Talk:Bank and Monument stations

The connection to Monument is an escalator, not a Travolator. There is a moving walkway (no longer an Otis Travolator) in the complex, between the W&C platforms and the Central Line. More at CULG (natch). --rbrwr 13:59, 28 June 2003 (UTC) Reply

The moving walkway runs between the booking hall and the W&C not the Central line and W&C Wilmot1 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Reply

As a passenger who uses it a lot I know that 'Bank Northern' is effectively closer to 'Monument District' platforms than they are to 'Bank Central'. For all practical purposes to get to Central from Northern one is walking the full length of King William Street underground. 92.10.41.176 (talk) 04:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Reply

A WWII bomb hit the Bank junction in the 1940s, killing several people, collapsing a large part of the subway and disrupting traffic above. News of the bomb was suppressed to avoid giving the Germans a propaganda victory. It would be useful to include this in the article, but I don't have the full details. Anyone? Lee M 01:13, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"The Underground at War" has the exact date, casualty lists, etc.:

http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/subterra/lu/tuaw.htm

http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/subterra/lu/tuawcafa.htm#bank

--rbrwr

Although they are connected, the stations are surely so far apart that they should have their own seperate articles. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Reply

Could we at least have the correct lat-longs for each bit? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Reply

I am not sure if this is the correct place to add my comment. I remember using Bank/Monument station when I was aged 11 in 1968, as far as I can recall there was an additional underground train line that was operated by the post office. The trains were smaller than the Central Line trains and the train conveyed passengers as well as parcels. Is this correct?

adlington.robert@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.130.247.70 (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

That'll be London Post Office Railway a.k.a. Mail Rail. "Passengers" were only carried on special occasions. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Reply

Woudln't it be sensible to rename this article simply Bank-Monument station, considering that it is also served by the DLR (not part of the London Underground)? Don Quixote is awesome (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Reply

Just moved it - never mind. Don Quixote is awesome (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Reply

I think this should move to Bank and Monument stations. We seem to be inventing a double barrel name here that doesn't exist outside Wikipedia. MRSC (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

Actually quite a few TfL and media sources call it Bank-Monument. I think the main talking point is usually the complex which surrounds the three stations (Bank LU, Monument LU and Bank DLR). CrossHouses (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

Have you got links? I see bank and monument far more than Bank-Monument. In particular from TfL sources MRSC (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

This section states that when the lift access was closed "access for the mobility-impaired was lost". It is highly unlikely that there ever was any "access for the mobility-impaired". At other stations lift shafts (both in use and disused) do not reach to platform level. There is a mezzanine level reached by stairs from the platforms, allowing a single bank of lifts for side platforms. Island platforms have insufficient space in the cross passages to fit a bank of lifts. Also the ticket office was unlikely to have a lift to the street.

According to TfL, free OSIs are only valid for Bank and Monument with surrounding NR stations but not other tube stations, i.e. Cannon Street and Liverpool Street. I wonder if it's still free to touch out Bank-Monument, in/out Liverpool Street NR and lastly in Liverpool Street tube. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Reply

I was hoping to add a photograph and explanation of the CNIM Travolator which is distinctive for being inclined but it was simply deleted. I really think that it should be added to the article. There are numerous pictures titled Escalator shaft in the new Cannon Street entrance, New southbound platform of the Northern line, Moving walkways connecting the Central and Northern lines etc which were not deleted but mine was. I really believe that the article could use a picture of it and a mention and a preference for less images is subjective...especially when mine is of presentable quality. LadyJetA1 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

'Never forget that one takes full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle. One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Please take particular care with the rollback links provided by Twinkle. Only obvious vandalism qualifies for rollback without an edit summary. If you believe an editor's contribution is done in good faith, you should include an edit summary.If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve. Undo/revert is appropriate in cases where the contribution is arguably "wrong" (consider moving it to the Talk page), or is unreasonably difficult to fix (e.g. incomprehensible, and the author is unresponsive), or is actually harmful to the article (such as vandalism). A plain language edit summary (not merely tags) should be used when reverting changes that appear to have been made in good faith because many contributors will not recognize minimalistic tags and will not learn what the problem was and are likely to repeat it.'

@Danners430 I believe that 'Unnecessary tbh' for a deletion reasoning seems subjective and unreasonable and I do not see how a travolator is harm justifying of use of 'Twinkle'. Again 'obvious vandalism qualifies for rollback without an edit summary' NOT a contribution from a TFL expert with good intentions.

Hoping for a resolution. LadyJetA1 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

@Danners430 Other travolator and escalator photographs are present and have not been removed. In this same logic that the article should not be an 'image repository', should they be deleted as well? I do not see why mine is 'inferior' to the images currently in the article. Could adding an explanation of the inclined travolator instal and replacing the escalator image in the article be a reasonable compromise? LadyJetA1 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'm going to reply to your accusation of inappropriate reversion only once.

1. One does not have to be a "TFL expert" to have an opinion and edit on Wikipedia. "TFL experts" do not own the article - nobody owns the article. Anyone is perfectly entitled to have an opinion on the structure of an article, and no one editor is "more important" than any other. Wikipedia is built on Consensus.

