The contents of the Tramlink Route 1 page were merged into Tramlink on 8 April 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Tramlink Route 2 page were merged into Tramlink on 8 April 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Tramlink Route 5 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 March 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Tramlink. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Trams, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.UK TramsWikipedia:WikiProject UK TramsTemplate:WikiProject UK TramsUK Trams
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
Wikipedia:WikiProject London recommends that Tramlink stations should be linked to in the form East Croydon Tram station. In line with their policy on combined system stations these should go in as Wimbledon station.
However off the top of my head I'm not sure which stations qualify as mixed.
Wimbledon obvious does (Tramlink terminates and reverses in a bay at rail and tube level, using part of the old platform 10).
Mitcham Junction - here the old rail line used to link onto the Hackbridge-->Balham tracks to share the platforms, but Tramlink built a flyover and distinctive station next to it - does this qualify as the same station or separate?
West Croydon - here from the passenger POV Tramlink has been totally detached from the rail complex itself and to interchange you have to leave the station and turn the corner. I don't think this makes it a combined station as you can use it totally oblivious to trams.
East Croydon - the tricky one. The tram stop is literally in front of the station exit, closer than the tube is to the rail at Victoria station. Do people think this constitutes a shared station?
hi thanks, this is very useful towards the topics i'm currently studying at college, thanks, plus i dont think another article is needed, the most is probs, more accurate links to more informative sites! Wongdai 18;04 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Put the tram info in East Croydon Station ... if I'm ever sad enough I might spawn a second article, but I might as easily not. I do have some photos of East Croydon tram station, although I think it was a grey late afternoon. Probably the determinant for now, in the absence of any other, is whether anyone has enough energy to write a distinct article. Until they do, consider them combined hence ~ Station. --Tagishsimon
I'd tend towards the view that seperate entrances means separate stations so Mitchan, West Croydon, East Croydon etc aren't the same as the overground ones whereas Wimbledon clearly is. Likewise the two Hammersmith tube stations. That said, I'd agree with Tagishsimon that one needs a meaningful article first. --Vamp:Willow 17:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Whilst seperate entrances is a viable approach for LU stations it starts to break down with DLR or National Rail stations where different platforms can have different entrances and it is sometimes necessary to use the public highway to change platforms. And many Tramlink stations (East Croydon being one) are in the street and do not have anything recognisable as an entrance. My suggestion is that where somewhere is a recognisable transport interchange (ie. the tram stop, bus station, whatever is immediately visible and accessible from the railway/underground entrance), we should have a single article about the whole interchange. On that basis I think all Tramlinks interchanges should be single articles, although I confess to some doubts about the round the corner nature of the West Croydon railway to tramway (and bus station) interchange. -- Chris j wood 15:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that single articles for interchanges are best; it is how people view them. Some tube / rail interchanges (e.g. Balham) have separate articles where there are large buildings with separate histories, but I do not think that a tram halt can have the same. I would include West Croydon in this (the article also includes the bus station), as there are plans to provide a direct entrance from train to tram stop. The only stations where I have question mark is where former train stations became tram stops - Woodside, Addiscombe (formerly Bingham Halt) and the Wimbledon to West Croydon line. Mtiedemann 09:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
rolling stock questions -- inquiring minds want to know
Those trams are attractive. Are they low floor vehicles? How much did they cost? How low are they? How long are they? What provision, if any, do they have for wheelchair patrons? I see the car in this picture of yours has four doors. When do patrons pay their fare? Are there doors on the other side of the vehicles? How much of the service is on a dedicated right of way?
Trying to answer these questions:
Are they low floor vehicles?. They are low floor, but not 100% so. The low floor stretches between both the outer doors, through the articulation (which rests on an unpowered bogie/truck). Outside of the outer doors over the powered trucks, the floor is two steps up.
How much did they cost?. I don't know. As the cars are just one element of the 'Design, Build and Operate' contract under which Tramlink was created, the purchase cost of a single tram may not be in the public domain.
