Talk:Northern line/Archive 1

Charing Cross?
Erm didn't Charing Cross (now Embankment) open in 1906 with the rest of the line (as the page on that station says)? The presence of "Charing Cross" in the original railway name suggests it was planned to be there from the start. -- Timrollpickering 21:52, Feb 10 2004 (UTC)


 * No, as I understand it, the "Charing Cross" station that opened with the line in 1907 (not 1906) was the station later known as "Strand", and now known as "Charing Cross" again. The present-day "Embankment" opened on the Bakerloo in 1906, and on the MDR even earlier, but wasn't served by the CCE&HR until later. See:
 * http://metadyne.tripod.com/CHX-EMBconundrum.html (The Embankment tube station page links to this but doesn't agree with it...)
 * http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/northern.html
 * --rbrwr&circ;


 * Ah mea culpa. Thanks for the links! -- Timrollpickering 23:27, Feb 10 2004 (UTC)

Just to confuse the issue the original Baker Street and Waterloo line station was called Embankment even though it provided on-site interchange with the MDR's Charing Cross station! It was renamed to Charing Cross (Embankment) at the same time (6/4/1914) as the CC&HR was extended to the embankment and the latter's Charing Cross station was renamed to Charing Cross (Strand). On 9/5/1915 they were renamed to Charing Cross (for all three interchanging underground lines) and Strand respectively. When the first section of the Jubilee line opened in 1979 the surface part of Strand station was closed: interchanges were provided with both the Northern line and Bakerloo line (via its former Trafalgar Square station) together with the main line station and all (re)named Charing Cross, with various surface entrances around the area; this meant that the District/Northern/Bakerloo interchange station formerly (for 64 years) known as Charing Cross was renamed...Embankment!! Still with me?! This should probably be in an article somewhere: the problem is which? Ivanberti (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Diagrams & incomplete lines




Feedback welcome. --rbrwr&circ;


 * Neat pictures. Go ahead and include them.
 * I'd never heard of the "Northern Heights" line suggestion. It'd be nice to have a line from Islington to NW London. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * nice northern heights diagram, although would be more accurate to class Edgware to Bushey Heath (via Brockley Hill and Elstree South/Elstree) as 'not completed' as tunnels were dug and viaducts built. The "Northern Heights" in fact were the extension from Highgate (Archway) to Finchley Church End (now Finchley Central) and on to Barnet. The rebuilding of the Finsbury Park to Muswell Hill via Highgate section is currently the focus of a local pressure group.
 * VampWillow 15:24, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Thanks. It was fixing the external link for that pressure group that reminded me I had these diagrams sitting on my hard disk. I think uploading was broken or the wiki was down at the time I first did them, and I never uploaded them. How about "Lines planned but not completed" as a description for the dashed-grey sections? --rbrwr&circ;


 * That would work fine, except that it did move beyond the planning stage into route construction. I wonder if a wiki article on the growth of London being dependent on and following the path of the extension of tube (and train) lines could be a good one (and a big interest of mine!). On the possible re-instatement of the Finsbury Park - Highgate section it is also a further possible addition to the East London Line extension to the former and would relieve pressure on the Northern line when it gets renovated. --VampWillow 15:44, 2004 May 9 (UTC)


 * But it was planned... and it was incomplete, right? ;-) --rbrwr&circ;


 * I can see where you are coming from, but the point is it wasn't the planning that was incomplete (which this wording suggests) but the construction. VampWillow 19:22, 2004 May 9 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I hadn't considered that it might imply that the planning was incomplete. I'm not even sure that it does. Still, I want something I can fit into two lines... "Lines not completed"? --rbrwr&circ;


 * That works for me. There are plenty of lines which have appeared as 'future extensions' but never been realised sufficiently to apply for planning, let alone started on the construction phase. (The ELLE options and Crossrail come to mind!). --VampWillow 20:20, 2004 May 9 (UTC)


 * Uploaded with "Lines not completed" - force a browser reload if you can't see it. --rbrwr&circ;


 * looks great. Should I mention that I then realised "Extensions not completed" was also only three words? ;-) VampWillow


