Talk:North and West London Light Railway

Graphics

I have undone the repositioning of some of the graphics to the right-hand side.

I assume the page is more interesting with a mixture of both sides.

Also, and more importantly, the tabbing-in in the bullet point sections for SECOND paragraphs only seems correct if there is a graphic to the left at that point. Obviously I cannot guarantee that, since it depends on window width, but varying the width seems to still keep things okay in practice.

I would be happy to hear some formatting advice on this subject!

Notability

A topic must receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to be notable. None of the sources in the article mention the North and West London Light railway, the parts of article that mention the subject appear to be uncited original research from the advocacy group Campaign for Better Transport. Wikipedia should not be used as a soap box. Grim²³★ 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

---

(reply) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you had better hack out much of High-speed rail in the United Kingdom, in that case.

The High-speed rail in the United Kingdom article is a good example of a well referenced article with dozens of reliable, secondary sources from the likes of the BBC, the Financial Times and the Times, unlike this article. Grim²³★ 12:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of the article just needs some re-phrasing to bring it in line with Wikipedia style. There are a few political bits that have to get trimmed, and it will need more support with referenced quotes (newspaper articles etc) - there are a few but it needs more. I'm giving some sections an overhaul to try and make them come across more neutral and less in a campaigning style, without losing too much of the original meaning.Cnbrb (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have made a fair attempt at this; content is slightly more logically ordered, images tidied up etc. I have left a number of unsourced quotations and claims in place, and added appropriate citation request tags, to allow editors time to add references. It's still not perfect and may need some further NPOV/crystal ball cleanup work, but it seems a bit more manageable. Interesting article, just needs a bit of care not to stray into polemic. 16:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Parallel Projects

Editors may like to also consider editing and expanding two other west London schemes - Fastbus, but particularly West London Orbital.

The latter has had two lots of six-figure sums of public money spent on it, in about 2002 and 2008-9, coming from the budgets of west London boroughs. There is material on the web, and someone may see a way to legitimately copy the proposed route map to the Wiki page.

Citations

This is a discussion about the request for citations. The first two requested references cannot be given, since it is the ABSENCE of any possible references that is making the point, because the strategic work has never been done.

(A) ...Promoters of the light-rail proposal have argued that London-wide and borough planning authorities have failed to consider the transport infrastucture possibilities of the London redevelopment sites collectively,

There is nothing in the planning strategies of the Department for Transport, the Strategic Rail Authority (deceased), Network Rail, the Office of Rail Regulation, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, the London Development Agency, London Boroughs (which is an organisation's name) or each of the (actual) London Boroughs in the geographical area.

How can you prove a negative?

Is there any way to preserve this assertion in the article in some way, without a reference, please?

(B) ... all the more so when the transport needs have crossed London borough boundaries. They offer the Brent Cross case as a prime example of this planning deficiency. They suggest that the historical accident of hardly-used Midland Railway freight corridors already joining north-west London opportunity sites has been totally ignored.

This is similar/identical. It IS possible to give the low traffic levels on some of the freight lines (already given) but Network Rail is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Duck House institution in Westminster is unlikely to be in the mood to extend its scope. The Department for Transport and the Office of Rail Regulation say have no data, and Network Rail will not give it.

(C) ...Given the original Brent Cross connection, the original name for the light-rail scheme was the 'Brent Cross Railway', partly so the initials of the 'BCR' would echo those of the Docklands Light Railway, or 'DLR' in east London. The proposed Brent Cross 'phase one' (shown on the Dudding Hill Line page) has since been expanded to roughly the same scale as the DLR, after industry advice to construct a long-term plan, introduce more possible sources of planning-gain finance, and allow extra 'phase one' possibilities.

Which bit needs a citation, please? There are two large international railway engineering companies that have proferred this advice, but they both work for Transport for London too much to be prepared to break cover.

Hey, we can work this through...

Ummm... well I'd have to think about that. But can I point you to the Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines. It's not so much whether or not what's written here is right or wrong, but really how Wikipedia works. The content of this article is actually really interesting, and deserves to go somewhere, but maybe not all on here. Wikipedia only really reports what other people have already written - so articles have to cite sources like books, magazines, academia and so on. The WP guidelines steer people away from writing their own original research or using WP to write an essay or to air their views - which all may sound frustrating but it makes sense. So if you have personal views or ideas about this subject that you'd like to air online, consider setting up your own website or blog (try Blogger or Wordpress). If you keep the Wikipedia article to basic, unimpassioned and verifiable facts, it'll be fine; if it comes across as "making a point", other editors may take a hard line and try to get rid of the article altogether, which would be a pity. Sorry if that seems like a pain - it's just how Wikipedia works, and I'd like to think you can find a space for your ideas without them being mercilessly deleted. Cnbrb (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