How low are they?. The low floor is 400mm above rail level, with an imperceptable slope to 350mm in the doors. The stops have slightly raised platforms at 350mm above rail level, with direct wheelchair (and buggy) access to all doors.
How long are they?. 30.1m
What provision, if any, do they have for wheelchair patrons? There is a wheelchair position in each half-car, between the two door positions. Each has its own low-level stop-request and alarm buttons, and an intercom to the driver.
When do patrons pay their fare?. Before boarding. Several different options. There is a ticket machine at every stop which sells various tickets for cash. There is also a oyster card validator on every platform, for people using oyster pay-per-ride. And the standard range of Travelcards is valid (not sure if the ticket machines sell Travelcards).
Are there doors on the other side of the vehicles? Yes. The cars are symetrical double-ended, double-sided cars.
How much of the service is on a dedicated right of way? Cannot find any quatitative info (yet). Here is some descriptive info, which might be more understandable if you read it in combination with the system map from the Unofficial site (below).
The line from Wimbledon to the Croydon loop is a former railway line, segregated and using ballasted track.
The loop in Croydon and out the other side nearly as far as Sandilands stop is entirely in the street, and entirely grooved rail. The extent to which the track shares road space with other vehicles varies, with some parts shared with general traffic, other parts with buses and/or local traffic only, and other parts dedicated to trams only but accessible by other traffic in an emergency.
From Sandilands to Elmers End we are back on segregated, ballasted ex-railway right of way.
From Arena to just before Birkbeck, the line is a new right of way across parkland, away from roads and using ballasted track but not segregated from pedestrian traffic.
From Birkbeck to Beckenham Junction, the tramlink shares a right of way with a still extant third-rail electrified railway. Very segregated and fenced because of the railway component.
From Sandilands towards Lloyd Park, the line runs through an ex-railway tunnel
From there to Addiscombe Village, the line is a new right of way across parkland/agricultural land, away from roads and using ballasted track but not segregated from pedestrian traffic.
From Addiscombe Village to New Addington, the line is on reserved ballasted track within the street (a mixture of median strip and roadside strip).
Incidentally the excellent Croydon Tramlink Unofficial Site has lots of good info. I'll have a go at updating the article when I get the chance. -- Chris j wood 13:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are deadmans' fitted? Yes, intergrated into the speed control, but (unfortunately) no vigilance control of any kind is provided. Is it due to perceived "safety?" Myrtone@Tramlink.com.au
That sounds good, but for article naming, I should point out that the name of the system now seems to be simply ‘Tramlink’, not ‘Croydon Tramlink’, presumably in expectation of future lines which do not travel through Croydon. David Arthur21:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are the officially referred to as "routes" or "lines"? If there is an official use of one or the other then imho the naming should reflect that. Thryduulf22:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that there are long overdue plans to link the Wimbledon and New Addington route and provide a 7½ minute headway on this line but these seem to get postponed as often as the Centrale stop opening was. So I would strongly recommend not doing this until the reorganised routes finally get introduced. Last rumour for the change was Easter but that has obviously come and gone.--Pedantic of Purley10:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Stephen Parascandolo's usually reliable Unofficial Tramlink website, this change will now come in on June 23rd. Tramlink will go from having three routes to two; I've described the new routes in the routes section of the article. So it looks like the new split-out articles are toast already :-( -- Chris j wood11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Thryduulf, Transport for London's website [1] says thay are "lines", not "routes", so thank you for that.
In response to Pedantic of Purley, London Bus Routes website [2] says that the new timetable has been moved to May 2006.
