Friday saw the 7-car S-Stock (S7) run in passenger service for the first time. As much a PR event as a test exercise (not least because the S7s are not yet cleared to run beyond Liverpool Street), it nonetheless represented a major milestone in the rollout of the new stock. Generally speaking, the full rollout won’t begin until after the Olympics, with the current intention being to have 8 – 10 S7s working the Hammersmith & City by December.

Some pictures of the train in service can be found below. With the exception of photos one and three, these come courtesy of JTRO85, who kindly gave us permission to run them here.

The S7 Stock at Moorgate

The S7 Stock at Moorgate. Photo by Antje (Trowbridge Estate on Flickr)

Announcing its destination

Announcing its destination

Open doors, with the longitudinal seating just visible

Open doors, with the longitudinal seating just visible. Photo by Antje (Trowbridge Estate on Flickr)

A good view of the new layout

A good view of the new layout

The S7 Stock with passengers

The S7 Stock with passengers

S7 Stock at Westbourne Park

S7 Stock at Westbourne Park

In service past Edgware Road

In service past Edgware Road

At Hammersmith. The contrast with the C Stock is clear

At Hammersmith. The contrast with the C Stock is clear

Elsewhere on the line, the new Bishops Road entrance at Paddington, built as part of the Crossrail project, opened at the end of last month. With two staircases and a wider circulating area, it should hopefully have a positive effect on passenger flows at the station as the old arrangement was notorious for becoming highly congested at peak times. Some pictures can be found below.

A polite notice

A polite notice

New signage

New signage

The gate line

The gate line

The space beyond the gate line

The space beyond the gate line

The improved stair access

The improved stair access

Thanks to JC for the S7 Spot

jump to the end
There are 74 comments on this article
  1. Jordan D says:

    Do any of the wise readers on here know what will happen to the old H&C staircase at Paddington? They’ve been pretty quick to knock it down, but is anything going up in its place? I presume a lift, but some clarity would be great.

    The big downside with the new entrance is the longer walk and longer that the new entrance brings – the bridge across the platforms isn’t much wider than the access way to the old platforms, and I await to see what the true benefit of the changes are.

  2. John Bull says:

    The big downside with the new entrance is the longer walk and longer that the new entrance brings – the bridge across the platforms isn’t much wider than the access way to the old platforms, and I await to see what the true benefit of the changes are.

    True. My, admittedly subjective, experience so far has been that its a slightly more pleasant overall experience getting off at Paddington than it used be though, which is a good thing.

  3. Josh says:

    I presume there’s still some finishing touches to be made to the new entrance.

  4. Paul says:

    Regarding the H&C at Paddington, the changes really only have a tenuous link to Crossrail. Yes they are managing the overall project, but that’s mainly because the work is mostly so that they could relocate the taxi facilities to that side of the station.

    The actual Crossrail station will have no direct connection to the H&C platforms, so the changes to the LU station are basically all about handling more passengers due to the rearranged Circle line.

    To answer Jordan’s question, the footbridge that used to allow interchange between the H&C and FGW suburban platforms is going to be connected through in a northward direction towards the new (non-paid) public area, (they call this the ‘circulation spine’). Hence the old footbridge will become dedicated to FGW services, but there will be a shorter route to the underground by turning sharp left after coming up the stairs from P13/P14 and passing through another gateline which will operate with normal interchange rules with respect to the H&C gateline.

    The lift to the H&C platforms will be at the far west end of the paid side area, landing towards the west end of the platform, the area on the island platform where the old stairs were will be at the foot of one of three sets of stairs leading up (facing west) towards the new LU paid side area. (I assume these stairs are not there yet, because they could not start them until the old stairs were removed?)

  5. John Bull says:

    I thought Crossrail part funded the work? If not then I’ll take the reference out as you’re right – it’d be over egging the pudding.

    “Circulation Spine” is an excellent phrase, by the way. Sounds like something you’d find on the Space Shuttle.

  6. Pedantic of Purley says:

    I think there is confusion between funding and overseeing. The problem with Paddington was that there was a lot of unrelated work being undertaken by different agencies that impacted on each other. The roof restoration, Crossrail and Paddington H&C upgrade were three major ones. This was all lumped together as “Paddington Integrated Project” and I believe Crossrail are in charge. I am pretty sure TfL are paying for the Hammersmith and City Upgrade but Crossrail are overseeing it.

