Talk:Northern line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on London's transport system. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or visit the Portal.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (add assessment comments)

High

This article has been rated as high-importance within the London Transport WikiProject.

Northern line was the selected article of the London Transport Portal between 10th January 2007 - 22nd March 2007.

1 Charing Cross?
2 Diagrams & incomplete lines
3 Highly valued
4 Diagrams continued
5 crossing closed again 17.5.04
6 Kennington
7 Northern Line in Merseyrail
8 Separation of Northern Line?
- 8.1 What really happens at Camden Town?
9 Fake Buildings
10 Mistake in map
11 Muswell Hill Metro Group
12 "Commuter" Line
13 Misery line
14 Separate the Northern Heights section to its own page
15 Nine-Car Plan
16 Reverse platforms
17 Requested move

[edit] 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 ˆ

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)

[edit] Diagrams & incomplete lines

Feedback welcome. --rbrwr ˆ

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 ˆ

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 ˆ

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 ˆ

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 ˆ

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 ˆ 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 ˆ

"Lines planned // but incomplete" would fit better.

James F. (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --rbrwr ˆ

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ˆ

...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 ˆ

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ˆ 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 ˆ 23:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Line in Merseyrail

This page should really be renamed to "Northern Line (London Underground)" or similar, to avoid confusion with the Merseyrail Northern Line. Unfortunately, I lack the expertise or courage to take on such a task... --me_and 10:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Given the age of *the* Northern Line and the previous lack of previous knowledge of any 'Northern Line' on Merseyrail, and the number of links in each case, then it is clear that the current page should stay exactly where it is but a Northern Line (disambiguation) page linked to with an onward link to Northern Line (Merseyrail) should that line be sufficiently notable to have an article to itself in addition to the one about Merseyrail. It certainly should not be renamed / moved. --Vamp:Willow 10:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll try and write something for a Northern Line (Merseyrail) page when I get a chance. --me_and 15:00, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Separation of Northern Line?

I recall hearing of plans at one time to separate the Northern Line into two lines on the LU diagram, as happened to the Metropolitan with the creation of the Hammersmith & City line (and arguably the Jubilee line). It's not hard to imagine how this might be carried out, and it would make navigation easier, at least for tourists. And, of course, it would make sense to have the southernmost Underground line be called, say, the City & South London line rather than the Northern line. Can anyone provide details about when or if this was considered, if so how seriously was it taken, and did or will anything come of it? --ProhibitOnions 11:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think it was proposed and discounted on the basis that too many people would need to change trains at Camden Town and that station does not have the capacity. MRSC 15:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to happen after all, at least according to the 2025 plan. I hope TfL reintroduces the "City & South" name for one of the branches. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

or, perhaps, call the Morden branch the Southern line :) :p — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put the statement about this back in with some tweaking. AlisonW couldn't find the discussion of it because after TfL reorganised their site, someone here updated the reference but linked to the wrong document. --82.45.163.4 23:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What really happens at Camden Town?

Talking of northern line branches, does the strip diagram on this page reflect reality just south of Camden? I mean does it really merge into a middle bit between (A), or do the tracks cross above/below each other (B)?

A)|     |    B)|     |
  |\   /|      |\   /|
  | \ / |      | \ / |
  |  |  |      |  \  |
  |  |  |      | / \ |
  | / \ |      |/   \|
  |/   \|      |     |
  |     |

...and how can we know for sure? Also I guess the same pattern of junctions repeats above/below for the northbound/southbound tracks. Confusing.

Would be good to illustrate the Camden Town tube station article with a zoomed in diagram showing this.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The actual routing is more complicated than both of those and uses multiple step junctions to enable trains from each northern branch to reach each central section and vice versa. The original junction built by the Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway only had to cater for trains coming from the northern branch to the single Charing Cross branch but it was modified in the early 1920s to provide a link for the city & South London Railway between Camden Town and Euston. See here and here for diagrams. --DavidCane (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a limit to what the little pictograms can do (sadly!) but no, the crossovers don't touch. it is possible to run non-competing services in both directions at all times. --AlisonW (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Just as I thought. That diagram certainly shows the junctions more clearly. Thanks. So that settles the argument I was having with my girlfriend! As I say, it would be good to have something like that on the Camden Town tube station article. Presumably that image is copyrighted though -- Harry Wood (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Buildings

Sorry if this sounds foolish but I heard some while ago that a certain part of the london subway - not sure which line, may even be gone now - was made in such a way that they couldn't have real buildings up anymore so they built fakes to either side of the road. I don't know much more about this but if it's true can you give me the name? Chooserr

No, it doesn't sound foolish at all. It's 23 and 24 Leinster Gardens, London W2.

Try this Google search: link

Or this map: link

Or these pages:

http://www.nyclondon.com/blog/

http://www.urban75.org/london/leinster.html

http://www.londonist.com/archives/2005/07/londonist_loves_10.php

Actually we are in the wrong Talk page here as it's NOT the Northern line. Because of the Tube's interestingly complex history you will see this line listed - for example in the above articles - as various different ones. This is more about the services that run over it than about the line per se, but I will leave all that to someone else to worry about! :) 138.37.199.199 08:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well thank you, and Sorry if I used the wrong talk page :)...I just didn't know where it was. But thank you again, I'll check out the links now. - Chooserr

see Leinster Gardens — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake in map

The "Geographically accurate path of the Northern Line" is different from the "Zone 1" and "Zone 2" maps at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_geographic_maps - the two branches (West End, City) take different routes between Euston and Camden Town stations. Occultations 11:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed the map you refer to is inaccurate and should not be refered to as a "geographically accurate" map. The Charing X branch which contains Mornington crescent station actually runs to the east of the Bank branch in reality. I will change the title of this map (again). Deckchair (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with you re Mornington Crescent et al, the map is a "geographically accurate map of the stations on the Northern line" and, indeed, were it not geographically accurate in some manner there would be no point in having it here at all! Given that few people will be content with the gallery thumbnail it should be noted that the click-through image page makes it distinctly clear that the route between stations is interpolated and may be inaccurate. --AlisonW (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The change of description from "Geographically accurate path of the Northern line" to "Geographically accurate map of the stations on the Northern line" seems to be a much better solution. Good stuff. Deckchair (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] "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 ^± 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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, [1] 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 MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Exhibit A: Northern line cab

Exhibit B: Northern line route diagram

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. ProhibitOnions ^(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, ProhibitOnions ^(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. ProhibitOnions ^(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)