COI

Are the COI and so on still needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The article still needs more secondary sources, and some uncited assertions need to be removed. The political context section still has quotes out of context, off topic info and sythesis. Grim²³★ 14:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taken out some quotes and unrelated references to London water supply (please see WP:synthesis to understand why this has to be done). However, I've dropped the Boris referneces into the Orbirail article as I think they're interesting and relevant there. Still a lot of trimming needed under the Brent Cross bit though, as it still seems a bit essay/soapboxy. 16:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The positions of Barnet council and TfL need to be covered and the provenance of the imitation TfL route map should be clarified. Grim²³★ 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's still spin in this article. For example, the statement that "the London Borough of Harrow voted unanimously at a full council meeting[6] to support the idea in principle. Although the railway would not actually pass through the borough, councillors believed that Harrow would benefit because all the radial Underground and main-line railway routes through Harrow would be interconnected by this light-rail system"
(a) ignores the rest of the council resolution, the key paragraph of which reads "This Council supports, in principle, the North West London Light Railway proposal. This Council therefore instructs the Chief Executive to write to Transport for London to ask whether it will provide funding for a feasibility study to examine this proposal. This Council is of the opinion, however, that in the event of Transport for London stating that no funding shall be forthcoming, no more public money should be directed towards this proposal."
(b) purports to give the beliefs of the councillors but without any verification.
Much of this article's material is on the web pages of its proponents, the London Group of the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT), so the Wikipedia article about this uncosted proposal could be much briefer and less tendentious. The CBT might then choose not to link to this article (as on http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/london_local_group , referenced in this article under External References) saying "A summary of the NWLLR is also available on Wikipedia." This seems reckless of them, considering how easily some vigorous editing could remove the positive slant of this article. NebY (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much agree, don't really have time to give this any attention though. I have suggested in the talk above that an author with a vested interest should consider placing the ideas elsewhere (Blogger, other website). The faux-TfL map is visually informative but is plastered with polemic features and benefits notes which should be removed for use on WP. I gave this article a major trim and improved the style, but left the opportunity for editors with any interests to bring the rest up to WP standards. As this hasn't happened, a major trim is now required. Do please try to keep the map though - I rather like it!  :-) Cnbrb (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maps

There are a jaw-dropping eight maps here, most of which add little information but are simply more or less detailed views from different perspectives. Two show the rail system more than a hundred years ago. The illustration of the radial layout of London Underground is extraordinarily faint and ineffective at any feasible size. The map of Brent Cross and Cricklewood merely shows one of the areas the NWLLR would serve. The map showing the entire proposed network, a fragment of it and a schematic of an existing line the route would use are all described as "own work by uploader" and are used by the proposers; they thus seem to be original research and to breach NPOV (but of course no-one but the proposer has ever mapped the proposal). It seems to me that most of these maps belong in CBT's own documentation of the proposal but not in a Wikipedia article, in which they only seem to be appearing to add weight and credibility to the case for the NWLLR.
I propose to reduce the set to two: the geographical map in the info-box and the overall schematic which can be viewed in clear detail and at least has the virtue of being clearly a proposer's document. NebY (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point really. By the overall schematic, I presume you mean this one? Cnbrb (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Sorry I wasn't clear.NebY (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For or against closure?

The article says "Passenger service on the line ceased (after a vigorous local campaign) in 1902." That suggests the locals were against the service,("Don't need them clanking engines at the bottom of our back yards" as Richmond and a proposed Crossrail branch) shouldn't "after" be replaced by "despite" and a WP-worthy reference added?--SilasW (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Article name

