Talk:East London Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:East London line)
Jump to: navigation, search

Early Rollingstock[edit]

I think it would be a good to say something about the early locos and rollingstock that worked this line, such as The Terriers, The D1s, and later the Buckjumpers. To this end I've just added a little mention of the famous Terriers (after all Stroudley designed them specifically for London suburban work). Would anyone like to add more, perhaps about Stroudley's coachs, or the various other locos that worked the line in its steam days? Skekayuk 11:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wapping and Rotherhithe[edit]

I just received this email from the ELLE mailing list, so have amended the comment about these two stations in the section Proposed Extensions.

Subject: Wapping and Rotherhithe
From:   <> 
Date:   Wed, August 18, 2004 14:57 
To:     Owen Blacker 
Priority:       Normal 
Mailer:         Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000  

Dear Owen

The Mayor of London has formally announced that the stations at both Wapping
and Rotherhithe that have been classed as being 'under review' will now
remain open when phase one of the project is delivered in June 2010.

It has also been confirmed that responsibility for delivering this project
will be transferred from the Strategic Rail Authority to Transport for
London in the autumn.


Peter Boxell
Head of communications
East London Line Project

OwenBlacker 14:08, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

East London Railway[edit]

There are a large number of references to the East London Railway in other articles. There was, however no article as such. This is one of the penalties of writing articles about present-day situations - ie the East London Line - and then putting in its history. Like many early joint railways (which this one undoubtedly was since it was owned by six mainline/suburban railway companies), this began as a steam-operated line giving its owners access to each others' lines by-passing London. I have therefore written an article giving much of the information shown under 'History' here. Peter Shearan 10:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, but can you put a link in East London Railway to the East London Line somewhere? Frankie Roberto

Opening Date?![edit]

Intro to the article claims -

Its history is connected with that of six other railway companies since its opening in 1865.

Very next line -

The ELR was originally opened in 1869,

And yet none of the stations appear to have opened until 1884.

What's the truth here?

The opening dates (in versions up to today) appear to have been taken from sources describing the history of the line as part of the Underground network, they are the dates on which Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railway services first used those stations. This is the normal way of describing extensions of the Underground by taking over lines built by "main line" railways but as this article is about the East London line past and future, it should tell the whole story from the beginning. I am about to post some corrections. Gazzzz (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Extension completion update (January 4 2006)[edit]

From Wed Jan  4 16:51:11 2006
Return-Path: <>
Message-ID: <05dc01c6114f$01c60100$1942140a@shrgb.hbxgb.win2003.hostway>
X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 16:50:45 -0000
Delivery-date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:51:11 +0000
Subject: East London Line 4 Jan 06

Dear Owen

As we enter 2006, the project continues at pace.  The project remains on
schedule to be delivered by June 2010 in accordance with Olympic


Repair and replacement of 21 bridges along the Kingsland Viaduct began in
May 2005 and remains on schedule to finish in the autumn of 2006.

Status of contracts:

Bids for the £500M main works contract will be returned to the project on 31
March 2006.  Once evaluation has taken place, the successful bidder is
likely to be announced in the summer of 2006 and begin work in autumn 2006.

Proposals from four train manufacturers arrived today and will be evaluated
to determine who will be chosen to provide Rolling Stock for the operational
railway.  A decision will be made at Easter 2006.

More specific details are available on the project website at


Peter Boxell
Head of stakeholder Management
East London Line Project

15 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4DN

ELLP\East London Line Extension[edit]

