Talk:Circle line (London Underground)/Archive 1

Suggestion
For this and other "geographically accurate" maps of London Tube lines, it would be nice to have a scale, compass direction, and OS grid reference. Thanks! Hotlorp 02:25, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

History
I have rewritten this article since it contained a few fairly glaring factual historical errors: my article on the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways has a more accurate version of the story. As an example the two short lines described as being the only true Circle Lines were in fact in use by the Met & District as early as 1874: trains of both Railways used the Circle to get to New Cross, although using the north and south routes respectively. My four references say nothing about "Inner Circuit" ... reference for that? I feel that the piece I have now put under "trivia" is just that: a fad which even now might not be be happening? And lastly: the term "Circle Line" is just a name thought up by PR people: the article read as if it only came into being in 1947 on the map and 1949 in so many words. My mother, who lived in London in the 1920s, was quite confident about using the term! Peter Shearan 18:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

July 7, 2005
New details out today (BBC News) show that the tube bombs exploded at approx 8.50/8.51, all 3 within 50 seconds of each other. I'm not entirely sure how to rewrite that section of the article to include the updated information (not sure as to orderings, etc.) - does someone else want to tidy that? --Ed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.224.16 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Inner Circle Line film
I just saw a movie on the International Film Festival Rotterdam with the title "Inner Circle Line". It's an corean movie and there seems to be a subway line called "inner circle line" in Seoul as well. The movies homepage is http://www.innercircleline.com/ - cgaffga 21:30, 03 Feb 2006 (GMT)

It is often referred to as a "virtual line"
I was suprised by the statement It is often referred to as a "virtual line" in the lead. Is the term widely used? I've never heard it refered to in that way. --Salix alba (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The concept is valid but it certainly is not "often referred to". I have reworded it. --DanielRigal 13:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Interchange at London Bridge
I deleted the London Bridge section of Interchanges at Southeastern, Southern and First Capital Connect never say the the Circle Line goes to London Bridge i live on the Brighton Mainline in and out of London Bridge. Likelife (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the statement. Non-terminating trains call at "a station on the Circle line", ie. not London Bridge! Please see my revision. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sharing other lines
I've heard that the Circle Line is the only line which does not have any of its own track - can this be confirmed? 135.196.2.145 (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, what you've heard is wrong. Technically it does have it's own track between Aldgate and Tower Hill, and between Gloucester Road and High Street Kensington, where it is on its own track between junctions. Simply south (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Circle Line re-organisation
I remember a few years ago seeing a diagram of a LU proposal to "break" the Circle Line in order to improve reliability. The current continuous loop operation has serious implications in terms of delays with a devastating effect on patterns of service. Their proposal was to run the Circle Line as a spiral instead, using Hammersmith and Edgware Road as termini, so the route would be Hammersmith-Edgware Road-Aldgate-Mansion House-Victoria-Edgware Road (main waypoints) and likewise in reverse. The benefit of this would be having terminal points to 'store' trains in the event of a disruption in service (like the bombs of 7/7/05, for example), however this would likely see the end of the current District Line service from Wimbledon/Olympia being able to terminate at Edgware Road, as obviously the two platforms currently used by terminating trains would be needed for terminating "Circle" trains. One would assume that the District Line between Earl's Court and High Street Kensington would need to be retained, obviously using High St Ken as a terminus (it has two platforms for terminating trains), as is the case at present with the Olympia shuttle, but with enhanced frequency, i.e. curtailing Wimbledon/Putney Bridge-Edgware Road services at High St Ken.

