text:
Talk:Credit repair

Kielsky has graciously provided content from his Electronic Credit Repair Kit for this article.

While I can readily comprehend the concerns voiced here about whether or not User Kielsky is or is not attempting to advertise his "products" here and I can also easily comprehend the concerns over the copyright issues I think that there is a much greater concern regarding the presentation of the material.

While it is true that there is and has been a mountain of scams and misinformation regarding the subject of credit repair and also the fact that enormous numbers of consumers have both been ripped off and greatly helped I will also hasten to assure one and all that User Kielsky is not a scam artist nor a ripoff artist and has helped a very large number of people and does offer a volume of excellent and even free information.

Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the purpose of a wikipedia is defining things so that people understand what it is and if applicable a bit about how it operates. I do not feel that goal has been accomplished in any way, shape or form by User Kielsky's posting.

I will attempt to resolve that problem.

Credit repair: A process whereby various letters are sent to credit bureaus in an attempt to force the change or deletion of inaccurate or adverse information contained in one's credit bureau records. Statistically speaking the practice is only about 40 percent successful for both individuals and firms alike.

Quite frankly, I fail to see where much more than that needs to be said to define it. Such blatant commercialism as has been demonstrated herein has little or no place in a wikipedia.

Moved from User Talk:RickK:
What do we do about the credit repair external link? I am troubled that this article is being used to generate trafic for a commercial web site. At the same time when I look at the site I see pages of valuable indepth information. I wish WP was so useful on this topic. The problem we have is that the web site info is copyrighted and can be used on WP only by citing the web page. Unfortunately, that means we should be deleting the whole page and not just the link. Can we come to some sort of compromise with the author? mydogategodshat 04:31, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * We could probably put the credit info on the Talk page. What do you think? RickK 04:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * You could suggest that to him. He might be happy with that. I took a look at Sites that use Wikipedia for content to see if doing that would satsify WP policy if the circumstances were reversed. I don't know for sure, but I think WP would expect the citation on the same page as the Wikinformation. Another option is to put a warning on the link stating that it is a commercial web site. Hope you can work something out with him. mydogategodshat 05:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm honestly confused. How in the world is proper, honest attribution to another site, and, on top of which, that site is FREE to all comers, and has been a free internet resource for nearly a decade, in any way an advertisement? Kielsky 16:34, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * I'd estimate you're making money from approximately 50 banner ads on that page. silsor 16:39, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Not the way you might think. Only when a reader clicks through AND pays for the associated good or service, then I may see a commission. Kielsky 17:05, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Your repeated use of the "trademark" icon was also a small hint. RickK 16:41, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how many times over the last ten years my page has been copied OUTRIGHT and passed off as the work of another. Kielsky 17:05, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Since you're the original author, it seems apparent that the only purpose of listing the link right in the article is to get it attention. Why not just list it in the talk page? silsor 16:44, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * This is the part I don't get. I'm certain the purpose is to get high-quality content into Wikipedia, for our mutual benefit. Is it not conceivable that such content could have already been created and copyrighted by another? Is it then not possible, that if the author grants permission, that this content could be duplicated here, with the author requesting only proper attribution? How has this done anything but enhance the very value Wikipedia promotes? Kielsky 17:05, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * You're dodging the point. I pointed out that your only purpose in giving the link to the site is to draw attention to it.  There is no need for you to say "quoted with permission" since you are the original author of the work, and by contributing parts of it to Wikipedia you have relicensed parts of it under the GNU Free Documentation License.  If you were only saying "quoted with permission" to clear up any confusion about the matter, a simple notice on the talk page would be adequate.  By your own admission you try to make money from the page and in my opinion that makes it an advertisement. silsor 19:13, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that even if you did not make money from the page, it would be a vanity advertisement. silsor 19:30, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * Quoting from section 2 of the GFDL: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." This makes it very clear the copyright notice is an integral part of the copy.  The way I see it is that some people are insisting that my copyright somehow is not deserving the same courtesy.  I'm happy to share, freely, under the terms of the GFDL those portions of my copyrighted work I have posted, but I insist that my rights under that very same GFDL be respected. Kielsky

 * I'm not sure Rick's talk page is the place to have this discussion (apologies Rick) but you should note "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... then don't submit it here" and that includes removing any links you add to your site. Angela 20:50, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Keilsky your rights are repected because your name is in the page history. So it is absolutely clear that you are the author of thwe work. As I see it there is no need to have the link back to your web page to ensure your rights under the GFDL.theresa knott 09:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Restored attribution statement. Compare Functional programming. Read the Text of the GFDL. Read copyrights. Note what we ask people who use Wikipedia content to do. Note that I and others have given assurances to third parties that the GFDL ensures that they will be credited - thus I will consider myself obliged to issue a DMCA takedown notice if Wikipedians start violating the GFDL by removing copyright notices while keeping the content. Martin 19:14, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Kielsky
User:Kielsky keeps inserting advertising into Credit repair. RickK 04:11, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I think you are a bit off in listing them here for that! It seems to me that User:Kielsky was simply trying to comply with terms of copyleft.He copied the info from the commercial site and so provided a link back to that site. I don't see how that makes him a problem user! I've done a complete rewrite, so that we don't need to insert the link. Hopefully that problem solved. If there are no further problems on credit repair and if nobody objects I will swipe  User:Kielsky from this page tomorrow. theresa knott 14:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ambiguity about copyright
Here's what Kielsky's external website says:

 * This Document, the Electronic Credit Repair Kit tm, may not be further copied, photographed, posted, reproduced, stored, translated, or transmitted, in whole or in part, without prior express written consent from the author and copyright owner. Permission is granted to view or print a single personal copy of this document, solely for educational purposes, in its entirety and without modification, as long as this copyright notice remains intact. This permission does not extend to making copies available to others without the author's express written consent. This document may not be sold, rented, or leased, nor may anyone but the author and copyright owner receive any compensation for this document, without the prior express written consent of the author and copyright owner.

 * All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice.

This entire document is copyrighted. "Electronic Credit Repair Kit" is a trademark of [Michael Kielsky].

I'm not sure if this counteracts his "donation" of the "part" which found its way into credit repair. I'm not going to be anal about it -- since IANAL and proud of it! -- but it looks like either:
 * 1) He should take back his excerpt and go away, no hard feelings; or,
 * 2) Wikipedia is now a co-owner of the excerpt, and we have no more obligation to maintain a "donation notice" or "copyright notice" than we do for any of the other ten thousand articles. --Uncle Ed 19:31, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

A mention in "links" is not acceptable, as it does not make it clear that this is a required copyright statement rather than normal editable text. Thus, later Wikipedians may inadvertantly remove the statement, believing it to be unnecessary. Martin 19:29, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * So what do we do, Martin? Ask on the legal mailing list? Is he giving us the excerpt fully, or with stings attached? --Uncle Ed 19:33, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've mailed wiki-legal.

The GFDL has strings attached - that is what distinguishes it from public domain text. We certainly have an obligation to maintain copyright notices for content from non-Wikipedians, unless they waive that right under the GFDL. Not only do we have this obligation, but so do all our downstream licensees.

It is possible to argue that where a Wikipedia user is contributing his own text, this is not a direct license under the GFDL, but rather implicit permission is given to Wikipedia to publish the material, where that published material is released under the GFDL. Such arguments are dubious, however, especially where, as in this case, Kielsky is explicitly disagreeing with this interpretation. Martin 19:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I just went ahead and wrote a brand new article - carefully NOT glancing at the old one - a kind of clean room design technique applied to text. Now, if Kielsky wants to edit OUR version of the article, he's welcome to do so, and I hope he'll understand that any changes he makes are covered by GFDL. --Uncle Ed 20:11, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi guys saw Martin's request on Wikilegal-L. IAAL and this is not a legal opinion (NALO), but let's get one thing straight. When you contribute material to Wikipedia, either if it is published or unpublished you grant a license. Who do you grant that license to? We could discuss that for hours, but the fact is that it is "released under the GNU FDL" as stated below the window where I am currently typing this text. Once that happens it can be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will".(period). Anyone else who logs on can deleted it or change it (though there are arguments that you cannot unilaterally delete the work of another, but you can certainly transform it into a new work that totally minimalizes the copyrighted content of prior contributions. Once you make a contribution you cannot ask that you get any more attribution rights than anyone else under the GFDL as we do not accept invariant sections here (that is clear if one links through to copyrights. I don't think that the external links are for advertising and I know of at least one case where someone contested that very issue when dealing with a topic that had certain proprietary rights associated with certain words in the article (how is that for legal obfuscation). The point is that the information on that site should and could be added to Wikipedia, that is what we are hear for. Wikipedia is not a collection of links and any links at the bottom of an article should be to provide more primary source material on the topic of the article. As far as credit repair services, if someone is looking for something like that they can look it up in a search engine. Wikipedia is not a search engine; also this article should deal with credit repair on other countries beside the USA. — Alex756 21:12, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I've finally read the original text of the article - before I did my "clean room" rewrite. And I hate to say it but I suspect the original poster of running a scam. Note that I do not "accuse" or "charge" this, in a totally smelly (ANAL) sense! But the utter lack of any mention of LEGITIMATE bad entries in one's credit report is suspicious: I was shocked to find that the article implies that most "credit repair" is the removal of errors; I think it's just the other way around: most credit repair is either:
 * 1) paying back what you owe
 * 2) scams to AVOID paying back what you owe

We might also mention identity theft, but that's a separate topic. --Uncle Ed 21:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

First, I'm not running a scam. My website has been up for nearly a decade, and is (and has always been) available for free. While I've had many offers to "do credit repair" from people over the years, I simply refuse to do it. The info is there, choose to use it if you wish. As to "being shocked", well, I can appreciate that, because it IS shocking. Because of the complex interaction between the laws, regulations, creditor practices, and debt collection practices, in most cases you may be better off NOT repaying some debts. I can show example after example where someone who has done the morally upright thing, and repaid all their debts but not within their original terms, is in far worse "creditworthiness" shape than someone who has simply walked away from their obligations. You don't have to trust me on this, when formalized, this process is called "bankruptcy". Finally, most of the people that seem to benefit from my page are not those shirking their obligations, but many, like some of us, who have encountered circumstances (and not without blame), which has lead one mistake to reflect badly on their credit report dozens of times. Many, many, many of these are due to unscrupulous collection agencies, placing multiple collection items on a credit report for one bad debt, multiplied over and over again whenever that debt is passed to yet another collection agency. Such entries are subject to removal upon dispute, because they are false. One bad debt entry versus 13 bad debt entries, that's a huge difference on a credit report. No scam, just the facts and the law. Please, do your own research, I find the Federal Trade Commission Staff Opinion Letters (http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/) most instructive. --User:Kielsky 17:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Village pump discussion
The following text (in blue) was moved from the village pump.

