Talk:Tramlink

Station article names

Wikipedia:WikiProject London recommends that Tramlink stations should be linked to in the form East Croydon Tram station. In line with their policy on combined system stations these should go in as Wimbledon station.

However off the top of my head I'm not sure which stations qualify as mixed.

• Wimbledon obvious does (Tramlink terminates and reverses in a bay at rail and tube level, using part of the old platform 10).
• Mitcham Junction - here the old rail line used to link onto the Hackbridge-->Balham tracks to share the platforms, but Tramlink built a flyover and distinctive station next to it - does this qualify as the same station or separate?
• West Croydon - here from the passenger POV Tramlink has been totally detached from the rail complex itself and to interchange you have to leave the station and turn the corner. I don't think this makes it a combined station as you can use it totally oblivious to trams.

• East Croydon - the tricky one. The tram stop is literally in front of the station exit, closer than the tube is to the rail at Victoria station. Do people think this constitutes a shared station?

I'm not sure on the rest so won't put links in yet - does anyone who knows the system better have the answers? Timrollpickering 22:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

hi thanks, this is very useful towards the topics i'm currently studying at college, thanks, plus i dont think another article is needed, the most is probs, more accurate links to more informative sites! Wongdai 18;04 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Put the tram info in East Croydon Station ... if I'm ever sad enough I might spawn a second article, but I might as easily not. I do have some photos of East Croydon tram station, although I think it was a grey late afternoon. Probably the determinant for now, in the absence of any other, is whether anyone has enough energy to write a distinct article. Until they do, consider them combined hence ~ Station. --Tagishsimon

I'd tend towards the view that seperate entrances means separate stations so Mitchan, West Croydon, East Croydon etc aren't the same as the overground ones whereas Wimbledon clearly is. Likewise the two Hammersmith tube stations. That said, I'd agree with Tagishsimon that one needs a meaningful article first. --Vamp:Willow 17:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Whilst seperate entrances is a viable approach for LU stations it starts to break down with DLR or National Rail stations where different platforms can have different entrances and it is sometimes necessary to use the public highway to change platforms. And many Tramlink stations (East Croydon being one) are in the street and do not have anything recognisable as an entrance. My suggestion is that where somewhere is a recognisable transport interchange (ie. the tram stop, bus station, whatever is immediately visible and accessible from the railway/underground entrance), we should have a single article about the whole interchange. On that basis I think all Tramlinks interchanges should be single articles, although I confess to some doubts about the round the corner nature of the West Croydon railway to tramway (and bus station) interchange. -- Chris j wood 15:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that single articles for interchanges are best; it is how people view them. Some tube / rail interchanges (e.g. Balham) have separate articles where there are large buildings with separate histories, but I do not think that a tram halt can have the same. I would include West Croydon in this (the article also includes the bus station), as there are plans to provide a direct entrance from train to tram stop. The only stations where I have question mark is where former train stations became tram stops - Woodside, Addiscombe (formerly Bingham Halt) and the Wimbledon to West Croydon line. Mtiedemann 09:07, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

rolling stock questions -- inquiring minds want to know

Those trams are attractive. Are they low floor vehicles? How much did they cost? How low are they? How long are they? What provision, if any, do they have for wheelchair patrons? I see the car in this picture of yours has four doors. When do patrons pay their fare? Are there doors on the other side of the vehicles? How much of the service is on a dedicated right of way?

Trying to answer these questions:

• Are they low floor vehicles?. They are low floor, but not 100% so. The low floor stretches between both the outer doors, through the articulation (which rests on an unpowered bogie/truck). Outside of the outer doors over the powered trucks, the floor is two steps up.

• How much did they cost?. I don't know. As the cars are just one element of the 'Design, Build and Operate' contract under which Tramlink was created, the purchase cost of a single tram may not be in the public domain.

• How low are they?. The low floor is 400mm above rail level, with an imperceptable slope to 350mm in the doors. The stops have slightly raised platforms at 350mm above rail level, with direct wheelchair (and buggy) access to all doors.

• How long are they?. 30.1m

• What provision, if any, do they have for wheelchair patrons? There is a wheelchair position in each half-car, between the two door positions. Each has its own low-level stop-request and alarm buttons, and an intercom to the driver.

• When do patrons pay their fare?. Before boarding. Several different options. There is a ticket machine at every stop which sells various tickets for cash. There is also a oyster card validator on every platform, for people using oyster pay-per-ride. And the standard range of Travelcards is valid (not sure if the ticket machines sell Travelcards).

• Are there doors on the other side of the vehicles? Yes. The cars are symetrical double-ended, double-sided cars.

• How much of the service is on a dedicated right of way? Cannot find any quatitative info (yet). Here is some descriptive info, which might be more understandable if you read it in combination with the system map from the Unofficial site (below).
  • The line from Wimbledon to the Croydon loop is a former railway line, segregated and using ballasted track.
  • The loop in Croydon and out the other side nearly as far as Sandilands stop is entirely in the street, and entirely grooved rail. The extent to which the track shares road space with other vehicles varies, with some parts shared with general traffic, other parts with buses and/or local traffic only, and other parts dedicated to trams only but accessible by other traffic in an emergency.
  • From Sandilands to Elmers End we are back on segregated, ballasted ex-railway right of way.
  • From Arena to just before Birkbeck, the line is a new right of way across parkland, away from roads and using ballasted track but not segregated from pedestrian traffic.
  • From Birkbeck to Beckenham Junction, the tramlink shares a right of way with a still extant third-rail electrified railway. Very segregated and fenced because of the railway component.
  • From Sandilands towards Lloyd Park, the line runs through an ex-railway tunnel
  • From there to Addiscombe Village, the line is a new right of way across parkland/agricultural land, away from roads and using ballasted track but not segregated from pedestrian traffic.
  • From Addiscombe Village to New Addington, the line is on reserved ballasted track within the street (a mixture of median strip and roadside strip).