2. Per WP:BRD, if an editor disagrees with your edit, they are generally permitted to revert with a good reason. My reason was in the edit summary, and you even quoted it - Unecessary tbh. I believe the inclusion of that image is unnecessary, and I even discussed it with you at length on your talk page. If you feel so strongly that I am vandalising, feel free to report me to WP:AIV. However, I would also suggest you take a step back, and stop assuming bad faith.

3. I already responded to your comment about other photographs - and I already stated that I have a suspicion the answer would be yes... there seems to be a LOT of images shoehorned in..

Now, this is the last I am going to comment on the accusation of inappropriate reversion. If you want to take it further, use the correct forum at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. But here, I consider the matter closed and will only discuss the subject of the discussion, which is the images in the article. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I am not thinking about reporting to Wikipedia:AIV

Now going on to the images of the article and using your logic that 'no one editor is "more important" than any other':

So...as for the images in the article do you think that these should be deleted as well? I really think that these give little information.

Bank and Monument stations#Progress

I really think that my travolator image is more clear than these and your reasoning justifies their deletion. LadyJetA1 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I agree that the strange gallery of images in the Progress section has no place in the article. But I personally fail to understand why we need a picture of a travelator at all? It's a piece of infrastructure and the article is about the tube station. As I've said, I don't think there's any harm at all in having a brief mention of the fact there's a unique design of travelator installed in the station, but do we really need an image? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

This seems logical so to confirm:

Delete the strange-looking Progress gallery.

Add text mention of the CNIM inclined travolators.

Does this seem like a reasonable path for me to take? Let me know. LadyJetA1 (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

From my perspective aye - I’d maybe hold off and see what other editors think (again, I am but one voice out of many)... it’s only been less than an hour! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:35, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I'll wait for others' perspectives before proceeding with the new information and gallery cleaning. LadyJetA1 (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Just wanna add my two cents here.

Firstly, @LadyJetA1, I'm sure you may have noticed this, but, on wikipedia we try to assume good faith. Your addition of photos were a good faith attempt to add your two cents to wikipedia, and Danner430's removal of such was equally in good faith. I'm sure Danners430 didn't intend any direct attack, but was moreso just removing the image as he didn't think it fits, which, I'd agree on.

I do query though, if the article meets the standards of MOS:IMG, as I do personally believe the amount of images is perhaps too much for the amount of text.

Obviously, you can keep editing how you are, I'm not saying stop, but, I'd recommend perhaps asking on one of the various transport/london related WikiProjects if they need any specific images of any stations, things etc.Might be a nice way to get a foot in the door, and see where images are needed, etc. ^-^ NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 03:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Marvellous insight and suggestions. Thanks! LadyJetA1 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

As for information the article does not even mention an inclined travolator to the W&C Lines and deserves acknowledgement in my opinion. LadyJetA1 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Moving walkways are already in the article – In September 1960, the steeply sloping passages to the platforms were supplemented with the "Travolator", one of the few sets of moving walkways on the whole underground system". You could mention in the station refurbishment section regarding the replacement of the originals with CNIM machines, but I note that the mention of this in the Waterloo & City line article is unsourced. I don't feel a photo is necessary to illustrate this.

I will be bold and remove the progress gallery – I feel the Cannon Street entrance photo is worth keeping, but I've moved it next to the Ticket halls and entrances section and provided a better caption. Turini2 (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Many Underground stations have escalators, so escalator photos are usually superfluous, except when individually remarkable (such as being of exceptional length like those at Angel). A travolator, however, is still somewhat unusual on the Underground, and so I don't see a good reason to not have any photos of one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Brilliant point. I definitely agree that escalators are ubiquitous and tend to be default models and not in need of inclusion. (eg same Otis model all over the old deep tube stations) As you mentioned the travolator is quite unusual (being a French custom model) and this supports the idea of including it as a rarity. It may be infrastructure but I'm sure that people who may not have an idea of what one looks like (eg from Glasgow) may desire seeing one. Hoping that this encourages others to reconsider the deletion. Thanks for a well written argument. LadyJetA1 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Is now a good time to mention Buchanan Street station on the Glasgow Subway has one? 🤣 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I know that and that is why some may be curious. That is why I mentioned it as an example. And by the way that is not an inclined one and people may want to see others round the world.

No need to be difficult...not everyone is opposed to the picture as shown above. Again there is no hierarchy here...

I've tried assuming good intentions and being reasonable but the aggressive tone remains...

The argument that it should not be included is honestly not convincing me and as @Redrose64 mentioned it is a rarity and we don't 'see a good reason to not have any photos of one'. This was a reasonable argument. No pictures of your standard Otis in a random Bakerloo station but yes to this rare French moving ramp at Bank.

For its rarity and presence in Bank... LadyJetA1 (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

(Aggressive tone? I can't see anyone with an aggressive tone. Please assume that everyone here is operating in good faith.) Turini2 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Aye, from what I'm reading this was just User:Danners430 being a goofball.