    This is not the only case. Some of the Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road work is really a TfL station upgrade project but the hoardings surrounding it say Crossrail. It is also the case that a lot of the Crossrail works outside the central core section are being undertaken by Network Rail for an agreed amount. It partly explains why some of the Crossrail work does not appear on the Crossrail site but details do appear on the Network Rail site.

  7. cybergreg says:

    It’s Bishop’s Bridge Road, not Bishops Road.

  8. Paul says:

    JB – if you liked ‘circulation spine’, I suggest you’ll be amazed that the stairs. lifts and escalators at the other end of the new taxi rank are referred to in the planning drawings as a ‘vertical circulation core’ – or VCC.

    Might I eventually need to rename my hall and stairs?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Well I’ll go to the lower circulation spine of my vertical circulation core.

    John Bull, that fixed the RSS entry in my feed. Thanks.

  10. Shropshire Lad says:

    I notice that one of the magnificent new GPS Tracking Receivers is deployed on the front of the stock at Edgware Road. Or is it a Multipurpose Umbrella/Sunshade for summer use?. How does this work exactly? Some sort of sensors at the entrance to the tunnels to effect retraction and deployment, I imagine.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Shropshire Lad 05:20PM, 9th July 2012

    It is more sinister than that. The live CCTV is being sent live to GCHQ for face recognition surveillance and journey tracking of every passenger on board.
    “”CCTV recording is in operation on this train for the purposes of surveillance and control.”

  12. Lazarus says:

    That’s not Edgware Road. The train is heading Eastbound between Sheperd’s Bush Market and Wood Lane. The dish belongs to the BBC Television Centre.

  13. marek says:

    I know this is going to show me up as a boring pedant, but I do find ‘Please follow signage..’ depressing. ‘Please follow the signs’ has rather less of an air of having been badly translated from klingon.

  14. The other Paul says:

    I think JB meant “In service past Edgware Road” as in “between Edgware Road and Hammersmith”. The photo in question looks like it was taken from the end of the e/b platform at Wood Lane, looking towards the train as it arrived.

    The Paddington gateline is a curious one; why do we have this unfriendly tendency towards making people go through two successive gatelines just to change trains? The most ridiculous instance is at Waterloo East where there’s not even an exit between them. Hasn’t the shared gateline at paddington has worked perfectly well for years? Now LU will have to pay for more staff to man “their” gateline on top of FGW’s staff manning theirs – surely this isn’t an efficient way forward? Or is this more about enabling the DafT’s lemon-shaped ITSO smartcard scheme for mainline TOCs?

  15. Bren BRMF says:

    Is it just me or the stations that are being rebuilt or refurbished just look bland and boring ?

    Boring white or grey tiles, some brushed steel highlights, harsh lighting, badly placed signage, next train indicators that are now to small to read and located behind a lot of other signage making them pointless.

    When the system was built there was a design flair given to the stations, now this seems to be got rid of in the name of progress and modernisation.

    Kings Cross Northern Line and many others that had something about them have now been assimilated by the Blah Blah Bland Brigade

  16. Whiff says:

    Thanks JB and Paul for the updates on Paddington station. I used to travel through Paddington quite a lot but haven’t been for a while but can’t quite picture in my head how the new H and C entrance works and how it links to the rest of the station, (partly at least because I had no idea the canal was so close to the platforms). I’ve had a quick google and can’t find a detailed plan of this part of the station so if anyone can point me in the right direction that would be great.

    @cybergreg – this may be one for Pedantic to try and explain but as I understand it the road is Bishop’s Bridge Road but the H and C platforms were originally Bishop’s Road station.

    @marek – I agree; when did the word ‘signage’ become an acceptable part of the English langauge?

  17. Anonymous says:

    @Bren BRNF

    It’s not just you. I reckon the rot set in with Jubilee Line Ext since which all concept of “house style” seemingly ditched. Absolute taboos are decoration and colour. Aim is seemingly corporate inidentity.

  18. Malcolm says:

    The new designs are bland, but hopefully they will look less horrendously dated in 20 years than the more “colourful” refurbishments. There are many of the 80s refurbs (Baker St, TCR, Shepherds Bush pre-Westfield) that look hideous today.

  19. marek says:

    @ Whiff

    Even more curious a bit further out, around North Pole Junction, where you can walk along the canal towpath and look down on the tracks – the retaining wall you see from the train is holding quite a lot back.

