Talk:Northern line/Archive 3

"Commuter" Line
Has anyone heard about a disused "fast" line running parallel to the Northern Line...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yve0 (talk • contribs)


 * You're probably thinking of the London deep-level shelters built under a number of stations (most but not all of them on the Northern Line) during World War 2. The theory was advanced that they could form part of an express route, but it never came to pass. They should really be mentioned in this article... --rbrwr&plusmn; 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Misery line
The article mentions that the Northern Line used to be called the "misery line". When I lived in London it had a reputation as the grottiest of the lines, and it seemed slightly more old-fashioned than the other lines, although it didn't seem any more aggravating than e.g. the Piccadilly line, which almost broke me. Apart from the building work and accident covered later in the article, is there a historical reason, and a good source, for this bad reputation? E.g. this article from the Evening Standard circa 2005, which says that "the reputation of the line is not good at the best of times". Is this simply because the line is overcrowded? -Ashley Pomeroy 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had to alter one of the comments above - Wikipedia won't save the page if it has tinyurl's URL in the text, so I have split it into two words. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expanded them to their linked to URLs and then contracted them by giving some alternate text for the display Mr Weeble  Talk Brit tv 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is because the line splits into two when it enters central London, it takes forever for your train to arrive if you have just missed the particular train that you need. And then on top of that, there are always delays because of the trains having to merge on the other side of London.  It is a nightmare.  You have to allow twice the normal travel time for that particular part of the journey, and, of course, the platforms end up being crowded with 50% of the people not wanting to get on the next train.  And all those people makee it that much hotter in the summer.  Actually, it's still that way today, and I was unaware that the Northern Line "used" to be called the "misery line" - my understanding is that that is still it's nickname today, in May 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.246 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2009
 * When I visited London the first time, back in 1976 (I was 12). We stayed at a hotel called "Central City". Closest Tube station was Angel station, and I remember that a lift was used to enter the platform. No stairs or escalators ! Also the ceiling lights of the platform looked old, and they didn't give much light. But whu thename ? I mean Northern Line is the line with most stations south of the river. Boeing720 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To deal with your points in order: Angel was one of the last Northern Line stations to retain both lifts and the island-platform layout; more at Angel tube station. The name "Northern line" was chosen at a time when there was a plan to significantly extend the lines (see Northern line) through a part of outer London known as the "Northern Heights", over lines formerly owned by the Great Northern Railway and by the Great Northern and City Railway. The proportion of the line south of the river was not a factor. There are presently 34 stations north of the river compared to 16 south of the river; the route mileage north of the river is also greater; and both Bank and Charing Cross are closer to Morden than to either High Barnet, Mill Hill East or Edgware. If the line had reached the planned terminus at Bushey Heath, the balance would have been even more in favour of Northern as opposed to Southern.
 * But please note that this thread is between three and six years old (it was started in February 2007 and last added to in May 2009), and Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Separate the Northern Heights section to its own page
The Northern Heights plan is an interesting aspect of the history of the line, but only part of it is relevant to the line as currently operated. The plan should be referenced in this article especially in respect of the extension north of the present Archway station, but its main part separated into its own page. I don't know but would be very interested to know the reasons for the eventual abandonment of the extension over the Ally Pally line and the Mill Hill - Edgware line. Ivanberti 09:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A separate article for the Northern Heights is something I have had on my back burner for some time and am researching intermittently - Some information is already at the Edgware, Highgate and London Railway article. Part of the reason that the Muswell Hill branch closed after the war and the Mill Hill to Edgware section was never reopened was the cost of completing the electrification and upgrade works when funds were severely restricted by the need to repair the war-ravaged system; part of the reason was that the lines just did not have enough passengers. The short Muswell Hill branch was competing with buses to Highgate and the passengers from the two LNER stations at Edgware and Mill Hill (The Hale) had alternatives nearby (Edgware tube station and Mill Hill Broadway) for services into London. With the section north of Highgate already in service and the extension to Bushey Heath cancelled, there was little to be gained by taking over the remaining parts of the old LNER routes.--DavidCane 21:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * --Those considerations are undoubtedly true in respect of the Muswell Hill branch and Mill Hill - Edgware upgrade and electrification. However it seems that the works to link the Northern City line to Highgate High Level and hence to the Northern Line Barnet branch were at a very advanced stage; this link was very much (I've since discovered) an integral part of the planned services on the Northern Line (half the High Barnet services), and the tracks north of Highgate were double-electrified anyway to give access to the Highgate depot. Of course under wartime conditions, tough decisions had to be made so perhaps it's understandable that only one major extension (Archway - East Finchley - High Barnet) was completed then. But it still seems somewhat perverse not to complete the Finsbury Park - Highgate High Level upgrade at what must have been marginal cost after the war; surely most City-bound passengers from Highgate northwards would have opted for this more direct route?