Hi, just to say i created articles on Shoreditch High Street station, Haggerston station and Hoxton station but they need improvement. This is in preperation as they are now under construction or at least soon will be, i think. Anyway, i have used station instead of tube station or railway station as it is unclear whether this will actually be part of the London Underground or National Rail due to stock etc. Simply south 14:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It definitely will not be part of the Underground. MRSC 15:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's clear at this stage whether the line will be branded as part of the Underground. Have you any evidence one way or the other? I expect that it will be branded in the same way as the North London Line (currently Silverlink) that TFL is going to take over soon. But we don't exactly know how AFAIK. BTW I've noticed some new bridges up along the viaduct now, so work is well underway. Trious 12:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It is totally clear. It will be managed by London Rail, not London Underground and will use mainline rolling stock. Read the docs available on the TfL/GLA websites. They have not shouted from the rooftops that the line will be converted to heavy rail as many people will perceive this as less good than an "Underground" service, particularly folks in south London who beleive "the tube is coming". House prices increase more when there is a tube station than a rail station, even if the rail service is quicker or more frequent. MRSC 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
If it is overground and not underground, does this mean goodbye ELL? (btw what does AFAIK mean?) Simply south 15:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm well I've just looked into this, and it seems from here [1] that it will be branded with the LU roundel but with the word "Rail" on the blue bit. But unless we have any concrete statement by TfL about this, I'm not sure we should mention it. (I'm sure people will think of it as an Underground line though - as they'll see the roundel and will think no more about it...) (AFAIK="as far as i know") Trious 17:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
All TfL divisions use the roundel now, despite not being part of the Underground, even the Public Carriage Office. MRSC 18:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I think that if the London Rail roundel is used, in red and blue, then to the average man/woman on the street, these stations will be called "Undergound" stations. That's all I meant. However, if we don't categorise the new stations as Underground Stations, what will happen to the old ELL stations? Maybe we should make a new category for London Rail stations, and put the new ELL stations in, the NLL stations etc, and then move Rotherhithe, Wapping, etc to this category when the extention opens.Trious 21:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not red and blue, that is brown and blue, the colour combination used by London Rail on its version of the Roundel. personally I think that just leaving it as station would be fine, we only need to make the distinction when there are two stations of the same name, eg West Hampstead MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I would leave the existing stations as they are now. We are talking about something that is due to open in 2010. MRSC 06:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I just found an interesting new brochure [2] - it has some pics of the new bridge to be built over the canal. I liked the old one personally. Trious 17:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the plunge and changed the wording concerning the roundel. I think it always was clear that it would not be a true underground symbol. I have described it as best I can (if you can do better ...). I know we have not had a definite statement but I think we can treat the various TfL commisioned artists drawings of the new stations as sufficient evidence of this.--Pedantic of Purley 17:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the colour isn't supposed to be like the current East London Line colour, but it's a new colour for London Rail to be used on the North London Line, etc, too.Trious 23:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC news (see below, as in whovever posted Privatisation) seems to say that the East London Line is the first Underground Line to be privatised. So i am assuming they are saying that this will be still a London Underground line and not National Rail\Overground Simply south 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The free newspaper that Londoners get (called "The Londoner", an original title I think you'll agree) has a story in the latest edition stating "Hackney to get its first tube station", going on to describe the basics of the northern extension to the ELL. I think this is reasonably conclusive that the East London Line is staying as part of London Underground. As speculation, could it be that London Rail are responsible for getting the extension ready to avoid London Underground "paying" for it? [3] Hammersfan 24/05/06, 22.15 BST
I'd guess that the ELL extention will be branded "London Rail", but using the similar roundel to the LU, so most people won't notice or appreciate the difference, and TfL etc will probably try to blur the difference anyway. Trious 10:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
To jump into this debate at a late stage, I'd like to say that there is absolutely no "official" confusion over who will run the ELL upon completion - it will NOT be London Underground. BBC News is a poor source of information on this topic, as they consistently get the facts wrong - for example, the previously-mentioned story on the alleged leaked memo showing that the ELL would be closed for two years was not a "scoop" at all and was not even news - it had been in the public domain for months beforehand.
Upon completion, the entire ELL will be run as part of TfL's North London Railway concession, managed by their London Rail division, as demonstrated in this press release. The track will be maintained by Network Rail, and the only involvement London Underground will have with the line is management of the ELL platforms at the interchange stations of Whitechapel and Canada Water. They will not be involved in anything to do with the rest of the line.
The use of the term "tube station" in The Londoner is nothing more than a marketing simplification to avoid the long-winded explanation given above. --Dave A 12:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