  20. Greg Tingey says:

    Correct … if it had been @ Edgware Road(Met) it would have been in a deepish cuttting, 4 tracks & 2 platforms!

    The other Paul
    I have complained, officially, that I regard the idiot double-gateline @ Waterloo E as not only a waste of money, but dangerous … If you are inside a gateline, there is always an emergency-exit big red button to push. But, between those lines, there is NO emergency exit, you are @ 1st-floor level, and no way out, if both lines are operational.
    I was given the offical brush-off, effectively being told “We know what we’re doing”

    The new arrangements at Paders, even when complte, will slow down an H-&-C to GW-suburban transfer, considerably.
    The current route (I got caught out on Friday) is a considerable “Sabbath Day’s journey” round-the-houses before one can find a GW platform or even train indicator.
    Talking of train indicators, look at Diamond Geezer’s post for Saturday (7th July) … he is SO right, & it is SO depressing ……

  21. Anonymous says:

    Whiff: “I agree; when did the word ‘signage’ become an acceptable part of the English langauge?”

    The late eighteenth century.

  22. Jordan D says:

    Greg – you are exactly right. I’m currently commuting from via Paddington (H&C to FGW in am, vice-versa pm) 4 days a week for work and the ‘new improved gateline’ adds at least 1 minute to my journey, if not more when that narrow walkway, which doesn’t have any metal barrier separation on it, is crowded.

    When trains come in on platform 10/11 (as is FGW’s want), the connection time goes up even further. It’s all rather depressing for so called improvements.

  23. Big Al says:

    The Paddington to H&C and vice-versa station upgrade is a compromise. The increase of a minutes more walking time is certainly compensated by the lack of wait at the top of the stairs that used to occur when a H&C east and west bound trains arrived at the same time and disgorged the FGW commuters up the stairs. It certainly feels a lot less dangerous on the stairs and their imediate vicinity, if not some much on the platforms where a small delay in the service can make the platforms a bit tight on space.

  24. John Bull says:

    That’s not Edgware Road. The train is heading Eastbound between Sheperd’s Bush Market and Wood Lane. The dish belongs to the BBC Television Centre

    As Paul says, this was what I meant by “past Edgware Road.”

    Basically I recognised the section of line (and the BBC dish) when I was prepping the photos, but wasn’t exactly sure which station it was taken from and didn’t want to say “Wood Lane” just in case it wasn’t.

  25. Disappointed kitten says:

    “Full rollout won’t begin until after the Olympics”
    Ah, so many good and useful projects that will only come to fruition after the Olympics – new Met trains, Crossrail, Overground in South London, Thameslink 2000 …. so much that could have been put together on time for 2012 with proper funding and joined-up planning. But alas no, Olympian visitors will still be juddering through London on old trains waiting for signal failures, with only promises of jam tomorrow. I foresee a transport meltdown in 3 weeks.

    Still, at least Boris found the money for a cable car. An odd sense of priority, but at least the views are nice.

  26. Malc says:

    The post above is typical of the hysterical Boris-bashing on this blog.

    -The Met WILL be running a full S8 service by the Olympics – the final A stock withdrawal is tomorrow and then they won’t be running in service except for emergencies.

    – Thameslink KO1 is virtually complete, with the new platforms and step free access at Blackfriars open. Also step-free access at Farringdon

    – The LOROL extension delay is due DfT machinations over funding, nothing to do with Boris.

    – Ditto Crossrail. Are you seriously saying an alternative mayor could have delivered it for 2012???

  27. Disappointed Kitten says:

    Thanks Malc for your kind words about my apparent hysteria. The comments were a general observation of transport planning in this country, and how some of the project that would have brought great benefits to the Olympics but have failed to materialise in time.

    Who to blame? Margaret Thatcher, Cecil Parkinson, John Prescott, the DfT…. the list could go on. Any government in the past 20-odd years. I don’t believe Ken and Boris are high up the strategic food-chain to be truly at fault, but I do think the fact that millions can suddenly be found to fund off-the-wall projects like cable cars and Anish Kapoor’s Meccano tower speak volumes about the priorities when money can’t be found to keep ticket offices open, unblock junction bottlenecks or sort out any number of problems that still result passengers getting stuck for hours in tunnels.

    It’s not about the mayor, it’s about a general malaise in this country.

  28. John Bull says:

    I am neither the Olympics nor the current Mayor’s biggest fan, but I’d have to agree with Malc here. Neither has really had a negative effect on the current raft of major transport projects.

