Talk:Tramlink

Station article names

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?

I'm not sure on the rest so won't put links in yet - does anyone who knows the system better have the answers? Timrollpickering 22:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

There is a table of distances at http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/tramlink.html . To be really nitpicky, there is only one step up at each end of the trams. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To to answer a question ommited from the list:

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

Croydon Tramlink routes 1, 2, and 3

I will be creating the three pages focusing on these routes in the same way as these articles have been done. Anyone wishing to check the progress can check my userpage for the link to the subpage.--sonicKAI 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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 Arthur 21:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Thryduulf 22:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The official map says ‘route’, which makes sense given the amount of track-sharing between them. David Arthur 18:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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 Purley 10:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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 wood 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that website is as reliable nowadays, as the author died some time agoBreakfast100 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to do it

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. --Veratien 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Purley 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it called both and also "Gantlet track" (I suspect this is either a misspelling of "Gauntlet track" or vice versa). Whichever term you use make sure "track" has a lowercase t, and set up redirects. We have a few photos that I've spotted on commons that show this - Image:028140 tramlink mitcham.jpg, Image:Gb-tramlink-croydoncentre-09.jpg, Image:Gb-tramlink-croydoncentre-10.jpg, Image:Praha ms dual gauge.jpg (badly named, it isn't dual gauge) and Image:Sechsschienengleis.JPG (I've never seen this layout anywhere else). They aren't categorised together yet, but when you choose a term I suggest making a category by that name on commons as a subcategory of Commons:Category:Rail track. Thryduulf 10:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Thryduulf 10:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now created Commons:Category:Gauntlet track (as that gets the most google hits (~700 vs ~300 for Interlaced and ~400 for Gantlet)). Thryduulf 19:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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. ;) --Veratien 01:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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. --sonicKAI 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This got discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. As mentioned there it now seems that everyone has gone so far down the line of calling them stops that this is the de facto standard. I have therefore taken the liberty of changing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London to specify that they should be called stops. Hopefully that should sort it out once and for all.--Pedantic of Purley 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Power Failures 26th and 27th September 2006

I have deleted this section as the section in not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --ExULstudent 15:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ampere Way now known as IKEA Ampere Way

I've changed the name of the Ampere Way stop to its new official name of IKEA Ampere Way photo. D-Notice 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Ideas

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 this section may have served a purpose once upon a time but I think it should now be updated or eliminated.--Pedantic of Purley 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Relationship between TfL and TCL

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 Purley 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As TfL will be taking over this is now water under the bridge.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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! --Soopa hoops77 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

# That's the West London Tram D-Notice 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I understant that there is to be this tram line to be built, but it wont be called Tramlink. There are also plans for a tram line to go from brixton to the west end over waterloo bridge.http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/2043.aspx Breakfast100 19;25, 17 April 2007

1. That's the Cross River Tram D-Notice 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
   1. The West London Tram has now been confirmed as not happening. Cross River Tram however is still very much 'on the plate'.Bluegoblin7 11:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fares / Ticketing

I notice that there is little information about the Tramlink ticketing system. Should some be added, or is it too similar to London Buses? Ajn91 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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... ??? Pickle 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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 Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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. Bluegoblin7 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

Thus i'm not having a laugh at your expense

Pickle 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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! Bluegoblin7 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry mate, i don't pretend to even understand how one might code such an outcome so don't panic! ;) Pickle 04:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

|Ok! I just thought I should mention it! Mainly for CS's benefit. Didn't want to annoy anyone. --Bluegoblin7 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know what's happened to the banners, I had an idea to clean them up. Please rv me if you don't like it! Bluegoblin7 12:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

History

The Wimbledon branch is a former British Rail route, not mentioned in the "history" section. 194.80.106.135 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So WP:BOLD:Be bold! and change it. Pickle 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Takeover by TfL

The article says:

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.

and quotes http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/7741.aspx as a source. Unfortunately that link is now broken, but it seems http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/7741.aspx is a replacement url that works (I will edit).

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)

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)

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)

Route diagram template

Just thought I'd say that I've created a route diagram for Tramlink, at Template:Tramlink RDT. --Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Trambaan type segregation source

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Many thanks for doing this, Starbois, it is appreciated. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tramlink extension plans dropped?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7712002.stm - BBC News is reporting that the Tramlink extension (amongst other London transport plans) have been dropped. Maybe this should be reflected in the article once we have more sources? Smoothy (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just like to add another source - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/10231.aspx Smoothy (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi all, this is a picture of the newer signage erected at Beddington Lane tram stop. Date of photo, December 2008:

. I think it interesting that the main logo says "Tramlink" only, but "London Tramlink" does appear on the route map. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

Yours sincerely

London Tramlink"

Do any protest or dispute this?--SilasW (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Then why sign off London Tramlink?? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The letter seems to say that a team called 'London Tramlink' are responsible for operating a tram system called simply 'Tramlink'. David Arthur (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see it now! But, still, both names appear on the signage in the picture above. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Operator

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).

First still physically operate the trams, on behalf of TfL who bought out TCL. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you right about the operator?

Looking at the Tramlink user guide it says Tramlinks is owned and operated by TFL see: [5] and go to introduction and go to [6].Likelife (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes, hope it makes sense! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Theres only two routes

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)

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)

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)

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.

• But all route 1 and 2 s-boxs need changing to the new lime colour. Likelife (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Im changing the colours I'll hope these are better but they are not perfect. Likelife (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

template:s-line (new colors)

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)

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)

In fact its already in the stop description so gonna go ahead and remove. WatcherZero (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop posting Piccadilly line images

Please note that this page is for discussing TRAMLINK. It is not a place to post images NOT about Tramlink Likelife (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)