Talk:Waterloo & City line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

London Transport
 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.
B 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.



Surely it's known as the drain because it smells!

(unfortunateley that aspect did not appear to have been a part of the renovation of the line as last night it still did! Johnmarkh)


are the tunnels significantly narrower than the rest of the tube? AFAIK they're now using stock from the Central Line. I also heard that it was called The Drain because of the general squallor of the carriages when it was a British Rail line. -- Tarquin


The W&C tubes are actually slightly larger than most of the older deep-level lines: 3.70m instead of the 3.56m that was standard for the Yerkes group tubes.
As for the origins of the name, this Usenet thread [1] suggests it's due to the smell of the marshland on which Waterloo was built. The name seems to be quite old, so probably isn't connected to the condition of any particular stock.
Oh, and I think "It has only two stations, Waterloo and Bank, running under the River Thames" is a slightly odd turn of phrase, given that neither station is actually under the Thames. I'll change it.
--rbrwr

Should this be at Waterloo and City Line? It it officially "and" or "&"?--ALargeElk 09:56, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, checked it myself - it is correct. I'll correct the reference in the article. --ALargeElk 09:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Closed in 1994?

City opened: August 8, 1898. Renamed: (Bank): October 28, 1940. Closed: March 31, 1994. Reopened: April 5, 1994. Waterloo opened: August 8, 1898. Closed: March 31, 1994. Reopened: April 5, 1994.

The closing dates look suspiciously like Easter weekend to me - is this really a closure, even if the ownership was transferred at that time?

Also wasn't the line temporarily closed in late 1993 to change the trains, refurbish the travelator and tidy up the stations? Timrollpickering 13:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CULG agrees with you on the 1993 closure, and also lists a few other minor closures. Clive does count the 1994 changeover as a closure, but I think you do have a point, if the line would have been closed during that time anyway. Has the Drain run on Easter Saturday morning in other years? --rbrwr± 17:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whlst the line was run by Network South East and even previously under British Rail, the line ran Monday to Friday and Saturday mornings only. It did not run on Public Holidays, and it did not run on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Monday, as the City was mainly closed. The line would therefore have been closed anyway for this weekend, so It doesn't count as a 'closure' as such.
86.133.8.129 14:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The picture is not the Waterloo & City Line stock - it is Central Line 1992 stock. There is a picture of the W&C stock on the British Rail Class 482 page. Our Phellap 18:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, LU seeem to regard them as exactly equivalent; see their 1992 stock page. Hmmm.... have I seen that image somewhere before? Copyvio ahoy! --rbrwr± 19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've uploaded a photo of a '92 stock train at Bank to replace the above. I've captioned it as 'modified 1992 stock' because the two types are now sufficiently different (the Central now has ATO and the Drain doesn't, for instance) that they can't interoperate fully. Mpk 21:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Livery and gauge

I can't say I agree with Moilleadóir's reversion of my deletion of [[User::Greaterlondoner|Greaterlondoner's]] paragraph. I made it go away because it's ambiguous and confusing on two counts:

  • The LUL standard livery is not used on all LU stock other than the W&C anyway. Off the top of my head, at least unrefurbished D stock is still in bare metal, although this will change as the refurb programme gets underway.
  • "The (smaller/larger) of the two sizes used on the network" is pretty simplistic and implies that there are only two sets of dimensions used across the entire LU fleet. Not so - for instance, while the Circle and District are both subsurface lines, D stock is not cleared around the entire Circle Line due to clearance issues at junctions. Maybe a more rigorous treatment of thie entire area is needed?

-- Mpk 11:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of this subject (mine is close to zero) and applaud the inclusion of more detail, however I still think the inclusion of some more simplistic or summarized information would be worthwhile. I don't see anything wrong with making some generalisations (using words such as most) so long as the details are given further on.
Maybe some kind of info box at the start of the train section, describing the stock used on the line and the livery, would be the way to go. It's worth noting that the line you deleted is the only content in this section for many lines.
I think the inclusion of two levels of information is a good idea because I have to confess that as I was skimming the articles for the different lines I did not want to read the 3 or 4 paras in this section, just the first one which was formatted the same as the other articles. My Dad worked in the railways most of his life and so I'm somewhat interested in trains, just not that interested.
If you do take this on I'd encourage you to also include it in the articles for the other lines, even if it's in an incomplete form, because that will encourage others to complete it and will make all the articles look more consistent and professional.
—Moilleadóir 06:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree with you - a standard 'data box' for Underground lines would be a nice thing. I'm not that good at these things, but will see how they're done elsewhere and see if I can come up with something suitable that could be applied to all LUL line articles.
Mpk 18:23, 16 August 2005 (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

You're thinking of 23/24 Leinster Gardens, which are located above the Circle Line between Paddington and Bayswater; more information - including pictures - can be found at: http://underground-history.co.uk/cutncover.php#leinster 195.92.40.49 11:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stations

The Wikipedia convention on LU topics seems to be to put details of stations in the appropriate article on that station. For that reason I think we should remove all references to station details (refurbishment, whether they have lifts etc.) to the appropriate station topic. As an aside I think the history of the line could do with expansion as it seems to be currently dominated by Rolling Stock.--Pedantic of Purley 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of Bank station

