Talk:Metroline

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Counties[edit]

Although Middlesex does not exist anymore, many suburbs and surrounding settlements do still use Middlesex as their postal county in their address. This also includes Enfield. Also to point out, Potters Bar actually is still in Hertfordshire and is not part of London. It is a seperate town. Simply south 13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the Royal Mail Address Management Guide. Edition 4 (2004). See also post town and former postal county. MRSC 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Potters Bar is neither in Hertfordshire nor "London" (I presume you mean Greater London, as London is miles away), but in the traditional county of Middlesex, however it is administered as part of Hertfordshire. Middlesex does exist, just not as any form of local governance. Surprised that someone who claims to be local does not know all this! 91.85.182.231 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metroline[edit]

Route 245 was officially converted to double deck on 31 August 2013, despite single deckers still appearing on route 245,.

Route 32 only gained 12 TEs, the 05 reg TAs make up the other part of the allocation. TEHs from the 139 allocated to route 632.

And all Volvos are 10.1m CourtneyBonnick (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Many of the garages including Brentford, Cricklewood and Willesden have been removed QueenAlexandria (talk) 13:08 11 June 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the deleted content. I also do not support the deletion of those content, and that user also made a mess. Marcnut1996 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace unsourced content with citation request tags without providing the required sources.SovalValtos (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Routes gone missing[edit]

Since the June round of deletions this article has lost << Willesden (AC): Willesden garage operates 98, 260, 302, 460, 24-hour routes 6 and 52, and night route N98. >> Also its history and list of current bus types. Why? 217.155.200.241 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at reinstating garage sections[edit]

In line with recent edits on East London (bus company) and Selkent, I'm looking at potentially building up a bank of citations that'll help get the sections on garages reinstated. Compared to other ex-LBL company pages, this is really lacking in content, but even if I think deleting the whole thing was slightly overzealous, I understand it was due the lack of sourced content and sporadic edits for routes allocated to said garages.

The question is, though, what revision history should I work from? There's been so many back-and-forth reverts/rewrite attempts over the years that I can't keep track of them all. This revision from 17 September 2014 seems to be the better one not overly affected by WP:FANCRUFT, however the information would be nearly ten years out of date if I simply revert and work from there. Maybe to help develop a new set of sections, a controlled sandbox draft might work better in this case? Hullian111 (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Taking a retrospective look into scanned and unscanned magazine archives, my Metroline articles I can reference from are looking quite sparse. At the very least, I can cite the CDG purchase from a 2000 issue of Buses, and the Alperton and Potter's Bar paras under 'History' could easily be moved into their own appropriate sections when reinstated, but other than that? Looks like this could be a drawn-out affair without any other decent sources available. Kind of seeing why there's been a consensus to blank them out now. Hullian111 (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]