Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 2:21:38 GMT
Why isn't the wimbleware route (wimbledon-edgware road) aknowledged on tube maps as a seperate line, like the hammersmith & city line?
Its already got its own name.
|
|
Colin
Advisor
My preserved fire engine!
Posts: 11,346
|
Post by Colin on Feb 22, 2012 4:15:21 GMT
Its already got its own name. No, it hasn't!! "Wimbleware" is purely a nickname, much like "Goblin" is used for the Gospel Oak to Barking line. The Wimbledon branch is very much a part of the District line - don't forget D stock from "the city" also serves it  The only distinction that perhaps needs clarification is that trains don't go direct from Gloucester Road to High Street Kensington, that of course being the domain of the Circle line. Now if I had a pound for every customer at Earls Court that expects to catch a Circle.... So to answer the first question last: Why isn't the wimbleware route (wimbledon-edgware road) aknowledged on tube maps as a seperate line, like the hammersmith & city line? It's not a separate line, like the H&C is, that's why. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 9:13:54 GMT
The root of this problem is LU's indecision over what a 'line' is: is it a management unit, a service group, or an individual service. And which of those should be reflected by a different colour on the map, and name in publicity?
The District Line appears (to me, as an outsider) to be a management unit (to which staff and assets belong), two service groups (one operated by C, the other by D stock) and several services. On the other hand the H & C and Circle are two services, forming one service group and (AIUI) one management unit.
So why does the H&C & C get two colours/names, when the whole District has just one?
|
|
|
|
Post by DrOne on Feb 22, 2012 13:02:12 GMT
I suppose a 'line' can be whatever they want. In terms of service groups, one could think of the Met as one, the H&C/Circle/Wimbleware as another, and lastly the remainder of the District. With the recent changes though I now think of the District comprised of the Wimbledon service (to Edgware Rd and Tower Hill) and the Upminster service (to Ealing and Richmond).
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Feb 22, 2012 15:14:18 GMT
And, yea, any District man who doth deny the holy and indivisible nature of the Edgware Road service shall be cast out, and spat upon, and be beaten with many sandals, and shall be derided in canteens and mess rooms as a traitor, untill he doth repent, and mercilessly taunt the Met Rly for loosing the great territory battle of 1933, and indignantly claim every surface gauge line as being of the District. Thus sayeth the book of 'Because.' ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 15:27:55 GMT
I don't think it could qualify as its own line as at no point would it not be using any other line's track (apart from Earl's Court to High Street Kensington if you made the Olympia shuttle part of it too).
You could therefore argue the same thing of the H&C as it too since the Circle line extension (or "lassoification" as one may call it ;D) as it has only a very small section in which it's the sole line.
Although going back to the stretch from EC to Edgware Road, I think it makes sense remaining a part of the District line. Whilst (as far as I know) nothing has been said about it, when the S7 Stock replaces all current stock, what's to say there couldn't occasionally be a Ealing Broadway/Richmond to Edgware Road service?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Feb 22, 2012 15:56:02 GMT
Keeping it as part of the DL is good for operational convenience - sending trains up to HSK for example. If it were a separate line then punters would be confused if during weekend engineering works all trains ran to Edgware road.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruislip on Feb 23, 2012 0:19:56 GMT
Although going back to the stretch from EC to Edgware Road, I think it makes sense remaining a part of the District line. Whilst (as far as I know) nothing has been said about it, when the S7 Stock replaces all current stock, what's to say there couldn't occasionally be a Ealing Broadway/Richmond to Edgware Road service? Wasn't that the case in the pre-D stock days? |
|
Dstock7080
Administrator
Posts: 5,805
Member is Online
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Feb 23, 2012 6:44:36 GMT
Even before D Stock the requirement was for shorter trains to Edgware Road, so C Stock from 1978 and before that 6-car CO/CP Stock, therefore 'main line' workings from Ealing were rare after uncoupling finished 1970/71.