I will still create these pages on my userpage, but wait before putting them on the main Wikipedia. --sonicKAI 11:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
TfL often get things wrong on their website, though. All the official Tramlink literature - flyers, maps, station posters, etc - have Route 1/2/3 on them, not Line 1/2/3. This also makes more sense, since it's one set of track that has several sets of points and operates in a similar way to busses. --Veratien00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gauntlet Track
I have never heard of this term. Is it american ? The usual terminology is interlaced track. By the way there is also interlaced track just after Church Street to avoid the need to put the points in the middle of a public road junction. I am tempted to rename the link to Interlaced Track and expand it a little (in the linked item not the main Tramlink item).--Pedantic of Purley10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems we have an article on Gantlet track, which it says is an American English term - the British and Australian equivalent being "Gauntlet track" with "Interlaced track" a Britishism. Thryduulf10:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, the correct British term is interlaced track. This may have changed in recent years, however, as such things are wont to do under the pressure of the contagious beast that is American English. ;) --Veratien01:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Station article names (sorry to bring this up again)
Shouldn't articles on Tram stops be called [[### Tram stop]] instead of [[### Tram station]], as Transport for London officially recognises them as stops, which, in turn, would explain why the use the London buses ticketing system. --sonicKAI15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section on "Other Ideas" seems very out of date. I thought Biggin Hill was looked at a few years ago and thought to be an absolute non-starter. They couldn't even make a case for a good quality shuttle bus from Addington Village interchange.
I think the reference to Purley Way means the proposed loop around Valley park which "they" got excited about a few years ago but has subsequently gone very quiet.
I think we could really do with a section to describe the relationship between TfL and the operating company. The unofficial site www.tramlink.co.uk covers this well but stresses the views are the personal ones of the author. This is becoming a major issue but it is difficult to write about it objectively. There must be someone brave enough to give it a try. Without facing issues like this the Tramlink entry is "fluffy".--Pedantic of Purley17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure about that. It looks like one editor clearly mixed up TCL and FirstGroup in updating the lede for this takeover (see #Takeover by TfL below), and in case it is still interesting from a historical perspective. I think I've now covered the relationship in the lede, and in two new history sub-sections. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Tramlink
A heard that a project during the redevelopment of White City and Shepherd's Bush, a new tramlink has been planned. It will go from Shepherd's Bush to Uxbridge. I'm happy, because it stops at Loftus Road! --Soopahoops7717:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that there is little information about the Tramlink ticketing system. Should some be added, or is it too similar to London Buses? Ajn9119:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logo
The tramlink logo in the top left hand corner hasn't formatted very well on my screen, it overlaps with the references tag and pushes the lead text in a bit. Might I suggest it might be better going straight into the header of the infobox? (i.e. replace "Line=Tramlink|" with "Line=[[Image:Tramlink.jpg]]|")? It looked okay when I tried it in preview. - Zeibura(Talk)08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mk2 Croydon Tramlink Destination Blinds.jpg
[[Image:Mk2 Croydon Tramlink Destination Blinds.jpg|thumb|left|The second version of the destination blinds that were used on the tramlink. These have now been replced with Dot-Matrix Panels.]]
This image is; a) huge, b) dubious copyright status, c) appropriate for this page - Thus can these issue be resolved and maybe it be incorporated into the article in a way that it doesn't bugger up the page layout... ??? Pickle02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How important is this article?
Low, mid or high, one would like consistency. One importance rating stays, the other go. Five importance ratings is taking the michael and an exageration at best. I can only presume Pickle UK is having a laugh and will rectify this state of affairs after having had his laugh. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons08:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we need more than one. In London, it is quite significant, so High is ok, but in UKTrams, it is just another tram system, so has a low importance. Can't shed light on the rest though. Bluegoblin710:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't really a question... There is no need for more than one; sort it out ;) One importance and one maintaining project is enough. Having an importance field is a waste of time to begin with let alone five. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This errr debate/disagreement, started at Talk:Totley Tunnel. Here or there is not the place to discus the bigger Wikipedia wide issue of importance ratings that do vary across different projects. Importance is decided by each wikiproject, it is not a Wikipedia wide assessment. To debate that your asking at the wrong place.
