Talk:Jubilee line

< The 1996 stock uses a different motor from the 1995 stock and has a motor design similar to Class 465 Networker trains. >

How is the truth (or otherwise) of this statement affected by the Hitachi traction upgrade on Class 465 ? (and does, or did, the 1996 stock use the same 'unreliable' components that are removed from Class 465 by the upgrade ?)

86.176.194.183 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on Jubilee line. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=678411743 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120803065342/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Performance_Data_Store_P2_2012-13_Issued(1).xlsm to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Performance_Data_Store_P2_2012-13_Issued(1).xlsm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091229055337/http://www.london.gov.uk:80/assembly/reports/transport/too-close-for-comfort.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/transport/too-close-for-comfort.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

{{ping|Rwendland}} {{ping|Redrose64}}

Just a note on the TBTC failures. Note that I work for LU and so am not editing this myself. The Register article is indeed correct that the TBTC system does fail sometimes, but so does everything else - it's what happens when a system is in constant use. It could be argued that "significant" is a weasel word, and thus the article boils down to "it breaks sometimes", which doesn't seem very notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

:I'm happy to remove it if you think this is overstated. I sort-of feel it would be nice to keep the cite, as this section is so thin on cites - slipping in a cite was a large part of my motivation. Do you think it worth keeping somehow? Rwendland (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

:NB the article calls it the Thales S40 system (link to Thales Rail Signalling Solutions), TheReg the Seltrac S40 system. Which is best? I also did a similar addition on Northern line (which uses "Seltrac S40 system"), but not as its own para so more subtle. Rwendland (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

::It's both. Thales is the manufacturer, SelTrac is the product name.

::Regarding being overstated, I don't deny that the signalling systems are a significant source of delay, but that would be the same on any railway, and it's less significant than train defects, and far less than passenger actions. My issue is that it implies the signalling system is not working correctly, when it is, but like everything it has failures occasionally. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

:::Can we apply the same logic to the Northern Line article? Again, system generally works fine, but moving parts and all. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jubilee line. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=777710582 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Performance_Data_Store_P2_2012-13_Issued%281%29.xlsm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514092147/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1608.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1608.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215094944/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/18090.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/18090.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212182726/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/linefacts/?line=jubilee to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/linefacts/?line=jubilee
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1096&field=btstr&term=Transport&type=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1094&field=btstr&term=Transport&type=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=316&field=btstr&term=Transport&type=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=288&field=btstr&term=Transport&type=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212182726/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/linefacts/?line=jubilee to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/linefacts/?line=jubilee

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are four articles for unbuilt tube stations on the possible route of Phase 3 of the Jubilee line expansion - Beckton tube station, Millwall tube station, St Katharine Docks tube station and Surrey Docks North tube station. They are practically identical, except for the title and names of adjacent stations. All four rely on the same single source - {{cite book | first=Mike |last=Horne |title=The Jubilee Line |url=https://archive.org/details/jubileeline0000horn |year=2000 |publisher=Capital Transport |isbn=1-85414-220-8 }} - which does not provide enough information to justify notability for any of them.

I propose they all be merged into this article. The redirects could point to {{seclink| Jubilee line|Proposed extensions}}, which has all the information about Phase 3 already.

Pinging {{ping|DavidCane}} as original creator of the articles. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:WikiProject London Transport policy is to have an article for every London Underground station that had full authorisation but was not built. The source is Mike Horne's book which was one of a set published in association with London Transport Limited (a part of Transport for London) and sold at the London Transport Museum. DavidCane (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|DavidCane}} Thank you for responding. Can you tell me:

::* Where is that policy discussed or recorded?

::* What counts as 'full authorisation'?

::-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is there more to say about these stations beyond what's already in the articles and that isn't the same for all of them? If not, I would support a merge but I'm not familiar with the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Source is on Archive.org, linked in the cite above. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I can't find the specific discussion which was a long time ago, but all stations that had full authorisation are listed in the featured list List of former and unopened London Underground stations. There is a note there which provides context for the criteria for the stations that are included and those that are not. Full authorisation means that parliamentary approval was granted for the construction.

:::Basically, for a railway to be constructed a private bill had to be submitted to parliament for review and approval. The bill would include details on the funding for the construction works, timings, detailed maps and plans of the route, land to be purchased, roads to be excavated, etc. including where the stations were to be located. If the bill was approved, an act of parliament would be passed which would contain details of the authorised works.

:::There were many reasons why an authorised station might not get built, e.g.:

:::* The railway failed to raise all of the money needed to be able to carry out the works.

:::* The railway failed to start the works within the time limit set by the act of parliament (usually five years) and was not granted an extension of time.

:::* The railway changed its plans and got a revised approval for a different route or stations in different locations - examples: the Jubilee line stations or Cannon Hill tube station or Paddenswick Road tube station.

:::* The railway decided that economic need for the station might not be great and the station got cancelled - examples: North End tube station or Clerkenwell tube station.

:::* The railway cancelled plans after legislative changes - examples: Harefield Road tube station or Bushey Heath tube station which were affected by the introduction of the Green Belt.

:::For each of the railways that were approved, there were many more proposed and planned which failed during the review process or were rejected. Some of these were complete railways (example: Piccadilly, City and North East London Railway), others were unsuccessful proposals for extension made by railways that had got other approvals (example: the Central London Railway's proposal for a loop line or the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway's proposed branches to Mansion House and Shepherd's Bush. The stations for these unapproved railways are not included in the list and do not articles. DavidCane (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)