Ivanberti 09:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the peak service anticipated to High Barnet was 7 trains per hour from both Highgate High Level and Highgate Low Level. Off-peak trains from High Level would terminate at East Finchley, leaving 6 (weekdays off-peak) and 3 (Sundays) tph to work through from Low Level to High Barnet. Ex-High Level trains were not intended to work through to Mill Hill and Edgware.

Ivanberti 14:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've slightly revamped the structure of the article as a whole and made the Northern Heights plan a main heading, with that section itself further broken down. I've added a summary of research I've carried out on intended service levels. I've left the detail on the opening of the Barnet extension though I've copied this to a subsection specifically about the Barnet extension, as this will help the content if and when moved to its own article.

Ivanberti (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nine-Car Plan
I understand that there was a plan to run 9-car trains on the Northern Line at one point, in the 20s or 30s. Apparently, some of the stations were built with 9-car-long platforms in order to allow this: i don't know if this is the Edgware and Morden extensions, or the later completed bit of the Northern Heights, from Archway to High Barnet. The idea, i am told, was to run 9-car trains, and to lock out the rear two cars in the older 7-car sections. I understand it got as far as having trains put together, or at least the carriages bought, but never went into proper operation, as it was silly.

Anyway, it would be good if someone with access to more factual facts could write something about this, even if it's just a note in the section on the relevant extension.

-- Tom Anderson 2007-09-24 19:13 +0100

Update! This is all from Rails Through The Clay, 2nd edition, and i'm paraphrasing someone else's excerpt.

It was in fact done, starting on 8th November 1937 with one train, and having three trains added in February 1938. No idea when it was stopped - it was still going in the peaks in June 1939. As the dates indicate, this was not done with the ex-LNER High Barnet extension, but the 1920s Edgware extension. Golders Green, as rebuilt, and all the new stations north of there had 9-car platforms. The trains stopped in the 'normal' way, with the rear two cars left in the tunnel, at all stations from Hampstead south, except Tottenham Court Road, where the front two cars were in the tunnel. The rear two cars were thus a sort of Golders Green - Tottenham Court Road express, with the front two cars being for all stations except Tottenham Court Road. The weird thing is that it seems to have been different on the northbound trip - the front two cars were in the tunnel from Kennington to Leicester Square, and the rear two at Tottenham Court Road and all points north. Thus, the rear two cars were a Kennington - Waterloo - Charing Cross - Embankment - Leicester Square - Golders Green semi-fast of sorts, and the front two all stops from Tottenham Court Road to Edgware. Also, it's not clear that these patterns were used on both legs: the southbound pattern was used in the morning peak, and the northbound in the evening peak, but the text hints by omission that the legs against the peak flow were just done with the rear cars not in use. I don't know about this, though.

-- ta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.81.51 (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've recently being doing some research on the LPTB New Works Programme of 1935-40. In the original 1935 estimate of £35 million of capital works, £1.9 million was allocated to Northern Line improvements which I think was essentially the plan to roll out the lengthened platforms to accommodate longer trains. By October 1937 the specification of the new rolling stock also associated with the programme had been altered such that instead of the motors being in the leading and trailing cars, they were ingeniously placed below floor level (I suppose this is the classic 1938 stock). This increased the cost per car (coach) but 'at a stroke' increased the capacity of each train. The 1937 re-estimates as a whole demonstrate that the original estimates tended to underestimate the cost of the programme, so the Board were no doubt looking for economies. With the increased capacity of the trains, it was deemed that the train and hence platform lengthenings were unnecessary (millions of rush-hour passengers since then might disagree!). A decision therefore seems to have been taken to scrap the 'improvements' (while carrying on with, indeed expanding, the Northern Heights extensions). This saved £1.835 million against the increased cost of rolling stock of £0.505 million. The overall net cost estimate for the Northern Line works (excluding the added Edgware - Aldenham extension) was reduced by £1.347, as compared for example with an increase in estimate cost for the Central Line extensions and improvements of £3.264.

Ivanberti 08:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the figures in the last sentence above are of course in millions!