For the record this article has been rated;
* "mid" for WP:London because its fairly important in a London context, but not key or vital to understanding London.
* "mid" for WP:Rapid transit because its a key example of an active system in the UK. could go to a low equally.
* "low" for WP:UK Railways because its a minor rail based system on a UK scale, including several former railway lines. it doesn't really need to be any higher because its not vital for joe public to understand only people with some knowledge of rail terminology
* "mid" for WP:UK Trams because its one of the major active trams currently in the UK.
* "high" for WP:London Transport because its one of the major components of TFL but not as major as the tube.
Now you could pick holes in the "WP:Rapid transit" inclusion, as i really don't know what they do, but going through the list of parameters of the TWP template, i must conclude that tramlink is within its scope, possible "Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars" as well.
I'm sorry, but I am adding the WP:TUK Modern Trams banner until it is merged into either the main TUK banner, or the TWP banner. Sorry! Bluegoblin717:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The service is currently operated by FirstGroup on behalf of Transport for London (TfL) but it has been agreed that TfL will purchase the system and take control of it later in 2008.
But I'm not so sure that the editor who wrote the sentence above based on that cite hasn't read more into it than (s)he should have. TfL's press release tells us that they are buying Tramtrack Croydon Ltd (TCL), the concessionaire that built Tramlink and subcontracts the operation to FirstGroup. There is nothing in the press release to imply that this will result in FirstGroup losing its contract to operate Tramlink. In the normal way of things the TfL takeover of TCL would simply result in FirstGroup answering to a different contractee. Can anybody cite a source that explicitly says FirstGroup's involvement is going to end with the TfL takeover?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more to article to clarify all this, and also merged in the (almost orphaned) Tramtrack Croydon article. But it is still not clear if TfL are intending to give First the order of the boot, so any citable input on this would be valuable. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well First is clearly still operating Tramlink, despite the fact that the TfL takeover has now happened. Clarified further in article, although a cite would still be great. -- Starbois (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link was created by anon 213.249.207.190 on 12.Apr 2006, and the source seems to be as I indicated. This however "http://www.tramlink.co.uk/extensions/index.shtml" is an
unofficial site as stated by its creator. So if someone wants to check this out, please do so. I wonder whether "separation" is meant rather than "segregation". Seems genuine enough, I think they are referring to the Amsterdam "Trambaan", nothing more sinister than that. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really doubting the accuracy of the article; I added {{what}} as "what?" is the first thing that came to mind when I read the phrase! I googled it (albeit quickly) and found nothing immediately defining it... Scrxisi (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a copyright infringement?
One worrying aspect now however is that the previous section above: "Trambaan type segregation source" referring to the section "North and South from Croydon" in the article seems an exact copy of either the above cited link or vice versa. At no point does the webmaster of the above-shown website, S. J. Parascandolo, state that his site is mirrored on our article or cites Wikipedia but links it to the "Transport for London" website. He seems no longer available when you try to find his feedback and privacy sites. So I don't know whether we should rewrite the items concerned or remove any copyright material. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tragically, Stephen Parascandolo was killed in a car accident in February 2007, so you are not going to get a reply from him. His web site 'Croydon Tramlink - The Unofficial Site' was definately unofficial, and he certainly had several run ins with TCL/TfL, including one that went legally ballistic. However in the end the web site was sufficiently well regarded that Tramlink named one of their trams Stephen Parascandolo 1980-2007 in his memory.
