Talk:North London line

Electrification

Is it Acton Central or South Action where the trains switch to overhead AC from third-rail DC? Also is the freight spur from Acton South Junction to the Hounslow Loop electrified?

Changeover occurs at Acton Central to/from overhead AC. The freight spur is not electrified.--Seann 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.  :)

Minor tweaking needed as Stratford-North Woolwich now closed. Jackiespeel 15:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why has the North London Line got a combination of overhead and third rail throughout its route? Simply south 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Because it was created from a combination of previously existing lines which had been electrified according to different systems.Seann 16:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A good map to look at is [1]

Why both - well it was originally 4 rail (LUL style) as part of suburban LNWR electrification (started 1913 of Watford DC, WLL, and NLL to Euston and Broad Street). Technology changes have meant the 4th rail is no longer needed (its now like normal 3rd rail south of the river). For just passenger services the NLL didn't need any changes but for freight and empty stock moves (most of the rest of north London is OLE and the NLL access all lines) the OLE is needed. Was done in 1987 at the time of a lot of new and infill electrification, also enables eurostars to move about (bearing in mind the regional eurostar and nightstar plans) as some of the spurs weren't electrified. also until the class 92, there were no dual AC and DC locos. ref for date is [2]

Pickle 14:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved some of the history of electrification to the History section to try to focus the sections. It seems quite wordy (as does that whole section) -- perhaps someone with more knowledge could look at? 98ekm 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Steady mate - there are no standards for line articles, there is much confusion weather we should be "talking" about the actual track or the services that run over it. Some editors feel passionately that prior operations, tunnel lengths, old stations, etc are a vital component of an article. I'm not really in favour of deleting stuff if your not putting it somewhere else (ie another article). This page hasn't hit the 32kb long warning (which is arguably been superseded) either. I might suggest that you reinstate the data, or set up another page ("history of the north london line" maybe) and use the {{main|title}} tag ..... Pickle 16:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Line Map

I've added a line map; this somewhat duplicates the "Principal Stations" list at the top of the page but hopefully it's easier to see at a glance, and adds the travelcard zones. Anyway, hopefully it's useful!

It's in SVG format (created in Inkscape) so it's easy to edit in future, but it seems that the alignment of the station names gets changed during upload -- does anyone know how to fix it? Js12 15:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but it looks fine to me. Btw, Gunnersbury and Kew Gardens also interchange with the District Line. Simply south 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch - updated. Js12 17:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone fancy doing one of the maps which shows all of the connecting tracks like on the Watford DC Line page? It may be a bit complex! ;-) User:D-Notice 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I plan to have a go at lots of line articles, but am busy with uni work really at the moment. Pickle 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The map will need updating to take into account the fact that Hampstead Heath, Willesden Junction and Acton Central have moved zones. D-Notice (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Other changes needed on the map:

1) At Richmond station the connection between the NR and the NLL/LU lines joins platform 3 in the terminal NLL/LU station to the line towards Waterloo, not as now shown NR to NLL/LU lines avoiding the terminus.

2) The NR line is inadequately described by "Kingston Loop".

3) There was a N to E chord, south of the LU lines at Chiswick Park, which made a triangle north of Gunnersbury allowing transit from South Acton to Turnham Green. I did not find an existing mapping icon.

4) The lifted branch to Hammersmith & Chiswick is not shown.--SilasW (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet more changes needed on the map:

5) Although change 1 above gives the present state, it might just be that what the map now shows is how the connection used to be (ie in wrong colour). In early years before the line through Gunnersbury was built (¿1860s or so?) trains ran via the Barnes curve to Richmond and I think even on to Kingston, so a connection from NLR to L&SWR heading west might hv bn built.

6) The chord from just south of Gunnersbury to the Hounslow loop heading west is missing.--SilasW (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

What is the substance of the neutrality dispute tagged in the article? AlexTiefling 13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add the banner, but the sections on 'Former Services' and 'Service levels' might give rise to this complaint.