 I am particularly interested in the controversy around Credit repair as outlined in the messages on User talk:RickK (which may soon move to Talk:Credit repair) Talk:Credit repair. Particularly,

 * Quoting from section 2 of the GFDL: "You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License." This makes it very clear the copyright notice is an integral part of the copy.  The way I see it is that some people are insisting that my copyright somehow is not deserving the same courtesy.  I'm happy to share, freely, under the terms of the GFDL those portions of my copyrighted work I have posted, but I insist that my rights under that very same GFDL be respected. Kielsky

Can an author donate text to Wikipedia and insist that a copyright notice remain? The page given to editing users does specify the license, but not who the license holder will be. Should it be specified? silsor 01:41, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the motivation for having a copyright notice of the text you added. What are copyrights good for? 1. Restricting the copying of a text so that you can make money off of it. 2. Making it clear who is the author of this text. 1 falls away if you license the text under the GFDL. 2 is satisfied by the "page history". Furthermore: what if I cange a sentence in your text: do you still keep that notice of yours? Do I now get to add my own? I just don't understand the motivation for having a copyright notice. As always, IANAL. --snoyes 02:41, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * My opinion: Wikipedia policy is that we don't include attribution for authors in the article text. So we have two options: we can either consider the "Document" to include the talk page (or even the whole site), in which case including the copyright notice on the talk page, alongside other copyright notices, would be sufficient under GFDL; or we can delete the offending text entirely. See my user page for an IANAL statement. -- Tim Starling 03:25, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Making the "Document" include the Talk page would lead to the unfortunate result of requiring anyone who prints out and distributes the article under the rules for "verbatim copying" to also print out the full talk page (and any talk page archives) and distribute it alongside the article itself. This would be bad. Making the Document include all of Wikipedia would have even worse consequences.

We do include attribution text in the article itself for a number of articles, where required under the GFDL. See, for example, the Nupedia and Wikipedia list. The attribution statement requested by Kielsky is roughly equivalent to such notices, and is not unreasonable. Martin 19:19, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

An attribution is not unreasonable, but it is not required and it can be removed. Isn't the system for providing attribution from outside Wikipedia is one's listing on the page history? If one is making a contribution to Wikipedia isn't the attribution in the page history? If not, is not everyone who writes something on Wikipedia entitled to add a © date and name at the end of the article? This would seem to clutter things up to a terrible degree. Should each user have the right to go back and make such an addition at the end of the article? The reality is that we are making a collaborative work. If someone dumps their work on Wikipedia from their hard disk, their published book or something else, it does not change the attribution rules. Don't we all contribute our work equally here? Does any one have greater rights than any other contributor? The only time this becomes problematic is if one moves an article from one page to the next, cutting and pasting the text will destroy the page history, and IMO this is a violation of the attribution rules and not respectful of the contributions of others (this also occurs when a page is translated from one language to another, the translator should list the five major contributors in the summary box when translating and the origin language url). Just a suggestion, not a legal opinion. — Alex756 06:38, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I may be just reading it wrong, but doesn't the GFDL treat copyright notices and attributions of authorship differently? It only requires attribution for only 5 major authors, but as far as I can see, all copyright notices must be preserved. I guess it's contradictory -- 50 authors could guarantee that they are each attributed by adding copyright notices. But then they could do that with invariant sections too. Note that the reason this particular copyright notice is objectionable is the nature of the linked site. Theresa Knott rewrote the article to get rid of it, Kielsky responded by dumping more text from the site, which was subsequently removed. -- Tim Starling 08:23, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

As long as we are not required to maintain a link to Kielsky's website AND Kielsky agrees that every sentence he added to the article is now covered by the GFDL, I have no more objections.

By the way, sorry about my hasty and suspicious remarks last month. I probably should not have applied the word scam in connection with your website... --Uncle Ed 16:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've copied the above to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Credit repair as it may prove useful in similar situations that occur in future. Angela. 02:16, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Credit repair


text:
Barbican tube station

Barbican is a London Underground station situated near the Barbican Estate, on the edge of the ward of Farringdon Within, in the City of London in Central London. It has been known by various names since its opening in 1865, mostly in reference to the neighbouring ward of Aldersgate.

The station is served by the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines, and is situated between and Moorgate stations, in Travelcard Zone 1. Platform 2, serving westbound trains, is connected by a single lift to Farringdon station on the Elizabeth line. Until 2009 Barbican was additionally served by Thameslink services to and from Moorgate.

Location
Barbican station lies in an east–west-aligned cutting with cut-and-cover tunnels at either end. The modern entrance gives access from Aldersgate Street, through a 1990s building, to a much older footbridge leading to the eastern end of the platforms. To the north of the station are the rears of buildings that face onto Charterhouse Street, Charterhouse Square and Carthusian Street. To the south are the rears of buildings that face onto Long Lane, and to the west is Hayne Street. The station is close to the Barbican Estate, Barbican Centre, City of London School for Girls, St Bartholomew-the-Great, and Smithfield. The Eastern Ticket Hall entrance to Farringdon Elizabeth line station is one street west of the station entrance, on the corner of Long Lane and Lindsey Street. A single lift connects directly from the Elizabeth line onto the westbound platform at Barbican.

History
The station was opened with the name Aldersgate Street on 23 December 1865 on the Moorgate extension from Farringdon. It was built on the site of an earlier building at 134 Aldersgate Street, which for many years had a sign claiming "This was Shakespeare's House". The building was very close to the nearby Fortune Playhouse, and a subsidy roll from 1598 shows a "William Shakespeare" as the owner of the property, however, there is no documentary evidence indicating they and the playwright were the same person.

The station, which has no surface building, had its name shortened to Aldersgate on 1 November 1910 and was renamed again on 24 October 1924 as Aldersgate & Barbican,  although tube maps and London A to Zs continued to show it as Aldersgate. On 1 December 1968 the station's name was simplified to Barbican.

Train services were disrupted during the Second World War when the station suffered severe bomb damage in the Blitz, particularly in December 1940. This led to the removal of the upper floors, and in 1955 the remainder of the street-level building was also demolished and the glass roof was replaced with awnings. This urged John Betjeman to write his poem Monody on the Death of Aldersgate Station.

Increasing traffic by other companies, including goods traffic, led to the track between King's Cross and Moorgate being widened to four tracks in 1868; the route was called the 'City Widened Lines'. Suburban services from the Midland Railway ran via Kentish Town and the Great Northern Railway ran via Kings Cross. British Rail services to Moorgate were initially steam operated before being converted to Cravens-built diesel multiple units and British Rail Class 31 locomotives class hauling non-corridor stock which remained in operation until the mid-1970s.

Passenger trains from the Great Northern line, via the York Road and Hotel curves at King's Cross to the Widened Lines, ran until the Great Northern's electrification on 1976. The City Widened Lines were renamed the Moorgate line when overhead electrification was installed in 1982, allowing the Midland City Line service to run from Bedford via the Midland Main Line to Moorgate on the Thameslink service. The Thameslink platforms at Barbican were closed again in March 2009 as part of the Thameslink Programme to allow to have its main line platforms extended across Thameslink's Moorgate branch. As a result, Barbican now serves Underground lines only. The modern station is mostly open to the elements, though there are some short canopies. The remains of the supporting structure for a glass canopy over all four platforms (removed in the 1950s) may still be seen. At the west end of the platforms may be seen the beginnings of the complex of tunnels leading under Smithfield meat market. Livestock for the market was at one time delivered by rail and there was a substantial goods yard under the site of the market.

Platform 1 is the most northerly, serving eastbound London Underground services. Platforms 2 and 3 form an island platform, with platform 2 serving westbound services. Platform 2 contains a lift to the Elizabeth line platforms; it is the only platform with step-free access. Platforms 3 and 4 are out of use. A display on the history of the station, including text and photographs, is just inside the barriers, on the southern side of the main entrance corridor.

The station has a commemorative plaque affixed to one of its walls in memory of the station's deceased cat Pebbles.

Incidents and accidents
On 16 December 1866, three passengers were killed, a guard was seriously injured and one other person suffered shock when a girder collapsed onto a passenger train in the station. The accident was the first to include multiple passengers on the underground network. Four people died during the accident, and a fifth (a workman involved in the accident) died while awaiting trial. Service on the line was running again only 30 minutes after the accident.

On 26 April 1897, a bomb exploded under a seat in a first-class carriage in the station, injuring ten people of whom two died later. The perpetrators were never identified, but it was believed to have been part of a Fenian campaign following 3 other bombs in 1883-5.