Moving on, I agree that the text is very similar. However it has been there quite a while, being added by an anonymous editor on the 12th April 2006. So it is not inconceivable that Stephen gave permission. I suggest the risk of a law suite here is low enough to not need instant deletions, but it would be a good idea to rework the text. I will try and do this over the next few days. -- Starbois (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reworked the section 'North and south from Croydon' so it is no longer a copyvio (if it ever was). But I suspect the problem is bigger than that. The whole extensions section is bitty, and probably needs reviewing (to see if is still current, and to check for more copyvio) and rewriting (to improve the flow). I'll try and do this, but other demands on my time mean it is unlikely to be in the next few days. If anybody else wants to, please dive in. -- Starbois (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a source that states Nick Owen is the male voice for announcements but can find nothing to verify the claim that Judi Dench is the female voice (the source I found said it was a local) so have removed it as it had been [citation needed] since September 2008. I will also edit it on Judi Dench's page. --Bigger digger (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change of Name
This article says "initially known as Croydon Tramlink" but gives no date for dropping "Croydon". Was it when TfL took over in 2008? (If so ""initially known as" might seem rather dismissive of several years' existence.) A reason for asking is that in other WP articles which mention the system there is almost a fanaticism to change every "Croydon Tramlink" to "Tramlink" even when a past happening involved the then as yet unrenamed Croydon Tramlink.--SilasW (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know when the 'Croydon' was dropped, but it had definitely been called 'Tramlink' for at least a few years by the time TfL took over. David Arthur (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To refer to it Croydonlessly would be quite natural (there was just the one). Stephen Parascandolo often had plain "Tramlink" mixed in with "Croydon Tramlink". I've not found a date for the change but passing references point to a TfL rebranding after its 2008 take-over.--SilasW (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever seen a date for the changeover either, but TfL's web site was definitely referring to it as just 'Tramlink' well before 2008. This very article dropped the 'Croydon' in March 2004. David Arthur (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Name change occurred on or near October 09, 2008 as per This is Croydon.today.uk see [3]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Simon (talk • contribs)
Yes, I've seen that article, but it's simply inaccurate in suggesting that the re-naming took place at the same time as the re-painting. Take a look at this photo from 2004 of a tram-stop sign which refers to 'Tramlink' throughout. David Arthur (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the thing is although in Stephen Parascandolo's website, photos, etc. show "Tramlink" all along, I don't think it was necessarily its official name. On the whole it was "Croydon Tramlink". Actually, to add insult to injury, it is now called "London Tramlink", as you can see in the "thisiscroydontoday" website cited above.
One rather tragic aspect is also that Stephen Parascandolo, the original webmaster of his unofficial site, died in a road accident in 2007. In recognition for his publicising the tramlink he had a tram named after him (Tram 2535, Stephen Parascandola 1980-2007) [4]. So I do think, after all, "London Tramlink" seems the present name. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With passionate division in uncertainties about the name of the system and some editors thinking anecdotes and thoughts = evidence, I emailed enquires @ TfL and this is their reply:
"Dear [SilasW],
Thank you for your email which was passed to us to respond.
The existing tram system has never officially been called "Croydon Tramlink". While it has often been referred to as "Croydon Tramlink", due to it being centred on Croydon, the system has always officially been called Tramlink and continues to be called Tramlink, not London Tramlink.
The TfL team which is responsible for Tramlink is called London Tramlink bringing it into line with London Buses, London Underground, etc.
The infobox now says TfL is the operator while the article says it is First London (for TfL).
I'm sure Tramlink fans can explain the apparent discrepancy but an innocent, who might read the article to try to find who might be to blame for a third-party accident to his grandmother, would be perplexed. An encyclopedic article should be free of such quasi-ambiguities from the start--SilasW (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The new route map [7] shows two routes. New Addington - Wimbledon and Elmers End - Beckenham Jun. So should route one & two be merged and also no routes are red or yellow any more. Likelife (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I've looked at the new map (which I must say is far better than the old one), but I've never noticed that before. Do we need separate articles for each route?; does Metrolink or elsewhat have them? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not shore but the trams still show as 3 routes on their displays even though the new map as been on them for about a year.Likelife (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
update
Why was the pages so out of date?
I've updated all route pages and this page, as routes were still shown as red, yellow and green. There is now no new publication of this as the routes are now green and lime see the route map. Also I have changed all infobox images with the new livery and changed the opertor to TFL (as it has been of a year), explaned the new route colours plus cleaned up some history.
