Overground
 

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:22:35 +0100, Jim Brittin
[wake up to reply] wrote:

In article , aooy65
says...
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 02:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Sim
wrote:

In the old days, Queen's Park was the last LT-managed station on the
route to Watford, which was firmly BR (and before that LMS) thereafter
all the way to Watford. The Bakerloo was the "guest".

When did LT ever manage Queens Park Station? All the time I have been
with LT it was either a BR operated station and then post franchising it
passed to Silverlink. Only at the time when Silverlink ceased and LOROL
took over did it transfer to LU operation and even then things like
ticketing remain on NR equipment and NR ticketing rules (the same
applies all the way up to Harrow, barring Willesden Junction which is
LOROL operated).

Happy to be corrected if LT did run it back from 1933 or whenever and it
then later passed to BR. I'd be surprised that LT would have ceded
ownership (and the revenue) if it had had any choice.


Queens Park certainly issued LTE tickets whereas the stations further on
had BR tickets.

ITYF Queens Park issued both BR and LT tickets. This appeared to cause
some adverse comment at my local BR station during a period when the
fare was a round number of shillings/5ps and some passengers were
occasionally issued with an LT station-of-origin ticket instead of the
correct Queens Park to destination ticket, presumably as the income
from the former was by default sent to LT.

Overground
 

MIG wrote:

It may also be geographical. Anywhere outside of northish London,
there would be no need to make the contrast.

I don't think I used the term myself, but I know that others did,
particularly where there was a choice, eg Stratford to Liverpool
Street, or Walthamstow Central into central London.

I only ever heard it in the phrase "Wood Green overground station" (now
called Alexandra Palace station) to avoid confusion with Wood Green
Underground station.

Overground
 

"Basil Jet" writes:

I only ever heard it in the phrase "Wood Green overground station" (now
called Alexandra Palace station) to avoid confusion with Wood Green
Underground station.

I would have thought that it would be more common to call it "Wood Green BR"
(which would have been accurate as the name changed prior to
privatisation).

Overground
 

Graham Murray wrote:
"Basil Jet" writes:

I only ever heard it in the phrase "Wood Green overground station"
(now called Alexandra Palace station) to avoid confusion with Wood
Green Underground station.

I would have thought that it would be more common to call it "Wood
Green BR" (which would have been accurate as the name changed prior to
privatisation).

"Wood Green BR" was the name in official publications... colloquially it was
called "Wood Green Overground".

Overground
 

On 20 Sep, 17:58, wrote:
In article
,





(Andy) wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:10*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message
m

One small question - does newer dual voltage stock (since the 313s)
have the capability to switch between third rail and overhead on the
fly between North Pole and Shepherd's Bush? The 313s were designed
only to switch in stations (Drayton Park actually) but no-one
envisaged a changeover point between stations in the 1970s.
The Electrostars can change over on the move, but normally don't. I've
never been on a unit that's done it myself, but know of people who
have. On the West London Line at North Pole Junction, there's little
difference in the time spent stationary between a 313 and a 377,
although the PIS system on a 377 is sometimes still rebooting after
Shepherd's Bush when heading south.

Class 313s can actually change over on the move, very occasionally a
313 will leave Euston on AC and won't stop until arriving at South
Hampstead on DC, I've managed this maneuver at least once during the
rebuild of the Euston station throat.

Hmm. Was that one of the the mods for NLL/Silverlink Metro use? I know
they changed the controls so they can run on DC in parallel as well as in
series.


It may have been, alternatively they may have just tried it out and
found they didn't need to make any mods, it's not like it would be a
complex operation on 1970s designed kit and the DC shoegear is always
in place unlike some of the more modern classes.

Overground
 

On 20/9/09 18:10, in article
, "Richard J."
wrote:

I've come to the conclusion that this must be a generation thing. I've
never used 'overground' to refer to anything but LO. In my own
experience, people have tended to stick with out-of-date or inaccurate
terms like 'British Rail' or 'main-line' when referring to National Rail
services as a whole.

What about the 'ON' Overground Network thing of a few years ago? I'm not
even sure what that was all about, but it seemed to be very short-lived,
though some of the signs are still around. The one outside East Croydon
might cause some confusion if it's still there in a few months time, given
that West Croydon will be on the 'new' Overground, and Croydon has a large
number of recent arrivals it the Country, who would be unlikely to know the
difference.

Overground
 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote:

Some differences between Overground and Underground:
1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible
for through running. Choosing fourth rail would have been (a) very
expensive with no obvious gain [why convert Willesden Junction--
Clapham Junction for example, or indeed the North London?] (b) The
reason for fourth rail on the Underground is the need to run through
metal tubes, which give rise to induction and other problems with
running-rail-return systems (they were tried, and abandoned). No metal
tunnels on Overground routes: the ELL is masonry, of course.

How much of the Met/Circle/District/H&C lines run through metal
tunnel? Why aren't these switched to the 3-rail system?

Overground
 

On 21 Sep, 23:08, asdf wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote:
Some differences between Overground and Underground:
1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible
for through running. Choosing fourth rail would have been (a) very
expensive with no obvious gain [why convert Willesden Junction--
Clapham Junction for example, or indeed the North London?] (b) The
reason for fourth rail on the Underground is the need to run through
metal tubes, which give rise to induction and other problems with
running-rail-return systems (they were tried, and abandoned). No metal
tunnels on Overground routes: the ELL is masonry, of course.

How much of the Met/Circle/District/H&C lines run through metal
tunnel? Why aren't these switched to the 3-rail system?

LU power supply, stock movements, shared sections etc?

Overground
 

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On 21 Sep, 23:08, asdf wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote:
Some differences between Overground and Underground:
1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible
for through running. Choosing fourth rail would have been (a) very
expensive with no obvious gain [why convert Willesden Junction--
Clapham Junction for example, or indeed the North London?] (b) The
reason for fourth rail on the Underground is the need to run through
metal tubes, which give rise to induction and other problems with
running-rail-return systems (they were tried, and abandoned). No metal
tunnels on Overground routes: the ELL is masonry, of course.

How much of the Met/Circle/District/H&C lines run through metal
tunnel? Why aren't these switched to the 3-rail system?

LU power supply, stock movements, shared sections etc?

Stray return currents corroding metal pipes, pilings, building structures -
lots of potential litigation there -:)

DW down under

Overground
 

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:27:49 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 21 Sep, 23:08, asdf wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote:
Some differences between Overground and Underground:
1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible
for through running. Choosing fourth rail would have been (a) very
expensive with no obvious gain [why convert Willesden Junction--
Clapham Junction for example, or indeed the North London?] (b) The
reason for fourth rail on the Underground is the need to run through
metal tubes, which give rise to induction and other problems with
running-rail-return systems (they were tried, and abandoned). No metal
tunnels on Overground routes: the ELL is masonry, of course.

How much of the Met/Circle/District/H&C lines run through metal
tunnel? Why aren't these switched to the 3-rail system?

LU power supply, stock movements, shared sections etc?

On the sub-surface lines there are still armoured cables (and in the
old days, lead-sheathed cables) and air pipes which don't take kindly
to traction currents taking a short cut through them. More modern
materials and methods possibly reduce the risk of stray currents but
the signalling systems in current use IMU are still designed around
running rails devoid of traction currents.