|
Overground
Sim wrote:
On 17 Sep, 17:48, MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 16:22, rail wrote: Mornington Crescent! Talking of which, have the rules been changed to take Overground into account? That should be the true definition of whether or not they are part of the same system, ie "subject to the rules of Mornington Crescent".- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - IMHO, you can include Overground only if you admit the offside diagonal rule between South Acton and Richmond. Only if the Bellingham redaction is applied simultaneously, IIRC... Paul S |
Overground
In message
MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 16:22, rail wrote: In message * * * * * MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 14:28, Andy wrote: On 17 Sep, 12:53, Jamie Thompson wrote: On 17 Sep, 12:43, MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 12:38, Jamie Thompson wrote: ...though of course, as pointed out elsewhere, the Underground goes over the Overground at Whitechapel :) And at Hampstead, Kilburn and Wembley. I presume you mean the Met east of South Hampstead (never thought really about it, but I guess you're right!), the Met at Kilburn yup, but Wembley? The Met just south of Kenton, yes, but Wembley...where? I agree that this should be Kenton, not Wembley and it also occurs at Chiswick (District and Piccadilly over), north of Shepherd's Bush (Hammersmith & City over), and in the recent past at Stratford (Central line over until the LO platforms moved to the north of the station) and West Ham (under the District / H&C until the North Woolwich section shut). North west London is all one mush to me ... *Kenton then. *Or Northwick Park. Mornington Crescent! Talking of which, have the rules been changed to take Overground into account? That should be the true definition of whether or not they are part of the same system, ie "subject to the rules of Mornington Crescent". ROTFL -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Overground
"MIG" wrote And all electrified parts of the current London Overground were four rail at some point, weren't they? Ah, maybe not Dalston to Stratford. nor Kensington Olympia - Clapham Junction (though Willesden Junction HL - Kensington Olympia was 4-rail from around 1914 to 1940). For completeness, two other stretches of the LO are electrified at 25 kV OHLE, though used by LO diesel trains - Barking to Woodgrange Park and through South Tottenham station. Peter |
Overground
Great Eastern wrote:
1506 wrote: This is something I have wondered for some time. The Overground name is contrived. Indeed, its also quite interesting the way the term 'overground' has become a way of describing National Rail trains within London for some, even if not run by LOROL. Its fairly common on LBC 97.3 when callers phone in and talk about rail services as overground trains. People have been calling National Rail trains in London "overground" for a lot longer than LOROL has existed. There was even an Overground Network branding on a few routes, which lasted about as long as it took for people to say "WTF are the new signs about?" - but many of the signs are still there. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Overground
MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 10:15, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Sim" wrote Some differences between Overground and Underground: 1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible for through running. The NLL is 25 kV OHLE between Acton and Camden Road, and between Dalston Kingsland and Stratford, and will be all the way between Acton and Stratford once the NLL refurbishment is complete. The WLL switches from 25 kV OHLE to 3rd rail between North Pole Junction and Shepherds Bush. Goblin remains diesel worked (and if it is electrified it will be 25 kV OHLE. BTW, the Broad Street to Dalston line, most of which is being incorporated into the ELL, was originally 4th rail, but IIRC was converted to 3rd rail before closure. Peter And all electrified parts of the current London Overground were four rail at some point, weren't they? Ah, maybe not Dalston to Stratford. I believe the stretch from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone is still four rail, otherwise Bakerloo passengers would have to get out and push! |
Overground
|
Overground
Mizter T wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:10 pm, " wrote: Graham Harrison wrote: "Basil Jet" wrote: Is there a reason why this is not just billed as part of the Underground, especially since it will soon have some deep tube bits? If the Underground can include the Chesham branch, why not the North London Line? Do staff at Gospel Oak station get paid less than staff at Chesham, in which case keeping the Overground separate from the Underground is a divide-and-conquer wheeze against the rail workers? What is now called the "Overground" is actually part of "British Rail". The government put those lines out to tender and "Overground" won it. Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU. But doesn't the Metropolitan line between Uxbridge and Amersham? No. The starting signal at Amersham eastbound was definitely set up as a National Rail signal, and it was not a road signal over a repeater signal. What about between Putney and Wimbledon and between Gunnersbury and Richmond? |
Overground
On 17 Sep, 22:17, "
wrote: Barry Salter wrote: wrote: Graham Harrison wrote: What is now called the "Overground" is actually part of "British Rail". The government put those lines out to tender and "Overground" won it. Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU. But doesn't the Metropolitan line between Uxbridge and Amersham? The Metropolitan Line doesn't run between Uxbridge and Amersham. ;-) Whilst the *actual* boundaries are North of Amersham and South of Harrow-on-the-Hill, the change between Network Rail and London Underground rules occurs at Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham stations. Cheers, Barry My mistake, I indeed meant Harrow-on-the-Hill.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - But it's LU signalling anyway, isn't it? |