HANG ON A SECOND: before you do anything else, these colours: please use the colours from the PDF, and don't just make up garish and 'orrible colours that melt your eyeballs. Cheers. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The s-line boxs need changing there 'colors' to ADFF2F for routes 1&2 and 9ACD32 for route 3 but I have no idea on how to change them, could someone help!Likelife (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wheelchair acessible
Is there any stops which arent? if not can remove the wheelchair logo clutter and add a simple note that all stations are accessible. WatcherZero (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have been doing it on other pages too, I must admit to being flummoxed as to motive, I wondered if they were trying to increase the profile of his/her own images? WatcherZero (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion and request
Suggest changing the relevant line to the form 'The Announcer system is of the following format...' (as it will differ for all stops).
And I would be grateful if 'the proverbial someones' would help develop the relevant tramlink articles on the London wiki [www.london.wikia.org]. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tramlink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
The document is still out there, as is the aspiration and rationale behind it. Even more so given the impetus to build housing and capital projects given by super-low interest rates. People should be directed to it.
Regardless of changing political and economic conditions, the fact of the existence, from 2006 to 2008, of seriously-considered extension plans is a part of the history of transport in London and should be available, whether of historic or current interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Jardine (talk • contribs) 00:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
February 2016 accident
Raising for discussion here. The accident on 7 February has been added, deleted, re-added and re deleted. So now we discuss. I was going to add the incident myself, got an edit conflict and found that I had been beaten to it. IMvHO, the accident is mentionable not because of the cause, but the fact that three people on the tram were injured.
Pinging Class455fan1, SovalValtos, Jeni - your thoughts please? Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is simple, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news article. People get injured all the time through various causes, we don't include them all on Wikipedia. Anyone who feels a strong urge to write about a minor tram accident can head over to Wikinews where they'll be free to do so. Jeni(talk)15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A. Like Mjroots said, people were injured in both the car and the tram, not just the car.
B. It is serious enough that the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) is investigating, however, they can easily conclude that the car is the cause, because there is CCTV footage capturing the crash, which surely they will look at. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this incident as being encyclopedic material. Wikipedia is not about news. If it eventually leads to changes in regulations or operating procedures then it may be relevant.Charles (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, who has removed information about the derailment in 2012 involving 2538 at East Croydon? This was a notable incident because there was a big article about it in several newspapers/magazines and made the major newspapers and the BBC, it caused major disruption at East Croydon and the RAIB wrote a big report on this. I will be re-adding it. WP:NOTNEWS is only for breaking news stories as far as i know, and newsgroups can be used as sources. Also, if you think about it, the accidents are encyclopaedic, because people can find out how they happened. Class455fan1 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add unencyclopaedic and non-notable information to Wikipedia without first establishing why it is notable. Simply saying "it caused delays" isn't cause for inclusion. I was delayed on the M6 earlier, I didn't include that in the M6 article. Jeni(talk)22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What information are you proposing? What information do you have that shows this is notable beyond "it caused delays"? Jeni(talk)22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
100 passengers were detrained, the tram derailed, people were delayed, low speed (7mph), no reported injuries, 6.23am, dry conditions, only minor damage to the wheels of the tram. What part of that is notable enough that warrants inclusion? Jeni(talk)22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at other tram articles if you want an idea of what is notable enough for inclusion in a section like this.