    Whilst its possible to argue that projects such as Thameslink or Crossrail should have started earlier, both those and things such as the S-Stock rollout are proceeding at a pace that represents the most practical. As Malc also indicates, key elements of both the Thameslink and S-Stock rollout are also in place.

    Indeed for certain elements you could actually argue that they’re more advanced and better equipped because of the Olympics. The new Kings Cross would certainly not be the station it is, were it not for its Olympic role – something various Network Rail sources would probably admit “off the record.” Similarly the Overground owes a lot to its perceived Olympic role.

    Basically on balance I don’t think its really possible to argue anything other than that the Olympics will, at worst, have had a net neutral impact on London’s transport network – even once the inevitable disruption has been taken into account.

    Similarly, whilst I take considerable issue with various of the Mayor’s transport policies so far realised (the NBFL and Cable Car probably being the main things) and fear that the long term damage left by his two terms may prove to be the lack of major projects currently being started (i.e. that he’s not “paying forward” for his successor the ribbon-cutting legacy that Livingstone left him), I think arguing that he could have accelerated the projects already underway would be very unfair.

    Ultimately, as we talked about in our politics of transport piece, you have to think about the “possible” not the “ideal” when it comes to transport politics, and judge within the limits of that. With regards to Thameslink, the Overground and Rolling Stock, I don’t think we’re doing badly there.

  29. David says:

    It depends on how you look at it.

    Personally I think disappointed kitten is more accurate. It isn’t a personality failing, it’s a systemic failing.

    Thameslink is getting there, but lets not forget that when the project was first conceived it was Thameslink 2000. We’re now in 2012 and only just starting to get there now. We’re still stuck with 319s and hired 377s because of the contract fiasco with Siemens.

    The Olympics are neither hither nor thither in terms of transport planning, though they have been a good buzzword to get things built (especially the ELL). Much of Stratford’s transport infrastructure was already there, althoug the Olympics have definitely tidied the place up.

  30. MiaM says:

    If gatelines are somehow needed between different parts of a station complex, why isn’t there some kind of gate function for gates that are between two different paid areas? The Waterloo – Waterloo East situation seems rather silly.

  31. Anonymous says:

    Unless they have been moved very recently, the ticket machines at Waterloo East are inside the gateline if arriving via the stairs up from Sandell Street. What is that all about!!?

  32. Paul says:

    Is the Waterloo East situation going to be altered at all by the installation of the new gateline at the Waterloo end of the station?

    I believe the new setup at Paddington is only considered odd because it is different to what went before. There are no LU/NR common paid areas at most of the other major terminus stations AFAIAA – having an out/in requirement for interchange is sometimes a good idea, depending where the arriving mainline trains are coming from – they probably don’t want a back door into the LU system for people without tickets – although there are many others at joint LU/NR stations in the suburbs.

  33. Greg Tingey says:

    So Stratford is NOT a major station?
    Admittedly “only” a terminus for DLR1 / Overground / DLR2 / Jubilee lines / some form Harlow (so it isn’t a “proper” terminus, but there USED to be an intermediate idiot’s-barrier between the Jubbly & the rest of the station, which they have, thankfully, got rid of.
    At Padders, the highest-number platforms USED to be ain a spearate little area of their own, so none of this makes any sense, either before or after.
    As for Waterloo (East) where are they going to put ticket-barriers between Waterloo (main) and the SECR platforms, there just isn’t space.
    Or are they (complete idiots if they really are proposing this) thinking of putting them at the new West end of the passageway at 1st-floor level?
    The crowd-crush / traffic jams in the rush-hours will be horrendous if they do.

    [automodded for language]

  34. ChrisMitch says:

    @Greg – Paul said TERMINUS stations – ie national rail terminals.
    There are loads of stations in the suburbs where you can change from the tube to the train without passing through a ticket gateline, as you rightly point out. But in the terminals, you usually have to go out and in again.

  35. Timmy! says:

    Interesting article. In the ‘S7 Stock with passengers’ picture, the line maps appear to separate for Circle/Hammersmith & City and the District line rather than the current versions in use. Much more helpful, I’d suggest.

    It’s also good to see the LO-style dangly handgrips are missing…

  36. mr_jrt says:

    I would have like to have seen a program of platform extensions to accompany the S8 introductions, not just those required for the S7s.