 * I'm more worried about how such a large graphic is going to sit on the page - thumbnailing it will probably render it illegible. My original scheme was to have a smaller, less detailed version which could link to the big diagram. I'm not so sure about that now. One to sleep on, I think. --rbrwr&circ; 23:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, then, a separate detailed article on the Northern Heights plan (probably under that name), with a paragraph synopsis here. A smaller version of the 'Formation' diagram would be really good for here, though. And I suspect other lines could do with similar diagrams for their 'history' section - David Gerard 23:16, May 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Something that should be borne in mind though is that this was a plan to cross the "northern heights" rather than a plan called the "northern heights plan". The "Northern Heights" (in London terms) are the stretch of hills from (very roughtly) North Ealing through Willesden, Hampstead, Highgate, Muswell Hill to Barnet and existed long before the tube was a figment of an idea. (Hence why Archway was originally started as a tunnel, and the routing of three separate overground lines through West Hampstead, for example). I have seen this part of the New Works Programme referred to as "Crossing the Northern Heights" a number of times; maybe that would be appropriate here too? --VampWillow 09:27, 2004 May 10 (UTC)


 * Small formation diagram in new section below... --rbrwr&circ;


 * "Lines planned // but incomplete" would fit better.
 * James F. (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --rbrwr&circ;

The interesting thing about the planned/incomplete thing to me is, looking at the bit I know well and at the histories etc, just how MUCH work they did on the FP-AP line towards making it Northern Line - all the cable stuff, power buildings, new station buildings, platform heights etc etc. Looking back now (especially with the traffic round here) it just makes you go NOOOOOO!!! Though it is also very nice how it is now, one has to admit... But it has a very Becching-esque (yes I know) feel about it - chances squandered etc etc. Nevilley 19:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, especially if you walk the old line from Finsbury Park to Highgate then see all the lines in place at the north end of the tunnel where LT built their sheds. The platforms and line alignment are all still in place and much as somewhere to walk is nice we do have Highgate Woods, Finsbury Park and other areas that can provide a similar facility very close by. It is only on the Muswell Hill section that there might be a problem with a few new buildings but it too is a pleasant walk at the moment. (Writing this is actually making me want to walk it on the next fine day in fact!) --VampWillow 20:24, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Highly valued
I don't think it's necessarily POV to include a descriptive adjective in "the route, now the "Parkland Walk", is highly valued by walkers and cyclists". If you just say it's valued, well what is at valued as? 0?? It's really rather meaningless without something saying how they value it. And at the risk of repeating something which has been said here ad nauseam, it is not POV merely to report someone's POV. The small amendment I made does not make the claim from the wiki that it is of high value: it reports that to these people, it is. I find it a bit sad that people seem to think that NPOVing an article consists of removing anything about people's perceptions of quality: it does not. Nevilley 18:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It isn't a case of removing anything about people's perceptions but that there is only one POV now being presented. There are a lot of people who would like to see this route re-opened (especially with the worsening bus services and car / parking issues) alongside the relief it would bring to the Northern line and travel time reduction it would bring for those heading to Docklands and the possible Stratford / Olympics areas, so I'd rather see this very one-sided POV removed entirely. --VampWillow 19:21, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

VW, I've looked at it again and I swear that I cannot see how it is one-sided and PoV. It says what the group wants, it says that the doggie people etc value it highly, it says, truthfully, that there has not been much movement on this issue. And it gives an ext link (which I put in) to the MHMG. I honestly do not think that you can see a Pov from the wiki in it - it tries to present others' PoVs, which I what I think we should be doing. I am sorry if you think it's still wrong but please by all means have a go at sorting it out by adding stuff to it. I am sure we can work together on this. Nevilley 19:54, 9 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough ... I do accept that the intention is to show some people would miss the 'walk' aspect, but it isn't giving equal weight (my working definition of NPOV) to the people that would like the line reopened. I'll check with my GLA contacts about what the current prognosis is --VampWillow 20:20, 2004 May 9 (UTC)