Incidentally the excellent Croydon Tramlink Unofficial Site has lots of good info. I'll have a go at updating the article when I get the chance. -- Chris j wood 13:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a table of distances at http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/tramlink.html . To be really nitpicky, there is only one step up at each end of the trams. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To to answer a question ommited from the list:

Are deadmans' fitted? Yes, intergrated into the speed control, but (unfortunately) no vigilance control of any kind is provided. Is it due to perceived "safety?" Myrtone@Tramlink.com.au

Croydon Tramlink routes 1, 2, and 3

I will be creating the three pages focusing on these routes in the same way as these articles have been done. Anyone wishing to check the progress can check my userpage for the link to the subpage.--sonicKAI 17:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, but for article naming, I should point out that the name of the system now seems to be simply ‘Tramlink’, not ‘Croydon Tramlink’, presumably in expectation of future lines which do not travel through Croydon. David Arthur 21:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Are the officially referred to as "routes" or "lines"? If there is an official use of one or the other then imho the naming should reflect that. Thryduulf 22:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The official map says ‘route’, which makes sense given the amount of track-sharing between them. David Arthur 18:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that there are long overdue plans to link the Wimbledon and New Addington route and provide a 7½ minute headway on this line but these seem to get postponed as often as the Centrale stop opening was. So I would strongly recommend not doing this until the reorganised routes finally get introduced. Last rumour for the change was Easter but that has obviously come and gone.--Pedantic of Purley 10:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Stephen Parascandolo's usually reliable Unofficial Tramlink website, this change will now come in on June 23rd. Tramlink will go from having three routes to two; I've described the new routes in the routes section of the article. So it looks like the new split-out articles are toast already :-( -- Chris j wood 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that website is as reliable nowadays, as the author died some time agoBreakfast100 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still going to do it

In response to Thryduulf, Transport for London's website [1] says thay are "lines", not "routes", so thank you for that. In response to Pedantic of Purley, London Bus Routes website [2] says that the new timetable has been moved to May 2006. I will still create these pages on my userpage, but wait before putting them on the main Wikipedia. --sonicKAI 11:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC) TfL often get things wrong on their website, though. All the official Tramlink literature - flyers, maps, station posters, etc - have Route 1/2/3 on them, not Line 1/2/3. This also makes more sense, since it's one set of track that has several sets of points and operates in a similar way to busses. --Veratien 00:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gauntlet Track

I have never heard of this term. Is it american ? The usual terminology is interlaced track. By the way there is also interlaced track just after Church Street to avoid the need to put the points in the middle of a public road junction. I am tempted to rename the link to Interlaced Track and expand it a little (in the linked item not the main Tramlink item).--Pedantic of Purley 10:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it called both and also "Gantlet track" (I suspect this is either a misspelling of "Gauntlet track" or vice versa). Whichever term you use make sure "track" has a lowercase t, and set up redirects. We have a few photos that I've spotted on commons that show this - Image:028140 tramlink mitcham.jpg, Image:Gb-tramlink-croydoncentre-09.jpg, Image:Gb-tramlink-croydoncentre-10.jpg, Image:Praha ms dual gauge.jpg (badly named, it isn't dual gauge) and Image:Sechsschienengleis.JPG (I've never seen this layout anywhere else). They aren't categorised together yet, but when you choose a term I suggest making a category by that name on commons as a subcategory of Commons:Category:Rail track. Thryduulf 10:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it seems we have an article on Gantlet track, which it says is an American English term - the British and Australian equivalent being "Gauntlet track" with "Interlaced track" a Britishism. Thryduulf 10:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now created Commons:Category:Gauntlet track (as that gets the most google hits (~700 vs ~300 for Interlaced and ~400 for Gantlet)). Thryduulf 19:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the correct British term is interlaced track. This may have changed in recent years, however, as such things are wont to do under the pressure of the contagious beast that is American English. ;) --Veratien 01:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Station article names (sorry to bring this up again)

Shouldn't articles on Tram stops be called [[### Tram stop]] instead of [[### Tram station]], as Transport for London officially recognises them as stops, which, in turn, would explain why the use the London buses ticketing system. --sonicKAI 15:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This got discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London. As mentioned there it now seems that everyone has gone so far down the line of calling them stops that this is the de facto standard. I have therefore taken the liberty of changing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London to specify that they should be called stops. Hopefully that should sort it out once and for all.--Pedantic of Purley 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Power Failures 26th and 27th September 2006

I have deleted this section as the section in not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --ExULstudent 15:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ampere Way now known as IKEA Ampere Way

I've changed the name of the Ampere Way stop to its new official name of IKEA Ampere Way photo. D-Notice 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Ideas

The section on "Other Ideas" seems very out of date. I thought Biggin Hill was looked at a few years ago and thought to be an absolute non-starter. They couldn't even make a case for a good quality shuttle bus from Addington Village interchange.