    It simply cannot be that difficult to extend Aldgate East to Upminster, and a programme of extensions should have been begun on the southern Circle as well – starting rather obviously, with Blackfriars, The District could really do with that extra carriage’s worth of capacity.

  37. MiaM says:

    The relevant question is of course why NR-paid LU-paind gatelines must exist at NR termini stations but not at interchange stations?

    I realize that there is a problem with people arriving to London with tickets not compatible with LU gates and changing to a LU and get stuck at a LU-only station when they try to exit – but how big is that problem? If we have the figures it’s easy math – I assume the number of passengers arriving at NR termini stations in London with a ticket not compatible with LU gatelines is a drop in the ocean compared to the total amout of LU passengers, so there would probably be no real fare evation problem.

    Perhaps the problem is far bigger the other way around, but gatelines won’t help then. If you use Oyster PAYG and get on a services that goes outside the oyster area the gatelines won’t stop you and the maximum oyster fare is probably cheaper than a real ticket.

    The only way a gateline could stop fare evation is if trains outside of the Oyster area use separate platforms and have separate gatelines that don’t accept Oyster or London travelcards, but that could only work at a few places. It is generally a good idea for long distance services to have atleast one more stop within the London area than the termini station, for example to ease local passenger flow at the termini stations. At those other stop it would probably be hard to have separate platforms for long distance trains. Who would for example propose separate platforms for Stansted Express at Stratford, Seven Sisters or Totenham Hale?

    And, anyway, there is no good argument for having to pass two lines when chaning trains, intermediate gatelines could perhaps work like oyster route validators?

  38. Greg Tingey says:

    MiaM is correct.
    There is NO rational argument for intermediate gatelines (which is why, probably, the one @ Stratford went …)
    However, one must not forget the malign influence of DafT in this. Their incompetence is legendary, as is their insistence on gatelines, even where no-one at all wants one (Sheffield, for example).

    Mr JRT
    Ah, platform extensions for S7->S8 stock.
    An old chestnut.
    East of Aldgate it isn’t a problem. The problems are elsewhere, and are in fact problems of serious amounts of money.
    As with the ELL, it is perfectly possible to extend all the ELL p/f’s to 8-car, if you have enough money!
    So, the current station “tunnel” or cut-&-cover, or whatever is only 4 / 6 / 7 cars long, so what? The engineering techniques are well known – you just start hollowing-out a bigger “shell” using standard shield-&-digging methods.
    But it will cost shedloads.
    The reall villians of the piece are those stations between Kangaroo Valley and Edgware Road met, where the open stretch is too short: High St Ken, Notting Hill Gate, Bayswater, Paddington.
    If you can find the money – go ahead ….
    My personal opinion, is that it would be worth it, but it would take a long time, as only one station should be done at a time, so the team woulf move on from one to another. Say 18 months per station ….15 years … ?

  39. P Dan Tick says:

    I’m with Marek on ‘signage’. Has it not occurred to LU yet that lots of people who don’t have English as their first language use the Tube? They will probably know what ‘signs’ means but will have a struggle to find ‘signage in their pocket dictionary. However, obscure language is a British railway tradition. Where else would you hear or read the word ‘vestibules’ ?

  40. Anonymous says:

    “Where else would you hear or read the word ‘vestibules’ ?”

    Biology. Architecture. Anywhere else by analogy that has an enclosed space that acts as an opening to something else. I am struggling to even think what else you could call it.

    Has it not occurred to LU that kids today the world communicate through their phones and messages so should be using text speak. Apparently dumbing down to the lowest common denominator being more important that proper English.

    Neither “signage” and “vestibule” are some modern abomination but are several centuries old, predating the invention of railways.” Nor are they archaic or being used in any strange or unusual way.

    The things people in this country like to moan about.

  41. mr_jrt says:

    If you consider that the Wimblewares and Hammersmith & Circle Line are a seperate entity for which the S7s are suitable, then none of those stations actually need to be lengthened (at least not in the first batch required for the District). As I say, the open stations should be easy, the underground stations are the difficulty, and it was criminal they didn’t do the work during the Blackfriars rebuild, especially as it’s just 5m.

