This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
The line runs through Hackney from Finsbury Park to just north of Manor House station, which is situated within the LB Hackney. But you´re right, it somehow doesn´t feel like it. Most people think there are no tube stations in Hackney. There aren´t as such, as Manor House was originally in the Met. borough of Stoke Newington!. IsarSteve23:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The extension runs directly beneath Harringay Green Lanes railway station, which was already in existence when the new Picadilly line tunnels were built. Given the quite sizeable gap between Manor House and Turnpike Lane stations, does anyone know why the decision was taken not to build a station beneath Harringay Green Lanes, to provide a direct interchange with GOBLIN? Grunners (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I personally don't have a problem with a merger, as long as all the points made in this article are covered. Not sure what the Harringay correspondent @HughJLF: feels about this. I'd like to hear his opinion. IsarSteve (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
From my point of view, I have no problem with the merge. I think it might actually be advantageous to include all the info in a single article. the content of this article can be clearly signposted by adding it in a separate section. Hi @IsarSteve:. HughJLF (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've been surprisingly busy with commercial photography work this year, and have had less time to read and analyze than I would like. I will try to set aside time later in the week to look more closely. But, I trust the opinions of the other editors who have also been pinged. Slambo(Speak)13:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
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.