Services
The station is served by the Metropolitan, Hammersmith & City and Circle lines. All three lines share the same pair of tracks from Baker Street Junction to Aldgate Junction making this section of track one of the most intensely used on the London Underground network.

Circle line
The typical service in trains per hour (tph) is:
 * 6 tph clockwise to Edgware Road via Liverpool Street and Victoria
 * 6 tph anti-clockwise to Hammersmith via Kings Cross St Pancras and Paddington

Hammersmith & City line
The typical service in trains per hour (tph) is:
 * 6 tph Eastbound to Barking
 * 6 tph Westbound to Hammersmith via Paddington

Metropolitan line
The Metropolitan Line is the only line to operate express services, though currently this is only during peak times (Eastbound 06:30–09:30 / Westbound 16:00–19:00). Fast services run non-stop between Wembley Park, Harrow-on-the-Hill and Moor Park, Semi-fast services run non-stop between Wembley Park and Harrow-on-the-Hill.

The typical off-peak service in trains per hour (tph) is: Off-peak services to/from Watford terminate at Baker Street
 * 12 tph Eastbound to Aldgate
 * 2 tph Westbound to Amersham (all stations)
 * 2 tph Westbound to Chesham (all stations)
 * 8 tph Westbound to Uxbridge (all stations)

The typical peak time service in trains per hour (tph) is:
 * 14 tph Eastbound to Aldgate
 * 2 tph Westbound to Amersham (fast in the evening peak only)
 * 2 tph Westbound to Chesham (fast in the evening peak only)
 * 4 tph Westbound to Watford (semi-fast in the evening peak only)
 * 6 tph Westbound to Uxbridge (all stations)

Elizabeth line
's Barbican ticket hall for the Elizabeth line is just to the west of Barbican station along Long Lane. This construction involved significant changes at the western end of the station, including the demolition of the former signal box to construct a lift shaft from the Elizabeth line station to the westbound Underground platform only. The original plan of a new footbridge spanning the tracks to the eastbound platform was not proceeded with on the grounds of engineering difficulties. Work was anticipated to be completed in 2018, but was completed in May 2022.

Connections
London Buses routes serve the station.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Barbican tube station


text:
St James's Park tube station

St James's Park is a London Underground station near St James's Park in the City of Westminster, central London. It is served by the District and Circle lines and is between Victoria and Westminster stations. It is in Travelcard Zone 1.

The station building is incorporated into 55 Broadway, formerly the headquarters of Transport for London, and has entrances both on the junction of 55 Broadway and Petty France and on Palmer Street, opposite Starbucks. The station is close to several government offices. The station is not wheelchair accessible.

History
The station was opened on 24 December 1868 by the District Railway (DR, now the District line) when the company opened the first section of its line between South Kensington and Westminster stations. The DR connected to the Metropolitan Railway (MR, later the Metropolitan line) at South Kensington and, although the two companies were rivals, each company operated its trains over the other's tracks in a joint service known as the "Inner Circle".

On 1 February 1872, the DR opened a northbound branch from its station at Earl's Court to connect to the West London Extension Joint Railway (WLEJR, now the West London Line) which it connected to at Addison Road (now Kensington (Olympia)). From that date the "Outer Circle" service began running over the DR's tracks. The service was run by the North London Railway (NLR) from its terminus at Broad Street (now demolished) close to Liverpool Street station in the City of London via the North London Line to Willesden Junction, then the West London Line to Addison Road and the DR to Mansion House, the new eastern terminus of the DR.

From 1 August 1872, the "Middle Circle" service also began operations through St James's Park running from Moorgate along the MR's tracks on the north side of the Inner Circle to Paddington then over the Hammersmith & City Railway (H&CR) track to Latimer Road then, via a now demolished link, to the West London Line to Addison Road and the DR to Mansion House. The service was operated jointly by the H&CR and the DR.

On 30 June 1900, the Middle Circle service was withdrawn between Earl's Court and Mansion House. On 31 December 1908 the Outer Circle service was also withdrawn. The station has been reconstructed twice. In the first decade of the 20th century the original DR station was reconstructed in conjunction with the building of Electric Railway House a headquarters building for the DR's owners the London Electric Railway. The station was then rebuilt again between 1927 and 1929 as part of the construction of 55 Broadway the company's new headquarters building designed by Charles Holden and featuring statues and carved stone panels including ones by Sir Jacob Epstein, Eric Gill, and Henry Moore.

The platforms feature the green, blue, black and white tiling scheme first used for the reconstruction and extension to Morden of the City & South London Railway (now the Northern line) also designed by Holden and opened between 1924 and 1926.

In 1949, the Metropolitan line operated Inner Circle route was given its own identity on the tube map as the Circle line.

The separate Palmer Street entrance and booking hall were rebuilt as part of a further redevelopment in the 1960s.

Together with 55 Broadway, the station is a Grade I listed building.

Name
Over time, the station name has been spelt and punctuated differently, illustrating changing practice in punctuation. Tube maps up to the early 1930s show the name as "St. James' Park". From Harry Beck's first map in 1933 until the early 1950s the name was shown as "St. James Park". From 1951, it was "St. James's Park". Current practice on tube maps is "St James's Park" without the full stop after the "St".

Originally installed in the late 1920s when the first version of the name was in use, the station name displayed in the platform roundels exhibit modification to account for this change. One of the roundels on the eastbound platform still reads "St. James' Park", the rest have had new name plates affixed giving the spelling and punctuation as "St. James's Park".

Connections
London Buses routes 11, 24, 148 and night routes N2, N11, N44, N52 and N136 serve the station.

title: St James's Park tube station


text:
Knightsbridge tube station

Knightsbridge is a London Underground station in Knightsbridge, London. It is on the Piccadilly line between South Kensington and Hyde Park Corner, and is in Travelcard Zone 1.

History
The station was opened on 15 December 1906 by the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway (GNP&BR, now the Piccadilly line). When opened, the platforms were accessed in the standard manner by four lifts and an emergency staircase connecting to parallel passageways and bridges to midway along the platforms. The original station building designed by Leslie Green was located on Brompton Road a short distance west of its junction with Knightsbridge and Sloane Street. A rear entrance was located on Basil Street.

The location of the station in a busy and fashionable shopping district meant that patronage at the station was high from the beginning, particularly due to the presence locally of the Harrods and Harvey Nichols emporiums. This contrasted with the next station on the line westward — Brompton Road — where passenger numbers were so low that from soon after its opening many trains were timetabled not to stop there.

1930s reconstruction
In the early 1930s, the availability of government grants to stimulate the depressed economy enabled the Underground Group to carry out a major modernisation programme, during which many central London stations were brought up to date with escalators to replace the original lifts. Knightsbridge was one of the Piccadilly line stations to benefit from the installation of escalators.

To enable the escalators to reach the existing platforms without excessive below ground reconstruction or interference with station operations a new ticket hall was constructed under the Brompton Road/Knightsbridge/Sloane Street junction and new circulation passages were constructed at the lower level. A new station entrance was inserted into the existing building on the corner of Brompton Road and Sloane Street. Subway entrances on the other corners of the junction enabled pedestrians to avoid the traffic on the busy junction. The original entrances in Brompton Road and Basil Street were closed. The Brompton Road building was subsequently demolished, but the rear entrance at the corner of Basil Street and Hoopers Court remains, although converted for use as offices.

To ease congestion, it was also decided to provide an additional entrance to the western end of the platforms closer to Harrods. The additional exit would further diminish the passenger numbers at Brompton Road so this station was scheduled to close. A separate ticket hall was provided for the western escalators which is accessed by a long subway from the surface entrance at the corner of Hans Crescent. This narrow subway was to be a regular problem, often becoming congested with groups of passengers trying to pass each other in the confined space.

Eventually in 2004, this congestion was solved by the expansion of this exit into a large circular area, under the road towards Harrods, with the way out of the station being by a stairway in the midst of the road.

Early 21st century station upgrades
In recent years, several piecemeal improvements to the station have occurred. The platforms were refurbished in 2005, with the 1930s cream-coloured tiles being concealed behind a modern metal cladding system. In December 2010, a new entrance was opened across the road from the station, as part of the One Hyde Park residential development.

In 2017, a major upgrade to the station was announced, with two new entrances constructed on Brompton Road and Hooper's Court. The new Hooper's Court entrance will have two large lifts, which will allow for step-free access throughout the station. This entrance will also re-open some areas of the station that were closed in the early 1930s when escalators were installed.

Previously expected to open in 2021, the stepped entrance on Brompton Road, which replaced a smaller entrance on the corner of Sloane Street that was becoming unsafe due to overcrowding and a narrow pavement outside, opened in October 2022. the step-free entrance in Hoopers Court was expected to open before the end of the year.

Most of the upgrade costs are being paid for by Knightsbridge Estate and developers Chelsfield, who own the property above the station and are responsible for the redevelopment. TfL are contributing £12m, enabling step-free access to be extended to platform level.

In popular culture
The station appeared in a 1992 episode of Rumpole of the Bailey (Rumpole and the Children of the Devil), as Horace Rumpole and his wife Hilda travel there separately from Temple and Gloucester Road stations respectively. They exit Knightsbridge station from the stairs at the former street level portico on the corner of Hans Crescent and Brompton Road, which has since been redeveloped as the main entrance to a Zara fashion shop at 79 Brompton Road.

The opening scene of the 1997 film version of Henry James's The Wings of the Dove was set on the east-bound platforms at both Dover Street and Knightsbridge stations, both represented by the same studio mock-up, complete with a working recreation of a 1906 Stock train.

