Talk:North London line

message: 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)
replies: text: Plenty of detail on the London Overground page.  DrFrench 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Future of the NLL

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Error on map?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Minor correction

message: 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)
thread_title: NLL in the 1990s

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dates need confirmation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Distance gaps 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uncertainties and off subject 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Magnitude 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Derive/consist and Majority 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  London Overground 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  NLL on the Underground Map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  North London Line name 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  4-track after here to §§ except 2/3 at ## 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Read the story of Cinderella and work it out. Britmax (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinderella end? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on North London Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress