Talk:London Post Office Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| See also: WikiProject Trains to do list | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways. |
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
There should perhaps be a way of telling the difference between a Post Office and The Post Office Group, the now-defunct name of Consignia, a public limited company in Britain that deals with, well, post. -- Robert Brook
Since the last comment was posted (no pun intended!), the name Consignia is now itself defunct, and The Post Office is resurrected... -- Arwel 23:13 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- No, it's "Royal Mail Group plc" now. "Post Office" remains a brand name owned by the group. --rbrwr
[edit] Crossrail
The article had this:
- The route of the proposed Crossrail link across London is similar to that of the Post Office railway, and therefore it could make sense for the Post Office railway tunnels to be expanded and used as a basis. However, the tunnels are much smaller, and it is unlikely that both the alignment and the depth will be suitable.
I feel that this shouldn't really be there, or at least not without a citation as to who said it. At the moment it reads like an editor's personal speculation or comment. After all, it sets up the idea then demolishes it, so it does not really get anywhere. I would be happy to see this, rewritten, back in the article as long as a credible external source was cited. 82.45.248.177 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, this should be taken out until an independent source is available. Gwernol 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
