Talk:Watford DC line

What does the "DC" stand for? --Jfruh (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct current (MrJRT 14:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

Like the map, but I have a couple of observations. Firstly, what does the green circle with an 's' in it mean ... I cannot find it on the Legend. Also, there is a connection at Willesden Jn to the rear of Willesden Traction Maintenance Depot (where some of the Silverlink Metro stock is serviced).ALECTRIC451 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Chiltern Line crosses the route at South Hampstead. ALECTRIC451 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while with google maps and a few sheets of a4 to work it out, and i made some compromises. I'll investigate these points ;) Originally i left out the "s" option (The template is an import from the German Wikipedia, presumably it meant s-bhan), but other editors have started adding it to represent the tube (really could do with a tube like symbol), but with the Watford DC line sharing a significant length with the Bakerloo line IMHO it gives the wrong impression. There also exists several icons in blue (for the u-bhan, or as i interpreted it the tube), hence the layout south of Queens Park. Pickle 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the combined s-bahn/regular symbol is not ideal for these shared Bakerloo line sections, but I think LUL connections are worth representing on the maps. Although a tube-like symbol would be a nice idea, it would not be any more appropriate to (for example) the Tyne metro than the current one. I also definitely think we should expand the 'legend' page [to show more of the symbols we're all using. AlexTiefling 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was more referring to the conflict of mixing s-bhan with u-bhan (tube), since we don't have s-bhan in the UK (well maybe Tyne and Wear is the only one). The talk page at WP:TRAIL has the guy from the Netherlands who (i think) has designed all the templates. Pickle 13:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pickle thanks for the explanation of the 's' symbol. Dare I raise a few more observations! The Chiltern line at South Hampstead should run above the WCML/DC Lines. At Willesden, there is only a single connection to the back of Willesden TMD. If you change the trailing crossover (top one) for a facing one, and delete the other trailing crossover (lower one), then it will be correct. Also, the connection to the Dudding Hill line is only from the North. You cannot get to the Dudding Hill line from the south (via the Freightliner depot, so if you remove the left-side of the traingle, then this will be correct. If you want some further references, the try Clives Underground Line Guides (CULG), they have some maps similar that that which you have very kindly produced. You can "compare and contrast" as they say. Cheers mate. ALECTRIC451 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of the S symbol for the LUL stations is slightly misleading - in German railway terms, the entire DC line is an S-Bahn (indeed all of Silverlink Metro is). The Tyne and Wear Metro is more comparable to a Stadtbahn. The stations need an underground-specific symbol, either with the German U, or with a blue line through the middle like the Underground roundel. Also, perhaps a distinction needs to be made between Queen's Park to Harrow - which share tracks and platforms with the underground, and Euston, which merely connects to it. I believe the symbol was designed for the former, which is why there is only an S symbol currently - U-Bahns don't tend to run alongside main lines more often, while S-Bahns are more integrated with the railway system, indeed they are usually part of the railway system. ArtVandelay13 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of incurring your wrath, I have another item for the map. The DC line joins the WCML at Camden Junction just south of Hampstead Tunnels (where the line to Camden Road via Primrose Hill leaves). The junction arrangement is very complex and would require a map in its own right! Suffice it to say that the interconnection between the WCML happens here rather than outside of Euston Station. Between Camden junction and Euston the up and down slow lines are dual-electrified with overhead and third rail electrification into Platforms 9 and 10 (10 is normal platform, 9 is emergency use). On rare occasions, the service runs into platforms other than 9/10, and trains change traction from overhead to third rail in the Camden area (just north of the canal). ALECTRIC451 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just call me "Victor Meldrew"! There are no regular timetabled services on the WCML (by Silverlink County) to either Wembley Central or Queens Park. They are used when the DC lines are having operational problems (or an event at Wembley), but thats all. Someday, someone will hopefully re-build the platforms at Willesden Junction that were on the WCML (slow lines will suffice). ALECTRIC451 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wembley Central does get some Southern services, during the peaks. ArtVandelay13 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'm busy with Uni work at the moment and will try and work on all the comments at some point. I only did what i did from aerial photos and what I've seen going north on the (fast) WCML. Pickle 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently it's near impossible to discern which part is actually the DC Line unless you already know. I'm thinking of making the DC Line run straight down the middle with the WCML weaving around it (which I know is the opposite of the geographical layout, but this isn't a geographical map). --Dtcdthingy 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for me to leave this page. All the best folks. I simply cannot have my time wasted any longer by a person that is not part of the Project, and who tried to get a project page (Class 378) deleted.ALECTRIC451 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa there! That was Dtcdthingy's only contribution to this talk page. I think the change he proposes is in principle desirable, but the topology won't allow it in three columns, so it won't happen. AlexTiefling 12:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now we've got the BS5 template, I've been able to follow this suggestion - now the DC line runs dead straight up the middle, and the WCML has only two kinks in it. AlexTiefling 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work ;) Pickle 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's exactly it. This map format isn't designed to cram in this much information. The LT&S is a good example of how it should be done. It could show the DLR, District, CTRL, freight branches and eveything else, but doesn't, and is much better for it. We're never going to put Quail out of business. --Dtcdthingy 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a limit to what the BS3 template can show. on one level I'm tempted to create two table - one the very simple list of stations north to south and the second the full '9 years' worth of detail (which i think is encyclopedic especially if you were a regular traveller along the route wanting to know intricate details). While i agree showing the WCML throughout rather than having it drop on and off was a design compromise. Ideally i would like to use the dual line icon but i feel there aren't enough of them to render the line detail properly. Work for the future ;) Pickle 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am revised the map. I hope everyone a little more happy then before. Sheepcot 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't the depot of Mitre Bridge, near Willesden, not shown? ~2026-26627-44 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... So the person who revised the map has been blocked and the two previous respondents in this thread haven't edited since 2007 and 2011 respectively. I suspect you might wait a while for a response... If think the map needs to be updated then it might be better starting a new discussion below. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Fail — simply linking to sources is not sufficient - specific details are required. The use of inline citations is highly recommended. Specific details refers to, for example, stating the page number(s) of a referenced book, rather than the title; the ISBN number is also preferred - see WP:ISBN.
7. Images: Very Good — excellent network overview/map is provided, which is useful for the at-a-glance information Wikipedia readers are often looking for.