I think the reference to Purley Way means the proposed loop around Valley park which "they" got excited about a few years ago but has subsequently gone very quiet.

I think this section may have served a purpose once upon a time but I think it should now be updated or eliminated.--Pedantic of Purley 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Relationship between TfL and TCL

I think we could really do with a section to describe the relationship between TfL and the operating company. The unofficial site www.tramlink.co.uk covers this well but stresses the views are the personal ones of the author. This is becoming a major issue but it is difficult to write about it objectively. There must be someone brave enough to give it a try. Without facing issues like this the Tramlink entry is "fluffy".--Pedantic of Purley 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As TfL will be taking over this is now water under the bridge.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. It looks like one editor clearly mixed up TCL and FirstGroup in updating the lede for this takeover (see #Takeover by TfL below), and in case it is still interesting from a historical perspective. I think I've now covered the relationship in the lede, and in two new history sub-sections. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New Tramlink

A heard that a project during the redevelopment of White City and Shepherd's Bush, a new tramlink has been planned. It will go from Shepherd's Bush to Uxbridge. I'm happy, because it stops at Loftus Road! --Soopa hoops77 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

# That's the West London Tram D-Notice 19:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I understant that there is to be this tram line to be built, but it wont be called Tramlink. There are also plans for a tram line to go from brixton to the west end over waterloo bridge.http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/2043.aspx Breakfast100 19;25, 17 April 2007

1. That's the Cross River Tram D-Notice 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
   1. The West London Tram has now been confirmed as not happening. Cross River Tram however is still very much 'on the plate'.Bluegoblin7 11:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fares / Ticketing

I notice that there is little information about the Tramlink ticketing system. Should some be added, or is it too similar to London Buses? Ajn91 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Logo

The tramlink logo in the top left hand corner hasn't formatted very well on my screen, it overlaps with the references tag and pushes the lead text in a bit. Might I suggest it might be better going straight into the header of the infobox? (i.e. replace "Line=Tramlink|" with "Line=[[Image:Tramlink.jpg]]|")? It looked okay when I tried it in preview. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mk2 Croydon Tramlink Destination Blinds.jpg

[[Image:Mk2 Croydon Tramlink Destination Blinds.jpg|thumb|left|The second version of the destination blinds that were used on the tramlink. These have now been replced with Dot-Matrix Panels.]]

This image is; a) huge, b) dubious copyright status, c) appropriate for this page - Thus can these issue be resolved and maybe it be incorporated into the article in a way that it doesn't bugger up the page layout... ??? Pickle 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

How important is this article?

Low, mid or high, one would like consistency. One importance rating stays, the other go. Five importance ratings is taking the michael and an exageration at best. I can only presume Pickle UK is having a laugh and will rectify this state of affairs after having had his laugh. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we need more than one. In London, it is quite significant, so High is ok, but in UKTrams, it is just another tram system, so has a low importance. Can't shed light on the rest though. Bluegoblin7 10:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't really a question... There is no need for more than one; sort it out ;) One importance and one maintaining project is enough. Having an importance field is a waste of time to begin with let alone five. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This errr debate/disagreement, started at Talk:Totley Tunnel. Here or there is not the place to discus the bigger Wikipedia wide issue of importance ratings that do vary across different projects. Importance is decided by each wikiproject, it is not a Wikipedia wide assessment. To debate that your asking at the wrong place.

For the record this article has been rated;

* "mid" for WP:London because its fairly important in a London context, but not key or vital to understanding London.

* "mid" for WP:Rapid transit because its a key example of an active system in the UK. could go to a low equally.

* "low" for WP:UK Railways because its a minor rail based system on a UK scale, including several former railway lines. it doesn't really need to be any higher because its not vital for joe public to understand only people with some knowledge of rail terminology

* "mid" for WP:UK Trams because its one of the major active trams currently in the UK.

* "high" for WP:London Transport because its one of the major components of TFL but not as major as the tube.

Now you could pick holes in the "WP:Rapid transit" inclusion, as i really don't know what they do, but going through the list of parameters of the TWP template, i must conclude that tramlink is within its scope, possible "Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars" as well.

Thus i'm not having a laugh at your expense

Pickle 18:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am adding the WP:TUK Modern Trams banner until it is merged into either the main TUK banner, or the TWP banner. Sorry! Bluegoblin7 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry mate, i don't pretend to even understand how one might code such an outcome so don't panic! ;) Pickle 04:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

|Ok! I just thought I should mention it! Mainly for CS's benefit. Didn't want to annoy anyone. --Bluegoblin7 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know what's happened to the banners, I had an idea to clean them up. Please rv me if you don't like it! Bluegoblin7 12:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

History

The Wimbledon branch is a former British Rail route, not mentioned in the "history" section. 194.80.106.135 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So WP:BOLD:Be bold! and change it. Pickle 00:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Takeover by TfL

The article says:

The service is currently operated by FirstGroup on behalf of Transport for London (TfL) but it has been agreed that TfL will purchase the system and take control of it later in 2008.

and quotes http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/7741.aspx as a source. Unfortunately that link is now broken, but it seems http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/7741.aspx is a replacement url that works (I will edit).

