Talk:Liverpool Street station/Archive 1

Disused line
Looking at Google maps and satellite images, there is a disused line that goes up to kingsland. Does anyone know any history of this and why it was torn up? --Dean Earley 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the Broad Street station article - it was next door to liverpool street. IIRC the east london line extension will use it. Pickle 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir John Betjeman
Wasn't Sir John involved in the (partial) preservation of Liverpool St Station from destruction? I also heard that there were plans (shelved) to re-name the station bar in his honour. Colin4C 22:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd platform on the Sub Surface Underground platforms....
How long ago was it in use?

It seems rather short from what i can see of it, so i gues sit wasnt used for full length trains.


 * Might find an answer somewhere on this excellent site - http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/ Pickle 10:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crossrail icon.png
Image:Crossrail icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Notable events" → "As target of violence"
After due consideration, I've amended these changes, as the reasoning behind them is inherently spurious. The Bishopsgate Bomb was 200 metres away from the Underground station and so this was clearly not a specific targeting of the station as the new heading suggested. The station was damaged to a certain degree, but given that there are numerous large buildings between it and the site of the explosion, the various claims of it being "wrecked" or "destroyed" are clearly exagerations. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bishopsgate bombing
Although there are numerous online references to this bombing "severly damaging" or even "destroying" the Underground stations, this is not reflected in any works specifically about the Underground. The latest edition of The Story of London's Underground, for example, mentions the extensive 1992 refurbishment of the station, but makes no reference to the bombing at all. Likewise, in the Capitol Transport series of books on the specific lines, neither of the Circle, Metropolitan, nor Central line ones make reference to the event. The inescapable conclusion is that the aforementioned online reports are the result of Chinese whispers, and are vastly exagerrated. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Trainshed contractor
"The Railway Heritage of Britain" London 1983 holds the supplier and close collaborator of E. Wilson was Sir William Fairbairn and his firm Fairbairn Engineering Company of Manchester. J. Mowlem could have been responsible for the c1890 eastern extension rather than the original trainshed. 212.51.208.194 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

History section
I felt the History section was rather bulky and could have done with being split up a bit into chronological subsections to aid better reading. I wasn't sure, however, on the headings for the subsections and currently have: "A new terminus for the City", detailing the establishment of the station; "War-time events" outlining the events involving LST during the Wars; "Post-War deterioration and redevelopment", describing the period of overhaul for the station in the 80s and 90s; and "Recent events". I would welcome any suggestions of alternative headings/splits and any thoughts on how to improve the section/article. Thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_Street_station&diff=596336042&oldid=596335716


 * Lord Salisbury, who was chairman of Great Eastern in 1870, described the Liverpool Street extension as "one of the greatest mistakes ever committed in connection with a railway.".

This appears misleading in context - read the original here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nfxBAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q&f=false (1st col. top) Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions/overhaul
There have been some very interesting and useful additions and expansion to this article. I have to say, though, the "Expansion of the station (1895)" section seems to go into quite unnecessary granular detail, particularly this paragraph, which is very difficult to read because of the vast numbers of measurements and conversions: The side buildings had foundations of a 10 ft (3.0 m) square, 2 ft (0.61 m) thick concrete bed, supporting brick footings and then a 5 ft (1.5 m) square, 2 ft (0.61 m) thick bedstone,[31] which supported 18 to 24 in (460 to 610 mm) wide 1.25 in (32 mm) thick main columns.[32] The main central parcels building was built on foundations of a 21 by 19 ft (6.4 by 5.8 m) bed of concrete 3 ft (0.91 m) thick supporting brick footings and then a 12 by 10 ft (3.7 by 3.0 m) square, 1 ft 9 in (0.53 m) thick bedstone, supporting twinned cross-strutted iron columns 3 in (76 mm) thick up to the floor level support girders. --TBM10 (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I see that - too many numbers - I'll try to fix it.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liverpool_Street_station&diff=596504296&oldid=596502659
 * I've removed some number spam resulting from all the template:convert (I assume 90% people can understand 3ft or 3in.. and attempted to make the readability a bit better.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Crossrail Gold coin
I don't think the Gold coin found by Crossrail was from Liverpool street - is there a source for this ?Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * found it confirmed in http://metro.co.uk/2013/08/08/crossrail-project-unearths-prehistoric-workshop-and-16th-century-burial-ground-3917415/

