first day of the Tube's operation? I've seen both 30,000 and 41,000 in the article at different times.
In the meantime, I'm going to move the figure back to 30,000, because all the figures above agree that it was at least that much, it's the most commonly used figure within the article to date, and I suspect that the LRB review might well be sourced from Wolmar's book, which is cited elsewhere in the article.
Can anyone give a better source or more accurate figure? Does anyone have Wolmar's book to hand, to verify the cite? -- The Anome ( talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The East London line (with its stations) is no longer part of the London Underground—it should now be removed. -- Redaktor ( talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, is there any information on London Underground Limited, other than a brief mention in the lead?
Secondly, I think a category should be created on organisations directly involved\associated in the London Underground (hopefully without going overboard) such as Metronet, TfL and Tube Lines (and the other above). Maybe titled Category:London Underground organisations or, Category:Organisations associated with the London Underground.
Thoughts? Simply south ( talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been commuting from Newbury Park tube station since 1994, but haven't noticed the Ohel David synagogue. Where is it exactly? best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 13:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[I had added this discussion point to the wiki in October 2007, and noticed that it wasn't pursued. Was this due to bad etiquette on my part? Apologies if so. I have since become a member, and have signed the posting below.]
I would like to see the historical section expanded to include a justification for the building of an underground system. Were traffic conditions in London already so onerous to justify the construction of alternative transport system? Also potentially fascinating would be the origin of the initial concept: who initially thought of the concept of building a transport system underground. Also, to have convinced people of the benefits of travelling in damp, probably badly lit, claustophobic and smoke/steam-filled tunnels must have been a supreme marketing exercise in itself.
Ppmoore ( talk) 01:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed there is no good map of the Tube. Are there copyright restrictions on the map? Æe tlr Cre ejl 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, i am no GA-reviewer but i can definitely see some issues here. Here are a few:
Simply south ( talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1) Can anyone explain why the link on "London Passenger Transport Board" is not to the article with that title but, via a redirect, to "History of transport in London (1933-2003)"?
2)That epoch's end seems odd.--
SilasW (
talk)
13:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The See Also list includes "2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse" whose only connection with LU is that it was "near" LU's HQ. By that reckoning is not almost everything in London "near" the LU?-- SilasW ( talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
At present all lines on the Underground have Route Diagram Templates. On the National Rail diagrams, there is a specific symbol used if there is an interchange with the Underground (or another Light Railway). Would it be a good idea to replace symbols for Underground stations which have interchange with the National Rail with the same symbol? Anywikiuser ( talk) 19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We cannot rely on a third-party site for the claim that Camden Town is exit-only on Sundays, since the TFL site currently states only: "Sunday, no down escalator between 1000 and 1730" (it also says the same for Saturday), which is self-evidently quite distinct compared to Borough being described as specifically "exit only". [5]. Tube maps and line diagrams still warn against overcrowding at Covent Garden, although there are no specific regular restrictions. [6] Nick Cooper ( talk) 12:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to tag every section of this article? I think it is better to discuss it here instead of slapping tags all over the article. -- Kildor ( talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be better to put one at the top of the page to say that the article as a whole lacks references, than have one in almost every section. At the moment to the general reader it looks really messy and makes the article look much less reliable. C hris_huh talk 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Northern City Line from Finsbury Park to Moorgate was built in 1904 to a "main-line" diameter of 16 feet (4.88 m), so would it have been possible financially and physically to have built all the other central area tubes to this diameter? And what alternative services would have been available due to the interconnectivity afforded between the "tubes", sub-surface and main-line railways? Of course sections of "narrow" tube were built outside the central area too. Anyway, what if these had all been built to mainline diameter too?
Bakerloo line: Queens Park to Elephant & Castle
Central line: White City to Leyton, Leytonstone to Newbury Park
Jubilee line: Finchley Road to Charing Cross then Canning Town
Northern line: Golders Green or East Finchley to Morden via Bank or Charing Cross
Piccadilly line: Barons Court to Arnos Grove, Southgate, Hounslow West to Heathrow
Victoria line: All
Waterloo and City line: All
Best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Following on from the "What if..." section above, if all of the deep-level tubes had been built to larger diameter, 16ft (like the Great Northern & City Railway) or approximate to that, and employing the main twin-track inter-connections between lines, you could have the following Fantasy Underground Lines:
Not affected, but nonetheless would benefit from larger trains:
best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 10:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
How is it possible that an article needing cleanup and citations could be A-class? I think it should be re-evaluated. Jubilee line ( talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence refers to the London Underground as a "rapid transit" network. This is not a good phrase to use because it violates WP:ENGVAR. In particular:
I therefore suggest changing the definition to "public transport" or "metro". These were also the words used when this article was promoted to a featuread article. "Metro" would actually be better than "public transport" because it is more specific, and most people in the world have a clear picture of what a metro is. I have noticed that this definition has been changed many times over the article's history, but surprisingly this hasn't been brought up on the talk page yet. It would be nice to reach a consensus. Cambrasa confab 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article for peer review because… i feel the quality of this article has slipped significantly. I have tagged it with reference tags plus a couple others and left a small review on the talk page. It would be useful to se what could be improved more and where.