But I'm not so sure that the editor who wrote the sentence above based on that cite hasn't read more into it than (s)he should have. TfL's press release tells us that they are buying Tramtrack Croydon Ltd (TCL), the concessionaire that built Tramlink and subcontracts the operation to FirstGroup. There is nothing in the press release to imply that this will result in FirstGroup losing its contract to operate Tramlink. In the normal way of things the TfL takeover of TCL would simply result in FirstGroup answering to a different contractee. Can anybody cite a source that explicitly says FirstGroup's involvement is going to end with the TfL takeover?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added more to article to clarify all this, and also merged in the (almost orphaned) Tramtrack Croydon article. But it is still not clear if TfL are intending to give First the order of the boot, so any citable input on this would be valuable. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well First is clearly still operating Tramlink, despite the fact that the TfL takeover has now happened. Clarified further in article, although a cite would still be great. -- Starbois (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Route diagram template

Just thought I'd say that I've created a route diagram for Tramlink, at Template:Tramlink RDT. --Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Trambaan type segregation source

The link was created by anon 213.249.207.190 on 12.Apr 2006, and the source seems to be as I indicated. This however "http://www.tramlink.co.uk/extensions/index.shtml" is an unofficial site as stated by its creator. So if someone wants to check this out, please do so. I wonder whether "separation" is meant rather than "segregation". Seems genuine enough, I think they are referring to the Amsterdam "Trambaan", nothing more sinister than that. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really doubting the accuracy of the article; I added {{what}} as "what?" is the first thing that came to mind when I read the phrase! I googled it (albeit quickly) and found nothing immediately defining it... Scrxisi (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a copyright infringement?

One worrying aspect now however is that the previous section above: "Trambaan type segregation source" referring to the section "North and South from Croydon" in the article seems an exact copy of either the above cited link or vice versa. At no point does the webmaster of the above-shown website, S. J. Parascandolo, state that his site is mirrored on our article or cites Wikipedia but links it to the "Transport for London" website. He seems no longer available when you try to find his feedback and privacy sites. So I don't know whether we should rewrite the items concerned or remove any copyright material. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tragically, Stephen Parascandolo was killed in a car accident in February 2007, so you are not going to get a reply from him. His web site 'Croydon Tramlink - The Unofficial Site' was definately unofficial, and he certainly had several run ins with TCL/TfL, including one that went legally ballistic. However in the end the web site was sufficiently well regarded that Tramlink named one of their trams Stephen Parascandolo 1980-2007 in his memory.

Moving on, I agree that the text is very similar. However it has been there quite a while, being added by an anonymous editor on the 12th April 2006. So it is not inconceivable that Stephen gave permission. I suggest the risk of a law suite here is low enough to not need instant deletions, but it would be a good idea to rework the text. I will try and do this over the next few days. -- Starbois (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now reworked the section 'North and south from Croydon' so it is no longer a copyvio (if it ever was). But I suspect the problem is bigger than that. The whole extensions section is bitty, and probably needs reviewing (to see if is still current, and to check for more copyvio) and rewriting (to improve the flow). I'll try and do this, but other demands on my time mean it is unlikely to be in the next few days. If anybody else wants to, please dive in. -- Starbois (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this, Starbois, it is appreciated. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Tramlink extension plans dropped?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7712002.stm - BBC News is reporting that the Tramlink extension (amongst other London transport plans) have been dropped. Maybe this should be reflected in the article once we have more sources? Smoothy (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just like to add another source - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/10231.aspx Smoothy (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I have found a source that states Nick Owen is the male voice for announcements but can find nothing to verify the claim that Judi Dench is the female voice (the source I found said it was a local) so have removed it as it had been since September 2008. I will also edit it on Judi Dench's page. --Bigger digger (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Change of Name

This article says "initially known as Croydon Tramlink" but gives no date for dropping "Croydon". Was it when TfL took over in 2008? (If so ""initially known as" might seem rather dismissive of several years' existence.) A reason for asking is that in other WP articles which mention the system there is almost a fanaticism to change every "Croydon Tramlink" to "Tramlink" even when a past happening involved the then as yet unrenamed Croydon Tramlink.--SilasW (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know when the 'Croydon' was dropped, but it had definitely been called 'Tramlink' for at least a few years by the time TfL took over. David Arthur (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To refer to it Croydonlessly would be quite natural (there was just the one). Stephen Parascandolo often had plain "Tramlink" mixed in with "Croydon Tramlink". I've not found a date for the change but passing references point to a TfL rebranding after its 2008 take-over.--SilasW (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ever seen a date for the changeover either, but TfL's web site was definitely referring to it as just 'Tramlink' well before 2008. This very article dropped the 'Croydon' in March 2004. David Arthur (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Name change occurred on or near October 09, 2008 as per This is Croydon.today.uk see [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Simon (talk • contribs)

Yes, I've seen that article, but it's simply inaccurate in suggesting that the re-naming took place at the same time as the re-painting. Take a look at this photo from 2004 of a tram-stop sign which refers to 'Tramlink' throughout. David Arthur (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the thing is although in Stephen Parascandolo's website, photos, etc. show "Tramlink" all along, I don't think it was necessarily its official name. On the whole it was "Croydon Tramlink". Actually, to add insult to injury, it is now called "London Tramlink", as you can see in the "thisiscroydontoday" website cited above.