EdJogg 14:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Some items in the text are quite opinionated, such as the following:

• [...] also considered (confusingly) to be [...]
• The section on service levels
• Unfortunately the service ceased after just a few years [...]
• The entire paragraph starting It is said that failure was partly due to [...]
• It is hoped that the imminent transfer of the service to Transport for London (TfL) will improve the quality of the service.

Most of this can be fixed quite easily, but putting the template there was mainly to remind me to do something about it when I have time, or to encourage somebody else to have a go. --RFBailey 14:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a stab at making the article neutral D-Notice 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's now a lot better, so I've removed the template. --RFBailey 23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment! D-Notice 06:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Future of the NLL

Accordiring to today's thelondonpaper the NLL is going to be incorporated into a "London Overground" (along with the East London Line): any further details? Jackiespeel 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of detail on the London Overground page. DrFrench 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Error on map?

The NLL map does not show any platforms in the 3/4-track section at Highbury & Islington. Whilst I think that there may at one time have been two platforms here I know for a fact that there is still one platform, as I often used it when the Anglia DMU services was in operation. This platform is on the back of the existing eastbound platform - in fact making the latter an island platform. Although no longer served by regular passenger services it can be used by the class 313 trains if they need to travel on the ac line (instead of the dc lines). Spsmiler 09:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is because someone added the Northern City Line crossing under (which I don't think is needed because it's underground, and not visible). I'll sort it when I get home. ArtVandelay13 10:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Article split?

Copying a couple of comments from my own talkpage following an edit I made earlier:

Sorry Alison, wasn't logged in this morning. I understand your intention, but it just doesn't reflect reality. As stated earlier, "North London Line" is the name of an actual physical railway line used by a variety of services. There's some scope for an article named eg Richmond to Stratford (London Overground service), but I'd say it's adequately covered by the various existing articles. I'm going to have another go at correcting the article. --Mr Thant (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To describe the North London Line as a "passenger railway line" is quite wrong--it is a very significant freight route, with a large number of container trains using it to reach ports such as Felixstowe and Tilbury. (Although I do think that an article named Richmond to Stratford (London Overground service) would be unwieldy and unnecessary.) --RFBailey (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear there is a problem here with the use of this name for two separate purposes; (a) the route of the metals between Richmond and Stratford and the inter-connections thereof, and (b) the TfL London Underground service of exactly the same name (Richmond to Stratford (London Overground service) is the route, but not the publicised name of the route, hence using it as the article name would clearly be wrong). Whilst there would clearly be an awful lot of duplicated information is North London Line (freight line) and North London Line (passenger service) the way to go?. Obviously the stations are all going to be in the latter and only a few in the former, but it might solve the issues raised. This would also apply to the West London Line I suspect. (ps. I'm not proposing North London Line and North London line for the two, though it might actually be valid!) --AlisonW (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the split: both the physical line and the London Overground service can adequately be described in this article. Freight services can be mentioned too. I can see a case for re-organising the article in its present form so that the London Overground operations get more prominence, giving it its own section near the top, but no split should be necessary. --RFBailey (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, TfL aren't using the name "North London Line" in customer facing material (it is "Richmond to Stratford"). I'd say the current situation is perfectly adequate, with physical and historical aspects of the line itself here, and details of the current passenger service in the LO article (and then split from there if necessary). That said, the present "current operations" section does not belong in this article, and never has had. --Mr Thant (talk)

Er ... I'm not sure where you get that wrong idea from. I quote the opening para from the Tfl website:

"London Overground is our new train service, running on the North London, West London, Gospel Oak to Barking and the Euston to Watford lines. From 2011 we'll connect it to the extended East London line - the start of an orbital service right round London."