 * It's probably better to fix it by adding the other important POVs rather than removing this important one - David Gerard 22:10, May 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * to be honest, with the best will in the world I still cannot see how the paragraph in its current form is POV, and I am unsure about what "giving equal weight" to someone's views means in an encyclopedia article, where I would have thought that presenting the facts accurately was what we were all striving for. It already does not present a POV, merely says a number of facts as far as I can see. I am not trying to pick a fight here but what change, exactly, would give "equal weight to the people that would like the line reopened"? I don't see how saying that their views are relevant and important and they are quite right and will win in the end and so on would improve the article, indeed it's a bit hard to see how far one can go with this without making it somewhat POV in the pro-light-rail direction, thoiugh I am maybe missing the point about how it could be changed. However, the best way forward is clearly to try to do something with it rather then keep on debating it here so I will look forward to seeing what changes are made to make it more POV, in your view. At the same time, I note that someone up there ^ proposes that the whole NH thing is pushed out into a separate article, so maybe if it does the question of the future of the line should also be in there? Nevilley 08:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * oh and btw I just noticed this: "the intention is to show some people would miss the 'walk' aspect," - erm, no, that wasn't the intention, so maybe I messed up adding what I did as it cannot have been clear. The intention was to explain why the reopening of the line can hardly be said to seem likely right now, and to explain that if it does reach the stage of a serious proposal from a body with powers to propose it, it is likely to run into heated opposition from the people who like it how it is. This has a direct bearing on giving information about the future of the line, but is NOT, repeat NOT, designed to make a case for the walkers' POV - merely to point out that since they do hold this view you need to know about it when you are thinking how very nice it would be to take a tram or whatever from Cranley Gardens through Highgate and nip off at Stroud Green! I don't think it is informative or useful to tell people that it might be repopened one day without mentioing some of the reasons why it might not happen, and I am not flattered to find that in trying to do so I am accused of adopting a POV in the article. But, as I say, I will look forward to the next attempt to clarify this without producing an unbalanced article. Nevilley 08:30, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Diagrams continued


This was about as small as I could practically get it - the text has to remain a reasonable size and start to get cramped if I made the lines any smaller. I've sacrificed the label for Camden Town. Does it work for you? --rbrwr&circ;

...and for completeness the small Northern Heights diagram, though captions etc. may have to change. Note that there is no key to the colour-coding. --rbrwr&circ;




 * Maybe they could do with tweaks, but I just put them on the page. Excellent work! Now you can do diagrams for all the other lines ;-D - David Gerard 22:17, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

crossing closed again 17.5.04
I put this in as it sounds significant. However if it turns out to be a flash in the pan and it reopens tomorrow, out it can come again! :) Nevilley 21:52, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * How long does it have to remain shut for before they reclassify it as two different lines that just happen to share track south of Kennington? ;)  Morwen 21:56, May 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * doesn't seem that significant (had to go searching to find info) and according to TfL site is very temporary so probably not worthy of mainpage detail. "A special split Northern line service has been introduced following the identification overnight by Tube Lines, our maintenance company, of the need for emergency engineering work on the track at Camden Town. Track restrictions have been introduced as a precautionary measure until the emergency engineering work can be completed. A London Underground spokesperson said: "A reduced peak train service is in operation and we apologise to passengers for the disruption to their journey this morning. We hope to restore a full Northern line service as soon as possible." --VampWillow 00:00, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

It appears that it was indeed a flash in the pan (I hope) and has now gone. Nevilley 08:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Kennington
Southbound trains on this branch often terminate at Kennington, where they reverse by means of a loop track.

Is this bit about the loop track correct? In Edgware, the trains need not reverse - the driver simply walks to the cabin on the other end of the train! JFW | T@lk  20:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes; the loop means that they don't even have to walk down the train. Alternatively there is a central siding in which they can reverse [in the sense of "head in the other direction"], though this potentially involves interfering with operations on the Bank branch. There is no crossover to allow trains to turn back northbound from the platform. If you go to this page you will be able to see a diagram of the Kennington area (and other stations as well). --rbrwr&circ; 20:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Rbrwr. I've loved the tube for the last 15 years, but I am a complete ignoramus as to its functioning. Apart from the closed-down Embankment loop and the Kennington one, are you aware of other similar loops in the tube network?? JFW | T@lk  22:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Heathrow is on a loop; there was also a loop at Wood Lane (Central Line) which was closed in favour of White City, explained in great detail by Tubeprune and Hywel. I suppose you could count the Hainault loop (also Central Line)... or even the whole Circle Line! --rbrwr&circ; 23:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Muswell Hill Metro Group
The Muswell Hill Metro Group link is dead.

Does anyone know if there is a new one or the status of this group?

Jonny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.232.31 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2005