Connections
London Buses routes 9, 14, 19, 22, 52, 74, 137, 414, 452, C1 and night routes N9, N19, N22, N74 and N137 serve the station.

title: Knightsbridge tube station


text:
Tik-Tok of Oz

Tik-Tok of Oz is the eighth book in the Oz series written by L. Frank Baum, published on June 19, 1914. The book has little to do with Tik-Tok and is primarily the quest of the Shaggy Man (introduced in The Road to Oz) to rescue his brother, and his resulting conflict with the Nome King. The book was based on Baum's play The Tik-Tok Man of Oz, which was produced in Los Angeles in spring 1913. It was followed by The Scarecrow of Oz (1915).

The endpapers of the first edition held maps: one of Oz itself, and one of the continents on which Oz and its neighboring countries belonged. These were the first maps printed of Oz.

Plot summary
Queen Ann Soforth of Oogaboo, a small monarchy separated from the rest of Oz's Winkie Country, sets out to raise an army to conquer Oz.

Betsy Bobbin, a girl who is a year older than Dorothy Gale, and her loyal mule Hank have washed ashore during a storm. They arrive at a large greenhouse that is the domain of the Rose Kingdom, where the roses tell them that no strangers are allowed. Just as the Royal Gardener is about to pass sentence on Betsy and Hank, the Shaggy Man falls through the greenhouse's roof, and charms the Gardener into sparing all of their lives with his Love Magnet. The travelers leave, taking with them the newly plucked Rose Princess Ozga, a cousin of Ozma, the ruler of Oz.

The Shaggy Man relates how Ozma sent him here via the Magic Belt because he wanted to find his brother, who went digging underground in Colorado and disappeared. He surmised that the Nome King, ruler of the underground Nome Kingdom, captured him. They meet up with Polychrome the Rainbow's Daughter, and they rescue Tik-Tok from the well where the Nome King had tossed him. Once Tik-Tok is wound up, he accompanies Betsy, Hank, the Shaggy Man, Ozga, and Polychrome to their chance encounter with Queen Ann and her army. When Queen Ann learns of the riches to be found in the Nome King's underground kingdom, she calms down and accepts the services of Tik-Tok as her new private.

The Nome King is aghast at this group coming toward his underground kingdom. Since no one can be killed in Oz, the Nome King seeks to discourage them, first by taking them through the Rubber Country, and then disposing of them by dropping them through the Hollow Tube, a conduit leading to the other side of the world. There the party enters the jurisdiction of the immortal called Tititi-Hoochoo, the Great Jinjin, who vows to punish the Nome King for using the Hollow Tube. He sends Tik-Tok and the others back with his Instrument of Vengeance, a lackadaisical dragon named Quox.

When Quox bursts through the Nome King's cavern, the Nome King sees the ribbon around Quox's neck and forgets all the magic he ever knew. The Nome King is driven out of his kingdom when Quox releases six eggs from the padlock around his neck. The eggs, poisonous to Nomes, follow the Nome King to the Earth's surface and confine him there.

The new Nome King, the former chief steward Kaliko, vows to help the Shaggy Man find his brother, whom he knows is in the Metal Forest. The Shaggy Man meets his brother in the center of the Forest, but the brother is cursed with a charm of ugliness by the former Nome King. The fairy Polychrome's kiss restores the Shaggy Man's brother to his former self.

There is a banquet of rejoicing in the Nome Kingdom, and the former Nome King earnestly pleads to be let back into the underground lair. Once on the surface again, Polychrome ascends her rainbow and Ozma uses the magic belt to send the citizens of Oogaboo back home. The Shaggy Man only agrees to return when his brother, Betsy, and Hank are allowed to enter Oz too. Betsy decides to stay in Oz forever.

Commentary
In 1913, Baum's long-delayed and heavily-adapted stage version of Ozma of Oz, re-titled The Tik-Tok Man of Oz, was produced in Los Angeles, with moderate success. The music was composed by Louis F. Gottschalk, Baum's favorite composer, who would also be the dedicatee of the Tik-Tok novel a year later. Baum adapted some of the material from the stage production for the novel. As in Ozma of Oz, a shipwreck precipitates the heroine into her adventure, and the quest of the Shaggy Man for his brother, who was named Wiggy in the play, is another attempt to rescue a prisoner of the Nome King. The picking of Ozga is a motif found in Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz.

The book has several continuity errors with earlier books in the series, particularly The Road to Oz. Whereas Polychrome met the Shaggy Man in that book, this point is neglected by Baum in Tik-Tok. Also, whereas the Shaggy Man merely needs to carry the Love Magnet on his person for it to work in The Road to Oz, in this book it is necessary for him to remove it from his pocket and physically show it to those he wishes to love him.

Tik-Tok of Oz was more modestly produced than earlier Oz books, with twelve color plates instead of sixteen. Its first edition sold a little over 14,000 copies — a respectable figure, but 3,000 fewer than The Patchwork Girl of Oz had done the year before. Baum's books were facing stiff new competition — from his own earlier books. The reprint house M. A. Donohue & Co. had purchased the rights to several early Baum works from Bobbs-Merrill, and was marketing cut-rate editions. People were less willing to pay the usual $1.25 for a new Oz book when the original Wizard of Oz was selling for $0.35.

Tik-Tok of Oz also contained the first map of Oz and its neighboring countries, which proved to be a very popular feature. Unfortunately for the principle of consistency, this initial map of Oz was drawn backwards, with the Munchkin Country on the left and the Winkie Country in the right, with the compass rose reversed to keep the Munchkin Country in the east and the Winkie Country in the west. [See: Land of Oz.] Subsequent maps from the publisher "corrected" the compass rose, but not the locations. This may explain why Ruth Plumly Thompson reversed the locations from Baum's -- in her books the Munchkin country is west; and her Winkies East (see for instance Ozoplaning with the Wizard of Oz but also in several other books). James E. Haff and Dick Martin ultimately corrected these in new maps designed for The International Wizard of Oz Club. A squarish map that largely follows Haff and Martin appears in The Dictionary of Imaginary Places. The presence of a "Davy Jones Island" on this map indicates that the inclusion of the character Davy Jones, a wooden whale, as a decoration on the map, was misinterpreted by the book's recartographers, as no such place appears in any Oz books up to that book's publication.

The 1993 novel Queen Ann in Oz is a sequel to Tik-Tok of Oz.

title: Tik-Tok of Oz


text:
Talk:Hygienic macro

Call by reference
Macros transform arguments into call by reference? Weird. orthogonal 19:25, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * No, macros transform code before it hits the compiler or interpreter. There's no references at all, at macro expansion time, all you have available as arguments are tokens. -BrianCully 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples
It's great that there's a C example here, but I've never heard anybody speak of hygienic macros in the context of C -- only in dialects of Lisp. Could we get (1) a similar example of the hygiene problem in Common Lisp, (2) the same example in Scheme (which claims to have hygienic macros), and (3) how a Common Lisper would resolve the problem? Thanks!

 * That's fine, but a lot of us don't speak Lisp, so the examples as given are utterly impenetrable. I appreciate the Lisp examples; I wonder if it's possible to "translate" some of them into similar C code?  --Doradus 00:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't follow any of these examples. It seems to me, in the lisp example, it's doing exactly what you would want and expect. Consider the following:

(defun foo (x) (- x 3)) (flet ((foo (x) x))     (foo 4))             => 4

So, wouldn't you expect that when you over-ride not to not be not at all, your unless breaks? The only reason this works with not is because its special, but you can still over-ride it with macrolet:

(macrolet ((not (x) x))     (unless t        (format t "This should not be printed.~%")))

On top of that, trying to run the example code in OpenMCL produces:

;Compiler warnings : ;  Attempt to bind compiler special name: NOT. Result undefined, in an anonymous lambda form.

-BrianCully 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The CL examples are not valid Common Lisp code. The standard prohibits rebinding of symbols external to the COMMON-LISP package, see Section 11.1.2.1.2. Many compilers (like OpenMCL above, or SBCL) will signal an error.

82.75.4.249 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC) michaelw@foldr.org Strike-through text

Why the hygiene problem is a problem
Brian,

Yes, it is doing what you would expect, if you always knew when it was going to happen; consider if you were using a software package that included macros written by someone else; you wouldn't likely read the implementations of all of them (and whether you would or not, a user shouldn't have to). And the source might not be available for whatever reason.

Suppose one of these macros happened to use a symbol you were rebinding for another purpose in your code? You'd be quite surprised and disappointed after finally figuring out what was going wrong.

One of the reasons why hygiene matters a lot in LISP and its kin is the heavy usage macros get in that language, mostly because they are very sophisticated and offer many useful features beyond what you see in the C family macros.

Elugelab 13:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Lisp-oriented?
This article seems rather biased towards Lisp macros, and is somewhat out of reach of the rest of us that don't know it (or Lisp, for that matter). There is a little about C-style macros, (relatively simple to implement assuming arbitrary memory), but little else.

Could Sweet.js macros be referenced in this? They are heavily influenced by Lisp macros, and are hygienic by default. Sweet.js macros aren't native JavaScript, but they are a single, completely independent extension to the language.

It also happens to enable literal syntactical extensions of the language itself, including support for infix macros.

Sweet.js macros have been used to poly-fill E4X support, poly-fill some ECMAScript Harmony syntax, and implement a browser-targeted JavaScript derivative created to work with React.js, JSX. impinball (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Scheme not really hygienic?
If I use "set!" instead of "let" to overwrite the "not" in the example, like this:

(define-syntax my-unless  (syntax-rules ((_ condition body ...)     (if (not condition) (begin body ...))))) (set! not (lambda (x) x)) (my-unless #t   (display "This should not be printed!")    (newline))

Guile still prints "This should not be printed". So it's still capturing definitions made after the macro definition. Is that intended behaviour? Did I misunderstand something? --2A03:4000:15:2A3:1:0:0:1002 (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hygienic macro. 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/20121113081854/http://nemerle.org/metaprogramming.pdf to http://nemerle.org/metaprogramming.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this article "too technical?"
Which concepts in this article are "too technical" for readers to understand? Jarble (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

 * A second-year CS undergraduate would struggle to comprehend it. That's massively beyond what we expect of any article. This was a generous tag as an alternative to proposing it be deleted or merged as esoteric programming trivia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hygienic macro


text:
User:Drusillia

Age: 19 Occupation: Student studying Anthropology, Sociology and French.