Furthermore, the Hammersmith and City Line would also cease to exist if this plan were to be implemented, and I would imagine it would be replaced by a Wimbledon/Olympia to Barking service via Edgware Road, as I think was suggested in the said plans for the Circle Line. Given the use of two different rolling stocks on the District Line, this would probably lead to the separation of the District Line into two lines (as happened to the Metropolitan when the H&C line was created) between C-stock and D-stock services. D-Stock would remain as District Line, and C-stock becoming a "Wimbledon & City Line" (via Edgware Road), replacing the District Line Wimbledon/Olympia-Edgware Road and the H&C Line Edgware Road-Barking.

superbfc 22:05, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Wouldn't that first bit result in a horrific bottleneck between Praed St Junction and Edgware Road, esp. with all "Circle" trains crossing the flat junction at Praed St towards Hammersmith? Willkm 22:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No more so than as present, if one considers that this arrangement would REPLACE Hammersmith & City Line services, not duplicate them. superbfc 22:33, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Mm, see what you mean now. Sounds like a good idea from the operations side of things; from the passengers' perspective it's probably too complicated, although I suppose not much more than it is now.. (I'm thinking confusion at Edgware Road.. I came across some lost Spanish tourists there the other day who found the system there complicated enough as it is..) Willkm 00:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, it now transpires the Eastern end of the H&C would be replaced by Metropolitan through services from Uxbridge to Barking, requiring engineering work east of Aldgate to alter the strutcure gauge to accommodate Metropolitan rolling stock. (see http://www.trainweb.org/tubeprune/SSL%20PPP%20Upgrade.htm.) Superbfc 17:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why London Underground has difficulty running trains every 8 minutes through 27 stations on the 23 km long Circle Line, while JR East doesn't seem to have problems running trains every 2.5 minutes through 29 stations on the 35 km long Yamanote Line in Tokyo? Further, a Yamanote Line train completes the a circuit in only ten minutes more than a Circle Line train, despite stopping at two more stations and travelling 12 km further. Booshank (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does the Yamanote Line share track with other lines like the Circle does? If not, that might by the reason D-Notice (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Yamanote Line doesn't share tracks with other lines. There are at least four tracks on the Yamanote route (more in some sections, such as South of Tokyo Station) and so trains on other lines such as the Saikyo and Shonan-Shinjuku run parallel to the Yamanote Line. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article, the limitations of sharing tracks with other lines? Booshank (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As an ex London Transport guard I have to say I can't see how this method would work, as opposed to the usual one of reforming a train (a delayed train is given the working number of the timing it is now running). The reset method works well on the Circle line because the working number of the Circle line train is not of any interest to passengers; a Circle line train is a Circle line train. Also, most passengers are probably not waiting for a Circle line train specifically anyway (If you are waiting at, say, Farringdon for a train to Baker Street it doesn't matter if the first train along is Circle, Metropolitan or Hammersmith and City, it will get you there). Britmax (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Extension
I don't really see the point of the extension article as all there will be is a change in the service, which can easily be mentioned. A change in the service should not warrant a new article. This is not a project either really. Simply south (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree: the articles should be merged. --DavidCane (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree: there is no point having the extension as a separate article as it's an integral part of the Circle Line itself. Mike1901 (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This change was made on 15 November. -- Alarics (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Extension question
Does anyone know how long the length of the circle line will be after the extension? Crest of London (T 23:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, there are three figures to determine, and then add together.
 * The northern half is from Minories Junction (40.07 km) via Baker Street to Cromwell Curve East Junction (51.62 inner rail, 51.56 outer, so say 51.59 km) subtracting gives 11.52 km
 * The southern half is from Minories Junction (36.42 km) via Mansion House to Cromwell Curve East Junction (45.59 inner rail, 45.69 outer, so say 45.64 km) subtracting gives 9.22 km
 * The extension is from Praed Street Junction (47.76 km) to Hammersmith (53.84 km) subtracting gives 6.08 km
 * The Circle Line length is thus 11.52 + 9.22 + 6.08 = 26.82 km. However, trains run over the stretch between Edgware Road (47.44 km) and Praed Street Junction twice, so we should add on a further 0.32 km giving a total Circle Line distance of 27.14 km. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wonder how long it took to work all that out : P, just one more question: should we include the figures for before the extension (i.e number of stations served and length of track etc), once again thanks a lot!


 * Also should we include the former map?