    Looking at an old FOI request, there’s 95 District platforms that are fine for S8s, 29 that are good for S7s, and 9 that will require (required? – I can’t find any record of the works done?) lengthening or SDO:
    Platform 1 TEMPLE Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Westbound
    Platform 2 RAVENSCOURT PARK Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Westbound
    Platform 2 TEMPLE Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Eastbound
    Platform 2 WEST KENSINGTON Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Eastbound
    Platform 1 GLOUCESTER ROAD Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Westbound
    Platform 4 RAVENSCOURT PARK Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Eastbound
    Platform 1 RAVENSCOURT PARK Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Westbound
    Platform 3 RAVENSCOURT PARK Top of Ramp TO Top of Ramp – Eastbound

  42. Twopenny Tube says:

    Anon @ 8.28 am, if a phrase starts with ‘neither’ then ‘nor’ should follow, rather than ”and’. I leave as an open question to ponder, whether the verb agreement then should be ‘is’ or ‘are’. ‘Is’ seems better to me, but I’m not sure if that is the rule.

  43. Whiff says:


    I agree with you on ‘vestibule’ and ‘signage’ may indeed have historical pedigree but I still fail to understood why they don’t just use the word ‘signs’ when it is shorter, more commonly used and probably easier for non-native speaker to understand.

  44. Anonymous says:

    MiaM. Now that everyone is getting picky about English usage:

    either say “NR terminus stations”; or

    “NR termini”.

    I believe that “terminuses” is also acceptable nowadays.

    More to the point, I have now experienced S8 air conditioning on a very humid day- it actually works!

  45. Anonymous says:

    If LU wants to communicate effectively with the young, they had better removed all signage displaying the word ‘exit’ from station platforms. Urban dictionary has, amongst others, a definition of ‘exit’ as

    Death, mostly of natural causes.
    e.g. “That old bum has finally came to an exit.”

  46. Anonymous says:

    Signage is surely the art (science?) of how you use signs; where you put them, what they say, the font/colour/quantity etc. You follow the sign not the signage, though you can probably just about take a photograph of signage as long as it shows context.

  47. Twopenny Tube says:

    @ anon 10.05
    ‘Terminuses’ is acceptable? Really? It seems rather lacking in elegance to say, or to read, that word. I would have thought ‘termini’ would still be preferable, as with ‘radius’ and ‘radii’. Having said that, I think the rule of thumb, to which they are two notable exceptions, is that if a word has entered the English language, plurals should be anglicised, hence ‘forums’ and ‘stadiums’ rather than (IMO) ‘fora’ and ‘stadia’.

    And while on the subject of Latin to English and vice versa (geddit?), the people who started the trend for ‘data’ to be treated as a plural, as in ‘Personal data are secure’ ought to get a knock on the door from the language police.

  48. Greg Tingey says:

    “Data” ia a plural.
    The singular is “Datum”

  49. Littlejohn says:

    @mr_jrt 08:50AM, 11th July 2012. With the advent of the S7/S8 stock is SDO as much of a problem as it used to be? The stock is after all effectively one continuous car so there is no longer the problem of passengers (sorry, ‘customers’) being stuck in a tunnel with only one door to get out of.

  50. Littlejohn says:

    All the better that you can get down the other end of the train to find an empty(ish) carriage more easily

  51. Anonymous says:

    Well, I apologise for taking this off topic.

  52. John Bull says:

    I wouldn’t worry – was an interesting diversion!

  53. mr_jrt says:

    I agree to some extent, but SDO only gets you so far. I argued your exact point for LO to have longer trains with more SDO and got all kinds of protests about Wapping & Rotherhithe about the issues of SDO. 8 Cars on LO would be very welcome though.

  54. Twopenny Tube says:

    Thanks Greg T, fair comment. However, I was thinking in the context of data protection, where I have never encountered the use of ‘datum’ and usually assumed that ‘data’ took on the function of a collective noun (cf. herd, rake, fleet) in most if not all instances. Thus, it should take on the properties of a collective noun. Something jars about treating ‘data’ as a plural in relation to subject-noun agreement, at least in this context. Those who use ‘datum’ in their day to day communication, (maths? economics?) may disagree.
    ‘That set of S7 Stock looks smart’ or ‘That set of S7 Stock look smart’?

  55. Anonymous says:

    I have an economics degree and teach maths. I have never used the word datum in my life. I agree that the phrase data are jars, but so do several other correct pieces of English and I’ve never been much good with grammar being a child of the seventies and eighties.

  56. Greg Tingey says:

    What about “Ordnance (survey) Datum” then?