Cool People User:silsor

title: User:Drusillia


text:
Shoreditch tube station

Shoreditch was a London Underground station located in Shoreditch in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in east London. Originally opened by the East London Railway in 1876, the station was permanently closed in 2006 being replaced directly to the west of the site by Shoreditch High Street station in 2010.

The station was the northern terminus of the East London Line, with latterly a single platform alongside a single track that ran next to the disused Bishopsgate goods yard. Until the late 1960s the East London Line connected with the main line railway to Liverpool Street just north of Shoreditch station. The site of the link was visible from the end of the platform and still is visible from main line trains travelling between Stratford and Liverpool Street. The station was one of only a handful on the network with a single platform and a single-track layout, though it originally had two tracks and two platforms. The preceding station was Whitechapel, which after Shoreditch's closure was the northern terminus of the East London Line until the line closed for extension in 2007.

History
Shoreditch station opened in April 1876 as a stop on the East London Railway from Liverpool Street to points south. The passenger service between Shoreditch and Liverpool Street was withdrawn in 1885. Shoreditch joined the Underground network on 31 March 1913 as part of the Metropolitan Railway in conjunction with an electrification of the line.

Goods services from Liverpool Street continued to pass through Shoreditch until April 1966; after then the track connection was severed in order to improve access to Liverpool Street for other trains. The station was closed from March 1995 to September 1998 during the renovation of the East London Line, reopening six months after the rest of the line.

Usage
Before its closure, Shoreditch was one of the least-used stations on the network, with only about 1,100 passengers per day. On weekdays it was open only at rush hour; it was closed on Saturdays, and open for only a few hours on Sundays for the nearby Brick Lane Market. Prior to the 1990s the station was also closed on Sundays.

 * 2006: 800,000 passenger entries and exits
 * 2005: 748,000
 * 2004: 415,000
 * 2003: 380,000

Today

Shoreditch station closed permanently on 9 June 2006 to allow work to begin on the East London line extension. It has been replaced by a new station called Shoreditch High Street. The new line and station form part of the London Overground network, a suburban railway operated by Transport for London (TfL) but separate from the Underground network.

Unlike other closed stations, TfL provided a temporary service to Shoreditch until the new line fully opened in 2010 in the form of a non-stop bus service connecting Shoreditch with Whitechapel using the station's previous limited opening hours.

The cutting in and around the station area was filled in and partly reused for the line from Whitechapel (also in a cutting) to the replacement Shoreditch High Street station (on a viaduct). The station building still exists and was put up for sale by TfL in February 2010. In February 2011 the building was sold at auction for £665,000. Current plans call for the station building to be demolished and the bricks to be reused for a six-storey block of flats.

In 2014 the building was used as a "pop-up" cinema: in summer the auditorium was furnished with six-person hot tubs from which to watch the films while in winter the concept was "bring your own pillow" to use on bean bag style beds.

In popular culture
The station was used for a segment in the 1999 film Tube Tales.

title: Shoreditch tube station


text:
Wapping railway station

Wapping is a station on the London overground located on the northern bank of the River Thames in Wapping within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The station is served by National Rail London Overground services under the control of the London Rail division of Transport for London, however there is no standard red National Rail "double arrow" logo signage located at the station, instead only the Overground roundel. The station is between Shadwell and Rotherhithe, and is in Travelcard Zone 2.

After temporary closures for remodelling, the station reopened for preview services on 27 April 2010 for services to and New Cross Gate, and from 23 May 2010 trains to and from New Cross Gate were extended to West Croydon and Crystal Palace.

Construction
The station occupies the north end of the former Thames foot tunnel built by Marc Isambard Brunel between 1825 and 1843, and subsequently adapted for railway traffic. Access to the station is by lift or a flight of stairs built into one of the original access shafts of the Thames Tunnel.

London, Brighton and South Coast Railway
The station was originally opened as the northern terminus of the East London Railway on 7 December 1869 as Wapping and Shadwell, and the station was renamed Wapping on 10 April 1876, when the line was extended northwards to, via a new station at Shadwell. The earliest trains were provided by the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, whose system connected with the line at New Cross Gate.

London Underground
Underground trains of the Metropolitan and the District Railways first served the station on 1 October 1884, but the station was last served by District trains on 31 July 1905.

In 1980 a London Underground plan to extend the Jubilee line to Woolwich Arsenal and Beckton was approved by Parliament. This included a station at Wapping, but was never built. The extension constructed in the 1990s followed a different route to the south of the River Thames.

The station was extensively remodelled between 1995 and 1998, when the entire East London Line—including Wapping station—was closed due to repair work on the tunnels under the Thames. Vitreous enamel panels by Nick Hardcastle, showing the station and the area in former and modern times, were installed on the platforms.

London Overground
The East London Line closed on 22 December 2007, and reopened on 27 April 2010 when it became part of the new London Overground system. During this time the station was heavily refurbished.

The proposed extension of the East London Line raised concerns that the station would have to be closed due to its platforms being too short (only four cars long) to accommodate the new rolling stock planned for the extended line (which could be six or eight cars long). The narrowness of the platforms was also a concern. The station does not fully meet the safety standards for an underground station but is permitted to operate under a derogation from His Majesty's Railway Inspectorate. Despite this, on 16 August 2004 then-Mayor of London Ken Livingstone announced that the station would remain open. It is in Travelcard Zone 2.

Services
All times below are correct as of the December 2010 timetables.

East London Line
On Mondays to Saturdays there is a service every 5–10 minutes throughout the day, while on Sundays before 13:00 there is a service every 5–9 minutes, changing to every 7–8 minutes until the end of service after that. Current off peak frequency is:

 * 8 northbound to Highbury & Islington
 * 8 northbound to Dalston Junction
 * 4 southbound to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye
 * 4 southbound to Crystal Palace via New Cross Gate
 * 4 southbound to New Cross
 * 4 southbound to West Croydon via Norwood Junction

Connections
London Buses routes 100 and D3 serve the station.

In popular culture
The Wapping railway station features in the 1967 film To Sir, with Love.

title: Wapping railway station


text:
User talk:Drusillia

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~

Dori 19:29, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drusillia


text:
Rotherhithe railway station

Rotherhithe is a station on the East London Line located on the southern bank of the River Thames at Rotherhithe within the London Borough of Southwark, Greater London and is served by London Overground services. The station is between Wapping and, and is in fare zone 2. The station re-opened for a preview service on 27 April 2010 to New Cross / New Cross Gate and 23 May 2010 for full service to New Cross / West Croydon / Crystal Palace. On 9 December 2012, the line was extended to serve Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye.

History
The station was originally opened on 7 December 1869, when the first section of the East London Railway was opened. On 1 October 1884, the Metropolitan and District Railways began running services along the East London Railway, which called at Rotherhithe. It was served by electric passenger trains from 31 March 1913, when the line was electrified. Goods trains from station continued to pass through until April 1966.

The original station entrance was located in Albion Street, which meant that access to platforms was at the opposite end of the platforms from the present access.

Decorative vitreous enamel panels were added to the platforms. The station was then closed between 1995 and 1998 due to repair work on the Thames Tunnel and from 22 December 2007 to 27 April 2010 for the extension of the East London Line.

The present surface building is located a short distance to the south of the original entrance shaft to the Thames Tunnel. It was extensively remodelled between March 1995 and March 1998, in conjunction with the renovation of the East London Line. The building was heavily refurbished for the re-opening of the ELL, with the entrance being enlarged by replacing two of the windows with arches.

London Overground
The station's future was in doubt for a while after the announcement of the East London Line extension, as Rotherhithe's platforms can only take four-car trains and cannot be lengthened. Thus it was initially thought that Rotherhithe station might have to close when the line was extended. However, on 16 August 2004 the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, announced that the station would remain open.

Layout
Rotherhithe station has two platforms (northbound and southbound) and is accessed by two escalators (one up, one down) and a flight of stairs to a landing, then stairs only to platform level.

There are ticket barriers in the ticket office controlling access to the platforms.

The station platforms are situated close to the southern end of the 1843 Thames Tunnel built by the Brunels, and some of the tunnel's original brickwork can be seen from the north end of the platforms. A better view of the Thames Tunnel portals can be seen from the platforms at Wapping railway station on the opposite side of the river.

At the southern end of the Rotherhithe station platforms, the approach ramp for the 1908 Rotherhithe Tunnel passes above the railway on a low and angled road bridge which is highly unusual for being located below water level. The bridge structure is easily visible (pictured, left) and is currently painted blue. The Rotherhithe Tunnel portal is also visible when looking up from the southern end of the northbound platform.

Services
All times below are correct as of the December 2015 timetables.

East London Line
On Mondays to Saturdays there is a service every 3–4 minutes throughout the day, while on Sundays before 13:00 there is a service every 5–9 minutes, changing to every 7–8 minutes until the end of service after that. Current off peak frequency is:

 * 16 tph to Dalston Junction, of which 8 continue to Highbury & Islington
 * 4 tph to West Croydon
 * 4 tph to Crystal Palace
 * 4 tph to New Cross
 * 4 tph to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye (very limited weekdays-only service to/from Battersea Park)

Connections
London Buses routes 381, C10 and night route N381 serve the station.

title: Rotherhithe railway station


text:
Georg Tintner

Georg Tintner, (22 May 1917 – 2 October 1999) was an Austrian conductor whose career was principally in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. Although best known as a conductor, he was also a composer (he considered himself a composer who conducted).