LU will continue to control signals and power between Dalston and New Cross/New Cross Gate upon reopening as this section will not become part of the National Rail (or Network rail) systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


interesting news, but I'm not sure of accuracy, so don't treat it as gospel... 09:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff... I don't understand why they'd need to shut the entire line though, given that the work would be done at the far ends? -- ChrisO 10:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I had already always assumed that once it became a NR line it would be franchised out, like all the others. Interesting that it will join the North London Line franchise though, definately suggests a move to orbirail MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 10:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The closure of the entire line is needed to upgrade signaling to NR standards. I think they also need to lay new track and change the electrification from four rail to three (with the return current passing through the running rails). Wilmot1 17:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NLL: along or parallel?[edit]

The article currently says:

In phase 2, the line will be extended to run parallel to the North London Line, going through Canonbury and terminating at Highbury & Islington'

I think this is wrong Every piece of literature I can find says "along", not "parallel", and some of the proposed eventual service patterns imply the existing NLL track will be used. --

I can't see how it could possibly run parallel to the NLL, considering it's a two-line track in a rather confined space! -- ChrisO 13:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
There's an intermediate; some extra track may need to be constructed to allow overtaking of freight trains. Some parts are already three-track; these parts may need to be extended or a fourth track added along others. However, in either case, ELL trains will still share with NLL services. --Dave A 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Northern City Line[edit]

It will become the first-ever line to "secede" from the London Underground

what about the Northern City Line? Morwen - Talk 10:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -will change article slightlySurfermoon 11:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Londoner[edit]

I'm going to take a guess that most of the editors here are Londoners, in which case you might get that paper from the mayor. Its got a double page spread towards the middle about the East London Line. Just letting you know. RHB 20:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Closure Date[edit]

The article says the ELL will close from 22 December 2007, and the linked PDF confirms this. But the posters in Canada Water Tube station say it closes from 23 December, not 22. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

This has caused confusion elsewhere too!!! If I recall correctly the last train will run on 22nd December and the 23rd will be thee first day with no trains!! Wilmot1 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Name literally[edit]

Literally, when was the ELL given its modern name? What specific year? was it 1988? Simply south

Leaflets and links[edit]

A leaflet on the forthcoming closure and upgrade is presently (April 2007) available from stations on the ELL.

The links to the "official" pages do not work. Jackiespeel 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Future of the ELL[edit]

According to today's thelondonpaper the ELL is going to be incorporated into a "London Overground" along with the North London Line. Jackiespeel 18:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also my understanding, If you read anything produced by BBCJV [Balfor Beety Corillian Joint Venture] (East London Line Project team) this seems to confirm. SkippyUK 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wapping, Rotherhithe Short Platforms and Canada Water[edit]

The following text from the main article does not sound correct...

"Because of an inability to extend the platforms at the existing Wapping and Rotherhithe stations and make them fully compliant with current rail safety regulations, it was thought that they would be closed, but on 18 August 2004 Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, announced that both stations will remain open, at least when Phase 1 of the project opens by June 2010."

AFAIK the problem is the width of these platforms, the restricted access from the steps, and the lack of secondary exit - even for emergency use. Length is not a problem, not at all. I say this because when there were through services longer trains than now were run. Plus all stations except Canada Water have unused sections of platforms which can be made available for longer trains. The real problem (AIUI) is that the newest station (Canada Water) was built to only accept 4 car trains. Given that the new trains will be longer than the present trains so this will be a very serious capacity constraint. Since Canada Water is such an important interchange station so unless it is going to be lengthened during the closure (not something I've heard being proposed) so potentially it will seriously restrict future train operations.

btw, according to something I read extra emergency exits *are* to be installed at Wapping (using a former entrance which was closed) and at Rotherhithe (using a former smoke ventilation air duct from when steam freight trains used the line). Alas, I do not recall where I read this, otherwise I'd post a link.