--AlisonW (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

TfL appear to use "Richmond-Stratford", "Watford Junction-London Euston" in their maps/timetables (which can be downloaded here), but "North London Line" is still an appropriate article title. (Silverlink didn't explicitly describe it as "North London Line" either, if I recall correctly.) I don't see what's wrong with describing "current operations" in this article, but it needs to say more than just what rolling stock is used. --RFBailey (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Note the wording - "train service, running on the North London Line". Except informally, "NLL" just about always refers to the physical track. I've tweaked the "current operations" section to better reflect this. --Mr Thant (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge NLR with NLL

The history of the one is the history of the other. They currently contain related information. It would make sense to merge them to produce one coordinated article. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 11:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I almost hate to agree with you on a proposed merge (lol) in this case there might well be some merit. I'd actually prefer a merge-and-split though making NLR firmly a 'history' article, and NLL firmly a 'present state' article. Alternatively, make one article totally about the 'structural' aspects of the route, and the other about the '(passenger) service'. This latter option might, indeed, be more useful to our readers. --AlisonW (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alison! It's nice that we agree (almost). I didn't note that you were here as well. I love the NLL - I used to live near Mildmay Park and often used the line at weekends to visit the Heath or Kew Gardens. Anyway - as regards the "split" - do you feel that such a split could be incorporated within the same article. That is have the article on the NLL with sections on current operation, route and stock, and a section on the history of the line which includes a subsection on the NLR. Do you think that would work? SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm omnipresent ;-P I'm still local to the line, actually, but as regards the articles. I dislike removing existing articles and making them solely redirects into a larger article which people then have to search through for the relevant section (ahem!) as it also makes re-use of WP content more difficult. As to the options, I'd like to see comments by others; maybe you should put a heads-up on the project noticeboard? --AlisonW (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirects these days are more subtle with the use of # - As with Dick Whittington where the redirect is written Richard Whittington#Dick Wittington - Pantomime character so that "Dick Whittington" goes direct to the Dick Whittington section in the Richard Whittington article. Click on Dick Whittington to see how it works. In the meantime I will do as you suggest and mention it on the Project. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst i personally agree with with merger as both are one and the same, the LO also refers to this as the North London Railway. Simply south (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Don't rush in to any merge. While there is considerable historical overlap, there is no way that this should be a single article. For a start, the "North London Railway" was a company who operated their own loco works and built locos (I think at least one has been preserved?) It is confusing to mix this information with the current train service. (You would never consider merging Great Western Railway into Great Western Main Line, which is an extreme equivalent of what is proposed here!) I would recommend a current/historic split, as has been done with certain other lines. EdJogg (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, there's enough "clear blue water" between the original NLR and today's NLL that they can be dealt with separately, though the overlap between the article should be minimised - summarise the history in a paragraph or two here with a hatnote back to NLR, which should describe the original company and the extent of its service, with passing reference to the current situation. The "modern" history of the line (i.e. under BR) should then be dealt with exclusively on this article. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[OT] /me tries to reconcile "modern" with "under BR" ... fails. --AlisonW (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Still confused

See WT:LT#Custom House to North Woolwich and beyond. Simply south (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction

Can someone clarify "terminating in form Lea Valley Line" - North Woolwich section: will both the LVL and NLL trains use the same platforms, once the DLR reaches Stratford? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They're building two new terminus platforms on the north side near the Lea Valley platforms. I've fixed the article. --Mr Thant (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NLL in the 1990s

I recall that there was an attempt/intent to close the NLL in the 1990s - what was the background? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dates need confirmation

Some stations on the NLL are not given opening dates. Some dates clash, it looks to me that the year for the west part of the NLL is later than those on the line south from WJ.--SilasW (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can clarify years as not all stations were opened at the same time. However, which part are you referring to when you say "west part of the NLL"? Simply south (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through with a book displaying London's railway history and other than some minor corrections and a confusion at Highbury to be sorted out, the dates are correct. Simply south (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Distance gaps

Could someone please give a pointer to WP preferred ways of writing distances? Three distances that were "XXXm" have been changed to "XXX m" but "1km" remains as that.--SilasW (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncertainties and off subject

Does the "Recent History" section wander off the NLL and list services on connecting lines? And aren't there too many (ie any at all) uncertainties expressed?--SilasW (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Magnitude

Please give rationale for insertion of "very". It would read better if just "many" were written instead of "a [very] large number of". 15 or 20 or whatever the count is is hardly a very large number.--SilasW (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Derive/consist and Majority

"Derives from" is more accurate than "consists of" even because the last realignment was in the 1960s.
"The majority of" is not a Grand Equivalent of "most--SilasW (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC), it applies to countable things (as does "fewer" v. "less").--SilasW (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

London Overground

Um, it's not called the North London line any longer, but along with a collection of other London rail lines is now named London Overground. If pages exist for the other lines then I propose they all be merged under the banner of London Overground.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The line is actually called the North London line, it's just that TfL's train service is called London Overground. D-Notice (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RDT

Just a quick question, should the RDT template be moved to reflect this? IOt is commonly done on other similar templates e.g. Template:HS1 RDT, Template:Blackpool Tramway RDT, Template:Crossrail RDT Simply south (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Its also fairly common to not do this. There is no need for it. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NLL on the Underground Map

The line was for long the only National Rail route shown on the London Underground map. It was added in 1977[citation needed].

I would have thought the Finsbury Park to Moorgate branch falls under the category of a 'National Rail route' and that has consistently been on the Underground map since 1977. The NLL has a chequered history of inclusion on the Underground Map.

I joined the North London Line Committee in 1981 and a major concern of the Committee was getting the line re-instated on the map it having been removed. Lobbying of the GLC and Dave Wetzel, Chair of the Transport Committee in particular, got the line re-instated but for only for a relatively short period. It was removed again in 1984 when the GLC lost control of the newly named London Regional Transport.

More lobbying of another politician, Micheal Portillo when responsible for transport in London within the Thatcher government and specifically as Chairman of the Docklands Transport Steering Group at the time, led to him 'persuading' L(R)T to re-instate it once again. (Sanderjo (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)).

North London Line name

From 1981 to 1994 I was heavily involved with running the North London Line Committee, a group of people concerned with the protection and development of North London Line services. Exactly what part of the infrastructure most of us regarded as the North London Line I would not like to say but in terms of service, I can say that we all considered the Richmond to Broad Street to be the North London Line service.

When in 1984 the eastern end of the NLL was diverted from Broad Street to North Woolwich and combined with the Camden Road to North Woolwich service which had been marketed by the GLC as the Crosstown Link Line, they initially marketed the new service as the North London Link. That name never gained any credence and the term North London Line became extended to the Richmond to North Woolwich service.

TfL may refer to the Stratford to Richmond service as one of the London Overground services but I bet in another 25 years time, the passengers of the service and local residents will still be referring to it as the North London Line.

(Sanderjo (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

4-track after here to §§ except 2/3 at ##

Can anyone explain what this means? Simply south (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of tracks is shown only exceptionally. Here the new Overland route was not finalised. There are, or would hv been 4 tracks from somewhere near Camden Road (where the queried note is written) to somewhere near Dalston (flagged §§) with the southern pair from Dalston to H&I used by just the ELL(extn). Just west of H&I, flagged by ##, the number of tracks, depending on what the plan was and just how the points (switches) aligned across the several 4-foots, reduced locally to 2 or 3.--SilasW (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

For info, the two pairs of metals were run separately, hence why some stations were only on one. The northern pair were for the original steam service, the southern for the subsequent electric service. The problem is that these four metals east of Camden Road and two pairs west of the Camden Road bridge can carry plenty of traffic if it wasn't for the bridge at Camden Lock being only two roads wide with points each end. It needs rebuilding imho (yeah, right ...) --AlisonW (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How many rails?

The article says third rail was used at Broad Street but the first electrification there was with four rails. Was the change made in 1970?--SilasW (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cinderella end?

Can anyone explain what on Earth does "Cinderella end" mean? I had searched the Web but didn't find any answers. -- Patrickov (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the story of Cinderella and work it out. Britmax (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North London Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100425055822/http://www.tfl.gov.uk:80/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/13867.aspx to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/13867.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watford DC line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)