Crest of London (T 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The station and junction distances are given in kilometres (per the LU standard) in:
 * however, I shall leave your supplementary qs for others to discuss. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * however, I shall leave your supplementary qs for others to discuss. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Route Diagram
Surely the part eastbound line should not rejoin the circle as they now terminate there. I propose somebody edits the image to create a terminus at Paddington on the southern line. CrossHouses (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad I forgot the trains run through to Edgware Road before terminating.
 * CrossHouses (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In case anybody else is wondering: there are no turn-back facilities (crossovers, and associated signalling) between High Street Kensington and Edgware Road, so a train arriving at Paddington on the outer rail (from the Bayswater direction) must continue to Edgware Road in order to cross to the inner rail and so head back towards Bayswater. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange Calculation
Text:

/*extending the time required for a full circuit to about 63 minutes. This allows the service to operate with seven trains in each direction with a seven-minute service interval.*/

7*7=49 and not 63.....so 9 trains every 7 minutes or 7 trains every 9 minutes on the complete circle?--79.199.60.7 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Short" or "shot"?
The text currently reads:


 * A popular pub crawl, the Circle Line Pub Crawl aims to visit each of the Circle Line tube stations in turn, drinking a half pint or short in a pub near to each.

Should that read "or shot"?

Atlant 16:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No - a short is en-GB for what Americans would call a shot. --Mike 15:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks!


 * Atlant 16:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I've lived in the UK all my life, and I've never ever come across the term short as opposed to shot. Is it possibly a southern thing? CJW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.46.102 (talk • contribs)


 * Whisky, vodka, schnapps and other spirits drunk by the "single", "double" etc. measures, have always in my life been called "shorts"; they are usually drunk out of a normal sized glass or tumbler. A shot however, is drunk out of a shot glass and AFAIK is not measured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs)


 * As a former barman, I can confirm that even if served in a shot glass, all drinks must be measured. Single or shot are the most common terms of references I encountered; the latter for a serving in a shot glass, i.e. Sambuca, Schnapps, Vodka or Aftershock, and the former for a Whisky, Brandy, etc. in a tumbler.  I think shot is commonly-used enough in the UK to be accepted here.  I think short is perhaps an antiquated term. —  superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 11:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Compromise - a short is a descriptive term given to any form of drink that can be consumed in one go and/or is a small measure. A shot is merely a type of short. I'm 23 and I use short all the time... as in "are you on the shorts tonight?"




 * Then you weren't a very good barman. The only spirit drinks that have to be measured are Whisky (including Whiskey), Rum, Vodka and Gin which must be sold in multiples of 50ml (and the bar is required by law to display a notice saying so).  All others can be legally free poured.  109.156.49.202 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Station position footnotes
Is there a reason that the station positions are all given footnotes linked from the table? Why not give the lat and long directly in the table. I've sandboxed an example. (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see a reason why not, so I've gone ahead. Edgepedia (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Circular journey time and original research
Wikipedia policy dictates that any statement or claim made in an article must be backed with a valid and reliable reference supporting that claim (See WP:RS and WP:V). The policy is clear that the reference must specifically support the statement or claim made. I presume LiveRail's Circle line timetable shows that the complete journey time for one circuit of the circle is 49 minutes. I also presume that the same time table shows the arrival time at Aldgate and High Street Kensington as being 2 minutes earlier than the departure time. Since LiveRail explicitly stated that the timetable states these things, I (and anyone else) has to assume that it does and these points are made in good faith. The provided timetable is therefore a valid supporting reference for the claim that the journey time is 49 minutes and that there is a two minute stop at both Aldgate and High Street Kensington.

However, the timetable is not a valid reference for a claim that the journey time could be done in 45 minutes if the two minute stops were eliminated. This is because the timetable does not explicitly state this. I can safely deduce this because LiveRail actually stated how he arrived at the 45 minutes - that and it is not the sort of information that any railway timetable I have encountered provides anyway. Perfoming some simple arthmetic to deduct the four minutes from 49 to get 45 may appear perfectly logical, but it is a form of original research called synthesis (See WP:SYN for a better discussion). What LiveRail has done is to use the information in the reference to 'synthesise' the claim that the journey time without stops is 45 minutes - a claim that the reference does not explicitly state. For all anyone knows there may be operational reasons for the two minute stops other than to make the journey artificially longer (opportunity for a change of driver for example). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section as I have referred to the Working Timetable published on 11 June 2006. Trains were booked from Aldgate to Aldgate and for example we have:


 * Train No. 205, Trip No. 4, left Aldgate on the outer rail at 6:58 and was booked to stop at High Street Kensington for minutes, Edgware Road for 2 minutes and Baker Street for 1 minute. This arrived again at Aldgate at 7:55, and formed the 7:57 Circle line train.
 * Train No. 207, Trip No. 7, left Aldgate on the outer rail at 11:06 and was booked to stop at Gloucester Road for minutes, Edgware Road for  minutes and Baker Street for  minute. This arrived again at Aldgate at 12:02, and formed the 12:02 Circle line train.
 * Train No. 205, Trip No. 20, left Aldgate on the outer rail at 22:19 and was booked to stop at Edgware Road for 3 minutes and Baker Street for minute. This arrived again at Aldgate at 23:14, and formed the 23:14 Circle line train.
 * Train No. 213, Trip No. 4, left Aldgate on the inner rail at 7:02, and was booked to stop at Baker Street for 1 minutes, Edgware Road for 2 minutes and High Street Kensington for 2 minutes. This arrived again at Aldgate at 7:59, and formed the 8:02 Circle line train.
 * Train No. 214, Trip No. 13, left Aldgate on the inner rail at 14:45, and was booked to stop at Baker Street for minute, Edgware Road for 2 minutes, High Street Kensington for  minutes and Gloucester Road for . This arrived again at Aldgate at 15:42, and formed the 15:44 Circle line train.
 * I have not seen a train that took 47 minutes and the stopping pattern was not regular. Edgepedia (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that you have used this internal timetable to support some claims elsewhere in the article. I have removed those references and replaced them with [citation needed] tags.  LUL internal documents and timetables are not acceptable references to support claims in articles.  Though they may be correct and authoritative, they are unacceptable as references because they fail WP:V in that the general readership does not have access to them and cannot verify their contents.  In addition they are not the required secondary sources.  86.150.66.47 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer to your comments above: I purchased a copy of the document on the open market, so they are available to the general public. When following WP:PRIMARY we are permitted to use primary sources as long as they are have not analysed them but make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person". The statements made are those.
 * I have reverted your removal of information. Edgepedia (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the format and depth of information see . Edgepedia (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * However, I will scan the three pages referred to and place them on the internet as a 'archive' copy, in much the same way a website is archived. Edgepedia (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Stations below ground
Since there's some disagreement here, which stations do we believe are not below ground? Around the Circle, I count 36 stations if you include Paddington twice. Of those, I'd say the nine stations on the Hammersmith branch (including Paddington H&C) are above ground, plus Edgware Road, Farringdon and Barbican. That makes 12. The article says 21 are below ground, so that means we're missing three stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't count them yourself: that is WP:NOR. In any case, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways; see WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware of the ongoing discussion, but perhaps if we can provide a list of these stations we can forestall any further arguments. Where does this 21 of 36 come from? It's not cited, nor is it mentioned in the article text. From the routemap I surmise the I missed are High Street Kensington, South Kensington, Aldgate and Sloane Square, but this gives us 20 subsurface stations, and again this is not cited. I'd also like to point out that the lead says the line has 36 stations, whereas the "Railway line" section states 35! -mattbuck (Talk) 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Circle line (London Underground). 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/20130214030201/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1592.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1592.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224110412/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Board-20131211-Part-1-Item05-Commissioners-Report-December-2013.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Board-20131211-Part-1-Item05-Commissioners-Report-December-2013.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605002808/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/transforming-the-tube-brochure.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/transforming-the-tube-brochure.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120816190728/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/9969.html to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/9969.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)