+ I think the problem is that current attempts to shoehorn mention of travelators in aren't working. Perhaps, if theres a source that confirms the claim of the travelators at Bank being the only ones on the network, add that to the relavent part of the History section... 🤔 NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 20:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Since 1999, they're no longer the only ones on the network (Thanks to ones at Waterloo tube station) and they were joined by an additional set at Bank in 2022. The existing section (quoted above) is already referenced. Turini2 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Huh.

Swear I've recently heard people talking about bank being the only ones...

Still, its mighty funny that 4 of the I now believe 6 travolators on the network are at Bank. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 20:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Correct. Two flat and two sloped at Bank. By the way I took the quote cited by @Turini2 earlier 'In September 1960, the steeply sloping passages to the platforms were supplemented with the "Travolator", one of the few sets of moving walkways on the whole underground system"' and added the history, slope and diameter of the travolator tunnel to it. I found it a bit ambiguous in its state. Hoping that this justifies the significance and paints a more vivid picture of why I find it noteworthy. LadyJetA1 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Did a bit of copyediting - do you have a source for CNIM? The existing source just has "This installation has since been re-equipped" Turini2 (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Technically no (other than the image) after revising it...so that can be removed. LadyJetA1 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Cool beans – have trimmed further. Turini2 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I beg your pardon? I was making a joke because you said someone in Glasgow might be interested in an inclined travelator - but there’s already in in Buchanan Street! Please stop assuming bad faith... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

It’s also worth adding nowhere in my comment did I either disagree with you or try to discredit any argument. Please have a good look at WP:AGF. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Going back to the deletion of the photograph and not assuming bad faith, I understand that it was unnecessary and that Glasgow residents would understand an inclined travolator etc but I believe that I've added reasonable textual justification to the article to warrant its inclusion. Also user @Redrose64 was in favour of its inclusion...not to make an 'infrastructure repository' but supplement the text. Regardless of whether someone knows a travolator (Glasgow) or not (rural residents) some may be interested in a visual just in this case. I've considered your perspective fully but have concluded that just this once one image may be of use to readers (see the description which I lengthened as well...there is now text support and citation). Just this single one image.

I am asking because I know that if I put it back in before requesting it could be viewed as a war and I do not want that view. LadyJetA1 (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Right - we’re literally discussing the inclusion, and the consensus is generally towards including the image. That’s all fine - and nowhere, not since Redrose made his point, had I even commented except to make a joke... I hadn’t disagreed with you, I hadn’t challenged you... I simply made a joke. So please, stop viewing others as adversaries and start viewing your fellow editors as fellow editors - all here to contribute to the same cause. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Personally, I believe there may be a struggle to include the photos. Per Wikipedia:Image use policy. I'd personally suggest moving the photos in the History section into one gallery, to clean up that section, and then perhaps including a photo of a travolator at that point. But, personally I don't agree with adding anymore photos to the history section as things stand as its quite a crowded section, and does affect the abilty to read the article. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 21:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Agreed regarding no photo. Also, I don't think it's the best photo of the travolator anyway – there's a fair few options on commons if we did want one. Turini2 (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I still am in favour of its inclusion and the discussion has got both perspectives...however I've moved a misplaced image in the history section of glass panels to make it less dense with images. Valid arguments but I'd say that its better to not delete it again because the history section is a bit cleaner now. LadyJetA1 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

I think something has been misunderstood here..

the photos relating to the Statue of James Henry Greathead, City of London coat of arms and Etched glass panels by artist John Hutton, are all related to the History section. with the first two being in the "Docklands Light Railway and station refurbishment, 1990s" section and the latter being in the "New Bloomberg entrance, 2010s" section. This, ideally per wikipedia policy, means the photos should be within those sections. see MOS:SECTIONLOC. Additionally we have issues on here with MOS:SANDWICH ing. As I suggested before, perhaps these could be combined into a gallery. See, Liverpool#Economy, which uses Template:Multiple image for a possible way to tidy this up.

As I said, and seemingly I got an agreement from @Turini2, more images shouldnt be added until the current images are tidied up.

Which, means consensus was probably not in favour of adding images, due to the fact there is a handful of MOS related reasons as to why the images should not be added, and adding more images is only making that situation worse.

I personally, was waiting for consensus on how to combine all the images, before going and cleaning them up - additionally, even with my best attempt at clearing them up, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NeoJade/sandbox&oldid=1306275079, there is just too many images IMO for the section. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 22:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

It definitely is filled with images and in need of curation. I do not really believe that Statue of James Henry Greathead is the most relevant to a TFL article because it is outside and of an awkward aspect ratio. I do not know what others believe. LadyJetA1 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

Greathead was a pioneer of deep-level tunneling. Without him (and the Brunels also Barlow), the Underground as we know it would not exist. It was Greathead who was engineer to the City of London and Southwark Subway. Shall I continue? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC) Reply

TBH it could be a funny DYK to nominate.

I know at one point, unsure if it still is correct, but, this could have worked:

"Did you know, Bank station is the only London Underground station to feature Travalators?" NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 20:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Reply