One rather tragic aspect is also that Stephen Parascandolo, the original webmaster of his unofficial site, died in a road accident in 2007. In recognition for his publicising the tramlink he had a tram named after him (Tram 2535, Stephen Parascandola 1980-2007) [4]. So I do think, after all, "London Tramlink" seems the present name. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, this is a picture of the newer signage erected at Beddington Lane tram stop. Date of photo, December 2008:

. I think it interesting that the main logo says "Tramlink" only, but "London Tramlink" does appear on the route map. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

With passionate division in uncertainties about the name of the system and some editors thinking anecdotes and thoughts = evidence, I emailed enquires @ TfL and this is their reply:

"Dear [SilasW],

Thank you for your email which was passed to us to respond.

The existing tram system has never officially been called "Croydon Tramlink". While it has often been referred to as "Croydon Tramlink", due to it being centred on Croydon, the system has always officially been called Tramlink and continues to be called Tramlink, not London Tramlink.

The TfL team which is responsible for Tramlink is called London Tramlink bringing it into line with London Buses, London Underground, etc.

Yours sincerely

London Tramlink"

Do any protest or dispute this?--SilasW (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Then why sign off London Tramlink?? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The letter seems to say that a team called 'London Tramlink' are responsible for operating a tram system called simply 'Tramlink'. David Arthur (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see it now! But, still, both names appear on the signage in the picture above. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Operator

The infobox now says TfL is the operator while the article says it is First London (for TfL). I'm sure Tramlink fans can explain the apparent discrepancy but an innocent, who might read the article to try to find who might be to blame for a third-party accident to his grandmother, would be perplexed. An encyclopedic article should be free of such quasi-ambiguities from the start--SilasW (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

First still physically operate the trams, on behalf of TfL who bought out TCL. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you right about the operator?

Looking at the Tramlink user guide it says Tramlinks is owned and operated by TFL see: [5] and go to introduction and go to [6].Likelife (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes, hope it makes sense! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Theres only two routes

The new route map [7] shows two routes. New Addington - Wimbledon and Elmers End - Beckenham Jun. So should route one & two be merged and also no routes are red or yellow any more. Likelife (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I've looked at the new map (which I must say is far better than the old one), but I've never noticed that before. Do we need separate articles for each route?; does Metrolink or elsewhat have them? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not shore but the trams still show as 3 routes on their displays even though the new map as been on them for about a year.Likelife (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

update

Why was the pages so out of date? I've updated all route pages and this page, as routes were still shown as red, yellow and green. There is now no new publication of this as the routes are now green and lime see the route map. Also I have changed all infobox images with the new livery and changed the opertor to TFL (as it has been of a year), explaned the new route colours plus cleaned up some history.

• But all route 1 and 2 s-boxs need changing to the new lime colour. Likelife (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

HANG ON A SECOND: before you do anything else, these colours: please use the colours from the PDF, and don't just make up garish and 'orrible colours that melt your eyeballs. Cheers. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Im changing the colours I'll hope these are better but they are not perfect. Likelife (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

template:s-line (new colors)

The s-line boxs need changing there 'colors' to ADFF2F for routes 1&2 and 9ACD32 for route 3 but I have no idea on how to change them, could someone help!Likelife (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wheelchair acessible

Is there any stops which arent? if not can remove the wheelchair logo clutter and add a simple note that all stations are accessible. WatcherZero (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact its already in the stop description so gonna go ahead and remove. WatcherZero (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop posting Piccadilly line images

Please note that this page is for discussing TRAMLINK. It is not a place to post images NOT about Tramlink Likelife (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

They have been doing it on other pages too, I must admit to being flummoxed as to motive, I wondered if they were trying to increase the profile of his/her own images? WatcherZero (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion and request

Suggest changing the relevant line to the form 'The Announcer system is of the following format...' (as it will differ for all stops).

And I would be grateful if 'the proverbial someones' would help develop the relevant tramlink articles on the London wiki [www.london.wikia.org]. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

The Harrington Road link on the route map should point to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Road_tram_stop. At present there is no link or a wrong one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.2.75 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Doubling Mitcham to Mitcham Jnc

Is it true that Mitcham to Mitcham Junction is being doubled? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes Wheeltapper (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bottle green

Moved from Template talk:Tramlink color

1. What is the source for this change?
2. The colour "bottle green" is actually closer to District line green. Useddenim (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it perhaps the darkest of the three greens seen here? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Then why not simply call it "dark green"? Useddenim (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No idea. It seems to be associated with these six edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/croydon/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tramlink. 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/20090713203635/http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/transport/pdf/final_ch04d.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/transport/pdf/final_ch04d.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150620133639/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/2055.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/2055.aspx

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} 21:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do hope this is the right place to put this.

I have just tried, unsuccessfully, to add Wayback link to "South London Partnership" document from the pre-Boris // pre-Subprime blended-securities crisis era. viz: http://web.archive.org/web/20060212214152/http://www.tramlink.co.uk/extensions/SLTBrochure.pdf When the preview did not serve the correct link, I abandoned the edit.

The document is still out there, as is the aspiration and rationale behind it. Even more so given the impetus to build housing and capital projects given by super-low interest rates. People should be directed to it.

