Talk:Piccadilly line

	Piccadilly line has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 2, 2020 Good article nominee Not listed November 16, 2020 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 15, 2020. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 200,000 children were evacuated via the Piccadilly line during World War II?
Current status: Good article

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

London Mid‑importance London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Trains: Rapid transit / in UK / in London Mid‑importance Trains Portal DYK December 10, 2018 London Transport Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit. This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as High-importance).

The content of Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters was merged into Piccadilly line on 8 September 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victoria line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Piccadilly line. 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/20110504024645/http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Exhibitionsandloans/VARIBAArchitecturePartnershipexhibitions/UndergroundJourneys/ChangingthefaceofLondonUnderground/ChangingTheFaceOfLondonUnderground.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Exhibitionsandloans/VARIBAArchitecturePartnershipexhibitions/UndergroundJourneys/ChangingthefaceofLondonUnderground/ChangingTheFaceOfLondonUnderground.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130809230423/http://www.thamesvalleychamber.co.uk/uploads/Policy/SBCpresentationSep09.pdf to http://www.thamesvalleychamber.co.uk/uploads/Policy/SBCpresentationSep09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504024645/http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Exhibitionsandloans/VARIBAArchitecturePartnershipexhibitions/UndergroundJourneys/ChangingthefaceofLondonUnderground/ChangingTheFaceOfLondonUnderground.aspx to http://www.architecture.com/LibraryDrawingsAndPhotographs/Exhibitionsandloans/VARIBAArchitecturePartnershipexhibitions/UndergroundJourneys/ChangingthefaceofLondonUnderground/ChangingTheFaceOfLondonUnderground.aspx

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is mainly a deep-level line, with a number of surface sections, mostly in its westernmost parts.

From the map it looks like most of it is above ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.103.159 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "mainly" has been there since 2006, but I have changed it to "partly". --David Biddulph (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map legend needed

There either needs to be a map legend or a link to one. I don't know what the difference is between a station being presented as a circle and one presented as a tab to the side. Thisisnotatest (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not clear which map you're referring to. If it's the standard Wikipedia railway route map in the "list of stations" section, then try the word "Legend" at the top. Bazza (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Testing around new train

@Danners430 @10mmsocket

Hello, I have noticed that you guys have reverted many of my edits on the Piccadilly line page. I understand you are trying to follow part of the source but I also actually think the source wasn’t really quite clear enough. It was just a depot change and is not part of a structured or intentional test, then it typically does not count as mainline testing. It is just like a one-way run anyways and that definitely shouldn’t count as a mainline testing. I feel like mainline testing at least have to travel through a longer distance instead of like from Ruslip to Northfields depot (what happened in the depot change).

If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on this page. Thanks! JCSigma2000 (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia. We write using what’s in sources. Your statement that “it was just a depot change”, unless a source agrees with that statement, is original research. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As above. I go with what the sources say. Truth (as you know it to be) has no place on Wikipedia. Truth is what can be referenced. And I didn't revert the second time, I expanded. How is that a bad thing? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sorry my bad. But still the source is probably wrong there is literally 0 record of any testing during July except a depot change in April and last weekend, also why the close the Piccadilly the whole weekend. JCSigma2000 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what 10MMS was saying - it might be worth having a read of WP:TRUTH. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

b.t.w. look at MOS:DATE for how dates are written. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was definitely my fault for the date. But like I said the source is definitely wrong, so yeah I just don’t know what to do now. I got the source for the transfer tho back in April. JCSigma2000 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it as is because it's what the reference says - and he's pretty reliable, one of the few WP:UGC sources allowed on Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. JCSigma2000 (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]