Manchester Metrolink - Notice that this doesn't even have an incidents section, despite a previous derailment at Pomona that resulted in RAIB investigation
You'll see that Wikipedia really isn't the place for geeky "a tram came off the rails on xx-date but nothing happened of note" Jeni(talk)23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the content concerning the 2012 event as last included had no justification for inclusion as no encyclopedic notability had been demonstrated. It is possible that if the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) had made recommendations or requirements of lasting significance in their report there might be such justification. The content would need to be carefully re-written and sourced.SovalValtos (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They did indeed make recommendations to Tramlink. If its not mentioned on this source, i can dig through my Today's Railways archive to find some info. That was what i was proposing, to re-write it. Class455fan1 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll to p.30 of the document, you can find out what they are. I would have copy and pasted them, but i would fall foul of WP:COPYVIO. Number 3 is not notable. Number 1 is notable and Number 2 may be. Number 1 is recommending Tramlink to review its signalling and operational arrangements at East Croydon and to consider whether undue reliance is being placed on the correct operation of track circuits. and Number 2 recommends Tramlink should identify areas of paved track where silt collects and carry out an improved inspection and cleaning regime where such silt may affect the safe operation of the system. If you want to see them in full, see page 30 of the document. Hope this helps. Class455fan1 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Extension A
Should the sentence be changed to 'then Mayor of London Boris Johnson' - thus alerting non-London/British readers that there is now a different Mayor? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tramlink. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Merging Tramlink and London Trams pages, dropping Tramlink
The Tramlink brand doesn't seem to be in use by TfL anymore -- TfL's website, communication letters, and the vehicles themselves, now carry roundels simply branded "Trams". The London Trams article implies there is a distinction between it and the tram service in Croydon but in practice this doesn't seem to be the case. Should the two articles be merged?
I agree. "Tramlink" doesn't seem to exist anymore. I think they should be merged (or the Tramlink article should have it's name changed to London Trams) ElshadK (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree, It's still called 'London Tramlink' by the DFT [9] and 'Tramlink' is still the most common name for it. I might try raising this on some forums to see what others think. EDIT: taking a look at it, a similar topic appears to have been discussed two years ago. G-13114 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinction between "London Trams" and "Tramlink" - the former is for all tram systems in London, the latter is just for the Croydon system. Currently the latter is the only example of the former so the distinction in practice isn't relevant, but it does exist.
Yeah, there is no doubt that the official branding has changed but the common name (which is the most important consideration for the article title) doesn't always match that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hi everyone,
I am aware this has likely come up before, but is there any possible objections to merging the separate Tramlink "Route" pages into this Tramlink article? The route numbers on destination blinds have not been used for a considerable number of years now and the separate articles serve little purpose.
Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a great idea and I support if fully. Given the lack of any feedback at all since your post (albeit over a holiday period) why don't you just boldly do it and see what happens. At the worst someone will revert you and the discussion will then get started properly. It's OK to do this. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you copy any material from those into this article then be sure to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to understand the need to attribute the transfer of material. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are pros and cons. A strong argument can be made to keep them as 'historical' routes. On the other hand, as noted, the descriptors are no longer relevant. I would caution, however, that if Tramlink route 1 and Tramlink route 2 are redirected to Tramlink then relevant information be moved as well (unlike Tramlink route 3 and Tramlink route 4 which were simply changed to redirects without updating the main article). Useddenim (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that it was more sensible to move all the Tramlink articles into London Trams, as the "Tramlink" name has not been use for a while. Usual redirecting would be required, of course. Bazza (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Merger Proposal follow up
I propose merging Tramlink into London Trams. Tramlink is the more detailed page, but London Trams is the current name, and there is no information on the shorter London Trams article that is substantially different as there are no other London Trams services. WP:COMMONNAME justification for keeping 'Tramlink' as title doesn't quite apply here, as even though it is common to use a deprecated name long after it has officially changed, it is inconsistent with existing conventions and potentially confusing given the fact the new publications, signage, sources, etc. do not use the Tramlink name anymore. Since the new name is used more frequently in new sources, there is clear evidence of its current recognizability. A redirect to London Trams and the "formerly known as Tramlink" entry line should be enough to keep everything clear to people who know it by the original name. The common name guideline also has the provision that the most "encyclopedic" name should be considered, which is why London Underground is named as such and not The Tube, despite the latter name being more commonly used colloquially and even commonly used in various sources. As a final point, the London Trams article name is less ambiguous, as 'Tramlink' resembles the generic names of several transportation services all over the world (see the disambiguation page for Citylink for example). Middle river exports (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware - note that in the nearly four years since that discussion, the usage of "Tramlink" has continued to decline in publications, and the Transport for London sites seem to have removed all mentions of the term (to the extent that on pages where Tramlink still appears in the Google search metadata, clicking on the link reveals that the phrase is no longer present). Likewise, "London Trams" has been used now by the local publications mentioned as time has past. See this article: Tram passengers endangered by drivers jumping red lights. Published in the Croydon Guardian in February 2022 with mention of London Trams but no use of Tramlink throughout the article body despite it being the main topic. Another example from 2020: [10]. Although there are a few more recent articles which have the phrase Tramlink, most of what comes up in a search is from prior to 2010, whereas a search for London Trams will return the greatest number of articles from recent years.
Comment: Also broadly relevant to this discussion is the fact that at the time of the writing of London Trams, the tentative expansion of the organization to incorporate additional tram networks may have made it seem like a separate article was merited. However, as time has passed, none of those proposals have materialized. The Sutton Link, said to start work in 2022 on the London Trams page, was changed to a bus rapid transit plan and then put on hold indefinitely by 2021. Per the latest update, the only Sutton transport proposal that has been given the go-ahead for development is a bus station [11]. Transport proposals and studies are often points of discussion, especially around times of network rebrandings, but clearly at this point if there is any expansion beyond the Croydon line, it would be several years from now. --Middle river exports (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Weak Support / Neutral: User:Middle river exports makes a perfectly valid point that the term 'Tramlink' has fallen out of official use in favour of 'London Trams'. I agree that the Tramlink article should be merged (technically moved) to London Trams as a result of that argument. --Manche Captain (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The corporate name is not to be confused with the WP:COMMONNAME. The network remains widely-known as "Tramlink". The only serious book on the subject, published last year, is "Croydon Tramlink". To show just how widely used the term is, "Tramlink" has 201,000 hits in google, whilst "London Trams" only 24,000. "London Trams" is an ambiguous name as it potentially covers all of the historical routes. It is the London Trams article which should be redirected here as that article has very little content apart from brief references to a couple of cancelled schemes. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The common name concern is valid - how does having the article as "Croydon Tramlink" sound, then merging "London Trams" into this? My main concerns at the moment are just that "Tramlink" is a generic name and doesn't convey that this article is about the Croydon Tramlink specifically well, and London Trams does not contain much if any different information. --Middle river exports (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am agreeing with this about London Trams, it makes more sense just to eliminate the separate article since it doesn't include anything else.
Tramlink is generic because tram is a common word and adding 'link' as a branding strategy is a common trend in transit agencies. Bear in mind that Google search results are customized to locale and search history - adding various additional search terms you can see various other instances of services or vehicles called Tramlink that may be likely to come up for others depending on locale. (Things like 'new tramlink,' 'tramlink service,' etc.) For example:
@Lamberhurst: I actually like the Croydon Tramlink name, I prefer it over the current title (clarification) and am willing to go for that over a move/merge to London Trams because of the WP:COMMONNAME argument. In fact I'd argue that the latter article should be removed and redirected into Croydon Tramlink. --Manche Captain (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the discussion above it would seem the issue is with the article title and not the article content. If that is the case, then that is a question for WP:RM to decide and not an obstacle for completing the merge. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It goes both ways: the original proposer wanted to merge it into London Trams, but then we have had comments that the latter name wouldn't be suitable anyway (which I now agree with). I now support: Move Tramlink to Croydon Tramlink; redirect London Trams to Croydon Tramlink. The reason for the latter being that London Trams (the arm of TfL operating the network) barely has any content and doesn't have the notability to have an article of itself in the state that it is in. --Manche Captain (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
![[7]](http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/tramlink-network-map.jpg){kind=link}
Moved from Template talk:Tramlink color