I've twice reverted claims that the Bank station was not originally called City. See - firstly - further up in this talk page (City became Bank in 1940) and - secondly - The Waterloo and City Railway by Gillam, Oakwood Press 2001, which is the mammoth 464-page comprehensive history of the line. Please don't remove that sentence again without citing reliable sources. --Mike 17:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm the original use of the name 'City' for the northern terminus. I have a modest collection of maps of the London Underground system. All the maps from 1900 (my earlier ones predate the line), to 1930 show the northern terminus as 'City'. My 1940 map (believed to have been produced in December of that year) shows the northern terminus as 'Bank' and also shows a previously absent interchange with the Central and Northern lines. It further shows the escalator connection with monument, which is also absent from the 1930 map (built circa 1933, I believe). Unfortunately, I have no maps of my own between 1930 and 1940, but others that I have seen would suggest that the changes probably occured in 1940. This would appear to coincide with the conclusion of the replacement of the lifts on the Central Line with escalators which moved the Central Line's ticket hall to more or less the top of the Waterloo and City's fixed staircase (later paralleled with a pair of 'Travolators').
The name change from City to Bank occured on the 28th October 1940. The Bank to Monument escalator connection opened on the 18th August 1933.

[edit] Unwanted Editing

Wikipedia encourages the addition or correction of the information. It also encourages correction of grammar (assuming the corrector is actually familiar with the rules). But editing the literary style just because you don't like it, is the height of downright discourtesy. I have been writing technical articles and documentation in the aerospace industry for the last 35 years. The board of trade, really were horrified as you would discover if you read what they said about it.

[edit] Reopening Date

Metonetrail originally announced the reopening date as 1st September. They even had a countdown clock on their website which has now gone. However a careful read implied this is when they were due to hand it over. As it is extremely unlikely that the W&C would be reopened on a Friday, the 4th September seemed much more likely. This is consistent with the fiasco over Queensway reopening where Metronetrail quote completion as the handover date which does not allow for LUL/HMRI safety checks and approval before allowing the public to use it.

I am fairly certain I saw 4th September being quoted on a LUL or TfL press release. Unfortunately I can no longer find it which probably means it has been quietly withdrawn.

I originally altered 1st September to 4th September as I believe that was more accurate. I strongly suspect that "they" are now struggling to meet this deadline. We will have to wait and see.

So the basic answer is the 4th September is not necessarily correct but it was believed to be the intended date and more accurate than 1st September. Personally if someone wants to change the planned re-opening date or be more vague I am quite happy.--Pedantic of Purley 09:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traction cables in rolling stock

I do not agree with the statement that "gapping" exist on all third rail railways to the extent of what it is on London Underground. On the Southern Railway for example traction cables are used in each EMU 'unit' (4 or 5 cars for the new SW trains' Desiros) but not between these units when coupled. At renewals the layout is designed to minimise gapping, though it is not possible at complex junctions. Quite why this has not yet been transferred to London Underground I do not know but I have been told it is related to fire safety in tunnels.

I think the leading case was a fire in East Berlin in the 1950's in which there were multiple fatalities (i.e. people burnt to death). Two units were coupled, but the traction cables between them had been imperfectly coupled, so that there was a resistance in the connection. When several hundred amps are passing through a coupling, a few ohms in the connection can genrate a few kilowatts and this soon makes a merry fire. If non-tehnical operating staff are coupling and uncoupling units routinely, the risk is that eventually this will happen. If only the control cable is connected, then the power and heat generated (if a poor connection is made) are obviously much less.

The pre-war SR units did have traction connections down the whole train, but the post-war designs, 4-EPB onwards didn't, as you imply, I presume from this reason.

You're right that LUL trains seem to lose traction power more frequently than main line stock; guessing, I would suggest that this is

(a) where there is S&C, it tends to be more concentrated, i.e. several connections in very close succession; (b) of course the gapping can be either the positive or the negative rail, whereas in main line practice there is only one rail to cause gapping; (c) I think that LUL units don't have traction power lines between vehicels at all, whereas the 4-EPB's (for example) do have a power line within the four-car unit. This may be driven by the more hazardous environment of sub-surface running, requiring more caution.

May I add that I have never heard the term "gapping" used for the situation where the lights go out when all the shoes are in gaps but the train is moving; in my experience "gapping" refers only to the situation where a train has come to a standstill in this situation, and therefore can't restart.

Afterbrunel 20:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blackfriars a red herring?

I'm a bit unhappy with the inclusion of the Blackfriars reference. The link is to a blog, and just says that a Blackfriars station was "mooted". I think this means a few people who worked at Blackfriars were in the pub one evening and said "Hey, wouldn't it save us a lot of travelling time if the W&C had a station here?" I was never aware of any meaningful proposal to do this, and the construction costs would be horrific, to save half a mile.

If someone could track down a more authoritative reference that would be great, but otherwise the inclusion of this just reduces the authority of Wikipedia. Afterbrunel 20:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! (Link from article on Blackfriars station) D-Notice 19:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)