|
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Feb 23, 2012 10:00:42 GMT
What was the service pattern like pre-ceasation of uncoupling; was it that much more balanced between origin and Edgware Road and the city? Got a vauge recollection a comment might have been made on here quite a long while back that post-upgrade service patterns weren't likely to change anyway...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 10:31:46 GMT
"Wimbleware" is purely a nickname, much like "Goblin" is used for the Gospel Oak to Barking line. But that's like "Bakerloo" for the Baker Street & Waterloo line, which the tube maps list as "Bakerloo". The Wimbledon branch is very much a part of the District line - don't forget D stock from "the city" also serves it But the Hammersmith & City goes to Barking in addition to D stock from Victoria going there. So why are they two different lines on the tube map, or why are the Wimbleware and District lines depicted as parts of the same line on the map? It's not a separate line, like the H&C is, that's why. But why? The H&C is different from the Circle, on the map, but it uses the same stock, which even have the same route maps inside. The wimbleware doesn't even seem to use the same trains as the district line - it uses the same trains as the H&C - even with the same route maps inside. So why is it treated as the same line, when its much more distinct from the rest of the District line, than the H&C is from the circle? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 10:48:38 GMT
Keeping it as part of the DL is good for operational convenience - sending trains up to HSK for example. If it were a separate line then punters would be confused if during weekend engineering works all trains ran to Edgware road. Why would that be confusing? All trains going to HSK then Edware Road isn't much different than some trains going to HSK and others going to both. Who would be confused? Are there really people that get agitated, or unable to work out how to get to their destination, if their train also goes to stations beyond the one they thought it would terminate at, when other trains already do that? And anyway, trains can still go to HSK, rather than having to go to all the way Edware Road. Trains often terminate at Tower Hill or Mansion House even though the route map says the line goes all the way to Upminster. And its a lot easier to say, and to understand, that, at Victoria for example, "This weekend, due to engineering works, there will be no wimbledon trains on the district line, district line passengers for wimbledon should change at earls court to the wimbleware line", than it is to say/understand that "This weekend, due to engineering works, wimbledon trains on the district line will only be going to High Street Kensington, district line passengers for wimbledon should change at earls court to the district line". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 11:00:02 GMT
Although going back to the stretch from EC to Edgware Road, I think it makes sense remaining a part of the District line. Whilst (as far as I know) nothing has been said about it, when the S7 Stock replaces all current stock, what's to say there couldn't occasionally be a Ealing Broadway/Richmond to Edgware Road service? And what's to say there couldn't occasionally be a service from Hammersmith to Richmond, via Wood Lane and Liverpool Street? I don't see why it has to be marked on the map as the same line. Southbound trains at Edware Road go to Wimbledon, unless they are circle line trains. They rarely, if ever, go to Richmond, or Ealing. Yet the tube map doesn't give any clue to this behaviour - why shouldn't the route be indicated on it distinctly? The maps in District line trains clearly seperate the routes. But having them the same colour still makes it confusing, especially around Earls Court. Why can't they be shown in seperate colours? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 11:20:31 GMT
"Wimbleware" is purely a nickname, much like "Goblin" is used for the Gospel Oak to Barking line. But that's like "Bakerloo" for the Baker Street & Waterloo line, which the tube maps list as "Bakerloo". Thing is Antony, like Colin has explained,the Bakerloo Line is its official name which is why it says so on the map. Wimbleware is a nickname for part of the Distcrict Line. Taking this to its logical conclusion the Central Line branch from West Ruislip to Epping should be renamend the Epplip Line. I'm sure I read on here somewhere that the in car maps for all the remaining SSL lines (not including the Met) will be identical when S7s take over. At that point the whole discussion becomes largely irrelevant. |
|
Oracle
In memoriam
RIP 2012
Writing is such sweet sorrow: like heck it is!
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Oracle on Feb 25, 2012 11:31:17 GMT
Does anyone else recall that the H&C being part of the Met? It is only in modern times that it was hived-off along with the East London Line, which was also a Met line. The Northern City Line was part of the Northern...car diagrams in the 1938 Stock were interesting!
Now I recall, the District car maps pre-October 1964 were quite amazing .. with the Hounslow West branch in green/white, the Olympia branch, the Wimbledon-Edgware Road and even the Circle lines added to the Ealing/Richmond-Upminster 'main'.