I'm all for a hefty edit on the article but I think the new title North and West London Light Railway (Campaign for Better Transport proposal) (following the second page move) is a bit cumbersome. North and West London Light Railway proposal was long enough and got the message across that this is only an idea and not a real scheme. Could it not just stay under that title? 10:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It was SilasW who added "proposal" to the "railway"-only title for manifestly the article was not about any railway but about something dreamt up by them in the attic. Perhaps the whole article needs deletion or movng outside WP linked from the proposers' WP. article. No other "North and West London Light Railway proposal"s are apparent so the somewhat shorter title is adequate.--SilasW (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case the version of the article with the eleven word title does not fit WP "rules" for that title does not appear in the article, let only in boldface.--SilasW (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's fine now except it's got a stray closed bracket on the end of the title! I don't favour deletion as it's an interesting article and has some OK sources, but a simple outline of the idea should suffice, with a sensible title! Cnbrb (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure proposal needs to feature in the title at all. Heathrow Airtrack for example has no such suffix. MRSC (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I think the aim was to bring the article up to standard as it was presenting a rather nice idea too strongly as a real construction scheme. Better to reflect this in the article text than invent a new title every other day.Cnbrb (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's the rest of the article text and the other references inserted across Wikipedi that bother me. I feel the title and intro can stand without refinement for the time being. Meanwhile, much of the remainder of the article is structured to build a case for the proposal, from "background" up. The style employs lists of potential stations and lines (and previously many maps) to add substance. It evades mentioning that the only people pushing the proposal seem to be the volunteers of CBT's London group by using circumlocutions such as "campaigners have", "attempts have been made", "promoters of the light-rail proposal" and "advocates of the NWLLR scheme", so that once having read the article critically ""public representations" seems obscure and suspect too. Such spin is also apparent in all the insertions in 15 articles (even Central Middlesex Hospital) of the proposer's schematic and various accompanying text, according the proposal a dubious notability while glossing over the lack of support, the complete lack of interest on the part of the Brent Cross developers and the council vote that no more public funds should be spent on the proposal. It remains an interesting proposal and in principle I'd support it too, but this method of promoting it seems to be an abuse of Wikipedia. I don't know all the policy references, but WP:SOAP and WP:OR seem to apply as well as the obvious WP:NPOV. NebY (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

re: other references inserted across Wikipedia - I agree that there is undue weight given to this proposal on any article that has even the loosest relationship with it. At most this proposal should be mentioned in passing (i.e. one sentence maximum) and realistically it need not be mentioned at all on most articles. MRSC (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

NebY you're right, hit the nail on the head. I suggest further work to address your points and see where it takes the article. Maybe a few major edits down the line, we could consider reducing it to a section within the Campaign for Better Transport article itself. Again, I support the core of this information being retained in a reduced form, but agree with the points above.Cnbrb (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I support editing this article down to a paragraph within a "proposals" section of Campaign for Better Transport. A large part of this article is a synthesis of bits of the London Plan and other planning documents that do little more than broadly support improved public transport in London. It can easily be reduced down to the core proposal. MRSC (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MRSC, though it seemed harsh at first glance. That approach fits the notability principle: CBT's notable but NWLLR's not. It also shows the way to dealing with the insertions in other articles. These are often in new "Development" or "Transport" sections that also reference Fastbus, London and West London Orbital as proposals of Park Royal Partnership and West London Business respectively (mainly sections and articles created by the same editor at the same time). If the articles about the proposals were turned into paragraphs in the articles about the proposers, then a simple sentence along the lines of "transport improvements have been suggested by X, Y & Z" would suffice.
But I do hesitate. Another round of pruning could lead to someone removing "excessive detail about proposals" or some such from the CBT, PRP and WLB articles. Nor do I want to suggest brutally deleting everything Jdudding's added; there's good information there too, even if it does seem to have been added rather more to exploit Wikipedia than to improve it.NebY (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've edited it and improved the referencing. It can remain as an article here or go into the Campaign for Better Transport, either is perfectly acceptable. MRSC (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with exploiting Wikipedia? Is there any shortage of disk space? Anyway, people are tending to use tiny.cc/NWLLRwiki - although presumably even that will disappear when the article is deleted. Job done, eh? 94.194.151.102 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything. Wikipedia is, as its name suggests, intended as an encylcopaedia, not as a campaigning tool. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:soapbox for an explanation. It's simply about the mission of Wikipedia, not an attempt to supress views or ideas. You are, however free to "exploit" other spaces such as Blogger, Wordpress or any of many other online publishing tools to convey these ideas. It doesn't mean this article should not be here, but whatever goes on WP has to already have been published by verifiable sources and be notable.Cnbrb (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reduced article

So anyway, well done on reducing this article greatly. It's much more manageable now and only describes what is without feeling too much like a promtion. I have re-ordered the copy slightly so that the core proposal info comes first before the political support bit. Much as I would hesitate to expand this article, I did add some wording outlining the basic route as I felt this had been lost in the major reduction exercise. I think it is fair to include one external link to the campaign site, as this is the focal point of the scheme, and an image of one of the line is a fair illustration of the content without going into major schematic detail (which is covered in the other line articles). I can't see any reason to expand this further unless the scheme enjoys a major approval in the real world! Cnbrb (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North and West London Light Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090925161043/http://timesonline.typepad.com:80/environment/2009/09/orbital-rail-the-solution-to-city-congestion.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/environment/2009/09/orbital-rail-the-solution-to-city-congestion.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on North and West London Light Railway. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806060831/http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/Brent_Cross_rail_proposal.pdf to http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/system/files/Brent_Cross_rail_proposal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718032029/http://www.westlondon.com/uploads/WLOSummary.pdf to http://www.westlondon.com/uploads/WLOSummary.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)