1993 Bombing
Was it the Underground station that was damaged ?

According to :

it was the underground station ??Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotha attack
Was the bombing of Liverpool Street the "first daylight raid on London"? if so where does it say that? Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is wrong.
 * The Gotha as built was a day bomber - the 28 Nov 1916 attack is well documented. eg Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See German strategic bombing during World War I --TBM10 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not seeing the answer to that in the current version..Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A second attack on 5 June 1917 was diverted to Sheerness in Kent but a third attack on 13 June resulted in the first daylight raid on London, causing 162 deaths and 432 injuries. ... This was the deadliest air raid of the war. No Gothas were lost. --TBM10 (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - In popular culture
The "in popular culture" section is supposed to be about popular culture references to the station. eg see "In popular culture" content. It's not a trivia section. Use as a filming location/advertising promotion site probably does not apply. The section appears to be getting a bit trivial.Prof.Haddock (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. To me, the use of a station as a filming location is a necessity if the script calls for the characters to travel by rail. But in such situations, is the actual station important to the plot of the film? That is, if the characters are travelling to London, from an indeterminate or irrelevant origin, any London terminus could have been used. Contrast the Harry Potter books, where King's Cross is directly named in all of them; the films based upon these usually used King's Cross as a filming location, but the use of St. Pancras as a stand-in was certainly worthy of note. It is not for us to point out these inconsistencies; but if a film reviewer has noted either an excellent choice of filming location, or a plot hole, we may report that.
 * So, was the use of Liverpool Street in the 1996 Mission Impossible (film) crucial to the plot of that film (would the film have been spoiled if another station was used), or was it obviously wrong (used as a stand-in for Paris Gare du Nord or somewhere)? Whichever of these applies, we then need to ask, per WP:V/WP:NOR, has somebody else already pointed that out? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As it's not mentioned in Mission_Impossible_(film) (or any station) I would think it was used as "generic london station" - If so - I think these instances are minimally notable, and could be just added as a list of films using the station as a backdrop.
 * I haven't seen this film - but have seen some of the others mentioned - eg in The_Shadow_Line_(TV_series) as I remember, the station backdrop wasn't crucial to the plot, specific, or memorable. I will compress these down in the absense of more info about why they are important.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 July 2014 - new fields to add into infobox
Add to infobox:

| cyclepark = Yes - platform 10 & external | toilets = Yes

SheffGruff (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I'm not sure that's a good idea - the infobox is supposed to hold key facts that are discussed in the article, and the article text mentions neither cycle parking nor toilets. Where were these parameters proposed? How do they fit in with WP:NTT? The infobox does hold a Facilities link, where this information - and more - may be found by those that are interested. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I too have to question this - the infobox now tells us that there is a cyclepark in the car park, but the article doesn't tell anything about a carpark, even if it exists or not.
 * Seems to be a borderline example of What Wikipedia is not. - specifically - a travel guidebook. Prof.Haddock (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will be adding the cycle parking into the info box because TFL has a Liverpool Street station map that shows two bicycle parking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent60030 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

First daylight raid - disputed
From the current source: (Sokolski)


 * In May 1917, a special heavy bomber unit, equipped with the latest Gotha bombers and directly subordinated to the High Command, began conducting brazen daylight attacks against British cities. On June 13, 1917, a formation of 20 Gothas soared over central London and prepared to attack the Liverpool Street station

reasoning - if the daylight bombings began in May then the June raid was not the first?? Also it isn't stated in the current sources. Please fix.Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been explained already: But, to reply, the purpose of the raids was to bomb London; the raid on 13 June was the first to succeed. The first raid (on 25 May) was diverted to Folkestone; the next (on 5 June) diverted to Sheerness; the next raid (on 13 June) was the first to actually hit the capital. I've fixed the text to clarify this, and linked the relevant page. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1962 deaths?
"During the First World War, Liverpool Street was attacked by a daylight air raid, killing 1962 people."