As a child he was a singer in the Vienna Boys' Choir, the first Jew ever to be accepted; at that time the choir was directed by Franz Schalk. At the Vienna State Academy he studied composition with Joseph Marx and conducting with Felix Weingartner. Soon he was assistant conductor of the Vienna Volksoper.

Due to the persecution of Jews, Tintner moved out of Vienna in 1938, arriving in Auckland, New Zealand in 1940. En route, he was falsely accused of being a German spy and arrested in Australia. He conducted a church choir until after the war, when he took over the Auckland Choral Society in 1947, and the Auckland String Players in 1948. He became a New Zealand citizen in 1946. In 1954, he went to Australia and became resident conductor of the National Opera of Australia (a private company) before joining the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust Opera in 1957. Tintner is credited with pioneering televised opera in Australia.

He spent a year with the Cape Town Municipal Orchestra (1966–67) and three years with Sadler's Wells Opera (1967–70) before returning to Australia as music director of the West Australian Opera. In 1974, he rejoined the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust Opera, by then known as the Australian Opera. He became music director of the Queensland Theatre Orchestra in 1976.

In 1987 he moved to Canada, where he became director of Symphony Nova Scotia. In 1998, he was made a Member of the Order of Canada. On 2 October 1999, after a six-year struggle with cancer, he jumped to his death from the balcony of his 11th-storey Halifax apartment.

Tintner was described as "one of the greatest living Bruckner conductors." He recorded a much-praised complete cycle of Bruckner symphonies for the Naxos CD label shortly before the end of his life (recording sessions: 1995–98). In addition to the eleven symphonies this cycle includes the 1876 Adagio and the 1878 'Volksfest Finale'.

Naxos is also releasing a "Tintner Memorial Edition" comprising re-releases of some of his earlier recordings of composers other than Bruckner. A disc of Tintner's piano music has also been released by the same label, valuably revealing a side of the man long-forgotten since his student days. Some of his own early compositions have been recorded: Violin Sonata, Piano Sonata, Trauermusik, Chopin Variations, and Prelude.

His daughter was the dancer Hephzibah Tintner (1971–2001), whom he named after the pianist Hephzibah Menuhin. She was the partner of then Lord Mayor of Sydney and later NSW (Labor Party) state politician Frank Sartor.

title: Georg Tintner


text:
Surrey Quays railway station

Surrey Quays is a station on the East London Line of the London Overground. It is located in Rotherhithe, part of London Borough of Southwark; it is in Zone 2. The next station to the north is ; to the south, it splits into branches to Clapham Junction, New Cross and Crystal Palace/West Croydon. Closed in late 2007 as an underground station, it was refurbished and reopened as part of the London Overground network on 27 April 2010.

History
The station was built by the East London Railway Company and opened on 7 December 1869; it was originally known as Deptford Road. On 17 July 1911 it was renamed Surrey Docks in reference to the nearby Surrey Commercial Docks (which closed in the 1960s), and further renamed Surrey Quays on 24 October 1989, following the construction of the nearby Surrey Quays Shopping Centre. This was a somewhat controversial move, for some of the local community felt that their heritage was being eroded. However, the name stuck, and the Surrey Docks part of Rotherhithe is now often referred to as Surrey Quays.

In the 1950s and 1960s, London Underground planned a new line connecting north-west and south-east London. Approval for the first stage of the Fleet line (renamed the Jubilee line in 1975) to Charing Cross was granted in 1969, with second and third stages approved in 1971 and 1972. The station was planned to be part of phase 3 running to Lewisham. New tunnels to and from the City of London would have come to the surface north of the station. East London line trains would have terminated at Surrey Docks with London Underground services to New Cross and New Cross Gate being taken over by the new line. Phases 2 and 3 were not carried out due to a lack of funds. Eventually, due to changing land usage and the growth of Canary Wharf, the Jubilee line was extended via Canada Water instead.

For much of its history, the station's importance lay in its proximity to the Surrey Commercial Docks; it was at the south end of Canada Dock (now Canada Water) and a few hundred yards from the principal entrance to the docks. Its usage fell considerably after the docks closed, but revived following the redevelopment of the London Docklands in the 1980s and 1990s.

The service was closed between 1995 and 1998 due to repair work on the East London line's Thames Tunnel. The East London line closed permanently as an Underground line on 22 December 2007. It reopened for preview services on 27 April 2010 to New Cross and New Cross Gate and 23 May 2010 for full service to New Cross, West Croydon and Crystal Palace, becoming part of the London Overground system. On 9 December 2012, Phase 2 of East London line extension opened to the public, and was launched the next day by the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. It provides services to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye, thus completing the London Overground Orbital link.

, Transport for London is planning to upgrade the station with a new entrance and ticket hall, improving capacity and introducing step-free access. On 2 February 2023, TfL awarded the contract to start construction, with works due to start in the summer.

Services
All times below are correct as of the December 2015 timetables.

London Overground
Mondays to Saturdays there is a service every 5–10 minutes throughout the day, while on Sundays before 13:00 there is a service every 5–9 minutes, changing to every 7–8 minutes until the end of service after that. Current off peak frequency is:

East London Line

 * 12 tph to Dalston Junction of which 8 continue to Highbury & Islington
 * 4 tph to Crystal Palace
 * 4 tph to West Croydon
 * 4 tph to New Cross

South London Line

 * 4 tph to Dalston Junction
 * 4 tph to Clapham Junction

Connections
London Buses routes 1, 47, 188, 199, 225, 381 and night routes N199 and N381 serve the station.

title: Surrey Quays railway station


text:
Talk:Feet forwards motorcycle

Untitled
Hello- Is this for real?? I have not met a feet forward motor vehicle. Who sells them?

 * Of course it's for real - try doing a google search. Nobody sells them, that's the problem - so far a truly practical design that has mass appeal has yet to be built. GRAHAMUK 22:15, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Feet First Motorcycles
The Quasar was the only real 'Feet-First' Motorcycle to make it into limited production.

You can find out more about it at www.quasarworld.com

Mark Crowson

Actually, Dan Gurney's Alligator also made it into limited production in the early noughties, and more of them were built than Quasars. 36 to be precise. One could also argue that the Voyager designed by Royce Creasey and built by STV in Crickhowell from 1988-1989 was the only machine to be built in more than one example with all the ideal FF criteria of sub-20 inch seat with full back support, proper weather protection and steering separated from the suspension. Five were built, in addition to Creasey's original personal prototype. Paul N. Blezard — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeetFirstFan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusion
There appears to be some confusion between FF's and Cabin motorcycles (Cabin_cycle) and a TTW (Tilting_three_wheeler)

An FF is a single track motorcycle with a low seat and a supportive seatback like the Quasar, Phasar and the Voyagers

A cabin motorcycle can be a type of FF but is an enclosed vehicle with retractable stabilisers used to support the vehicle at slow speed (or rest)

A Tilting Three Wheeler (TTW) can be a 'virtual' motorcycle. It can also be a leaning car. It is not an FF as such.

 * Since the FF is something that very few people have heard of at all, let alone can recognise distinct classes of, I don't think at this stage such distinctions are very helpful in a general purpose encyclopedia. In fact, I think it's hairsplitting, which is always likely when you get a few people who are passionate about a subject and see a hundred distinctions that the layman cannot. Recent edits of this nature have, in my opinion, not added any clarity, and have in fact created confusion. Maybe if FF type designes start to take off and are more widely known, then these distinctions will be worth making. Rome wasn't built in a day, so we might be better off leaving that for a later stage of Wikipedia's development. Graham 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You might - but do you have an FF, cabin motorcycle or a tilting three wheeler? I have an FF motorcycle. It has two wheels and a supportive seat. I have driven a Carver and it is a tilting three wheeled vehicle (and a damn good one at that) but it is not a motorcycle. The 'Cabin cycle' and TTW pages I linked to already existed on Wikipidia. This hardly makes it confusing.

 * By the way, the insistence that "feet forwards" is wrong and "feet first" is right and the only possible accepted term is silly. I happen to know an engineer who has had a long term interest in such designs and has made several of his own; he knows Creasey personally, and he ALWAYS uses the term "feet forwards"! In fact, he was a key source when I first created the article. So yes, maybe "feet first" was or is the term used by some folk, but "feet forwards" seems equally acceptable these days. So I have altered the text so that both terms are given, and POV words such as "mistakenly referred to as..." deleted. Graham 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FF = Feet First. I have even posted where and when this term was coined. (You can even read it [here) Can you find an earlier example of the 'FF' description? Look, even Mark calls the Quasar a 'Feet First' bike (above).

BTW who is this engineer who has built several examples of FF's? Not Arthur is it?

 * I accept that 'feet first' may have been the original and first-used term, but 'feet forwards' is now also commonly used, even by those who buil the things. I don't mind giving 'feet first' priority in the text (as it now has), but unless you move the article as well then it has the wrong title. If you're going to change things, then please do them properly. As for you owning an FF, so what? This is a general purpose encyclopedia written for the average joe, it's not a forum for FF experts. So the writing must reflect that, and dumb things down (if necessary) so that the issue isn't confused by lots of experts splitting hairs. Imagine yourself in a pub chatting around the table about nuclear physics - you don't know what that is, in general terms, but two other guys are experts. You ask one to explain the basics to you, but as he starts to do so, the other one keeps cutting in picking fault with the guy's explanation and throwing in all sort of weird talk about string theory and gluons. Where does that leave you? Out of it, basically. So just bear that in mind. As for FF, as long as it remains the exclusive niche of a few eccentrics (no offence intended) than it's going nowhere as a form of transport. Maybe by putting it out there in very general, basic terms, people might start to take a bit of interest and move the concept forward. I'd say that at this stage, FF isn't even a fully-formed concept. I could build anything that fits the description, but might not be what you consider an FF. Arguing about what is or is not an FF is silly, since there are so few examples that the term isn't even properly defined yet. It's like saying that anything that doesn't look like the Wright brother's plane isn't an aircraft.  Graham 09:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It is nothing like 'saying that anything that doesn't look like the Wright brother's plane isn't an aircraft. But it like saying the Friendship Flyer is the SAME as a Boeing 747. Both are aeroplanes but quite different in construction and use.