Regardless of changing political and economic conditions, the fact of the existence, from 2006 to 2008, of seriously-considered extension plans is a part of the history of transport in London and should be available, whether of historic or current interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Jardine (talk • contribs) 00:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

February 2016 accident

Raising for discussion here. The accident on 7 February has been added, deleted, re-added and re deleted. So now we discuss. I was going to add the incident myself, got an edit conflict and found that I had been beaten to it. IMvHO, the accident is mentionable not because of the cause, but the fact that three people on the tram were injured. Pinging Class455fan1, SovalValtos, Jeni - your thoughts please? Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This is simple, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news article. People get injured all the time through various causes, we don't include them all on Wikipedia. Anyone who feels a strong urge to write about a minor tram accident can head over to Wikinews where they'll be free to do so. Jeni ^(talk) 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I am agreeing with Mjroots on the grounds that:

A. Like Mjroots said, people were injured in both the car and the tram, not just the car.

B. It is serious enough that the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) is investigating, however, they can easily conclude that the car is the cause, because there is CCTV footage capturing the crash, which surely they will look at. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not see this incident as being encyclopedic material. Wikipedia is not about news. If it eventually leads to changes in regulations or operating procedures then it may be relevant.Charles (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As there has been a second incident (and 'the sleeping driver' story') perhaps the February incident is 'more significant.' 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

2012 derailment

Also, who has removed information about the derailment in 2012 involving 2538 at East Croydon? This was a notable incident because there was a big article about it in several newspapers/magazines and made the major newspapers and the BBC, it caused major disruption at East Croydon and the RAIB wrote a big report on this. I will be re-adding it. WP:NOTNEWS is only for breaking news stories as far as i know, and newsgroups can be used as sources. Also, if you think about it, the accidents are encyclopaedic, because people can find out how they happened. Class455fan1 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add unencyclopaedic and non-notable information to Wikipedia without first establishing why it is notable. Simply saying "it caused delays" isn't cause for inclusion. I was delayed on the M6 earlier, I didn't include that in the M6 article. Jeni ^(talk) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you re-add the information again, you are in violation of WP:3RR. Jeni ^(talk) 22:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, I can add some information from the RAIB's investigation on to it? How does that sound? Class455fan1 (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What information are you proposing? What information do you have that shows this is notable beyond "it caused delays"? Jeni ^(talk) 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Information from this source (https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/derailment-of-a-tram-at-east-croydon). I can add information about the main cause of the accident perhaps? Class455fan1 (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

100 passengers were detrained, the tram derailed, people were delayed, low speed (7mph), no reported injuries, 6.23am, dry conditions, only minor damage to the wheels of the tram. What part of that is notable enough that warrants inclusion? Jeni ^(talk) 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at other tram articles if you want an idea of what is notable enough for inclusion in a section like this.

• Blackpool tramway
• Manchester Metrolink - Notice that this doesn't even have an incidents section, despite a previous derailment at Pomona that resulted in RAIB investigation
• Midland Metro
• Nottingham Express Transit
• Sheffield Supertram

You'll see that Wikipedia really isn't the place for geeky "a tram came off the rails on xx-date but nothing happened of note" Jeni ^(talk) 23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO the content concerning the 2012 event as last included had no justification for inclusion as no encyclopedic notability had been demonstrated. It is possible that if the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) had made recommendations or requirements of lasting significance in their report there might be such justification. The content would need to be carefully re-written and sourced.SovalValtos (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

They did indeed make recommendations to Tramlink. If its not mentioned on this source, i can dig through my Today's Railways archive to find some info. That was what i was proposing, to re-write it. Class455fan1 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This may help its case! I've found a big report (I think this is the full report) here [8]. It includes not one but three recommendations from the RAIB. Class455fan1 (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Care to share these recommendations with the class? Are they actually noteworthy recommendations? Jeni ^(talk) 20:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you scroll to p.30 of the document, you can find out what they are. I would have copy and pasted them, but i would fall foul of WP:COPYVIO. Number 3 is not notable. Number 1 is notable and Number 2 may be. Number 1 is recommending Tramlink to review its signalling and operational arrangements at East Croydon and to consider whether undue reliance is being placed on the correct operation of track circuits. and Number 2 recommends Tramlink should identify areas of paved track where silt collects and carry out an improved inspection and cleaning regime where such silt may affect the safe operation of the system. If you want to see them in full, see page 30 of the document. Hope this helps. Class455fan1 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Extension A

Should the sentence be changed to 'then Mayor of London Boris Johnson' - thus alerting non-London/British readers that there is now a different Mayor? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tramlink. 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/20110927222352/http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news482.htm to http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news482.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927223311/http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news363.htm to http://www.swanagerailway.co.uk/news363.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111080806/http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/19 to http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/19

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) 23:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Merging Tramlink and London Trams pages, dropping Tramlink

The Tramlink brand doesn't seem to be in use by TfL anymore -- TfL's website, communication letters, and the vehicles themselves, now carry roundels simply branded "Trams". The London Trams article implies there is a distinction between it and the tram service in Croydon but in practice this doesn't seem to be the case. Should the two articles be merged?

I agree. "Tramlink" doesn't seem to exist anymore. I think they should be merged (or the Tramlink article should have it's name changed to London Trams) ElshadK (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, It's still called 'London Tramlink' by the DFT [9] and 'Tramlink' is still the most common name for it. I might try raising this on some forums to see what others think. EDIT: taking a look at it, a similar topic appears to have been discussed two years ago. G-13114 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a distinction between "London Trams" and "Tramlink" - the former is for all tram systems in London, the latter is just for the Croydon system. Currently the latter is the only example of the former so the distinction in practice isn't relevant, but it does exist.