Overground
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 10:15, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Sim" wrote Some differences between Overground and Underground: 1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible for through running. The NLL is 25 kV OHLE between Acton and Camden Road, and between Dalston Kingsland and Stratford, and will be all the way between Acton and Stratford once the NLL refurbishment is complete. The WLL switches from 25 kV OHLE to 3rd rail between North Pole Junction and Shepherds Bush. Goblin remains diesel worked (and if it is electrified it will be 25 kV OHLE. BTW, the Broad Street to Dalston line, most of which is being incorporated into the ELL, was originally 4th rail, but IIRC was converted to 3rd rail before closure. Peter And all electrified parts of the current London Overground were four rail at some point, weren't they? Ah, maybe not Dalston to Stratford. I believe the stretch from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone is still four rail, otherwise Bakerloo passengers would have to get out and push! It is 3rd rail with the 4th rail bonded to the running rail which carries the traction return current. The LU 4-rail system does not have a deliberate electrical connection between the 3rd/4th rails and the running rails and is only loosely connected to earth/0v to enable control equipment to detect earthing of either electric rail. A further consequence of this arrangement is that trains running over such sections require higher-rated insulation than is necessarily on LU (660v to earth rather than 420v to earth) although IMU all current LU stock |
Overground
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:34:15 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 10:15, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Sim" wrote Some differences between Overground and Underground: 1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible for through running. The NLL is 25 kV OHLE between Acton and Camden Road, and between Dalston Kingsland and Stratford, and will be all the way between Acton and Stratford once the NLL refurbishment is complete. The WLL switches from 25 kV OHLE to 3rd rail between North Pole Junction and Shepherds Bush. Goblin remains diesel worked (and if it is electrified it will be 25 kV OHLE. BTW, the Broad Street to Dalston line, most of which is being incorporated into the ELL, was originally 4th rail, but IIRC was converted to 3rd rail before closure. Peter And all electrified parts of the current London Overground were four rail at some point, weren't they? Ah, maybe not Dalston to Stratford. I believe the stretch from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone is still four rail, otherwise Bakerloo passengers would have to get out and push! It is 3rd rail with the 4th rail bonded to the running rail which carries the traction return current. The LU 4-rail system does not have a deliberate electrical connection between the 3rd/4th rails and the running rails and is only loosely connected to earth/0v to enable control equipment to detect earthing of either electric rail. A further consequence of this arrangement is that trains running over such sections require higher-rated insulation than is necessarily on LU (660v to earth rather than 420v to earth) although IMU all current LU stock .... has been so equipped since the 1960s. |
Overground
wrote I believe the stretch from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone is still four rail, otherwise Bakerloo passengers would have to get out and push! Ditto Gunnersbury to Richmond for the District Line. However, on these joint sections the fourth (centre) rail is at neutral voltage, with the third rail at +750(?)V, whereas on the rest of LUL the fourth rail is at negative voltage and the third rail at positive voltage - i.e, even apart from loading gauge considerations, a LO or other National Rail DC train would not run satisfactorily on LU lines. Peter |
Overground
"Arthur Figgis" wrote People have been calling National Rail trains in London "overground" for a lot longer than LOROL has existed. There was even an Overground Network branding on a few routes, which lasted about as long as it took for people to say "WTF are the new signs about?" - but many of the signs are still there. I suspect people started referring to the overground at least as long ago as the time the Wombles emerged from Wimbledon Common. Actually, Wimbledon is a good place to make the distinction between the underground route via Earls Court and the other routes into Waterloo or Blackfriars. http://www.toonhound.com/wombles.htm Peter |
Overground
Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:34:15 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 10:15, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Sim" wrote Some differences between Overground and Underground: 1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible for through running. The NLL is 25 kV OHLE between Acton and Camden Road, and between Dalston Kingsland and Stratford, and will be all the way between Acton and Stratford once the NLL refurbishment is complete. The WLL switches from 25 kV OHLE to 3rd rail between North Pole Junction and Shepherds Bush. Goblin remains diesel worked (and if it is electrified it will be 25 kV OHLE. BTW, the Broad Street to Dalston line, most of which is being incorporated into the ELL, was originally 4th rail, but IIRC was converted to 3rd rail before closure. Peter And all electrified parts of the current London Overground were four rail at some point, weren't they? Ah, maybe not Dalston to Stratford. I believe the stretch from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone is still four rail, otherwise Bakerloo passengers would have to get out and push! It is 3rd rail with the 4th rail bonded to the running rail which carries the traction return current. The LU 4-rail system does not have a deliberate electrical connection between the 3rd/4th rails and the running rails and is only loosely connected to earth/0v to enable control equipment to detect earthing of either electric rail. A further consequence of this arrangement is that trains running over such sections require higher-rated insulation than is necessarily on LU (660v to earth rather than 420v to earth) although IMU all current LU stock ... has been so equipped since the 1960s. I'm afraid all that technical theory stuff just goes over my head. I'm a straightforward, practical sort of person, and as far as I'm concerned, if you count the rails and there are four of them, then there are four rails. That's just common sense, and no amount of fancy electrical theory is going to change that. |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 07:17, "