In the meantime this discussion thread (which spreads over 2 pages) might be of interest. (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Updating the articles[edit]

I'm slightly concerned that the articles haven't been updated. It needs to be done pretty soon. Oh, and merry Christmas. Traintoots (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Not done - no consensus to move the article at this time (this may change in the future as AlisonW says below). I will move it so the second "L" is capitalised, however. Neıl 11:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

I think this article should be moved to East London Railway and should be written in the style of:

The East London Railway is a railway currently under construction in London, England and due to open in 2010. The railway is effectively an extension of the East London line of the London Underground which closed on 22 December 2007 and ceased to form part of the Underground as of that date. Once complete, the East London Railway will form a component of the London Overground concession of the National Rail network. The railway was originally opened in 1869 as the East London Railway and runs under the Thames through the Thames Tunnel, opened in 1843.

This may not be the exact wording, just indicative. My thinking is that the East London line has ceased to exist and what exists now is the East London Railway under construction. Naturally the renamed article will contain all the history both during the LU period and before. MRSCTalk 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I should have made clearer that East London Railway is the name that Transport for London have selected for the line, not my own invention. The renaming is intended to reflect official usage. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] MRSCTalk 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the above, "East London Railway" would look very out of place next to the other current and future LO routes: West London Line, North London Line, South London Lines, Gospel Oak to Barking Line, Watford DC Lines. I don't believe the common name principle would support "Railway" either. (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah. But they are known collectively by TfL as the North London Railway. MRSCTalk 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thinking of ELR as an "extension" of ELL probably isn't a good idea. It would make more sense IMO to think of LU's "ELL" as a service operated on the tracks of the "ELR", and that the "ELR" is being extended. I use the quotes, as I prefer the term "Railway" to refer to original companies - in this case, an "East London Railway company" formed for the building of the line, probably owned mostly by the larger companies that operated along it. I also consider here that we have a significant proportion of our articles about physical railways (as opposed to the railway companies or modern service patterns) are titled with "Line" (capital L) rather than "Railway" - e.g. Marston Vale Line, Ebbw Valley Line, Cross-City Line, etc. which suggests to me that "Railway" would not necessarily be an entirely suitable suffix. Of course, given that LUL referred to this as the "East London line" (lower-case l), it may not be entirely unsuitable either. Tentatively opposing the move, though recommend capitalising the L in "Line" to match our practice with other parts of the rail network to which it will then belong, as opposed to that of our London Underground line articles. (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Whilst East London Railway may be the correct *formal* name in use by TfL's press office at the present time I don't see it surviving into actual usage when every other TfL service in London is a "Line", however by 201x it could have all changed yet again, so I'll survive either way! --AlisonW (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm unsure why we should resist the change of name, or put a time delay on it. As it is, numerous articles that refer to this one use East London Railway i.e. the line after use by LU. East London line/East London Line is still there as a redirect after the move. MRSCTalk 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Merge with Overground[edit]

I think this article should be merged with the overgound one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the shift from Underground to Overground?[edit]

I don't think the reason/s for the change are clearly made. What are the differences between passenger operations on "Network Rail" and "Underground" lines? (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

North Battersea station???[edit]

It is May 2008 when I write this. Does anybody know anything about a North Battersea station (on the East London Line Extension phase 2) and where it might be located? I heard this week that they were thinking of putting in a new station where Culvert Road goes under the train tracks. There is also a foot bridge going over the train tracks to link up with Eversleigh Road. This would seem to be a logical place to put a station/the station. Does anybody know anything? Also, what is the latest on when the extension to Clapham Junction (one stop further) will take place? In time for the Olympics? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I wasn't aware funding had been obtained for phase 2. The North Battersea station is part of phase 2, the proposed location is, as far as I am aware, not fixed. It has been suggested here [9] that opposite Queenstown Road station is a good site. Can't help anymore than that, sorry. Hiding T 11:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Opposite the Queenstown Road station" could the same place that I was told, because if you go under that small tunnel at the end of Culvert Road, it curves back along the rail tracks almost all the way to Queenstown Road. It's about a quarter of kilometer long, and all there is back there are light industrial businesses that rent arches underneath the railway. I think it is the same place. I know somebody that is working on drawings for a rail platform along there. Who knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • North Battersea station isn't formally part of phase 2 - it would be a new station built under separate powers/funding/etc, and all that that entails. There've been no changes in the status of the extension, although there've been hints recently that funding for it will be announced soon. If it does, they would want it to be finished by not long after December 2011 so it can help out with the disruption caused by the Thameslink Programme at London Bridge, which starts around then. --Mr Thant (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead Ending at Clapham Junction???[edit]

