Talk:London Underground

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Blurred chart

why is one chart blurred? Wikipedia don't censor ~2025-36388-15 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I assume they are referring to the chart at the bottom of Lines section, which appears to be displaying weirdly. I'm not sure why that is happening. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 22:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Beck's Tube Map 1933

I added Beck's Tube map, since it was referred to but not shown, both because it is significant in the history of the London Underground, but also because it shows the extent of the network in 1933 at the moment it was taken over by the London Passenger Transport Board. However, this change was reverted. So I have come here to discuss it. The image was taken from the Harry Beck article and is quite low-def. I do not see the issue with using it here and think people will find it quite useful. So what's the objection? LastDodo (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The restrictions on using Non-free content like this in articles are quite strict. It's appropriate for Harry Beck, and also Tube map (surprisingly wasn't there already, I just added it) which directly relate to this specific map and include extensive commentary on it. However just adding it in the history part of this page felt a bit tenuous. If the intent here is to show the extent of the network in 1933, it would be better to create a new map showing that. It could be done at a more useful resolution too. the wub "?!" 16:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I can read the rules about non-free content but am not familiar enough with their application to know what the right thing is here. Are you confident about this? Would it really not be considered fair use? I mean this article is about the London Underground, of whicb Beck's map is both a part, and a useful means of showing that history (the extent of the network). Can you imagine anyone at TFL actually objecting to the use of the map on the wikipedia page for the London Underground, of all places? I am not going to go create some near identical map which would only be based off his anyway. I would be interested in what other people think about this. LastDodo (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The WP:NFCCP criteria are strict. You must satisfy all ten main criteria, including all five sub-criteria. None of them are optional. As for TfL, if you can persuade them to release the Diagram of Lines under a free-use license, then great. Otherwise, we follow non-free rules. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Just as a thought, is the Beck map still in copyright? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. In the United Kingdom, copyright remains for 70 years after the death of the author (commons:Help:Public domain#Copyright terms by country). Harry Beck died in 1974 so it remains under copyright until 2044. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 17:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

But it was commisioned by LT who would own the copyright which would expire 70 years after first publication, ie 2003. Also material commissioned or originated by a government body is available under a Creative Commons license? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Although Beck was an employee of UERL, he was acting as a freelancer when he submitted the design. Our article Tube map#Beck's maps shows that he was paid a total of 15 guineas (£15-15-0d) for the designs - but did the transaction include the transfer of copyright? If not, it will have remained with Beck and subsequently, his estate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The book doesn't mention it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

According to this article, he signed over the copyright. However, I'm not sure that matters for when it expires. I believe it is still 70 years after his death, in 2044. LastDodo (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be 70 years after he signed over copyright, if that was to a corporate entity, If he signed it over to, eg, his wife, it would be 70 years after her death I believe, Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. this page makes no reference to such a rule. LastDodo (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Both your links come up with page not found. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

When I was working as a freelance, any work I produced remained the copyright of the company commissioning it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but the expiration date would be 70 years (or whatever it is depending on the type of work) after your death. Also I fixed the links, sorry about that. LastDodo (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I never had the copyright, it always belonged to the relevant company. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Did the company ask you to produce the work? If so, they're justified in including a clause in the contract that gave them the copyright. In the case of Beck, it was entirely his own idea: he worked on it in his spare time, and the first that the UERL knew of it was when it was almost complete, and he took it along to the publicity department. Garland's book makes it clear that Beck continued to work on amendments for some time afterwards, usually without being asked to do so. For example, one of his drafts (not taken up by the London Transport Executive) was to add the Victoria line as a straight diagonal, using lilac as the colour. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Aha: When I recently signed a form assigning the copyright of this design to the Board, it was not merely understood, but was promised, that I should continue to make, or edit and direct, any alterations that might have to be made to the design. This practice has been followed without exception since 1932. - Letter from Beck to Christian Barman, dated 2 June 1938, quoted in Garland (p. 32). So Beck did transfer the copyright, no later than 1938. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Good find! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes a difference. The article above on copyright makes no mention of who owns the copyright being a factor in how long it lasts. From that it seems it will last until 70 years after Beck's death, and that would apply whether or not he held on to the copyright and even if he had never held it. LastDodo (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

According to HMG Works made by the Crown or an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of their duties (e.g. an employee of a Government department): 125 years from creation.