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:34:15 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 10:15, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Sim" wrote Some differences between Overground and Underground: 1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible for through running. The NLL is 25 kV OHLE between Acton and Camden Road, and between Dalston Kingsland and Stratford, and will be all the way between Acton and Stratford once the NLL refurbishment is complete. The WLL switches from 25 kV OHLE to 3rd rail between North Pole Junction and Shepherds Bush. Goblin remains diesel worked (and if it is electrified it will be 25 kV OHLE. BTW, the Broad Street to Dalston line, most of which is being incorporated into the ELL, was originally 4th rail, but IIRC was converted to 3rd rail before closure. Peter And all electrified parts of the current London Overground were four rail at some point, weren't they? *Ah, maybe not Dalston to Stratford. I believe the stretch from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone is still four rail, otherwise Bakerloo passengers would have to get out and push! It is 3rd rail with the 4th rail bonded to the running rail which carries the traction return current. The LU 4-rail system does not have a deliberate electrical connection between the 3rd/4th rails and the running rails and is only loosely connected to earth/0v to enable control equipment to detect earthing of either electric rail. A further consequence of this arrangement is that trains running over such sections require higher-rated insulation than is necessarily on LU (660v to earth rather than 420v to earth) although IMU all current LU stock ... has been so equipped since the 1960s. I'm afraid all that technical theory stuff just goes over my head. I'm a straightforward, practical sort of person, and as far as I'm concerned, if you count the rails and there are four of them, then there are four rails. *That's just common sense, and no amount of fancy electrical theory is going to change that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. On the more general point on whether Overground is part of National Rail, I suggest that it is, behind the scenes, a remarkable compromise/ fudge/whatever. Consider: Overground is a TfL operation, and the concession was awarded to LOROL by TfL. Other posters have already explained the differences between a National Rail franchise and a concession like Overground. Overground is funded and branded by TfL and included in its operations for all public purposes. Overground is, of course, Oyster compatible along with DLR and trams (and buses too, yes). Station specs (staffing, equipment, appearance, branding) have been officially described as comparable with the Underground (although not all the upgrades are done yet). On the other hand, most Overground trains run (or will run) over Network Rail infrastructure, and on some sections they share the line with freight traffic (or the true Underground ). South of New Cross at least, Overground will presumably share its tracks with scheduled National Rail passenger trains, too. One section, though (Dalston Junction west curve to New Cross Gate/New Cross inclusive) is TfL owned/maintained infrastructure. The rolling stock was specified by TfL and is leased by TfL, but is included in the NR Rolling Stock Library as Class 378/x, being yet further variations of the Bombardier Electrostar series (and thus thankfully built in Derby!). Overground is also being treated by the Office of Rail Regulation as part of National Rail: its statistics are included in National Rail Trends just as if it was another franchise. The ORR does not report the figures from other TfL rail systems, any more than it includes Tyne & Wear Metro. And another poster has also rightly pointed out the existence of 25kV in various places, which is why dual-voltage roilling stock is needed. To add a little savour, parts of the 25kV NLL route (Camden Road area?) have third rail as well as OHLE -- a rare combination, I would suggest. If I came across such a compromise system in a foreign capital, I would be intrigued. As it is, it's in London. Hooray! |
Overground
"Sim" wrote
Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. On the more general point on whether Overground is part of National Rail, I suggest that it is, behind the scenes, a remarkable compromise/ fudge/whatever. Consider: Overground is a TfL operation, and the concession was awarded to LOROL by TfL. Other posters have already explained the differences between a National Rail franchise and a concession like Overground. Overground is funded and branded by TfL and included in its operations for all public purposes. Overground is, of course, Oyster compatible along with DLR and trams (and buses too, yes). Station specs (staffing, equipment, appearance, branding) have been officially described as comparable with the Underground (although not all the upgrades are done yet). On the other hand, most Overground trains run (or will run) over Network Rail infrastructure, and on some sections they share the line with freight traffic (or the true Underground ). South of New Cross at least, Overground will presumably share its tracks with