Talk:Northern City Line

message: I've always known this line as Great Northern Electrics and I'm pretty certain that that's how it was signposted at Moorgate until relatively recently.  Are my suspicions correct and, if so, could someone who knows more expand the article a little to explain how? :o) — OwenBlacker 15:16, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
:I think it was the name of the train service rather than the line, but yes, you are right - it did say that at Moorgate (and probably elsewhere) until quite recently and I think this was probably the name of the service under BR, that is, after it ceased being an Underground service. I don't quite understand the history but at some point along came privatisation and the new name WAGN - again this is really the service not the line. So I have added a note where it says about WAGN services to point out the earlier name for those services. Hope this helps. --Nevilley 23:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Northern Electrics 

message: In the article it says this: The name "Northern City Line" has been revived to refer to the underground part of the route. I wondered in what sense this is true - who revived it, and what usage does it get? I mean, we are talking about it here under that name because, well, that's its name and (as noted above) it's important to have a name that specifies the line, not a service that happens to run on it. But where's this "revival" - do WAGN use it or something? Or TFL?? I am not trying to be argumentative here - I really want to know! :) --Nevilley 23:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see it on the WAGN website, I promise, though I can't remember where. I suspect I was looking for it, to fit with the article I wanted to write. I can't now work out why I picked on that particular version of the name. I thought it was based on CULG but looking at that now, the "Northern City Line" name is only mentioned in passing. I'm as baffled as you. --rbrwrˆ 21:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name "revived" 

message: I am of trusting that my additional of mileage data is not upsetting of any person. Have I been doing of wrong?? Please be lenient to me if my action is not of acceptable. I am meaning to be true. I regret my doing. I am taking of reparations. Canterberry 00:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mileages

message: Having examined the recent history of this route map, I realise I am treading on eggshells here...
I have been bold and revised the map again, however, this has been done with careful thought:
* Firstly, I have removed ALL of the other-line connections to the body of the text: this makes the diagram MUCH simpler. (How the information is presented within the text is a separate matter.)
* Secondly, I have re-instated the East Coast Main Line. The article clearly states that services run from this line north of Finsbury Park. My revised diagram shows that the NCL is a branch off the ECML (which is how it is shown on the ECML diagram), and should avoid the problems seen in earlier versions.
* Thirdly, as it is mentioned in the text, I have shown a representation of the in-tunnel terminus at Finsbury Park.  Unfortunately we don't have a 'closed' variant of the 'station in tunnel' icon, yet, but including the tunnel mouth makes this fairly clear.
The result is a routemap that shows just the essential route and historical information. (Remembering that this article is about a section of railway line, not just a train service.) Indeed, it should now be possible to re-instate the mileage figures added earlier by User:Canterberry without affecting the clarity of the map.
EdJogg 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an improvement to show the now closed section of tunnel to Finsbury Park and the NCL as a branch of the ECML, but the map is still not quite right as the old NCL platforms at Finsbury Park were not actually closed but have been retasked for use by the Southbound Victoria and Piccadilly Lines. The map therefore ought to show the former below ground station as in use with links to the Victoria and Piccadilly Lines. The icon set is short of the necessary icons to display this correctly but it would look something like this: --DavidCane 12:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connections moved to text

message: I have started an argument here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Do_the_railway_line_maps_conflict_with_WP:NOT.3F  Canterberry 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Railway maps argument moved to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways]]

message: Could someone maybe put Lothbury on the line diagram?  I would but I'm having trouble understanding the map's syntax.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutrageousBenedict (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lothbury 

message: As well as changing the diagram to better reflect the subject of the article I have removed the 20m dimension from the note on EMU's and platform length. I have done this because 20m (about 60 feet) is barely the length of one full size carriage and so cannot be the length of one EMU let alone two (a valid alternative reading of the original text). Britmax (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Line diagram and 20m EMU

message: I have removed that section (proposal to link WGC and Hounslow via the GN&City and the W&CR); there is no party political dimension to this, it's just that it was a proposal in 2009 that is now no longer Party policy. There was a 2009 "citation needed" and a dead link.Afterbrunel (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green party proposal removed 

message: This was a serious (and remarkable) incident and could have cost lives. Should something be included in the article or do we only add information about fatal incidents?--Shantavira|feed me 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, it seems notable and reinforces the whole "everyone forgets this exists" aspect. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Perhaps someone more familiar with referencing could format the external reference correctly.--Shantavira|feed me 10:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunnel penetration by piling operations 

message: In the text it says 'Until recently, it also served Moorgate surface-level station...' When did the changeover happen? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: "Services were cut back from Finsbury Park to Drayton Park in 1964, to make room for the Victoria line to use the low-level platforms at Finsbury Park. The former Piccadilly line platforms became the northbound Piccadilly and Victoria lines' platforms, and the former Northern City Line platforms the southbound equivalents."
This is rather unclear. I presume the second sentence quoted is referring to Finsbury Park - that could be made explicit. - but what does "Services were cut back from Finsbury Park to Drayton Park" mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.93.63 (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is almost correct. The original Great Northern & City Railway (later the Northern line's Highbury Branch) ran between Moorgate and Finsbury Park, but did not have a connection to the surface at Finsbury Park, only two below ground platforms. When the Victoria line was planned, London Transport wanted as many cross platform interchanges as possible between the new line and existing lines and at Finsbury Park they repurposed the existing platforms to make this possible, with new tunnels being constructed to divert one of the Piccadilly line tunnels into one of the GN&CR platforms. The Victoria line connected into the other GN&CR platform and the vacated Piccadilly line platform. To enable the changes to be made, the Highbury Branch stopped running north of Drayton Park. After the Victoria line opened the Highbury branch was transferred to British Rail and new tracks from the cutting at Drayton Park up to the mainline platforms were constructed.--DavidCane (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - Victoria Line 

message: I note that in the infrastructure section, it is stated that Between Drayton Park and Moorgate, there is no Automatic Warning System or Train Protection & Warning System equipment provided, due to the position of the auxiliary return rail. All signals are multiple aspect colour light signals fitted with train stop arms. However, it seems as if the mechanical train stops have been removed and TPWS loops have taken their place at some point. The information on the resignalling that I've seen seems to only make mention of ETCS, but no mention of the removal of train stops - is there any source on them being removed? Twchb (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TPWS - Drayton Park and Moorgate