Metropolitan Railway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 22, 2012 Good article nominee Listed March 14, 2012 Peer review Reviewed August 30, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 10, 2009, January 10, 2010, January 10, 2014, January 10, 2016, January 10, 2019, January 10, 2022, and January 10, 2023. Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

London Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Trains: Rapid transit / in UK / in London Mid‑importance Trains Portal Sel week 18, 2018 London Transport Portal This article 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit. This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Top-importance).

The route map doesnt make sense to me (Do they ever?) Where are all the stations mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.86.83 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make the route map more compact, it contains concealed sections. You need to click on [show] on the right hand side to see the hidden bits.--DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The route map seems upside down to me with south at the top of the map. I would be willing to do the work to invert it, though I don't want to wast my time if I'm the only one. I think the same of Metropolitan line. --Dkbottomley (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I drew it like this; perhaps it was just a copy from the Metropolitan line. At the moment the directions are right: up is up and down is down! Please let me look and see if there's a reason. Edgepedia (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dkbottomley. I've taken a look at the route maps on West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line articles, and they have London on the bottom, so I'm sure what you suggest would be fine. I'm going to be away for a couple weeks, but I will check in when I get back. Edgepedia (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it would have been better to start a new section for this discussion; would have made it easier to find. No problem though. Edgepedia (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested by 86.142.10.211 (talk) on 12 December 2009 to split into Metropolitan Railway and Metropolitan District Railway. MRSC (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Somebody had better get on with fixing all the bad District-specific links. I've just found and fixed this piece of utter tosh. How many pages link to Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways and thus redirect to Metropolitan Railway when they should really link to Metropolitan District Railway? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done there are no longer any pages in Article or Template space which link to Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways; I've amended them all to point at the relevant one, and in some cases both, see for example this diff. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad to see this split went ahead. MRSC (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Met have a King's Cross station. The 1874 OS map shows a station south east of the main station, which is named on an 1899 map as King's Cross (Metropolitⁿ), located on the Widened Lines. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original building is still there, though a bit disguised. The platforms were moved in 1941.--DavidCane (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that means the East Coast Main Line diagram is about as accurate as I can get it around King's Cross (at least, it was!). The {{Metropolitan Main Line RDT}} needs the station adding, and the King's Cross railway station needs a section adding on the Metropolitan station. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At King's Cross, the 1863-1941 Metropolitan station and the Widened Lines/Midland City/Thameslink station were essentially two halves of the same four-platform station, with a wall down the middle - a situation akin to the present Farringdon station. Indeed, Butt makes no distinction - see p. 134, entries titled "KING'S CROSS Met", "KING'S CROSS AND St PANCRAS Met", "KING'S CROSS St PANCRAS LPTB", "KING'S CROSS MIDLAND CITY BRB", "KING'S CROSS THAMESLINK" BRB". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 1913 photo which shows no wall, just an island platform in the middle, Widened Lines one side, Met and Circle the other. Also there are some images here Edgepedia (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that means that the wall was a later addition, possibly dating to around the time that the present Met/Cir/H&C station was opened. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a major update over the last few days, based heavily on Green, Oliver (1987). The London Underground — An illustrated history. I will be coming back in a few days to write a lead based on the current article, but I'm going to look for more sources; for example Green mentions freight but gives no details. The first underground railway will be 150 years old on 10 January 2013, it would be great to get this to featured status and on the main page on that day. Edgepedia (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have spotted "Extension east to Aldergate (now Moorgate) had already been planned as quadruple track between King's Cross and Aldergate so the City Widened Lines were built. Moorgate opened on 23 December 1865". My problem is that there wasn't an "Aldergate" station. There was "Aldersgate", but that is now Barbican, not Moorgate. According to Rose, both "Aldersgate Street" and "Moorgate" were opened 23 Dec 1865, so the date is correct anyway. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, carelessness on my part; should have looked at the map. Hopefully I now have the correct dates; Green and Bruce say Moorgate Street 23 Dec 1865; Bruce says the widened lines opened to there 1 July 1866.Edgepedia (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source for this? There is [1], but this appears to self-published. My books are silent on this. Edgepedia (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tfl will do. Edgepedia (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about The Story of London's Underground by John R. Day? Any edition will do: in the first (pub. 1963) it's on p. 1, similarly with the 2nd (1966), 4th (1971) and 6th (1979) eds; in the 10th (2008) it's stated twice, on pp. 7, 8; it's certain to be in all those in between, and is probably also in the 11th edition (2010) too. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've put that one before someone suggests that TfL has a COI. Edgepedia (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sources differ on this I have:

• Bruce, Steam to Silver, p59: MV339 traction motors, nominal 330 hp
• Horne, The Met Line, p46: total 1200hp
• Simpson, A history of... , p145 says 4 x 300 hp, total 1200 hp, although p146 says 1400hp
• Green, LU illustrated, p44 says 1200hp

seems 1200hp is the most popular. Anyone help with another source? Edgepedia (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, just giving a power rating is misleading - it needs to be qualified. Manufacturers usually give two: a one-hour rating and a continuous rating. Without knowing which is being quoted, we shouldn't say that "because they are different, one must be wrong". I certainly wouldn't trust Simpson: his books are stuffed with typos, spelling and grammatical errors, so what chance his facts?

Now then:

• Benest, K.R. (1984) [1963]. Metropolitan Electric Locomotives (2nd ed.). Hemel Hempstead: London Underground Railway Society. p. 48. ISBN 0 9508793 1 2. The common designation - 1,200 horsepower - referred to the one-hour rating, which was at a speed of 30 m.p.h.
• Bruce, J. Graeme (1970). Steam to Silver: An Illustrated History of London Transport Surface Railway Rolling Stock. Westminster: London Transport. p. 78. ISBN 0 85329 012 1. 1269/4169 RP/10M. the MV339 type traction motors, each with a nominal rating of 300hp {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Bruce, J. Graeme (1983) [1970]. Steam to Silver: A history of London Transport Surface Rolling Stock. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. p. 59. ISBN 0 904711 45 5. the MV339 type traction motors, each with a nominal rating of 330hp
• Day, John R. (1963). The Story of London's Underground (1st ed.). Westminster: London Transport. p. 84. Each bogie carried two 300hp nose-suspended motors
• Day, John R.; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. The Story of London's Underground (10th ed.). Harrow: Capital Transport. p. 86. ISBN 978 1 85414 316 7. Each bogie carried two 300hp nose-suspended motors
• Huntley, Ian (1988). The London Underground: Surface Stock Planbook 1863-1959. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 53. ISBN 0 7110 1721 2. four MV339 300hp traction motors with spur gearing 23:57

Note how Bruce is self-contradictory. Second edition of Bruce aside, all agree on 300 hp.

It so happens that the MV339 was also used in the Southern Railway 4-SUB stock (and their predecessors right back to the LSWR units of 1915), of which there is plenty published info; the only difference is that the SR geared them 21:59 as opposed to the Met's 23:57. The SR motors were rated 275hp (1-hr), and taking the different gear ratios into account that gives an equivalent rating of 312hp for the Met motors.^{[original research?]}

I would go for 300 hp per motor = 1200 hp total (1-hr rating). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Redrose, looks like my edition of Bruce has a misprint. I've update this and the electric locomotive articles accordingly. Edgepedia (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is to list this article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates in the next few days, unless anyone has any adverse comments. Edgepedia (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the recent change in abbreviation to MR odd, although I can see the logic. Looking at the sources I have to hand, Bruce, Horne and Simpson all use Met, whereas Green uses the full word Metropolitan. I haven't seen MR anywhere. Edgepedia (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One place to look is the lettering on goods wagons. This was regulated by the Railway Clearing House, not just so that wagons could be returned to the proper railway, but also so that the charges for working over "foreign" lines could be properly apportioned. Accordingly, the RCH did not permit two railways to use the same initials - and as is well known, "MR" were the initials used on wagons of the Midland Railway. I don't have any RCH documents to hand, but I do have

• Snowdon, James R. (2001). Metropolitan Railway Rolling Stock. Didcot: Wild Swan. ISBN 1-874103-66-6.

where examination of photographs on pp. 140-159 shows that prior to the formation of the LPTB, Metropolitan Railway wagons were lettered "MET.", sometimes modified to either "MET. RY." or "MET. RLY.". Sometimes the full stops were omitted, so the one constant is "MET". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes for concision. Previously there were various different usages including the full name and "Met", which was awkward and jarring. The choice of MR is simply because it is the shortest standard abbreviation for "Metropolitan Railway" in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms and initialisms. The FAC process can be very nick-picky over style issues. Abbreviation as "MR" will also be consistent with the abbreviation method used on the featured articles for the CLR, CCE&HR, GNP&BR, C&SLR, BS&WR and UERL.--DavidCane (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem here is that the Metropolitan interchanged traffic with the Midland - there were, for example, the Midland passenger trains over the Widened Lines to Moorgate, and freight services not just over that route but also exchanged in the Finchley Road/West Hampstead area. If we don't discuss these arrangements with the Midland, we don't satisfy FA criterion 1b and probably not 1c either.

I note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms and initialisms states Some acronyms are written ... with a mixture of capitals and lower-case letters which covers "MetR". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two mention of the Midland Railway in the article, so that would not need to be abbreviated.--DavidCane (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases the Metropolitan spelled out its name in full on locomotives, carriages and multiple units, although two locomotives had MET on the just prior to they became part of London Transport. However, Horne p 5 introduces Met as an abbreviation; Simpson uses on p. 12 without introduction, and both these sources use it throughout. Bruce uses it for a title on p. 24. However, online, this piece written by the Curator of London Transport Museum uses Met in the second para[2], and Transport for London introduce and use Met as an abbreviation in their history of London Underground. I now think we need to mention Met as an abbreviation, and nowhere am I seeing MR, althoug plenty of the likes of LNWR, GWR and LC&DR.

I believe we need to take note of these sources otherwise readers are going to query why an unusual abbreviation is used. Surely reflecting the sources accurately and consistancy within an article is what's needed? Edgepedia (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've ordered another book. The first ref recommends Jackson, Alan (1986). London's Metropolitan Railway. David & Charles. as "exhaustively researched and near definitive" so I guess we need that one. Edgepedia (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Passenger Transport Board, 1933 section

The text in the article is "In 1913, the MR had refused a merger proposal made by the UERL and it remained stubbornly independent under the leadership of Robert Selbie"; the next reference is Green p 43 which starts After rejecting the Combine's proposals for a merger in 1913, the Metropolitan maintained a determined independence from its fellow Underground operator for 20 years. The Metropolitan's development for this period ... guided by its able General Manager Robert Hope Selbie .... Not seeing the problem at the moment. Edgepedia (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the two sentences are on such different subjects, it is not obvious that they can both be supported by the same citation. Just repeat the source at the end of the first sentence. --DavidCane (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a cross through tower of London in the image ?

Because it closed soon after opening as mentioned in the caption. Is there a better way of showing this? Edgepedia (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice from the diag. that it was a station - I assumed from the different treatment it was the 'Tower of London', and the cross might represent its above ground location..

Suggest - It's a bit disjointed from its 'peg' on the line - would move it down a few pixels, also possibly change the name to "Tower of London St." to avoid confusion. I don't think the cross works - maybe just remove it or gray the text a bit. I think there is space in the diag. to add a "(clo. 1886)" to the right..Oranjblud (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does the new map look? Edgepedia (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lighter station mark makes sense. I single lined the "tower of london", added "St." to avoid confusion, and moved it closer to the mark .. I think with station mark differentiated the text doesn't need to be greyed. See this revision. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Completing_the_Circle.svg&oldid=76172815 - ?? Oranjblud (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also is there any explanation or more detail for the "tons of horns found 20ft below the surface" mentioned? Something to do with a slaughterhouse? but why just horns? I see it is mentioned in various contemporary publications eg [4] The most remarkable discovery was that of a thick stratum of bullock's horns, commencing about twenty feet below the surface, and extending to an unascertained distance beneath. Although the deposit was doubtless made many centuries ago, the horns had suffered so little by decay that they found a ready sale in the market . The Builder, vol.43 (29 Sep 1882) says Skulls, of which some have by ethnologists been thought to belong to a race inferior in type to the Romans, deer-horns, tons of bullock-horns, and some lengths of elm-wood water-pipes on Tower-hill, were among the things found. I cant find anything 'archaeological' written about it - but it sounds notable - must be something somewhere? Oranjblud (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the bullock horns were sold, I suspect that this destroyed any archaeological evidence. Edgepedia (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief reference to Metropolitan Railway Country Estates under the heading Metro-land 1914-32. MRCE was floated on the Stock Exchange in 1919 and became a substantial housebuider in its own right - possibly one of the largest in the 1950s. Its main operating associate, Whelmar, was sold to Christian Salvesen in 1968 and the remainder of the business was taken over by Guardian Royal Exchange in 1971. Is there a case for a separate entry on MRCE? Bebington (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean an Metropolitan Railway Country Estates article I believe that the company is notable. It became independent in 1933 on the creation of the LPTB. Edgepedia (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the first station built for the Metropolitan Railway? Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 15:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simply south. When the Metropolitan Railway opened on 10 January 1863 (as detailed at Metropolitan Railway#Opening), all seven stations opened at the same time. Jackson doesn't give much detail as to their construction except to say that Farrington Street was a temporary wooden structure (this moved a couple of years later) and they do not appear to have been well received at the time.(see Jackson, pp. 24&25 for more details) I don't see that building one station is of much use to a railway company as they needed all seven to run a service. Does this help? Or perhaps you could re-phase the question if I have mis-understood. Edgepedia (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some aspects of the map at File:Completing the Circle.svg look wrong:

1. Whitechapel has a circle on the green and grey lines, presumably indicating that it is an interchange station, but it is not shown as an interchange station on the black line. The article on Whitechapel station suggests that it was an interchange station from 1884.
2. The circle for Whitechapel on the green and grey lines is shown as some distance away from the station mark on the black line, but in fact the platforms are in the same location, at the scale of this map.
3. The closed Tower of London station has the label "Tower of London St." but there is no Tower of London Street, and the station was never called anything except "Tower of London" until it was reopened in a larger form as "Tower Hill". The "St." should be removed.

Winstonsmith99 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Winstonsmith. I think the 'St.' was supposed to mean station, but I've removed it as it's confusing. Regarding Whitechapel station, as far as I can make out, the District Railway station opened in 1884 as Whitechapel (Mile End) (according to Rose), or Whitechapel & Mile End (according to Crossrail), separate from the East London Railway station, see the previous link. To try and capture this I've placed two circles as close as I can. This is what Jackson has done in his diagram on page 111 in his book. Edgepedia (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that looks much better. I haven't read Jackson, but at least the map looks plausible now.Winstonsmith99 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit changes "had opened a single track railway in tunnel with new platforms at Baker Street" to "had opened a single track railway in a tunnel with new platforms at Baker Street." I'd always assumed that "in tunnel" was an acceptable and appropriate form for usages like this and has a slightly different meaning from "in a tunnel" where it seems to specify a particular tunnel. To me "in tunnel" is somewhere between a non-counting noun and a mild technicalism meaning that it's in a tunnel, or in some tunnels, or whatever, but as an overall (hoho) property rather than drilling down (haha) to a specific thing. Does this make any kind of sense at all, or should I just go and get a nice cup of tea? I'm certainly not up for a fist fight with Stephen over this, but would be interested to discuss it. :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like a walking OCD disaster area (ahem). Possible examples of what I think is the same sort of usage (incredibly hard to find in a fair and easy way and not cherry pick for or against my case!!)

• City Tunnel (Malmö) - first paragraph
• Spiral (railway) seems to apply it as normal usage quite consistently
• Picc-Vic tunnel#Route - second sentence of that section
• British Rail Class 373#cite_note-35 - in the text of the note

These seem to support the idea that there is a legitimate usage "in tunnel" which is different in flavour from "in a/the/some tunnel/s" or other variants. But what do I know? Nuttin'. In the meantime, that cup of tea is demanding toast to accompany it ... best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the indefinite article. "In tunnel" is perfectly good English. That, and the fact that the M&SJWR ran in two tunnels, with a 200 metre section of open line between them, at the south end of Lord's tube station. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the indefinite article, and copy edited the change. Edgepedia (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both - seems right, and reads better, to me. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely happy to defer to you: it's just a phrase I've never come across. It appears to be an adjectival construction of the sort that might go in front of a noun (an in-tunnel locomotive), but without the noun. Anyway, it's your page: I didn't realise that what I was doing was contentious! If it is, then please leave the phrase as it was before I interfered. Best wishes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Games (talk • contribs) 20:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a FA and soon it will be feature in Wikipedia's main page, but please can any of the regular editors double check the opening day. The Economist,which back then reported the event and the TfL site here, these reliable sources say the anniversary is on the 9th not the 10th.--Mariordo (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "opening day"! The railway opened to the public on 10th January 1863, as the article says and as is noted at the TfL site here, the London Transport Museum site here, London University here, the Museum of London here... There was an inaugural run, not open to the public, on 9th January. Given the choice of dates, then, it makes sense for this article to be TFA on 10th January as this allows Richard Nixon to appear on 9th January (the 100th anniversary of his birth). Bencherlite^Talk 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answered basically the same on Talk:Main Page before coming here. Edgepedia (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified this point in the lead. Edgepedia (talk)