If you are going to write an entry at least have the decency to make the entry correct.

Again who is this 'engineer' you know who has made several FF's?

 * I see you have missed the point of my analogy with the Wright brothers aircraft. The point is that it's very early days for the FF, so the definitive form has not yet emerged. Thus to attempt at this stage to define it in the way you're trying to is like forcing all aircraft builders to build a canard biplane controlled by wing warping, otherwise it's not a "proper" aeroplane. This is not to belittle the attempts of the pioneers in the field so far, but let's be clear, there is a long way to go. It makes sense at this stage to keep an open mind and I think those builders who have made progress so far would agree with that. Even going as far as to say that even the number of wheels is open to question - thus, to say for example that something other than a 2-wheeler "doesn't count" is absurd. As far as my engineer friend is concerned, he doesn't want his name mentioned as he would prefer that his FF work was not associated with the company he works for (which begins with V and ends with ...o - not a bike manufacturer which is part of the problem); but in any case, I have probably unintentionally mislead you - he has developed several FF designs but hasn't built any so far (mainly because he's not designing for a backyard amateur constructor, but for commercial production - it's very hard to convince anyone to invest in the concept because it's just too cutting edge at present - they all want someone else to take the risks). Maybe to you that is something to be dismissed, but I have seen his CAD work and I can tell you that it is incredibly thorough. The most promising design has even been put through full dynamic simulation testing on a military system, and works. I believe if someone had a few million to invest it really could be the next step for FF. Apart from which, it looks bloody cool - really!, I mean, it makes the Quasar look very 70s. And as it happens, it is a 2-wheeler, though he has also given a lot of thought to the TTW, but at present it's patent encumbered. Graham 09:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that it can be Feet forwards or Feet first, and saying one is wrong is hair-splitting. Wizzy…  ☎   09:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How is pointing out the source (and the actual meaning of) the acronym 'hair-splitting'? I'm not the trying to mislead. I thought the point of this was to create a 'free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality'. It will only ever be mediocre if false and incorrect information is left because one individual to decide what of the content is definitive.
 * I've always heard them referred to as 'Enclosed Motorcycles' or 'Recumbent Motorcycles'. If you're looking for an engineer that's done a lot of experiments with this concept, then you could do well to look at under-recognised J. Partridge's JP7 design - He's built several designs of this style of motorbike. I'm going to add this link to the page since it is the most detailed discussion I have seen of Recumbent/Enclosed/Feet First motorcycles on the internet. Unless you know of anything better! Slothie 13:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think the problem comes down to the fact that we seem to be writing for two different audiences - I want to explain the FF concept for the layman, and to write a basic introduction. You seem to want to write for the more informed or existing FF enthusiast. I don't see that this needs to lead to a conflict, provided we build the article in a logical progression, from simple to complex. However, some of the changes you have put in right up front don't help in this goal, which is why I've taken issue with a few of them. But most of what you've added has stuck, which for an anonymous contributor isn't bad. So I don't want to discourage you or alienate you - lord knows there are few enough FF people around who can help on this anyway - but let's try and figure out a better way to get the article into shape so we are all satisfied, both our goals are met and the article is improved as a result. Graham 09:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Would a reference to recumbent bicycles and velomobiles be useful in this article? Those are the pedal powered version of the FF and cabin cycle respectively which have existed for over a century Kirtai 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CLEVER
Just a personal comment. I saw this machine on the SBS news today here in Australia, and I thought: finally somebody gets it! I was then motivated to find more about it and have summarised it for this article. There is already a stub at CLEVER which I have bidirectionally linked. The thing here is that this is what the FF concept needs - a fresh approach from real engineers (even students!) but most of all lots of real money thrown at it. Backyard tinkering is all very well and a lot of fun, but it's not going to change the world. This just might. Who cares if CLEVER "isn't a proper motorcycle" or whatever other lame criticisms the biking fraternity are likely to pitch at it - it looks like a workable concept, fits all the criteria that combine the good of cars and bikes, (unlike most trikes, which do the opposite) and looks cool enough to possibly tempt buyers. It might not even be that expensive to buy. I really hope something comes of it, though I doubt that the battle will be won by one machine. It's a great (real) start though. Graham 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Your enthusiasm is exciting, but is bleeding into a bit of POV. That's not why I'm posting, though; I put together the CLEVER page based on the BBC article, and I have two comments: 1) you don't need all that CLEVER info on this FF page; just a short blurb and a link should be fine.  2) I very nearly changed the link in CLEVER back to Tilting three wheeler until I happened to notice some edit comments you made here.  If in fact the FF motorcycle design does not imply two wheels (ok, plausible) then the first sentence of this article shoudln't suggest that it does.  Even so, I'm thinking that TTW is a better link to put in CLEVER, as it's more specific.  Your thoughts?  /blahedo (t) 03:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Currently, I feel this article (FF) contains the most complete information about the concept as a whole - its pros and cons and so forth. The other articles do not, so this is currently the best link to direct people to, since they'll find TTW and other related articles from here. That said, it may be that all articles related to this need some reorganisation so that the general concept is split off and placed at the top of a hierarchy or further articles. I may have a go at doing that though I'd prefer some input from others who've put effort in here. For now, the way it's currently linked together will give the reader the most information. By the way, I wrote most of the stuff on CLEVER here before I noticed that an article already existed - so probably the stuff on it here could be moved or copied there. Graham 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that Graham seems to think that any type of motorised vehicle that has less than four wheels is some sort of FF. Despite him being totally mistaken he constantly changes any edits to the 'Feet Forwards'[sic] page to suit his own rather bigoted ideal.

Physics
"motorcycles have a relatively high centre of gravity that erodes stability, and reduces aerodynamic performance."

It is not clear that a high centre of gravity in any way reduces stability. Is there a reference for this? In fact, claims the opposite. -AndrewDressel 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe it is a relativly high or large profile that reduces aerodynamic performance. The centre of gravity really has nothing to do with it, except by coincidence. -AndrewDressel 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Changed to "Efficiency - motorcycles have a relatively tall profile that reduces aerodynamic performance." -AndrewDressel 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

npov
This article is apparently promoting an unimplemented concept. To note research and development progress is one thing, but as is this article is WP:POV and WP:CRYSTAL. Potatoswatter 20:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Quasar is an implementation of this idea. Also, recumbent bicycles have existed for over a century including fully enclosed versions (Velomobiles) Kirtai 16:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this different?
How is this different than a scooter? Contrast the FF concept with any of these: the Honda Helix, the Honda Silverwing, the Piaggio X9 500 Evolution, or the Kymco Xciting 500Ri. --Noah (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW C1
If you call a C1 "feet forward", then every low chopper would also have to be mentioned. I'd propose to remove the C1 from this list. Other suggestions? --Trofobi (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Under WP:BOLD it is gone. I fully agree with you. --Biker Biker (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What, no mention to Kaneda's bike?
It seems odd - to me - that this article lacks mention to Kaneda's bike featured in Akira. It is, by far, the only contemporary and highly recognizable example of a FF, albeit a fictional one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.102.124 (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"In Production" section?
I think this article would be improved if there was another section listing models currently in production. Currently it is necessary to read the whole history to get an idea. This might only include the Peraves MonoTracer (and they can only make 36 bikes per year) but that in itself would implicitly show how small the demand is for this form of transportation. Tjej (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I added to the history the Honda NM4 which was released this year (2014). While the seat height is 630mm it is almost universally referred to as a "feed foward" motorcycle, apparently ~2,000 are being made this year.  The other bike that might be included in this section as a note is the EXODUS from Suprine Machinery as their website says they will take orders. Tjej (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feet forwards motorcycle. 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/20060822071250/http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/470MPG%20Main.html to http://www.craigvetter.com/pages/470MPG/470MPG%20Main.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Feet forwards motorcycle


text:
New Cross Gate railway station

New Cross Gate is a railway station in New Cross, London, on the Brighton Main Line and the London Overground. It is down the line from London Bridge and is about 600 m west of New Cross station. It is in Travelcard Zone 2, and is operated by London Overground.

History

England's railway boom of the 1830s led to two competing companies driving lines through the area. The first, the London and Croydon Railway (L&CR), established a station on New Cross Road close to Hatcham in 1839. The second, the South Eastern Railway (SER), established a station near Amersham Way in the heart of New Cross in 1849. After both stations came under the ownership of the Southern Railway on 1 January 1923 the former L&CR station was renamed New Cross Gate on 9 July 1923.

During the 19th century, New Cross (Gate) became an important junction where the South London Line, the East London Line, and the Bricklayers Arms Line diverged from the Brighton Main Line to.

London and Croydon Railway Station
The original station was officially opened on 1 June 1839 by the London and Croydon Railway. and became fully operational on 5 June 1839. It was intended to become the main freight depot and locomotive workshop for the company. In July 1841 the line (but not the station) was also used by the London and Brighton Railway. The London and Croydon and London and Brighton companies merged to form the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LB&SCR) in July 1846. Between February and May 1847 the station at New Cross was the northern terminus of the atmospheric propulsion system introduced by the L&CR, but in the latter month the system was abandoned by the new company.