Thanks, Simply south ( talk) 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: MIND THE GAP! (sorry, couldn't resist) The semi-automated peer review has a lot of good MOS suggestions. Here are some more:
1 Rail network 1.1 Individual lines 1.2 CLosed stations and parts of lines 2 Operation 2.1 Operational numbers (figures) 3 Technical (engineering) 4 History 4.1 First plans 4.2 Metropolitan Railway 4.3 Metropolitan District Railway 4.4 First Tubes und Electrification 4.5 Expansion 4.6 Second World War 4.7 Further development 5 Future plans 5.1 New rolling stock 5.2 Cooling (air conditioning) 5.3 Expansion of the lines / network 6 Accidents and catastrophes 7 The logo 8 Map of the network 9 Mind the Gap 10 Fare system 10.1 Oyster 11 Handicapped access 12 See also...
Hope this helps Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
And
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 7 km, use 7 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 7 km.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been told, by Olana North, that I was in the wrong in reverting this edit yesterday as vandalism, despite the user's other contribution yesterday appearing to be in the same vain. If the "fluffy train" thing is true, as Olana North states, then I'm wondering why nothing is showing up in a web search. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A simplification of the text started. Some links changed to avoid redirection. "By 1850" Shoreditch had been renamed Bishopsgate (1847). Annual 3,000,000,000 seemed to lead to "28 million per year", perhaps a slip for "per day" but it is an unnecessary restatement. ELL closure might confuse the number of stations but "numerous closed" is hardly encyclopedia talk. Talk sorely needs another Archive. Have all the "official owners" been listed? wasn't there an LTE? There is no article "London Underground Limited" but "LUL" redirects, surely unhelpfulfully, to this, the London Underground, article.-- SilasW ( talk) 10:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see footnote 1 in the article.
I've changed the route length given to an "approximate" number, for the second time, since we can't trust this official source for the reason indicated. I also note that the length in kilometers was given differently in two places in the article, one as per the source page and the other by taking the miles figure as precise and converting to kilometers.
Can we find a better source on this, one that is up to date for the East London closure?
It occurred to me to try computing the route length from first principles using the layout tables in Clive's Underground Line Guides. This is what I came up with:
23.55 Bakerloo: Harrow & Wealdstone - Elephant & Castle 2.88 Central: Ealing Broadway - North Acton Jct. 54.68 Central: West Ruislip - Epping 15.69 Central: Leytonstone - Woodford 0.26 Circle: Minories Jct. - Aldgate Junction 0.08 Circle: District bdy. near High St. Ken. - Gloucester Rd. Jct. 43.32 District: Ealing Broadway - Upminster 1.54 District: Kensington (Olympia) - Earl's Court 5.33 District: Richmond - Turnham Green Jct. 13.33 District: Wimbledon - Praed Street Jct. 13.88 Hammersmith: Hammersmith - Aldgate East Jct. 7.24 Jubilee: Stanmore - Wembley Park 22.71 Jubilee: Finchley Rd. - Stratford 38.08 Metropolitan: Amersham - Baker Street 11.25 Metropolitan: Uxbridge - Harrow-on-the-Hill 3.31 Metropolitan: Watford - Watford South Jct. 6.35 Metropolitan: Chesham - Chalfont & Latimer 32.00 Northern: Edgware - Morden 24.56 Northern: High Barnet - Kennington 1.48 Northern: Mill Hill East - Finchley Central 16.49 Piccadilly: Heathrow Terminal 5 - Acton Town 25.37 Piccadilly: Tube mouth near Earl's Court - Cockfosters 6.10 Piccadilly: Terminal 4 loop Jct. - Heathrow Terminals 1, 2, 3 11.42 Piccadilly: Rayners Lane Jct. - Acton Town 21.28 Victoria: Walthamstow Central - Brixton 2.37 Waterloo&City: Waterloo - Bank
I tried to count shared-track (Uxbridge) or side-by-side (Wembley Park - Finchley Rd.) sections once each.
That all adds up to 404.55 km if I haven't mucked anything up. But there's clearly some imprecision here: there are actually quite a few places where it's questionable exactly what is to be counted (where to end each segment, whether something should count as side by side), and then not only is CULG an unofficial source, its distance numbers are specifically noted as not always being official ones.
I say again, we really want an official source that has been updated for the East London closure.
-- 207.176.159.90 ( talk) 03:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (time of edit)