The mention in the opening sentence is odd. To all Londoners 'the Met' is the Metropolitan Police not the railway; when abbreviated nowadays it'll be called the 'Met line' as in 'The Met line isn't running east of Baker Street again'. I suggest that before this gets featured status someone find a conclusive reference to support it. Even if found an indication that the abbreviation is no longer current my be needed. S a g a C i t y (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See #Metropolitan Railway abbreviation above. My favoured choice is still "MetR". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the Metropolitan line: see the opening words "The Metropolitan Railway (also known as the Met) was a passenger and goods railway that served London from 1863 to 1933". It is about a company that ran services across tracks that now form different underground and overground lines, not just the Metropolitan line. The company merged out of existence in 1933. The use of the abbreviation is not saying that modern-day Londoners still use "the Met" to refer to a company that ceased to exist 80 years ago. Bencherlite^Talk 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source(s) you are asking for are in the article in the Metroland section: From about 1914 the company had promoted itself as "The Met"... citation::Jackson 1986, pp. 195, 325, see also the publicity material reprinted in Simpson 2003, p. 70. The sources I have read (Jackson, Simpson, Bruce, Horne, et al.) in preparing the article all refer to the company as the Met or the Metropolitan, as well as the two websites mentioned in the previous discussion. London Transport Museum are advertising Steam back on the Met later in May.

As to how long the Met is/was in common usage in London I have no sources. Would be interesting to add. Edgepedia (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note in the lead for further reference. Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary for this article to specify that London is in England? I thought there was a "too obvious to specify" clause for world cities, and the like. I've reverted it twice, though, so will leave others to decide what to do. I am not up for a fist fight over it! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it needs to be linked. I've looked for guidance that I read some time ago saying that it too well known, but can't find it. Edgepedia (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edgepedia. Well, certainly, if we link it then we will help the unknown (but presumably, er, very large) number of people who could glance at the article, or read its lead, or whatever, and have absolutely no idea about where in the world it could possibly be. :) (I must say that I had to read it right through several times before realizing it was not about London, Ontario, London, Minnesota or London, Kiribati). And I would certainly find just "London" a lot easier on the eye and ear than the repellent and alien formula "London, England" which I find ... challenging, in the extreme. So yes, why not just link the word? Then it doesn't read stupid, and if someone really really really doesn't know where they are then salvation is a mere click away. This sounds like a good compromise to me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DBaK (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a little confusion surrounding this word. Should I link it [[Terminal train station|termini]] ? Edgepedia (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea - it aids clarity and doesn't harm readability. DBaK (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metropolitan 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/20140626104202/http://kesr.org.uk/stock-register/coaching-stock/14-stock/coaches/109-no-100 to http://www.kesr.org.uk/stock-register/coaching-stock/14-stock/coaches/109-no-100
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407071607/http://www.spavalleyrailway.co.uk/enthusiasts/Stock_List/ to http://www.spavalleyrailway.co.uk/enthusiasts/Stock_List/

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) 06:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolitan 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/20120204105155/http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/Met1.HTM to http://www.brc-stockbook.co.uk/Met1.HTM

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) 12:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [5] for article on opening which has image of opening likely in public domain. Article is too nicely together for me to (possibly diruptively) add it.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the pic of people sitting in two open goods wagons, lettered "S&K"? That is not the opening, it is "a distinguished party of people being conveyed in open wagons to inspect the Metropolitan Railway under construction on 24th May 1862" (Day & Reed, The Story of London's Underground (10th edn), p. 13), so the event concerned is more than six months before opening. This photo (which is © London Transport Museum) has been reproduced in several works, and has given rise to the mistaken impression that the early passenger coaches of the Met were roofless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede; this sentence is confusing me...

Former Met tracks and stations are used by the London Underground's Metropolitan, Circle, District, Hammersmith & City, Piccadilly, Jubilee and Victoria lines, and by Chiltern Railways and Great Northern.

What stations or tracks of the present day Victoria line are former Met line? I find nothing in the article to support the claim that the Met Railway built any infrastructure that was later used for the Victoria line.

184.13.79.204 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you open up the "Edit" tab to examine the passage concerned, you will find:

and [[Victoria line|Victoria]]<!-- Former GNCR tunnels from Finsbury Park to north of Drayton Park plus platforms at Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington --> lines

The GNCR here is the Great Northern and City Railway, which was owned by the Metropolitan for twenty years (1913-33), so it's technically true. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 184.13.79.204 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]