Overground
 

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:47:06 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
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.

Just out of interest, does any current trickle down the running rails into
the tunnels on the bakerloo line at queens park or are there insulators
nearby that prevent that?

B2003

Overground
 

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Basil Jet wrote:

Is there a reason why this is not just billed as part of the
Underground

12 tph.

tom

--
I recently retraced on foot a famous journey that William Hazlitt made
from Shropshire to Somerset to visit Wordsworth and Coleridge. I spent
two weeks slogging through nettle beds before I realised the *******
had taken the coach. -- AC Grayling

Overground
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, MIG wrote:

On 18 Sep, 13:48, wrote:
In article
,

(Mizter T) wrote:
Both London Overground and Merseyrail (the electric lines) are
"concessions" as opposed to franchises, and the DfT has delegated
responsibility away in both cases - for LO, to TfL, and for
Merseyrail, to Merseytravel (the PTA - well actually it's an ITA now -
Intergrated Transport Authority). Merseyrail is however a somewhat
different type of arrangement - for example, the operator (a Serco-
NedRailways joint venture) takes the revenue risk.

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, unlike London Overground where
Notwork Rail still do it?

It's Integrated, not Intergrated, BTW.

If there isn't such a word, there should be.

Then LU lines could be integrated with each other and intergrated with
Overground.

When the ELL was removed from the Underground, was it disinter-grated?

tom

--
The literature is filled with bizarre occurrances for which we have
no explanation

Overground
 

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Recliner wrote:

"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Willms" wrote in message

Am Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:00:32 UTC, schrieb 1506
auf uk.railway :

This is something I have wondered for some time. The Overground
name is contrived. The East London Line is a former Underground
line anyway.

It is marketing, and probably a good move.

This could create a brand for urban and suburban railways similar
to "S-Bahn" in Germany and German speaking countries, distinct from
"U-Bahn" resp. "Underground".

Yes, I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't
get confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be
'Metro' but that risks confusion with the Metropolitan line.

Wasn't that the purpose of "London Rail"?

But it's certainly not branded that way, and it would be pretty
confusing if that name was used. What struck me was that the loop will
soon be complete, so you could have names like "London Ringrail".

London Roundandround?

tom

--
The literature is filled with bizarre occurrances for which we have
no explanation

Overground
 

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:19:07 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:


wrote in message
Doesn't Nederlandse Spoorwegen run Merseyrail?

Only the train service. The infrastructure is definitely Network Rail as I
said...

And the NS doesn't run infrastructure any more, as that's now ProRail
(as opposed to anti-rail?). The Railtrack cure was so effective it's
been enforced across the EU.

--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

Overground
 

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:55:45AM -0700, Sim wrote:

6. There are also plans to extend Overground services further, taking
in more south London routes in particular (see the new Southern
franchise).

What's changed?

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the
entrails of the ******* denying me access to anything else.