Talk:City and South London Railway/Archive 1

And or &
The article is C and S L R but calls the line C & S L R. A link to "C & S L R" redirects to "C and S L R". What did it call itself?--SilasW (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. The official name was the City and South London Railway but it also appears in various documents as the City & South London Railway, for example early tube maps

( or ). The ampersand is just an abbreviation. The article was originally called City & South London Railway but it was moved because the & causes problems in the URL.--DavidCane (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.

That allows this railway to either but some organisations select one or the other, taking & (=et) as an abbreviation seems to me not to allow & or and as the fancy (or software) goes - some brands are particular about using upper or lower case. What problems might & cause? So far I (perhaps blaming a square electron stuck in the circuit) have observed none.--SilasW (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One wikipedia specific example of a problem with ampersands is that some of the automatic bots which check content for compliance with WP:MOS when you submit an article for peer review, good article review or similar cannot handle ampersands and truncate the article name at that point causing a failure of the check.
 * Another example: although it has now been fixed, at one time the tool that allowed you to access maps by clicking on geographic coordinates couldn't handle the ampersand either causing a string of error messages. --DavidCane (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some operating systems treat the & character within a filename as a special. For example UNIX, which will split a command at that point, run the first in the background and try

to start the second before the first completes. So, if a command is attempted such as cat City_&_South_London_Railway what we actually get is two half-commands, both of which fail: cat City_ _South_London_Railway --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reconstruction, connections and extension, 1919–1926
I think that the junction at Camden Town, drawn as it is with two triangular junctions, is misleading: it suggests that trains from the City branch may proceed via Euston, run round a loop, and continue via Mornington Crescent, back to Euston and so on to the Charing Cross branch. Similarly, that trains from Edgware may run to High Barnet (calling twice at Camden Town). Of course the junction isn't like that at all; see right for my proposed solution --Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, correct that the map is not quite correct in this respect, although it would be almost impossible to represent the Camden Town junction accurately in a succinct manner. When the route map was created the overlapping of symbols was not possible and the other alternatives were worse than the current form, but it can certainly be changed to the proposed alternative - which has now been done. --DavidCane (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Deep-Level Railway
The first "deep-level" urban passenger railway was the Mersey Railway opened in 1886, not the C&SLR. The Mersey Railway is around 200 foot below high-tide mark. Claiming that the C&SLR was the first "deep-level", underground, urban railway is historically inaccurate - totally false.

James Street Station in Liverpool and Hamilton Square Station in Birkenhead were the first deep-level stations - accessed by lifts. Also the first bored out of solid rock, as all previous were cut and cover stations.

The first "deep-level" underground railway, was goods only in 1929 1829. The 1.26 mile Wapping Tunnel in Liverpool, the first tunnel bored under a metropolis.

Cheers 79.65.94.24 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect.

What you are referring to is a *tunnelled section* of the Mersey Railway. Green Lane and Birkenhead Central stations were both above ground. thus it is not an "underground railway" (first or otherwise) though it did have the first underwater tunnel. The C&SLR was an end-to-end below ground throughout railway, and hence why it gets the accurate "first deep-level underground railway" description. --AlisonW (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Mersey Railway was the first deep-level railway. No railway ran deeper than the Mersey Railway, even after the C&SLR was operational. It was the first in a deep level tunnel without a doubt, whether a few below ground stations at one end were open to the air is irrelevant. It is correct that none of the tunnels were cut and cover when opened. James Street & Hamilton Square stations were the deepest of any stations, they were not just below the surface, and it is correct that they were the first bored in solid rock. The word "tube" is confusing and it looks like you are claiming something you should not. That needs clarifying and explaining. BTW, Birkenhead Central and Green Lane stations are not above ground, they are in cuttings "below ground level" with tunnels either end.

194.83.172.121 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, let's clarify a few things:
 * This article does not claim that the C&SLR "was the first "deep-level", underground, urban railway", but the "first deep-level underground "tube" railway in the world". The emphasis is on "tube", not deep-level and that is the point.
 * That was not made clear.I clarified that. The Mersey Railway was the first deep-level, railway with deep stations that were not cut and cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.115.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Deep-level is a subjective term not a rigid demarcation of depth and is used in this context to differentiate from the cut and cover lines previously constructed in central London.
 * Yep, the Mersey Railway is that. No cut and cover anywhere on opening in 1886. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.115.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "tube" is quite clear in the context (see the first paragraph of the Establishment section), and the article is not claiming anything that is not supported by citations.
 * It is not clear. The page is attempting to state the C&SLR was the first deep-level railway. It was not. It is clear it was not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.115.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst it is undoubtedly deep below the river, there is nothing in the Mersey Railway article or any of its references supporting the claims that it is the first deep-level railway, nor is there anything to support the claim above that "No railway ran deeper than the Mersey Railway". In fact, the article is completely un-cited, please ensure that all

statements are cited to reliable sources, preferable published works rather than web sites.
 * '''Looking up on The Mersey Railway, it is clear it ran deep. Deeper than anything in London in 1886. Not sure on this, but probably deeper than anything in London today. It had to

run under a very deep and wide river that is 100 foot deep at low tide in the centre and 132 foot at high tide. Some of the world's largest ships sail over the Mersey rail tunnel.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.115.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that changes have also been made by one of the anonymous users above to the rapid transit article, to the effect that it was the second Underground railway system in the world. With four stations at opening (two of which were in the open air) it is debatable whether the Mersey Railway constitutes a "system". Even with the additional underground

stations built later, it seems a stretch to describe it as a system compared with the Budapest and Glasgow systems which are generally recognised as the second and third systems.
 * '''The Mersey Railway was the second oldest underground urban railway in the world. 1886 is before 1892 in Budapest. To suggest the Mersey Railway did not constitute a system is

bordering on lunacy - like someone has an agenda. If the Mersey Railway was not a system well neither was the C&SLR. Read up on the Railway. You are trying to airbrush from history the Mersey Railway and its historical importance. The longest under-river tunnel in 1886 by a country mile. The deepest stations. First stations in service bored in solid rock. By 1892 the tunnel eventually from Birkenhead Park to Liverpool Central was 3.12 miles long - about a mile longer now it goes to Brunswick. The Mersey Railway is older than Glasgow and Budapest - once again 1886. 1886 is before 1892 and 1896. Was The Mersey Railway underground? Yes. Did it have underground stations? Yes. Did it have the deepest running trains in the world? Yes. Was it cut and cover? No. Was it all beneath ground level? Yes. Was it a system? Yes. BTW, a tunnel was to be bored from Woodchurch on the outers of Birkenhead to Birkenhead Central provision was made for it at Central. The headers were cut for a branch tunnel to Huskisson Dock in Liverpool. Both were not cut.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.115.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This feels like agenda pushing.--DavidCane (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears so. It is clear all this is new to you all. I rewrote the part the C&SLR played in being the first - the first deep-level 100% underground and not open to the air. Well an air shaft can be said to negate that, as that opens it to the air, if anyone wants to be pedantic. Once again, the Mersey Railway was the second undergound, urban railway in the world. It was also the first deep-level railway. BTW, the Crown St tunnel, 1830, in Liverpool was cut under streets. The tunnel had a station at either end. Was this the first underground passenger railway? The same can be claimed for the 1.07 mile Lime St tunnel of 1836. The one tunnel, two station hill climber in Istanbul of 1875 can make a claim too. If you make a historical claim, make it clear. This page was not clear at all in its claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.115.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * '''If we

all want to be historically accurate, the Glasgow City and District Railway, opened 2 months after the Mersey railway in 1886, with a 3 mile cut & cover section. Well that makes it the third oldest underground railway in the world, after London, Liverpool and then Budapest after being fourth. I like to see it as it is.''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.115.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Answering anon user's comments above: claim is with regard to it being a tube tunnel, not its depth. There was nothing particularly exceptional with regard to the depth of the tunnelling, many earlier railway tunnels were dug through hills making them deeper beneath the surface (e.g. the Box Tunnel, which is 300 ft deep in parts). The sentence would read equally well without mentioning depth, but, as I wrote above, that mention is there to identify it as being different to the earlier cut and cover tunnels of the Metropolitan railway.
 * Whether or not there are other stations built underground before 1890 or 1886 that were not cut and cover, I couldn't say, but that's not relevant to the C&SLR article anyway.
 * I find it strange that you're so hung up on this issue of deepness. This article is not attempting to claim that it was the first deep-level railway. The C&SLR article's
 * This article clearly claims that the C&SLR was the first deep-level railway. It was not, it was the Mersey Railway. What is deep level you question? In the case of London

and Liverpool, both at sea level, the high tide mark. The Mersey Rail Tunnel was deeper than anything in London. Running through a hill at sea level leaves a lot of hill above, so not relevant.
 * Again, whether the Mersey Railway tunnel is deeper than the C&SLR is not important to the C&SLR article.
 * It is. This article claim the C^SLR was the first deep-level railway. It was not, the Mersey railways. was.

stations makes a system. If you can find a published statement that it the second underground railway in the world to cite, I will be happy to accept that.
 * I am not trying to airbrush the Mersey Railway from history; just put it in context. It is a relatively short length of railway, part of which runs under a river and which has a couple of underground stations. That is not intended in anyway to diminish the significance of the river crossing and the stations, but it is debatable as to whether two
 * There was FOUR stations in the Mersey railway on initial opening. It was quickly expanded. It is generally accepted that the first "underground" railway was the Metropolitan

Railway in London, Later a part the Circle Line of London Underground. Some stations were open to the air. If the Mersey railway is to be dismissed by you as of no historical importance because two stations on opening were open to the air, then the tag that London's Metropolitan Railway was the world's first should be as well. The London "underground" railway opened with 7 stations with some open to the air. The Mersey Railway opened with 4 stations, three less than London, and some open to the air. Sounds similar doesn't it? The C&SLR was the first with two points: 1, using electric traction; 2. All stations not open to the air. The Mersey Railway was the SECOND underground Railway in the world. WITHOUT A DOUBT. Not Budapest.