scheduled National Rail passenger trains, too. One section, though (Dalston Junction west curve to New Cross Gate/New Cross inclusive) is TfL owned/maintained infrastructure. The rolling stock was specified by TfL and is leased by TfL, but is included in the NR Rolling Stock Library as Class 378/x, being yet further variations of the Bombardier Electrostar series (and thus thankfully built in Derby!). Overground is also being treated by the Office of Rail Regulation as part of National Rail: its statistics are included in National Rail Trends just as if it was another franchise. The ORR does not report the figures from other TfL rail systems, any more than it includes Tyne & Wear Metro. And another poster has also rightly pointed out the existence of 25kV in various places, which is why dual-voltage roilling stock is needed. To add a little savour, parts of the 25kV NLL route (Camden Road area?) have third rail as well as OHLE -- a rare combination, I would suggest. If I came across such a compromise system in a foreign capital, I would be intrigued. As it is, it's in London. Hooray! That seems like a reasonable summary. Now, can someone explain succinctly why the smaller 'National Rail' stations between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, used by LU and LO, which were previously Silverlink-branded, are now signed as LU (rather than LO) stations? |
Overground
"John Salmon" wrote in message ... "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! SNIP As it is, it's in London. Hooray! That seems like a reasonable summary. Now, can someone explain succinctly why the smaller 'National Rail' stations between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, used by LU and LO, which were previously Silverlink-branded, are now signed as LU (rather than LO) stations? The name Bakerloo might have something to do with it. AIUI, the TfL strategy is to make the Bakerloo the primary service provider for this section, if not the whole way to Watford Jn. This may be linked in some way with the Metropolitan Line Watford branch extension to Watford Jn. DW downunder |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 09:52, "DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote:
"John Salmon" wrote in message ... "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! SNIP As it is, it's in London. Hooray! That seems like a reasonable summary. Now, can someone explain succinctly why the smaller 'National Rail' stations between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, used by LU and LO, which were previously Silverlink-branded, are now signed as LU (rather than LO) stations? The name Bakerloo might have something to do with it. AIUI, the TfL strategy is to make the Bakerloo the primary service provider for this section, if not the whole way to Watford Jn. This may be linked in some way with the Metropolitan Line Watford branch extension to Watford Jn. DW downunder The decision was made to transfer these stations to Underground management at the time Overground was being defined. The Bakerloo is probably seen as the senior partner as far as Harrow now, and further changes (already discussed) seem likely to make that even more so in the future. 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". From 1964 a decline set in as far as LT was concerned, until by the 1970s there was no Bakerloo north of Queen's Park except a handful in the peaks. Then Stonebridge Park depot was built as part of the splitting of the Bakerloo around the time the first part of the Jubilee line opened (1979) and tube trains started running north of Queen's Park more frequently again. One thought: will Headstone Lane--Watford High Street inclusive also be transferred to Underground management eventually, particularly after Met trains start serving Watford HS on their way from Croxley to Watford Junction? Place your bets ... |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote:
"Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. (Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote:
On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything. Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not much continuity there, I would have thought! |
Overground
Had a trip from Clapham Junction to Highbury & Islington yesterday
afternoon - a bargain £1.10 with Oyster. Can anyone help with the following queries? Why are most LO station name and platform number boards marked with 'This is a temporary sign'? What's wrong with them? New class 378 S- and 3-car stop signs are also appearing, some of which are only 2m from the existing signs. I understand that there is a need to move some NLL station S car stop signs ready for 4-car operation, but why the mucking about on the WLL? Compressors on the 313 I rode were incredibly loud, more so than on A stock. For whatever reason the popping noise that I normally associate with the driver cutting power is also made when accelerating - I can rule out third rail gaps as it happens when leaving Willesden Junction HL. I think Southern will live to regret taking on this fleet! Judging from comments and queries from other pax e.g. "does this train go to Camden Road?" overheard at CLJ, I think the assumption that most pax are doing 2-3 station hops is incorrect. The three other occupants of my bay from Willesden Junction hadn't left the train by Highbury. The train - 17:30 ex-CLJ - had plenty of standees but was not crush loaded. A non-scientific survey, but in conclusion seating in the 378s will be totally inadequate: was a compromise of 2+1 seating considered? |
Overground
"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. |
Overground
"Sim" wrote in message ... On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote: On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. (Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything. Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not much continuity there, I would have thought! But lying on the ground and connected to ground!? DW downunder |
Overground