I can't wait to see the source for that. The National Archives says here that the total number of deaths from German raids during the war was 1413. A very poor blog source suggests, but no more, that the total killed at Liverpool Street was 16. Harfarhs (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The section First World War and memorials (1917–1922) says 162, with sources, so I'm guessing a typo. Remember that the lead section doesn't need to be sourced, as it should summarise what is in the article body, where the sources should be placed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, likewise for the pointer re: refs. I'll amend the text in line with your suggestion. Harfarhs (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Capacity tags
why the tags? It's right there in the source - "Busiest routes into London (% over capacity*)" then "8. Liverpool Street 3.9%" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I added 4 clarify tags:

1 It is a station not a route. Do you mean the route INTO the station?


 * Yup, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

2 How can it run over 100% of capacity, and what does that mean?


 * According to the Daily Telegraph, "On services with no standing allowance, "over capacity" means passengers having to stand for more than 20 minutes, whereas on other services it represents passengers standing in cramped conditions". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

3 What does "part of the general urban development" mean, and why did it cease to be so when the station was built?


 * No idea, removed the text Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

4 If the glazing is primarily glass, what is the rest of the glazing made of? Ehrenkater (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know this last one, so I've re-added the tag. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just a guess, but maybe it's the framework that holds the pieces of glass? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

West Anglia Mainline Services
Since the 21st May 2017 some services to Cambridge have been extended to Cambridge North. I wonder whether as a result the table should be altered, the only issue being I don't know which row should be changed (Fast or slow trains). Greater Anglia have posted there revised timetables and the following link accesses the Cambridge/Stansted Airport to London services. WSmith26997 (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Simon Jenkins refs
The Simon Jenkins source does not verify your claim given. The only mention of Liverpool Street is in reference to the terminus of the Great Eastern Main Line, at the other end of which is Norwich railway station, which is listed. If you don't start using edit summaries and stop reverting in factually incorrect information, you'll get blocked. Your call. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The source was in error, for which I apologise. It has now been changed. I am not attempting to be disruptive on purpose. Please stop the aggression or I shall make a formal complaint. Your call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.155.191 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I was simply giving you a heads up that some administrators tend to block for this sort of thing, so it's worth discussing disputes as soon as you can. I originally planned to move the sentence to the body of the article (it's not important enough to go in the lead section) and expand on the source, then I noticed the claim wasn't there, so I couldn't. Anyway .... I still can't see where the source says that Liverpool Street is one of the ten best railway stations in Britain. Perhaps my personal memories of catching trains (mostly dark and smelling of urine) from it are clouding my judgement, but I find it hard to believe that it's up there with the likes of Rannoch. So, questions remain - 1) where exactly is this claim given and 2) why is it important to mention in the article? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool Street station. 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/20140221153125/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/london-liverpool-street-station/architectural-mini-guide.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/london-liverpool-street-station/architectural-mini-guide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead photo
I think consensus is pretty much on File:Liverpool Street Station Concourse, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, right? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * More at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 19. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --TBM10 (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since November 2017, when I prepared the last list of image changes, has made several more attempts to put their preferred image into the article:
 * reverted by
 * reverted by myself
 * reverted by myself
 * reverted by
 * I make that ten pairs altogether, with nobody other than Rebroad preferring this image. In the 21:26, 16 August 2019 edit, Rebroad asked "where is it said consensus is needed? and where is the consensus?" - I would say that it's right here; and since this is a good article, the stable lead image should not be altered to a controversial one, agreed? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur that this photo is totally inappropriate and shouldn't appear at any point in this article let alone as the lead image (I can see no circumstances in which in should ever be used to illustrate an article on anything other than an article specifically about photo distortion). Disagree that the lead image should never be changed as I can see a valid case for using an exterior shot for consistency with the other London termini. &#8209; Iridescent 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to imply "never be changed"; I qualified my last comment with the word "controversial". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For those who don't get the Escher reference, look at File:Escher's Relativity.jpg, File:Hand with Reflecting Sphere.jpg and File:House Of Stairs (Escher).jpg; then look at the image preferred by Rebroad. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Relativity is hanging on my wall next to me at this moment. It's endlessly fascinating. The Escher that Rebroad's image most reminds me of is Print Gallery.--DavidCane (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Relativity is hanging on my wall next to me at this moment. It's endlessly fascinating. The Escher that Rebroad's image most reminds me of is Print Gallery.--DavidCane (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

According to Consensus, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.". "totally inappropriate" is not a proper concern, as it is a POV. References to "Escher" are irrelevant, as Escher's work were drawings, whereas this is a photo we are discussing here, it has not been modified, and is an accurate representation of Liverpool Street station - AS ACCURATE as the photo that it was replacing. Is it AS ACCURATE because while it has straight lines distorted, it does not have size distorted, whereas the other picture maintains straight lines, but DISTORTS sizes. I.e. both photographs distort one thing at the expense of another. Therefore the argument that the photo I present is less accurate, is false. Therefore, this cannot factor into the decision making process, as it has been doing so so far. Rebroad (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, it is untrue that other editors did not appreciate the new photo. I have received thanks from editors for the new photo. Also, please see Cylindrical perspective for an explanation for a type of perspective of photo that you may not be aware of. This is a perfectly acceptable form of photography and there is no Wikipedia policy that I am aware of that suggests these photos are in some way "invalid" on Wikipedia. Rebroad (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that you are not neutral in this. You are pushing your own photograph. Cylindrical perspective (aka panorama view) spatially distorts the image. It may be an acceptable distortion for a wide landscape view where minor distortions do not affect the overall view, but in a closely packed environment such as the station concourse it presents too many anachronisms to the viewer. To my eyes it feels strained. You suggest that your photograph does not distort size just the straight lines whereas the Diliff picture distorts sizes. I'm not sure that I see size distortion in the Diliff picture that isn't also in yours, but as Diliff's picture is closer to natural perspective, that seems preferable to me.--DavidCane (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also much prefer the Diliff picture. -- Alarics (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And Rebroad continues to push the image:
 * reverted by
 * , your edit summary says see talk page, and DO NOT revert until discussion has been concluded - you should practice what you preach, see WP:BRD: you were Bold, it was Reverted (by me, most recently on 15 August 2019), now we are Discussing. Your persistence in reverting myself and others is WP:DISRUPTIVE and you should cease forthwith; I shall shortly serve you a formal WP:EW notice.
 * Aside from that, you claim it is untrue that other editors did not appreciate the new photo. I have received thanks from editors for the new photo - who are these people? Have any of them edited this talk page to state as much? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm a newcomer to this debate but The consensus here is not in any doubt,and I have restored the image that has been decided on here. Continued reinsertion of the other image, against that consensus, represents disruptive editing and will have to be escalated if it continues. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On that matter, I offer where the phrase "Redrose64 is just as much edit warring" is demonstrably fallacious:  has added the image eleven times so far, and I have restored the previous image on four occasions - less than half (they were also widely separated in time: 30 October 2015; 1 November 2017; 16 April 2018; 15 August 2019) -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

, there was nothing bold about my changing the picture to a newer one. However, reverting it was certainly Bold, so the Bold was you, the Revert was me, and now we are discussing it! Rebroad (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, yours was the initial edit, so it was the Bold one. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