 * "Did it have the deepest running trains in the world? Yes". Not necessarily, refer back to Box Tunnel above. A statement of this sort needs to be substantiated with evidence.
 * Get the depth of the Mersey RaiTunnel is not difficult. It is deeper than anything in London, with the median high tide mark being the datum line - the River Mersey is

far deeper than the Thames, so deep the stations either side needed hydraulic passenger lifts. system than any other railway with stations separated by a section of tunnel. Nor is the GC&DR, which is simply a section of the mainline service running partly in tunnels. Mersey Railway and 4.35 miles for the Severn tunnel).
 * The Crown Street and Lime Street tunnels are clearly early tunnels in an urban location (generally considered the earliest), but they are no more an underground railway
 * The engineering of the Mersey Railway was clearly a significant achievement, but it was not "the longest under-river tunnel in 1886 by a country mile". The section under the river is 0.75 miles long, but the Severn Tunnel (completed in 1885 and opened in 1886) is 2.25 miles long (the total lengths appear to be 3.12 miles for the
 * This is already answered below. The Mersey Rail tunnel opened before the Severn Tunnel.

vandals. I strongly recommend that you get yourself a user log-in.
 * On a more general note, your various statements here and edits on other articles need to be substantiated with proper citations, otherwise they are likely to be reverted. Also, editing as an anonymous user with a non persistent IP address makes it difficult for others to track your edits and contact you. It also lumps you in with the anonymous page
 * Just about all I have added needs no external citation. All you have to do is look at other wikis and know how numbers work. 1886 is before 1892 and 1898.

-Cheers 79.66.107.92 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC) --DavidCane (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting talk. Got me reading.

The article says it was the first deep-level railway. Not true, the Mersey Railway was. The C&SLR was the first "deep-level that was 100% undergound with no staions exposed to the air". That is what it was. In fact it was not the first deep-level railway, that goes to Mersey Railway. So, deep-level should be taken out of the article as world's first claim. The Mersey railway was all below ground level on opening in Jan 1886.

The Mersey Railway WAS the second urban undergournd railway in the world. It had 4 staions on opening and work ongoing to extedn. By the time Budapest was opened, the Mersey Railwaay extedn to the River Dee, although overland from Birkenhead Park.

The Severn tunnel was not opened before the Mersey rail tunnel. 11 months after.

I did some searching...intereting...

Merseyrail, similar to London Underground in having under and overground lines, metro and commuter rail. It is the second oldest urban, underground, railway in the world, however sections of the network are the oldest of any urban underground/overground railway in the world. The first underground section originated in 1886 - Green Lane to James Street.

The oldest electrified section dates from 1848, from Southport to near the old Exchange Station, now a part of the Merseyrail Northern Line. The oldest part of the London Underground dates from 1856, now part of the Central Line, an overground section. So older in parts than London Underground.

It gets better. The oldest diesel section of Meseyrail dates from 1830, being a part of the original Liverpool-Manchester Passenger railway, the world's first passenger railway, now a part of the City Line. This is to be electrified up to Manchester and design work has started.

If the 1829 Wapping Tunnel in Liverpool is brought back into use, it will be the oldest underground section of any urban railway in the world, beating London's Marylebone Rd underground section by 34 years. Proposals are about to recomission the tunnel and maybe cut a station into it. It was to be used in the 1970s, but budget cut stopped it. Branch headers were cut. It would be the oldest used tunnel in the world. The oldest used tunnel is the world is the 50 yard section of the original Lime St tunnel at Edge Hill, 1836. This is used by Mesreyrail urban railway as well as mailine. The 1.26 mile Wapping Tunnel is the second oldest rail tunnel in the world, used or not used, urban or not, right now. The first under a metropolis.

If the 1848 Victoria/Waterloo Tunnel in Liverpool is brought back into use, it will beat London's Marylebone Rd underground section by 15 years.

So, if the Wapping Tunnel is recommissioend, the oldest underground railway in the world will be Mesreyrail, not London's underground.

London Undergroudn claims to be the oldest undergound rail system in the world. London Underground dates only from the 1930s when all the separate rail networks were merged into one. Merseyrail did the same in the 1970s.

London's claims to many rail firsts are shot to pieces when a search on Liverpool is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.172.121 (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. Yes Liverpool is totally overlooked in rail history. Merseyrail does have the oldest sections in use in the world and the oldest tunnel used by an urban railway, or any railway (I will not use metro or commuter rail they confuse). And if the two long tunnels under the city centre are reused, clearly the oldest tunnel used in the world on an underground rail network - 1829. The oldest station used in the world on an urban network, 1830.


 * Yes, Liverpool has more significant rail firsts than London, but it was slowly being airbrushed from history. 79.66.107.92 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)