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review if you believe I have been misguided; you might also opt to discuss my decision at my talk page.

Sincerest regards,
anthony^[cfc] 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of serious questions arise.

(1) Who are the "lead editors" for this page?
(2) Why have the "lead editors" failed to ensure that this article is properly referenced?
(3) I note that the "lead editors" work has been "informally recognised" ... how can this be, the article failed to reach the next level as it was supposed to have been?
(4) Why was the article submitted for review to reach the "next level" when it did not have the necessary references/citations?

This has damaged the wiki trains project reputation very badly ... and some hard questions need to be answered and the "lead editors" need to come forward and accept the blame for this travesty. This is a very bad day. Sheepcot 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please will the "lead editors" of this article be coming forward and accepting their guilt for this disaster. I doubt that they will. They will hide. They will accept that they have been "informally recognised" for their "hard work" ... even though their failure stands for all to see.Sheepcot 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I am spreading of bad news, but there is a lining of silver. I am prepared to revise this article to obtain the higher status of the next time of asking. All I ask is that the "lead editors" make themselves known to me, such that I can acquire from them the data required to provide the necessary references and citations. It cannot be right that the "lead editors" remain unknown at this time, when their "hard work" has been "informally recognised" (read as "acknowledged"). The work of the "lead editors" has been done, let others turn this into a "world class" article, and let us be recognised too.Sheepcot 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not the end of the world by any means. Its a basic thing to cite articles, and we're all meant to be doing it properly with inline citations, etc, et al. Don't know who nominated it for GA status (sorry its late and I'm knackered) but normally people read up on the criteria, and fulfil the basic stuff like that, i mean someone, probably me had TWP tagged the page and noted the lack on citation *and/or* inline citation - that means with all the funky templates explaining it all, etc. "lead editors" is a standard phrase for those who have done big bits of editing (as opposed to typo correction say) and normally are the ones who nominated the article for GA status. Pickle 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone recall what signalboxes existed north of Harrow so that the list can be completed ? ISTR there was one at Watford High Street and I assume there was one at Watford Junction (but possibly not serving only the DC line?). This seems to leave a gap between Harrow and WHS where at least one other ought to have been.--MBRZ48 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The article seems remarkably date-free in contrast to its multitude of details given for, for example, signalling.--SilasW (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The article had much repetition in different styles as though different editors had put in similar information without considering what was already written. I've tried to organise it somewhat. There are still few dates except vague (=??as I recall??) decades.--SilasW (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Query about this statement - "At Watford Junction, Watford - Euston services are advertised as terminating at South Hampstead, in order to persuade passengers for Euston to take the frequent faster services." I could be wrong, but I don't think this is true any longer - last time I was there, LO services were advertised as "Local service all stations" or something, to make the distinction from the LM express. If someone could confirm and update this, it would be useful. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I live in Watford and use the train everyday. The DC service is shown as being to South Hampstead. The reason is not to "persuade", but to avoid passengers using a service to London that takes 45 minutes rather than 20. It's called being helpful. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has a section that the voltage on the line is in 200-300 metre sections of alternating 750 volts and 630 volts. This has to be a complete nonsense. Firstly, this would require twice as many substations feeding the line, doubling the capital cost. Second, it is completely unnecessary. It flies in the face of the claims made elsewhere in Wikipedia and available elsewhere.