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Feb 25, 2012 12:31:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 12:37:30 GMT
Thing is Antony, like Colin has explained,the Bakerloo Line is its official name which is why it says so on the map. Wimbleware is a nickname for part of the Distcrict Line. Taking this to its logical conclusion the Central Line branch from West Ruislip to Epping should be renamend the Epplip Line. But I haven't invented "Wimbleware" out of a hat. Its widely used, and understood, like "Chelney". If you referred to the "Epplip", I think most people wouldn't have a clue what you meant. But the name isn't the important detail. What's important is that it has one - that its regarded as a distinct route. For example, Upminster to Richmond doesn't have its own name. Upminster to Wimbledon doesn't have its own name. Upminster to Ealing doesn't have its own name. They are just parts of the District line. But the Wimbleware does have its own name, even if its not used officially. It still has a distinction. A seperateness. I'm sure I read on here somewhere that the in car maps for all the remaining SSL lines (not including the Met) will be identical when S7s take over. At that point the whole discussion becomes largely irrelevant. Interesting, but I don't think it becomes irrelevant. If the H&C has the same maps as the district, then you've got a map that has multiple lines on it, so why can't the wimbleware just be one more distinct line on it? And if the H&C trains get seperate maps - that is, different maps to the wimbleware - then they stop being able to turn into Wimblewares when they arrive at Edware Road, which presumably would create substantial operational issues? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 14:44:29 GMT
All this debate begs the question - when the C and D stock are replaced by S7s, will there be two separate fleets, one for the combined Hammersmith & City/Circle/Edgware Rd & Wimbledon, and one for the other parts of the District line? OR will all S7s be interchangeable and therefore have have a complete H&C, City and District line network map?
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Feb 25, 2012 14:49:39 GMT
I have never heard the word "Wimbleware" used away from this forum.
Do any passengers or District Line staff regularly use the word?
Having said that, the "breaking of the Circle" was an ideal time to show the service as part of the H&C, or abolish the Circle as a separate identity.
As things stand now the Inner Rail Circle effectively peters-out somewhere around Liverpool Street as all W/B C Stock become "Hammersmiths".
(With S7s designed to operate on all parts of the District this would allow a more varied pattern of service but, frankly, the SSL lines have never been particularly adventurous in this area. WTT routes still living in 1941!)
|
|
Dstock7080
Administrator
Posts: 5,805
Member is Online
|
Post by Dstock7080 on Feb 25, 2012 15:07:54 GMT
All this debate begs the question - when the C and D stock are replaced by S7s, will there be two separate fleets, one for the combined Hammersmith & City/Circle/Edgware Rd & Wimbledon, and one for the other parts of the District line? OR will all S7s be interchangeable and therefore have have a complete H&C, City and District line network map? I understand that S7s will have Circle, District, H&C joint maps - as the trains will be 'mixed' among all services. I have never heard the word "Wimbleware" used away from this forum. Do any passengers or District Line staff regularly use the word? I also have never heard this phrase away from this Forum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 15:43:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 25, 2012 16:31:58 GMT
....... being able to turn into Wimblewares when they arrive at Edware Road...... This ability indicates that they have at least as much to do with the H&C/Circle as they do with the "real" District. If the shared section to Wimbledon is a justification for calling it part of the District Line, lets call the Piccadilly part of the Met, and the Bakerloo part of the Overground! |
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Feb 25, 2012 17:02:08 GMT
Antonyfendall, I'm a bit lost as to what you want... You started by asking a question but don't seem to accept the answers given. What is your preferred option for this service then?
Make it a separate line but keep it in the District business unit?
Or make it a separate line and business unit?
Or make it a separate line but part of the H&C and Circle Business unit?
Don't forget that the H&C used to be a Met service and the Circle a Met and District Service. The H&C is much longer than the Wimbleware and has it's own stations as well so it made sense to split from the Met as it could form its own business unit as well and take the Circle Line under the same roof as well thus sharing drivers and admin.
The Wimbleware is a District Line service, ignoring the need for a separate stock, just as the off peak Wimbledon to Tower Hills.