As for the common name, I'd say that's still probably "Tramlink" but I've not looked for evidence to back this up. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

"Tramlink" appears to have been replaced with "London Trams" on TfL maps and literature from 2016 onwards, such the specific tram network diagram, and the current track closure schedule. There are still references to "Tramlink" on the TfL website, but these appear to be mostly historic/unchanged as yet. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no doubt that the official branding has changed but the common name (which is the most important consideration for the article title) doesn't always match that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Tramlink remains the most common name locally for this service. This is backed up by the two main local papers, both of which mention Tramlink in practically every article relating to the service. See Croydon Advertiser and Croydon Guardian. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Uk tram icon.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Uk tram icon.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

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.

The result of this discussion was to merge the articles and transfer any necessary content. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Hi everyone, I am aware this has likely come up before, but is there any possible objections to merging the separate Tramlink "Route" pages into this Tramlink article? The route numbers on destination blinds have not been used for a considerable number of years now and the separate articles serve little purpose. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea and I support if fully. Given the lack of any feedback at all since your post (albeit over a holiday period) why don't you just boldly do it and see what happens. At the worst someone will revert you and the discussion will then get started properly. It's OK to do this. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you copy any material from those into this article then be sure to read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to understand the need to attribute the transfer of material. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

There are pros and cons. A strong argument can be made to keep them as 'historical' routes. On the other hand, as noted, the descriptors are no longer relevant. I would caution, however, that if Tramlink route 1 and Tramlink route 2 are redirected to Tramlink then relevant information be moved as well (unlike Tramlink route 3 and Tramlink route 4 which were simply changed to redirects without updating the main article). Useddenim (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought that it was more sensible to move all the Tramlink articles into London Trams, as the "Tramlink" name has not been use for a while. Usual redirecting would be required, of course. Bazza (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Tramlink remains the WP:COMMONNAME. London Trams is the corporate name. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2022 (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.

Merger Proposal follow up

I propose merging Tramlink into London Trams. Tramlink is the more detailed page, but London Trams is the current name, and there is no information on the shorter London Trams article that is substantially different as there are no other London Trams services. WP:COMMONNAME justification for keeping 'Tramlink' as title doesn't quite apply here, as even though it is common to use a deprecated name long after it has officially changed, it is inconsistent with existing conventions and potentially confusing given the fact the new publications, signage, sources, etc. do not use the Tramlink name anymore. Since the new name is used more frequently in new sources, there is clear evidence of its current recognizability. A redirect to London Trams and the "formerly known as Tramlink" entry line should be enough to keep everything clear to people who know it by the original name. The common name guideline also has the provision that the most "encyclopedic" name should be considered, which is why London Underground is named as such and not The Tube, despite the latter name being more commonly used colloquially and even commonly used in various sources. As a final point, the London Trams article name is less ambiguous, as 'Tramlink' resembles the generic names of several transportation services all over the world (see the disambiguation page for Citylink for example). Middle river exports (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This has been proposed before: see entries on this talk page from October 2018. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am aware - note that in the nearly four years since that discussion, the usage of "Tramlink" has continued to decline in publications, and the Transport for London sites seem to have removed all mentions of the term (to the extent that on pages where Tramlink still appears in the Google search metadata, clicking on the link reveals that the phrase is no longer present). Likewise, "London Trams" has been used now by the local publications mentioned as time has past. See this article: Tram passengers endangered by drivers jumping red lights. Published in the Croydon Guardian in February 2022 with mention of London Trams but no use of Tramlink throughout the article body despite it being the main topic. Another example from 2020: [10]. Although there are a few more recent articles which have the phrase Tramlink, most of what comes up in a search is from prior to 2010, whereas a search for London Trams will return the greatest number of articles from recent years.

I do think enough years have past at this point to transition from the legacy name. --Middle river exports (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Also broadly relevant to this discussion is the fact that at the time of the writing of London Trams, the tentative expansion of the organization to incorporate additional tram networks may have made it seem like a separate article was merited. However, as time has passed, none of those proposals have materialized. The Sutton Link, said to start work in 2022 on the London Trams page, was changed to a bus rapid transit plan and then put on hold indefinitely by 2021. Per the latest update, the only Sutton transport proposal that has been given the go-ahead for development is a bus station [11]. Transport proposals and studies are often points of discussion, especially around times of network rebrandings, but clearly at this point if there is any expansion beyond the Croydon line, it would be several years from now. --Middle river exports (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Strong Support Weak Support / Neutral Oppose any article bearing the London Trams name: User:Middle river exports makes a perfectly valid point that the term 'Tramlink' has fallen out of official use in favour of 'London Trams'. I agree that the Tramlink article should be merged (technically moved) to London Trams as a result of that argument. --Manche Captain (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Following the equally valid argument by User:Lamberhurst below, I'm changing my strong support to weak or even neutral. The COMMONNAME policy should apply here and that's where it remains Tramlink. --Manche Captain (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I am now in opposition to the plan because I think Croydon Tramlink would be the ideal title, and that London Trams is not notable enough to me to be its own article as it is. --Manche Captain (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The corporate name is not to be confused with the WP:COMMONNAME. The network remains widely-known as "Tramlink". The only serious book on the subject, published last year, is "Croydon Tramlink". To show just how widely used the term is, "Tramlink" has 201,000 hits in google, whilst "London Trams" only 24,000. "London Trams" is an ambiguous name as it potentially covers all of the historical routes. It is the London Trams article which should be redirected here as that article has very little content apart from brief references to a couple of cancelled schemes. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment The common name concern is valid - how does having the article as "Croydon Tramlink" sound, then merging "London Trams" into this? My main concerns at the moment are just that "Tramlink" is a generic name and doesn't convey that this article is about the Croydon Tramlink specifically well, and London Trams does not contain much if any different information. --Middle river exports (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Middle river exports: - how can "Tramlink" be generic when the first 100-odd results with Google Books refer to no other subject? I would have no objections to "Croydon Tramlink", but London Trams is - at the present time - not the WP:COMMONNAME. I've never heard or read anywhere about someone saying "I'm taking the London Trams to...". Lamberhurst (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, I am agreeing with this about London Trams, it makes more sense just to eliminate the separate article since it doesn't include anything else.

Tramlink is generic because tram is a common word and adding 'link' as a branding strategy is a common trend in transit agencies. Bear in mind that Google search results are customized to locale and search history - adding various additional search terms you can see various other instances of services or vehicles called Tramlink that may be likely to come up for others depending on locale. (Things like 'new tramlink,' 'tramlink service,' etc.) For example:

• TramLink in Rostock, Germany
• TramLink in Santos, Brazil
• TramLink in Milan, Italy (and the TramLink-named vehicles operated by the same company in neighboring Switzerland)

--Middle river exports (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No objection to Croydon Tramlink if that makes things clearer. But it would be good to hear from other users (@Manche Captain:). Lamberhurst (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: I actually like the Croydon Tramlink name, I prefer it over the current title (clarification) and am willing to go for that over a move/merge to London Trams because of the WP:COMMONNAME argument. In fact I'd argue that the latter article should be removed and redirected into Croydon Tramlink. --Manche Captain (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

From reading the discussion above it would seem the issue is with the article title and not the article content. If that is the case, then that is a question for WP:RM to decide and not an obstacle for completing the merge. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It goes both ways: the original proposer wanted to merge it into London Trams, but then we have had comments that the latter name wouldn't be suitable anyway (which I now agree with). I now support: Move Tramlink to Croydon Tramlink; redirect London Trams to Croydon Tramlink. The reason for the latter being that London Trams (the arm of TfL operating the network) barely has any content and doesn't have the notability to have an article of itself in the state that it is in. --Manche Captain (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the conclusion above is what I've arrived at as well. That there's two articles that cover the same topic is the primary issue at the moment IMO --Middle river exports (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic: @Lamberhurst: @Gonnym: What do you all think of these latest developments above? Do you agree/disagree with me & User:Middle river exports that the current London Trams article doesn't have the content and notability to be on its own; or that the current Tramlink article be moved to Croydon Tramlink? --Manche Captain (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Manche Captain: for the ping. As a resident of Croydon, I personally would propose the following:

• Tramlink should stay as it is. Tramlink is notable enough and 'Croydon Tramlink' is not used in everyday life - it is known for the most part as Tramlink.
• London Trams be redirected to Tramlink per WP:COMMONNAME (and given that it has no notability whatsoever).
• Trams in London be expanded if necessary to include content from London Trams.

I'm not willing to raise the above as a separate merger proposal at the minute, but will leave it there for other users to consider whether it would be appropriate/not. Pinging @Chris j wood: as the creator of the London Trams page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with my fellow Croydon resident @Mattdaviesfsic:. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In light of your views including those by User:Middle river exports, we all agree on London Trams to be redirected, so I will be doing the redirect now. --Manche Captain (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Gauntlet track

@User:Trainsandotherthings Tramlink#Former lines reused Gauntlet track is inderectly mentioned as Interlaced track in the caption of the file. Peter Horn User talk 21:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That hardly counts as a significant mention. See also is not a laundry list of things that have only the tiniest relation. The gauntlet track examples article (which I'm not convinced is even encyclopedic per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but I won't die on that hill) is a relevant link, for instance, on the gauntlet track article (duh) and the article on switches, along with Dual gauge. It shouldn't just be dropped anywhere there's a minor mention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we change title to London Trams?

It is no longer called Tramlink so why don't we name it London Trams? 2001:8003:E83D:3D00:4C29:118F:2A14:B812 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

See #Merger Proposal follow up - if there's anything new to add to the case you can put it here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

About an RfC

Hello, there is an RfC here about the notability of Tramlink stops. Feel free to join if interested. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 19:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Tram Routeboxes

Hello. Would like to hear people's thoughts on removing the route descriptions from routeboxes on Tram stop articles (eg - Wimbledon to Elmers End). No other TfL services routeboxes include this additional detail (DLR, Elizabeth line etc) and the extra detail just forms a piped link that links back to the main Tramlink article, rather than a separate article on an individual line, like with the London Overground station articles. These therefore seem to serve little purpose. Thanks. Aaroncrudge (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Less is always more! However, if they are to be retained then at the very least the links should be modified to point to Tramlink#Routes. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)