Talk:Pinner tube station

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit / in UK / in London Low‑importance

	Trains Portal

	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.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Low-importance).

This article lacks references.

London Low‑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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The bit about the KGB sounds like a joke to amuse the credulous tourists. Source, please. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"closed for safety reasons" when referring to the subway: There were various half-baked explanations concerning this, but I was never able to pin anyone down to explaining why the subway was replaced by a footbridge. The subway had far fewer steps than the bridge, and was therefore easier to negotiate. The only feature of the subway were its steps, so they were presumably the only 'danger' - having more steps on the footbridge wouldn't be any safer. So... I'd like a reference to this rather than stating it as a fact - "alleged but unspecified safety reasons" would also do. --Fjleonhardt (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a bit of the past to resurrect. I walk through that subway every day and no part of it has collapsed on to me yet. There is an amusing collection of stalactites (I can't even begin to imagine what their source is) and most of the tiles have fallen off, but the structure is still sound. If it had been classified as unsafe, they would hardly allow dirty great trains to run over it, hmm? I spoke with the chief contractor during the last round of refurbishment (when the lifts were installed) and he could see no reason why the subway had been condemned. An interesting subject to research would be London Underground's historical reliance on "preferred suppliers" - read into that what you will. Oh, and guess where I work? --Snograt ^{talk here} 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]