London Brighton and South Coast Railway Station
On 1 October 1847 the newly formed LB&SCR closed the existing New Cross station, replacing it with another at Cold Blow Lane 0.25 miles to the north, in an attempt to secure passengers from the planned North Kent Line of the SER. This move was not a success and was subject to much local criticism, so on 1 May 1849 the LB&SCR rebuilt and re-opened New Cross on the original site.

The current station therefore dates from 1849 but was again rebuilt in 1858 to allow for the quadrupling of the Brighton Main Line. Further rebuilding was undertaken in 1869 when the East London Railway opened a line to Whitechapel and.

The line through the station was electrified in 1928 by the Southern Railway using the third rail system, although the majority of services continued to be steam hauled until the electrification of the Brighton main line in 1932.

East London Railway Station
On 7 December 1869 a separate station for East London Railway services was opened adjacent to the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway station. It was closed on 1 September 1886 when services were diverted to the LB&SCR station. Soon after closure the station was demolished and the land used for sidings.

East London Railway
The East London Railway (ELR) was owned by a consortium of railway companies. Passenger services were operated by the LB&SCR between Croydon and Liverpool Street, and from 1884 by the District Railway between New Cross (Gate) and Shoreditch. LB&SCR services ceased on 31 March 1913, when the line was electrified using the fourth rail system and thereafter all passenger services were operated by the Metropolitan Railway. For the opening of the ELR a separate ELR station was built in 1869 adjacent to the LB&SCR station. It was closed in 1876 and the trains were diverted to the adjacent LB&SCR station. It was reopened in 1884 for additional Metropolitan District Railway services only for it to close two years later. The ELR station was then demolished around 1900 and the site used for sidings.

In 1933 the Metropolitan railway was taken over by the London Passenger Transport Board, which operated services as part of the London Transport Metropolitan line. London Transport was superseded by Transport for London (TfL).

Freight yard
The London and Croydon planned to use New Cross as the London terminal for its freight traffic, as the station had good access to the Grand Surrey Canal. It therefore built extensive sidings for this purpose. After 1849 the principal freight-handling facility in the area was moved to Willow Walk on the Bricklayers Arms site, but the sidings continued to be used for the storage of carriages. An Ordnance Survey map for 1871 shows a substantial carriage shed on the west side of the main line, north of the station, but this was no longer shown on the 1894 map. It had been replaced by a combined carriage and locomotive shed on the east side of the line in 1894, but this closed in 1906.

Cross-London freight services were operated to the yard by the Great Eastern Railway, which maintained its own goods depot on the site from the 1870s. These services were continued by the London and North Eastern Railway from 1923, and after 1948 by the Eastern Region of British Railways. They ceased to operate in 1962.

Locomotive depot and repair workshops
The L&CR opened a motive power depot and a locomotive repair facility here in 1839, the former of which appears to have been particularly accident prone. The original building, one of the earliest roundhouses, burned down in 1844. A replacement was built in 1845, and a straight shed built by the LB&SCR in 1848 was blown down in a gale in October 1863. Two further buildings were constructed by the LB&SCR in 1863 and 1869. By 1882 the second (1845) Croydon shed was derelict and in that year was replaced by the new shed, which was rebuilt with a new roof by the Southern Railway (SR) prior to 1929.

The various running sheds began to be run down during the 1930s as part of a re-organisation scheme involving new developments at Norwood Junction, but the onset of war meant that they were not formally closed until 1947 and were used for stabling locomotives until 1951. They were demolished in 1957 together with the repair workshops, and replaced by sidings for the storage of electric multiple units.

The locomotive workshops established by the L&CR continued to undertake minor repairs on locomotives in the London area for the LB&SCR and the SR, and also briefly for British Railways. They were closed in 1949.

London Overground
The East London Line closed on 22 December 2007 and reopened on 27 April 2010 as part of the new London Overground system. The service was also closed between 1995 and 1998 due to repair work on the tunnel under the River Thames. The East London line extension included a flyover north of New Cross Gate allowing trains to run through from West Croydon, plus the construction of a train servicing facility nearby. Platform 1 and adjacent track (southbound) were refurbished, with the line continuing under New Cross Road, before merging with the down slow line. LO services terminated here until 23 May 2010 when services were extended south. Ticket barriers were installed to all platforms in time for the London Overground services to commence.

Bakerloo line extension
TFL has proposed future London Underground services at this station as part of the Bakerloo line Extension. TFL claim that if funding is correct, construction would start in 2023 and services would start running in 2028/29.

Services
Services at New Cross Gate are operated by Southern and London Overground using and  EMUs.

The typical off-peak service in trains per hour is:
 * 2 tph to London Bridge
 * 8 tph to Highbury & Islington via Surrey Quays
 * 2 tph to London Victoria via Streatham Hill
 * 4 tph to Crystal Palace
 * 4 tph to West Croydon

The station is also served by a single early morning and late evening service to East Croydon via Norwood Junction, with the early morning service continuing to Tattenham Corner and Caterham.

Platform layout
The layout is:
 * Platform 1 is used by London Overground trains to West Croydon and Crystal Palace
 * Platform 2 is used by Southern trains to London Victoria and Coulsdon Town
 * Platform 3 and 4 are not usually used
 * Platform 5 is used by Southern trains to London Bridge and London Overground trains to Highbury and Islington

Thameslink trains and other Southern services regularly pass through and occasionally stop at the station.

Connections
London Buses routes 21, 53, 136, 171, 172, 177, 321, 436, 453 and night routes N21, N53, N89, N136 and N171 serve the station.

Accident

 * On 7 August 1899 a train hauled by "Terrier" No.59 Cheam collided with "Gladstone" No. 199 Samuel Laing after the driver overran signals approaching the station. Fifteen people were injured.

title: New Cross Gate railway station


text:
Ryan Malcolm

Ryan Michael Malcolm (born October 13, 1979) is a Canadian singer and realtor best known as the winner of the first season of Canadian Idol.

In 2003, he released his debut solo album Home which was certified Platinum in Canada. In 2006, Malcolm formed a new alternative rock band, Low Level Flight.

Early years
Ryan grew up in Amherstview, a small town just west of Kingston. The son of John and Sharron Malcolm, Ryan had two older siblings, Kim and Sean. At the age of nine, Ryan's parents were divorced and then John remarried. His wife Deborah had three children, and Ryan had three new step-siblings, Jordan, Reagan, and Grayson. Throughout the 1990s, Ryan's father owned and operated many restaurants, where Ryan worked as a waiter, setting up his nickname on idol as "waiter boy", in reference to the pop singer Avril Lavigne's song "Sk8er Boi". Both Malcolm and Lavigne attended the same high school in Napanee. Ryan had his musical debut singing at guest appearance with his Dad John, who had a solo vocal act. When John and his step-mom Deb opened their restaurant in Napanee, Ryan, 13 at the time, started singing regularly with his Dad. Later brother Reagan joined the act, and the band "A Bit of Nostalgia" was born.

Ryan continued singing with "A Bit of Nostalgia" until he won Idol. Presently, he enjoys coming home for reunion shows with his Dad and brother Reagan, for special events. Before entering Canadian Idol, he also worked as a waiter at the Lone Star Texas Grill in Kingston.

Canadian Idol
Malcolm did not crack the top 10 in his first attempt but was awarded a spot on the wildcard show after which, because the vote was so close, he became the 11th contestant in the final group. His consistency throughout the final phase of the competition and his great song choices won him many fans and eventually the Canadian Idol crown.

After Idol
His debut single, "Something More" was released on radio the day after his win and to the public on September 30. It went four times platinum on the first day of its release and stayed at #1 on the Canadian Singles Chart for 13 consecutive weeks.

On December 9, 2003, Malcolm's debut album Home was released. It debuted and peaked at #4 on the Canadian Albums Chart, and was certified platinum, selling 170,000 copies and earning a Juno nomination for Best Pop Album.

Later that month, Malcolm participated in World Idol and shared the stage with Elton John and Victoria Beckham. Alongside fellow idol friend Kelly Clarkson, he placed sixth. He followed this with a tour of Eastern Canada with various guests, including Jacynthe, Gary Beals, and Audrey de Montigny. He returned to Europe two more times that year to perform with Annie Lennox at Royal Albert Hall in London as well as to perform in Prague.

He represented Canada at the National Children's Peace Concert in the Czech Republic. He sang the national anthem at the 2004 Grey Cup.

He made his acting debut in the Ross Petty pantomime "Snow White and the Group of Seven" at the Elgin Theatre in Toronto with fellow finalists Gary Beals and Billy Klippert, as well as season two finalist Elena Juatco. Ryan also spent some time traveling in Africa and South America, where many of LLF's songs were inspired. In 2006 and 2007 he was a two-time host of Toronto's sketch comedy show Sunday Night Live.

Malcolm and his girlfriend briefly ran a restaurant in El Castillo, Costa Rica.

Low Level Flight
In 2006, Malcolm formed and fronted a new five-piece alternative rock band Low Level Flight. On March 27, 2007, the band released their debut album Urgency. The band spent much of 2007 touring across Canada and later toured Mexico and the United States, promoting their debut album. In September 2007, LLF performed their second single from the album "Say" on the top three results show of Canadian Idol. In 2009, LLF signed a record deal with Times Of India, and toured throughout India. LLF released their second studio album "Through These Walls" in 2011. And toured UK and Europe twice in support of the release. They are currently on their third single "TSK TSK". The band will return to India in early 2013 for more tour dates.

Along with fronting LLF, Malcolm is a CEO of I Heart Records, a Toronto-based record label.

Discography

 * Ryan Malcolm discography

title: Ryan Malcolm