    And if Data is a collective noun, then there must be more than ONE measurement/information-piece in it, mustn’t there?
    “Data protection” is presumably referring to the SETS of data that is/are being protected? Perhaps.
    Meanwhile, & incidentally, my Engineering M.Sc. is in Measurement …..

    I note that no-one has come back on my comment that extending Circus-line platforms to take S8 trains, & ELL similarly, is “merely” a matter of money (& time I suppose) with no actual engineering impossibiity.

  57. Josh says:

    I’m an engineer and I use the word datum all the time. It has to be said those that as a singular of data, we usually use the word “datapoint”.

  58. P Dan Tick says:

    My Concise English Dictionary gives datum (as in Ordnance Datum) as having a different meaning to that which is normally referred to as Data. The former is ‘fixed starting point of scale etc’ That is exactly how I used it when I used to build things. For the other meaning it suggests that the plural (data) is normally used but that it is also treated as singular. Hence my slight disbelief every time one consultant I hired pedantically said ‘ the data are….’

  59. Rational Plan says:

    @greg tiingey, well it all depends what that amount of money, for extending the platforms, is.

    They have obviously only done the ‘cheap ones’ If the cost of extending a platform is heading towards a £100 million plus (figure plucked from air) then I imagine it would be a no.

    Also the difficulty of the work must also reflect. An expensive scheme would most likely require closures on more than just weekends. If that was just one station maybe it could be justified but if there are several stations each requiring lines closures, then the service impacts would politically impossible.

    As to the ELL there are several old stations that might be impossible to extend. I know Wapping has very narrow platforms and sits in a very deep brick vault/cutting. Considering how close apartment buildings are to the line, I can’t think of an easy way to extend the platforms. I think the platforms need to be widened as well, which I’d be surprised if it was possible to do and keep the line open and not end up demolishing dozens of flats.

    I think the platforms at Shadwell are slightly wider, not sure about lengthening again. The problem for the ELL is that extending the platforms means closure of some of the original stations.

  60. mr_jrt says:

    Closing some of the original stations is a hallmark of the London Underground! 😉

    Spacing-wise though, the only two stations that are two close together are Rotherhithe and Canada Water. Canada Water was such a mistake on so many fronts…it should a) Not have been built and the Jubilee should have been routed via Surrey Quays (my preference) or Rotherhithe expanded to handle the interchange, b) If it was built, then Rotherhithe should have closed, but Canada Water should have been built for at least 8 cars, then Shadwell would be the only other major priority. Wapping can be done last.

  61. Pedantic of Purley says:

    There you go again mr_jrt, thinking rationally. Meanwhile in the real world …

    One can argue from a transport perspective that your ideas may be better. However the Jubilee line wasn’t just about transport links. It was about revitalising areas with private money and political idealism. That is why Canada Water was built and why it is where it is. It is easy to say in retrospect it should have been built for at least 8 cars but it would have been a major engineering challenge due to the modern requirement to build a level platform. The line is on a slope due to the need to go under a not insubstantial river nearby. Even a 4-car level platform was tricky.

    Rotherhithe is there. It is used. The Rotherhithe (road) tunnel prevents a direct walk to Canada Water. It could probably take 5-car trains without difficulty. Is there really anything to be gained by closing it ?

    Yes by sacrificing Rotherhithe one could probably reprofile the line and get 8-car platforms in at Canada Water (but don’t forget the Rotherhithe road tunnel is in the way and could make this impossible). However we are where we are and this would be very expensive.

  62. Rational Plan says:

    Also, Canada water was chosen because it was a big empty site. It required little in the way of demolitions, Surrey Quays would have required a lot of road diversions and interference to the Shopping Centre, plus no simple coffer dam for the Jubilee lines, it’d have to be an interesting dig through the made ground of the docks

  63. Kit Green says:

    City Thameslink has quite a slope to the platforms. Does the wealth of the City buy out the level requirement?

  64. Pedantic of Purley says:

    Derogation? Less strict then? Come to that Farringdon has a really steep platform at the end.

    The City Thameslink platform is for the most part level. And unusually it slopes upward at both ends. But I do wonder how they got away with it especially as I would have thought having the entire platform and track about a foot or two higher than the part that is currently level would have been both possible and desirable. It might however have forced the 1 in 29 gradient to the south to be even steeper – except that had they had known Blackfriars would be redeveloped over the bridge a much better combined solution could have been forthcoming.