I also writing this in May 2008. I was told today that the Phase 2 extension might not dead-end exactly in the current Clapham Junction, but for whatever reason (Clapham already too crowded?, not enough platform space, etc?), that planners were considering having it dead-end about a hundred yards earlier, across Falcon Road, behind the ASDA superstore. There is certainly disused area there. I was told that they were planning to have an "arcade" (whatever that is) built there along with what would be the new platform. I would guess that there would be an above-the-road walkway from Clapham Junction over Falcon Road to the new "extension platform" and arcade (just guessing). Anybody know anything about this? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Who on earth told you this? The plan would to reopen Platform 1, which is on the north side of Platform 2, the one used by existing London Overground services. This is much cheaper and easier than creating a brand new platform elsewhere. The track to get to it isn't used by very many services at all (almost no passenger services), so there's no problem with reaching it. --Mr Thant (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • LOL. Okay, I went back to the person that told me this (an older woman that lives in near Clapham Junction), and on further questioning she said that it had nothing to do with the East London Line and nothing to do with new platforms - what she had heard is that it had been discussed to put an "arcade" in behind the Asda store, and as a convenience they would install an entrance to Clapham Junction from the arcade, i.e. there would be a “walk over” constructed over Falcon Road connecting to Clapham Junction, i.e. there would be an extra entrance to Clapham Junction. I would guess that this would involve very little to do with BR/London Overground since the whole thing would have to be paid for by private investors/whoever builds/owns the proposed arcade. But no new platform – just an additional convenient entrance to Clapham Junction. Maybe I should put up a question on the Clapham Junction Discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

East London line, or East London Railway?[edit]

This has probably come up before, but: shouldn't the article be called East London Railway. That is what certain sources are telling us is going to be the new name when the railway reopens. I know that the East London line (as a historical railway) still needs an article, although there's really no protocol for this: no modern LU line has closed before. Any thoughts, anyone? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered (and decided) further up this page! Like the North London Line, er Railway, it will be called a "Line" and in keeping with the normal WP practice of using the common name where appropriate, we should continue to do so here. --AlisonW (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First letter of "line"[edit]

TfL has detailed rules about lettering which, I think, include that LU lines have a lowercase 'l' (contrary to NR usage). This article has a capital 'L' and a redirect from the small 'l' version. Shouldn't it be moved and the redirect reversed? Or is LO different?--SilasW (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It will reopen as a non-Underground line, so "L" in the title should be capitalised. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
"should" does not follow from its being "non-Underground". TfL webpages show both cases with an apparent preference for "l" except for adjectival use, as in East London Line projects (this particular railway's projects) opposed to East London line projects (line projects in East London). It's all up to what TfL decrees, they try for consistency (see their rules about frames around posters for example) but they nod sometimes, see where they wrote of the North London Railway, meaning not the tracks of The North London Railway company but just about everything which was to become London Overground.--SilasW (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, point taken, but think North London Line. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No matter what re-use is made of the route, the LU line has a lower case "ell". (mainline Lines are upper case). The article is replete with an uninhibited scattering of wrong cases which I cannot change at this moment. I caught a few and have moved the article and its talk.--SilasW (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ELL & ELR[edit]

Sorry to pick the scab off this but ELL and ELR are separate entities and should have separate articles not a false redirect.

The ELR was a railway company even if jointly owned and even if other nearby lines were maybe later grouped under its umbrella.