The Class 378 trains are fully capable of operating of 660 volts, as indeed they have to do on the Richmond to South Acton line (shared with the District line). The underground stock is also able to operate at 660 volts (as 660 volts is within the upper permanent voltage specification of 750 volts). Every reference on the subject has the line electrified at 'a compromise voltage' of 660 volts. It was not originally a compromise, because 660 volts became the standard third rail voltage before the change to 750 volts, but underground stock was able to operate at that voltage without problems because the voltage was within the 'permanent' voltage limits of 420-750 volts. A 750 volt electrification at any point would not be acceptable because other equipment on the underground stock operates even when the train is not motoring (lights, heating etc. etc.). The maximum permanent voltage of the 750 volt system (900 volts) is well outside the maximum permanent voltage for the underground stock. The maximum non permanent voltage (i.e. can be tolerated occasionally) of 1000 volts is also unacceptably outside of the underground stocks max. non permanent voltage of 840 volts.

Unless good sources can be found to support this dubious material it will be deleted. I do not believe such sources will be found. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense section still not referenced after three months therefore deleted. –LiveRail < Talk > 09:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm bringing this topic back up because the article says the line has been converted up to 750v 'because of the class 710s'. Is this correct? There's no source cited and also this would require the Bakerloo line's 1972 stock to be also upgraded to 750v operation and I know of no evidence or even rumour of this and is generally unlikely. Contrapunctus.mammalia (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The map is incorrect at Watford Junction. It implies there is a route from the DC line to the St Albans branch but the connection to the WCML is a trailing connection onto the Down Fast line north of the other junctions which would allow trains from the Euston direction to reach St Albans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBRZ48 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 March 2015

@MBRZ48: True, fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a map and words that refer to the London Overground service being removed and Bakerloo extended.

Both referred to a document

[]

and map

[]

That both actually propose the extension of London Overground and the maintainace of the current Bakerloo.

 BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article states that during the Network Southeast era, the line was officially named the Harlequin Line, and I am unsure if this was actually official. The line certainly had a harlequin pattern branding, but the name given seems to be “North London Lines”, as seen And

Are there any photos of locomotives, station signage or ephemera with the name “Harlequin Line” on it? If not, the article should say it was renamed the “North London Lines” and had a Harlequin pattern branding ThatBritishPleb (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ref 2 - Watford Observer ref: https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/11881998.br-launches-operation-sparkle/ - --David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The article seems contradictory, with several people suggesting different things. Colin Knight suggests “The name was soon dropped by British Rail and forgotten about…”, and “the small group of lines which included the Euston-Watford line, became known as the North  London lines”. But M.R.Day suggests ““The new name was officially launched on June 18, 1988 at a ceremony attended by top British Rail people.”. But no concrete evidence from either person.

The links I provided showed images of the line with Harlequin Route Branding as being named the “North London Lines”. Surely this should get at least a mention seeing as there is photographic evidence of the name existing? ThatBritishPleb (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThatBritishPleb: If you look at the source, it does have a paragraph reading The name was soon dropped by British Rail and forgotten about, but if you raad on a bit more (those adverts get in the way somewhat), you will find: For a while there was a harlequin motif on the trains and stations, but these were dropped presumably because they did not fit in with the corporate colours of British Rail. also The new name was officially launched on June 18, 1988 at a ceremony attended by top British Rail people. It was definitely covered in Railway Magazine at the time, I need to see if I still have my copies from that period (lots went missing in a Summer 2022 house move). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)