50 years from commercial publication, if published within 75 years of creation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I dont think Beck would count as a Crown employee. The map was first published in the first two months of 1933, while the London Passenger Transport Board was only established in April 1933. Also the LPTB was not full nationalisation anyway. LastDodo (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

In what sense was it not full nationalisation? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Because there were still privately-owned shares in the new organisation. See London Passenger Transport Board#History, last paragraph, and London Passenger Transport Board#Further history, last paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

So if we are right, the Beck map would still be copyrighted, which means the rules apply. And if Redrose64 and others are saying the criteria are not met, I don't have the knowledge or wherewithal ro argue.

I have found an alternative which is this map which is from 1932, so pretty close, though of course not in the diagrammatic 'Beck' style people are familiar with. It is by Fred H Stingemore, who died in 1954 , which means the copyright expired in 2024. Of course I'd rather have the Beck map, because it is mentioned, it is famous, it is from 1933 and because it is in a style readers will be familiar with, meaning it is much easier to compare to present day maps. But there we are.

Alternatively someone could contact TFL and ask permission. Yes, of course I could do it, but its a bit above and beyond for me when it comes to wikipedia editting. LastDodo (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Should we add service tables somewhere within the general London Underground subject?

Consider this a late BRD following some reverts on individual line articles of my attempt to add National Rail-like service tables to the individual tube line articles, but in the past few weeks, I have been developing tables in the style of National Rail TOC articles, including train frequency on each route, with the result of the finished tables in my User pages. Despite those reverts, I still believe this article and/or the individual tube line articles can benefit from such tables without worrying about duplication, as it is right now on articles like Elizabeth line, and on some rail line articles within London Overground. And for this, I have three proposals for how to move forward with this:

• Option A: Insert these service tables within their respective tube line articles, with or without replacing other relevant content. (Original attempt)
• Option B: Only insert these tables into one combined table on this article.
• Option C: Don't implement this. (Current status quo)

So what shall we do regarding this matter? Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a high frequency metro/subway/rapid transit system, and therefore "calling at" is excessive detail that would duplicate the list of stations in a line article.

A version where the routes and the trains per hour shown would be okay in each respective article, thereby showing the routes and the frequency in a clean table rather than prose. I looked at featured articles (North East Line and 1 Line (Sound Transit)) for inspiration. Turini2 (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm OK with option A, I think it looks clean and simple. However I intensely dislike the affectation that is the coloured text at the top. Why can't it be just a simple table caption using the |+ table construct? The colour is already used in the infobox, so why does it need to be repeated in the article? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

b.t.w. Some of the colour combinations fail WP:CONTRAST, for example the Victoria line table. The white on blue fails both WCAG AA and AAA. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The colour was a stylistic choice that came about from an idea based around how London Overground's tables are presented similar to how they are on the official TfL map (double lines rather than the tube's solid line approach). I would not be opposed to tweaking the headers to make it work visually (i.e. removing it entirely or using the colour a different way). Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:59, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They are redundant to station lists. The only line where stopping patterns might be at all useful is the Metropolitan, where Uxbridge trains call at all stations but trains to Watford, Amersham or Chesham skip some stations. Some decades ago, the District also had some services that non-stopped certain stations, but they're now all-stations services. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviving this idea as I've just updated my relevant userpage to combine all the tables together, in case we go with Option B. I'm gonna go ahead and rule out Option A as I'm now starting to realize the redundancy of their use with what's already on the respective articles. In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I maintain that "calling at" is excessive detail that would duplicate the list of stations in a line article. Turini2 (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that calling at is redundant detail, and I'm not sure that the tables are the best way to present this information anyway. It would be far simpler I think would be to just cover the typical service pattern and frequency in the prose, but I'm also not certain why we need this information on the main London Underground article rather than on the article for each individual line? It feels like excessive detail at this level. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Interactive maps of London Underground lines

In the past 1.5 weeks, I made interactive maps of all London Underground lines (the Waterloo & City line map was made in March). However, articles on these lines are unique in that there is not a good way to add maps of their respective lines; these maps are normally at the bottom of infoboxes. So far, these maps appear as top icons. Any thoughts on the placement of interactive maps of Tube lines? AlphaBeta135talk 14:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaBeta135 I've been looking for someone who knows about interactive maps! Please could you have a look at Cambridge line#Route map which I tried to model off Liberty line#Map to no avail? The wikidata is Q5025469 and the OSM route master is 21121670. Thank you, (please mention me on reply), (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 13:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

London Underground patronage by line

This pie chart (found below the table at London Underground#Lines) has some really strange colouring. None of the pie sector colours correspond,even vaguely, with the well-known line colours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree completely. I also think it is unnecessary given that the same data is presented in the sortable table above. So for now I have commented it out and it can stay hidden while we discuss and obtain consensus. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)