Talk:London Post Office Railway

2003 posts

There should perhaps be a way of telling the difference between a Post Office and The Post Office Group, the now-defunct name of Consignia, a public limited company in Britain that deals with, well, post. -- Robert Brook

Since the last comment was posted (no pun intended!), the name Consignia is now itself defunct, and The Post Office is resurrected... -- Arwel 23:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, it's "Royal Mail Group plc" now. "Post Office" remains a brand name owned by the group. --rbrwr

Crossrail

The article had this:

• The route of the proposed Crossrail link across London is similar to that of the Post Office railway, and therefore it could make sense for the Post Office railway tunnels to be expanded and used as a basis. However, the tunnels are much smaller, and it is unlikely that both the alignment and the depth will be suitable.

I feel that this shouldn't really be there, or at least not without a citation as to who said it. At the moment it reads like an editor's personal speculation or comment. After all, it sets up the idea then demolishes it, so it does not really get anywhere. I would be happy to see this, rewritten, back in the article as long as a credible external source was cited. 82.45.248.177 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this should be taken out until an independent source is available. Gwernol 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The crossrail alignment is carefully set to come into such stations as Tottenham Court Road and Bond St, avoiding the already busy subsurface network of tunnels. While The Post Office Railway is close to this alignment, it would be at the wrong level to successfully connect to the stations. Also, if you look at the post office tunnel, the Mount Pleasant Sorting Office has an unrealistic nearly right angle turn which would not work for a larger rail system such as Crossrail.

Photos

I've found some post closure photos but they are under Creative Commons BY-NC (so not free enough for us). It might be worth contacting the uploader though. flickr Secretlondon 19:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! The photographer did agree to release one of those images as BY-SA, and I have added it to this page. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

GLA Report

Removed the link to:

• GLA report on the closure in PDF format.

As the GLA have updated their website. Can only find reference in the list of publications at http://pss.london.gov.uk/PSS/DownloadPublicationListReport.do but this just lists the dead link Truthmonkey (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reveretd and updated link. Google is Your Friend. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger

Should these articles (the different rolling stock used over the years)

• 1927 Stock — Original stock
• 1930 & 1936 Stock — Replacement stock for 1927 Stock
• 1962 Stock — Prototype stock
• 1980 Stock — Replacement stock

be merged into this article? Gordo (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)