    If it is an entirely new platform then it is almost certainly not going to be allowed unless it is level. And they are strict. Remember the Shepherd’s Bush fiasco. Also a proposed interchange station between the Central and Piccadilly lines was scuppered a few years ago because it was not possible to provide a level platform on the Central line.

  65. Ian Sergeant says:

    @Pedantic, given the difference in levels can Rotherhithe be extended at all with a level platform, without needing to lower the ELL at Canada Water?

  66. Pedantic of Purley says:

    I am virtually certain Rotherhithe is not a problem for 5 car trains. Just needs the platform ends tarting up that is all. But if you wanted to make the platform longer at Canada Water and keep it level then you either need a steeper track from Surrey Quays to Canada Water or a steeper track from Canada Water to Rotherhithe or, as I was trying to suggest, maintain the the current angle but sacrifice Rotherhithe so that the slope continued to the Thames tunnel portal – if the Rotherhithe road tunnel does not prevent this.

    But I am getting way out of my depth. I am not an engineer and although I know the area well I do not know it that well. Lets get back to basics. The line needs to go under the Thames. At Surrey Quays station it is in a cutting near the surface. The line clearly has to dive down to reach the Thames Tunnel. Any new platform nowadays normally has to be completely level. So any platform or extended platform between Surrey Quays and the Thames Tunnel mouth is going to involve some reprofiling of the alignment. I believe for a 4-car platform they managed to get away with this by adjusting the levels within the existing tunnels but do this for a longer platform I understand that would involve changes to the tunnel itself which would not be easy and would be very disruptive.

    If there is a point to what I am saying it is probably that people can state what should be done by looking at 2D maps but the 3D reality is often quite different.

  67. Antje says:

    I need to inform you that the first and third photos is actually my work:

    Since you appear to be non-commercial, you attribute my work as “Antje (Trowbridge Estate on Flickr)” or similar, but not in any way that suggests that I endorse you or your use of the work. Linking to my photos is optional, but it helps spread the news that the C Stock is finally going.

  68. Antje says:

    Sorry, typo in my last comment: “you attribute my work” should be “you need to attribute my work”

  69. Si says:

    The question surely needs to be asked who made the decision that platforms can only be built on perfectly level areas? This crazy H&S rule has cost us several new stations.

     Fundamentally: Is it better to have a slight slope and put up with it, or not have said platforms at all? TFL are so risk adverse its ridiculous are so risk adverse its ridiculous.

  70. John Bull says:

    Antje, my humblest apologies – I’m not sure how we ended up miscrediting/getting the wrong source for those photos. We always aim to ask both permission and provide credit on photos.

    I’ve updated the credit and sent you an apology on flikr

  71. Quandon says:

    Can anyone explain why, although they have lengthened the platforms at Hammersmith, they still stop the old C stock several metre back from the actual end of the track. I had thought it might be due to not getting the signalling certified but in one of the photos above it clearly shows the new stock terminating at the end and the old stock stuck back at the original end.

    The extra few seconds each passenger needs to walk must have wasted hundred if not thousands of man days in total.

  72. ChrisMitch says:

    I would assume it is so that the driver’s cab is aligned with the signal monitors at the other end of the platform, for departure. It is the same at Wimbledon at the moment – the wimbleware trains stop almost a carriage short of the buffers.

  73. Quandon says:


    I knew there must be a good reason for it but (duh) I didn’t think about what was happening at the other end.


  74. Austin Healey says:

    I saw one of the S7s running an eastbound H&C line service while driving down the A40 and I was pretty shocked. I thought they wouldn’t be running a service this early. I’m assuming it was this train as it said Moorgate on the front, and it was before the Olympics. Lucky I found this article explaining this.

Leave a Comment

In order to make LR a pleasant place for discussion, please try to keep comments polite and, importantly, on topic! Comments that we feel do not meet these criteria, or that contain language that could cause some people trouble at work, may be moderated or deleted.

acceptable tags

* (This won't be shown, but you can link it to an avatar if you like)

Recent Articles

Friday Reading List – 17 March


As anyone looking to properly understand London’s transport needs and network knows, context, background and best-practice are important. As readers might imagine, behind the scenes here at LR Towers we thus spend a lot of time sharing links and reading

Read more ›

LR Magazine Issue Five: Overgrounded


With print copies now being prepped for dispatch to subscribers at LR Towers, London Reconnections Magazine Issue 5: Overgrounded is now available to purchase in our online store. Transport is politics, politics is transport You don’t get transport without politics.

Read more ›