Should the Olympia to High St Ken be a separate line as well then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 18:13:31 GMT
My thought (as a passenger, rather than an LU insider) is that it should be a separate line (for publicity/information purposes) - what business unit it should be in doesn't matter to me, it's an internal LU matter. I don't think it needs to be a separate one; tradition indicates District; common stock that it be H&C/Circle. The Wimbleware is a District Line service, ignoring the need for a separate stock, just as the off peak Wimbledon to Tower Hills. Trains to Tower Hill are 'ordinary' District trains that don't go all the way; trains to Edgware Road are 'different': that is the justification for it (Wimbleware or whatever it's called) being a separate line. The need for separate stock - and the implications of that - just emphasises that fact. A District Line train from Wimbledon has to be either for Upminster or Edgware Road: it cannot be changed at Earls Court. That the separate stock is used by another business unit muddies the water as to which it should unit it be in. (ISTR posts on here as to using the stock type to identify which way a train is going at Earls Court) Yes, this discussion does raise the question of which line the Olympia shuttle should be part of, and there is a case for giving it its own public identity if it is a 'thing apart'. What happens when everything becomes S stock is something else: if the current service structure remains, then 'Wimbleware' should still be a separate line identity. But I would suggest that the whole service pattern of the SSL should be reconsidered from scratch (at least that part of it worked by S7s - one can regret the separate S8s keeping the Met out of the melting pot) - and whatever changes comes out of the exercise will need line designations (and business units) amendments to match: there is certainly a case for making the whole SSL system one line. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 18:32:30 GMT
Antony, most of those links are posted by railway fanatics, not the general travelling public. Again, lets not forget that the Bakerloo Line is now badly named so by the same logic we'd better change it to the Elephant and Wealdstone Line or some such thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Feb 25, 2012 20:03:05 GMT
Keeping it as part of the DL is good for operational convenience - sending trains up to HSK for example. If it were a separate line then punters would be confused if during weekend engineering works all trains ran to Edgware road. Why would that be confusing? Who would be confused? Are there really people that get agitated, or unable to work out how to get to their destination, if their train also goes to stations beyond the one they thought it would terminate at, when other trains already do that? Eh? I think you misunderstood me. I'm going on about sending DL trains up to HSK or Edgware Road (which has more space) during engineering works affecting them going to Gloucester Road. Eh? Not if it's on the Wimbleware line they can't. 'This is a DL train to HSK which is on another line' wouldn't go down well. Unless you mean the Wimbleware terminating some trains at HSK in which case..I feel insulted. Of course trains don't have to go the distance. Eh? How does a train to Wimbledon from Victoria get to HSK?! If there are works affecting the DL going to Wimbledon, how does the Wimbleware get there?! Confused |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 25, 2012 21:58:30 GMT
Eh? How does a train to Wimbledon from Victoria get to HSK?! If there are works affecting the DL going to Wimbledon, how does the Wimbleware get there?! Confused I think he was talking about trains FROM Wimbledon. The simple, although hardly user-friendly, approach would be to terminate ar earls court, and run out of service to HSK. Anyway, after they are all operated by S7 stock we can call any Wimbledon - HSK train a short woorking of the Wimbleware V52G- "The Wimbleware is a District Line service" - but that begs the question - why is it a District service: Edgware Road to HSK was built by the Met, and saw no District Trains (except those working the Circle) until 1926. Less than half the Wimbleware was originally District: Metropolitan (Edgware Rd to HSK - 5 stations District (HSK to Putney Bridge - 6 stations) LSWR (East Putney to Wimbledon - 4 stations) |
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Feb 25, 2012 23:00:12 GMT
V52G- "The Wimbleware is a District Line service" - but that begs the question - why is it a District service: Edgware Road to HSK was built by the Met, and saw no District Trains (except those working the Circle) until 1926. Less than half the Wimbleware was originally District: Metropolitan (Edgware Rd to HSK - 5 stations District (HSK to Putney Bridge - 6 stations) LSWR (East Putney to Wimbledon - 4 stations) It's a District service "currently" ( ) as it has District Line train ops and is part of the District Line Business unit (AFAIK). Control and signalling is mixed as is stock. But you are completely right, historically it is only District up to High St Ken. |
|
|
|
Post by v52gc on Feb 25, 2012 23:10:57 GMT
The Wimbleware is a District Line service, ignoring the need for a separate stock, just as the off peak Wimbledon to Tower Hills. Trains to Tower Hill are 'ordinary' District trains that don't go all the way; trains to Edgware Road are 'different': that is the justification for it (Wimbleware or whatever it's called) being a separate line. How are trains from Wimbledon to Tower Hill off peak "ordinary Districts that don't go all the way"? If you are going to be at Wimbledon off peak waiting for an Upmonster service then you might be waiting a long time!  These are a District Line service just as there is a Richmond to Upminster service or a Wimbledon to Edgware Road service or a Cockfosters to Rayners service vs a Cockfosters to Heathrow service. Granted the Wimbleware and Olympia services are oddities, but then they are just services, timetabled, of the District Line operating on its branches. Remember when not too long ago a train from amersham wouldn't stop at Northwood for example, would that need to be a different line as well? It's interesting to see the mixed views on this subject! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2012 0:41:45 GMT
I know it has been said beofre, but why doesn't the Hammermith and City merge with the Wimbleware to make Wimbledon-Barking via Baker Street. The Circle Line can then exclusively serve the line to Hammermith.
Also, there wouldn't really be a need for trains from Wimbledon to Upminster via Victoria because there would be cross-platform interchange to Richmond/Ealing Broadway to Upminster Services, at Earls Court.
|
|