As someone mentioned above "natural perspective". There is no such thing as "natural perspective", so this is not an argument for the existing image. So far, no valid (based on fact) arguments have been made for the long-standing image. Therefore, there is currently NO CONSENSUS, based on Wikipedia policy. See also this. --Rebroad (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Rebroad is despite the clear consensus here.  - David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've once again reinserted the Diliff image per consensus here. If Rebroad reverts yet again then a trip to WP:ANI will be merited, as they are exhibiting WP:IDHT behaviour. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In view of 's observation, I've on . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I went and took a photo of the exterior today, (right), since there didn't seem to be any. Not sure if this would be suitable? The angle was a bit tight as there are a lot of buildings around and crossrail development and suchlike. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there was no comment on the above, I have boldly substituted the image for this one of the exterior. Obviously if there are objections, we can go back to the previous one and discuss further! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am all for an exterior as the lead, however as you say the street environment around Liverpool Street is very messy at the moment, once all the hoardings and barriers have gone I'm sure someone will be able to take a great photo. Personally, for now, I prefer the previous of the concourse. --TBM10 (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WW1 Air Raid
Have changed the death toll at the station from 162 to 16 - the 162 applied to London as a whole, for instance the deaths at Upper North Street School. Have been able to examine the existing sources online, Sokolski is clear that 162 is a wider figure but Murphy says 162 dead at the station and that the station was destroyed. I've added an online source by Ian Castle with supports the view that 16 were killed at LST. So I think it appropriate to remove the Murphy source at that point, but wish to consult first AlasdairDaw (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * What makes www.iancastlezeppelin.co.uk a reliable source? Although I've done extensive work on the article, the citation to Murphy was already there when I started improvements in 2016; I'm not sure who could help. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Ian Castle has written a number of books for the Osprey publishing military campaign series. I have a copy of ‘London 1914-17’ and found that impressive. That book however only covers the Zeppelin attacks.
 * The website seems to be linked to Ian Castle and the title of the page “Britain’s first Blitz” suggests the material was taken from his book ‘The First Blitz’ but I didn’t want to assume that. Ideally I’d like to get hold of a copy of that book from the library to strengthen the reference, but I imagine that at some point someone will have to make a call on which of the versions of events\references to go with - if that's Murphy, no problem :-) . Thanks, all the best.AlasdairDaw (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Class 769 freight trial
This is mentioned in the article - did it ever happen? Will it become regular?

--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Electrification
As I understand it some original from of electrification went from Liverpool Street to Shenfield, around the 1930s using (i think) 1500v DC. I've only found a handful of mentions of it eg (p11 of ) and any more details would be appreciated (eg when it was replaced by 25Kv AC) --Pickle 15:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned here on p10 (1959) that 1500v DC has been started in the early 1950s and when the rest of the Liverpool street system is electrified to 25Kv AC (adopted standard in 1954 BTC modernisation plan) the 1500v DC system will have to replaced. --Pickle 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * on p34 (1959), it states Liverpool street to Shenfield was electrified at 1500v DC in 1949, and this system was extended Chemslford and Southend Victoria in 1956. Passengers and receipts "more than doubled".Pickle 16:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Added dates for Electrification voltage changes as it first changed from 1,500V dc to 6.25kV ac in 1959/60 with Liverpool St., Shenfield to Southend Victoria and with Shenfield to Chelmsford being converted to 25kV in 1961. With Class 306 and 307 units having to be rebuilt. Lines out to Chingford, Enfield Town, Hartford East, Bishops Stortford between 1956 and 1960 and energised in 1960 at 6.25kV ac on inner London and 25kV ac on the route to Bishops Stortford. In March 1962 the minister for transport had approved a modification to electrical clearances requirements. Took until the autumn of 1980 for voltage change from 6.25kV ac to 25kV ac before the then new class 315 units where introduced. (Kenny367) 16:30, 15 May 2021 (GMT)

Photos
This photo might come in handy one day:


 * Cool, thanks! Pcb21| Pete 08:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)