The ELL, as with other lines, has been a possibly time-variant, possibly operator-variant length of track or service. It was a London Underground line (coloured, as the article says, orange on the tube map) now closed for works to make a longer London Overground ELL.

Some WP articles have mistakenly used "ELR" for "ELL" when mentioning connections.--SilasW (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see TfL, which is pernickety in such matters, tries to use "East London line" for the former Underground line (as for all LU lines) and "East London Line" for the line in gestation (as for all other LO lines). "East London Railway" was a different indepedent entity. Each of the three should have its own article. Things with added "extension" should not be.--SilasW (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The confusion arose because TfL initially referred to the new route as "the extended East London line" (pre-LO), then "East London Railway" (IIRC both pre- and post- LO launch) and only recently have they reverted to "East London Line[/line]". So ELR was used for some time to refer to the new route as well as the historic company. In other words, TfL took a long time to decide what to call the darn thing - who knows, even with months to open, they might even change it again! (unlikely though)--Peeky44 What's on your mind? 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rationalisation between this and the East London line extension article[edit]

I think this article needs to be trimmed especially in respect of the Extensions section as there is a separate article available. Please see proposal in Talk:East London line extension

Ivanberti (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I started a couple of days back to split the subject into separate articles for the "East London Railway Company", the LU "East London line" and the LO "East London Railway", with another saying "East London Railway" could refer to any of the three (and even the wrong "East London Line", but I was interrupted and when I got back next day someone had zapped my doings (despite my "see talks") without a strong reason except a possible That's-what-I-like.--SilasW (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that there is little benefit for the current duplication of content relating to the history of the EEL line extension between the two article. I have just done some work on the article today to make it match the structure of other articles for railway lines more closely by using a 'Current developments' section and I have also split the descriptions of phase 1 and phase 2 extensions into separate sub-sections so that phase 1 can be moved to a new 'Recent developments' section on completion on the 23 May 2010. I propose that we trim the 'Background to project' and 'Launch of project' sections drastically before that date and propose to do that unless there are strong objections. PeterEastern (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, so I have now been through the article and have striped out considerable amounts of overlap with this article and the ELL Extension article and have also moved any relevant new content to that article leaving only a summary here. PeterEastern (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

St Mary's Curve[edit]

After several journeys on the route, it appears to me that St Mary's Curve no longer can be accessed from the East London Line. Is that really the case? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the tunnel telephone contact wires have been extended across the throat of the junction. [10]. The stanchions are visible from the train, with something that looked like panelling (but I couldn't really see it) in between. I hadn't realised that they still used the tunnel telephone. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Just wondering if anyone knows why the succession template isn't working properly. It shows the station, the next and previous but not the terminus/direction elements (Template:S-line/LOG right/East London and Template:S-line/LOG left/East London).- J.Logan`t: 17:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fresh sources[edit]

I happened across this long and technical PDF entitled the East London Line Reborn - Major Project Report which has several pages covering bridge construction, track design, and renovation of various historic structures while the ELL was being turned into the Overground. —Sladen (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

West Croydon station[edit]

According to the lead of West Croydon station "The East London line, part of London Overground, was extended to the station on 23 May 2010." Does this article need to be updated to reflect this extension? -- Timberframe (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you read East London Line#East London Line extension? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It could perhaps to with some clarification about when it is talking about the East London Line (the trackwork between New Cross/Gate and Shoreditch), and when it is talking about the East London Line (the present service between Croydon/Crystal Palace/New Cross and Highbury & Islington). —Sladen (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Dates and dead links[edit]

I feel the article would be better if there were an actual date given for the last Underground train - I can see it's 2007, and from LU incident data I know it was in December, but someone must have recorded the last train.

Also there are a lot of dead links in this article. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been following the external links, and most of them lead to deleted pages. Should the links be deleted or no? Hailstorm324 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hailstorm324: You could try rescuing them out of the Internet Archive, or just tag them as {{dead link}}s. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
16:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on East London Line. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on East London Line. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)