Ivanberti 14:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverse platforms
Why do bank and London bridge have reversed situations i.e. trains arrive on the right track instead of left, in a similar fashion to White City...? Simply south 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Borough is also wrongly handed but because the platforms are at different levels and not adjacent it is not so obvious. The tunnels cross one another south of Borough station under the junction of Newington Causeway and Borough Road. When the City & South London Railway was constructed in the late 1880s, it was obliged to avoid tunnelling under buildings due to fears that the excavation works and later the vibrations of the trains would do harm to structures on the surface. At the northern end of the line, the approach to King William Street station was severely constrained by the narrowness of the surrounding roads. The reason for the tubes swapping their normal arrangement was probably to achieve the most advantageous alignment in their approach to King William Street - the Borough Road/Newington Causeway junction being chosen as the cross-over point because it was large enough to accommodate the cross-over without inteferring with the surface. --DavidCane 00:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a very long story, but essentially the tunnels under the Thames were built first with no real thought of what would happen north of there. Importantly, the easternmost tunnel was also built higher. When the approach to King William St was built, it made sense to make the higher tunnel the northbound tunnel to minimize the gradient into the station. This inevitably meant right hand running south of the river. --Mr Thant 01:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Where between Bank and Moorgate do they switch back? Simply south 16:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Between Bank and Moorgate stations :p ;) —  MapsMan  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 21:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine due to the shimmy just south of Moorgate (at least when you head northbound), that's where they cross back over! Sunil060902 11:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My observation is that at Borough the northbound track lies directly above the southbound one. (By Elephant and Castle the tracks are at the same level but, unusually the platforms are on the outsides of the tracks rather han between them.) &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The position of the crossings and platforms are shown in maps like:
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
To Northern line for consistency with TfL's naming convention. — MapsMan  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been a bit of a contentious issue recently, but Wikipedia style guidelines suggest TfL's convention should be ignored in favour of the standard English rules for proper nouns, and I agree. --Mr Thant 22:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Honour, may I present Exhibits A and B? Sunil060902 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the Underground line articles in Category:London Underground use the lower-case 'l'. It seems that the decision should be made, not on an article-by-article basis, but for all such articles at once. I imagine WikiProject London Transport might be a good place to have such a discussion, if it hasn't already happened. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is c2c incorrect as a page title then? Sunil060902 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This should not be called Northern Line or Northern line, rather it should be called Northern line (London Underground) or Northern Line (London Underground). Northern line is much too ambiguous. 132.205.99.122 19:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What other articles would it get confused with? D-Notice 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been moved yet like the other line articles? Sunil060902 15:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose English conventions supersede all except in specific cases like iPod when a brand name applies with specific formatting. Just because the others break the rules (and were moved with little or no discussion), doesn't mean this one should as well. Regan123 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But these are brand names! See Exhibits A and B! best. Sunil060902 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Naming applies here. Small l is not appropriate. Regan123 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Objection, Your Honour! Has my learned friend not seen Exhibits A and B? best, Sunil060902 10:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article to "Northern line" for the sake of consistency with the other articles. If someone would like to debate the issue, it should cover all the line articles. Is "Line" a part of the title of the line, and thus subject to capitalization? Or is it just a common noun and can be left in lowercase? We do not have to follow LU's convention, but the argument for capitalization of "Line" is not decisive. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 09:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the real world they appear as above in Exhibits A and B. best, Sunil060902 11:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, and I previously mooted the possibility of lowercasing "line" (at Talk:London Underground). However, Wikipedia is not obliged to follow nonstandard capitalization (see WP:CAPS). I'm not saying this is nonstandard; I think the stronger case is made for "line" as a common noun, as the LU uses it. However, others have argued the opposite above, so itwould be best to seek consensus. My move was made on the simple grounds that all the other LU line articles used a lowercase L and this one did not. Regards, Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Having said this, I have noticed that the article moves in question were all made by you. Now, there's nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD, and as I mentioned, a good case can be made for moving these articles to lowercased "line" (which, on balance, I would prefer, although some disambiguation may be required). However, a good case can also be made for capitalizing it. (There was once a debate on the name of Newcastle Central Station; I argued for capitalized S in this case, as being modified by an adjective it is part of the name, unlike, say "Euston station".) However, they should all be the same, not a mixture of Line and line. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 11:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I find the move of this despite the ongoing discussion precipitous at the least. I will not revert because I am not going to get into an edit war, but effectively endorsing a previously undiscussed move is not pleasing, though I accept the good motives of the editor who moved it and at least it was done properly this time. Regan123 19:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)