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. (Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? Or nothing - there should be "no circuit", but I suspect could cause some problems for track circuits. DW down under |
Overground
"John Salmon" wrote in message ... That seems like a reasonable summary. Now, can someone explain succinctly why the smaller 'National Rail' stations between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, used by LU and LO, which were previously Silverlink-branded, are now signed as LU (rather than LO) stations? Network Rail owned stations leased to Tfl, who decided LU rather than LO would be the station operator, as the majority user based on service frequency, I believe. Paul |
Overground
On Sep 18, 10:17*am, Sim wrote:
On 18 Sep, 09:52, "DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote: "John Salmon" wrote in message ... "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! SNIP As it is, it's in London. Hooray! That seems like a reasonable summary. Now, can someone explain succinctly why the smaller 'National Rail' stations between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, used by LU and LO, which were previously Silverlink-branded, are now signed as LU (rather than LO) stations? The name Bakerloo might have something to do with it. AIUI, the TfL strategy is to make the Bakerloo the primary service provider for this section, if not the whole way to Watford Jn. This may be linked in some way with the Metropolitan Line Watford branch extension to Watford Jn. DW downunder The decision was made to transfer these stations to Underground management at the time Overground was being defined. The Bakerloo is probably seen as the senior partner as far as Harrow now, and further changes (already discussed) seem likely to make that even more so in the future. 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". From 1964 a decline set in as far as LT was concerned, until by the 1970s there was no Bakerloo north of Queen's Park except a handful in the peaks. Then Stonebridge Park depot was built as part of the splitting of the Bakerloo around the time the first part of the Jubilee line opened (1979) and tube trains started running north of Queen's Park more frequently again. One thought: will Headstone Lane--Watford High Street inclusive also be transferred to Underground management eventually, particularly after Met trains start serving Watford HS on their way from Croxley to Watford Junction? Why not go the whole hog and include a new LU ticket office in the rebuilt Watford Junction station? Plans already show a possible new direct access from buses/street to platforms 1-4! JohnG |
Overground
"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"? DW downunder |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 11:34, "DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message ... On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? Or nothing - there should be "no circuit", but I suspect could cause some problems for track circuits. Oops, I think I meant positive and neutral. |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 09:52, "DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote:
"John Salmon" wrote in message ... "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! SNIP As it is, it's in London. Hooray! That seems like a reasonable summary. Now, can someone explain succinctly why the smaller 'National Rail' stations between Queens Park and Harrow & Wealdstone, used by LU and LO, which were previously Silverlink-branded, are now signed as LU (rather than LO) stations? The name Bakerloo might have something to do with it. AIUI, the TfL strategy is to make the Bakerloo the primary service provider for this section, if not the whole way to Watford Jn. This may be linked in some way with the Metropolitan Line Watford branch extension to Watford Jn. The Bakerloo are the primary provider for this section and have been for a while. A 7 car train every 10 mins (more in the peak and south of Stonebridge Park) compared to a 3 car train every 20 mins for LO. It was only when TfL took over responsibility for the stations that they became Bakerloo line managed though and much of the kit is still National Rail (like the ticket machines). |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 11:10, Sim wrote:
On 18 Sep, 10:47, MIG wrote: On 18 Sep, 09:44, "John Salmon" wrote: "Sim" wrote Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. Previous discussions have suggested that it is still there because it is still connected. *I think the running rails must be wired to the fourth rail and then the fourth rail wired to earth in the way that the running rails are in other third rail systems. *(Not technical, but I assume that it saved connecting the running rails for one sort of train and duplicating the connections for another sort of train.) Question: was this the system at Euston and Broad Street etc, ie positive to earth, rather than a bit positive to a bit negative? Presumably for an LU train, the difference between the rails is all that matters, whereas for a three-rail train it's the difference between positive and earth that matters, so a NR train on conventional LU track would only be at 420 V or something? I really doubt that the old fourth rail is in circuit with anything. Some is missing, and other sections are lying in the four foot. Not much continuity there, I would have thought! It is still wired to the running rails, if you look from a train at the other track, you can see the connections. The running rails were never the continuous electrical return and were not bonded together. The fact that the rail lies in the four foot doesn't matter as it is earthed, missing sections will have been bypassed with cabling and very little is actually missing if you look for it. If nothing else, it has to be connected to something, due to possible induction from the 25kV AC running along side. |
Overground
On 18 Sep, 08:14, Sim wrote:
On 18 Sep, 07:17, " wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:34:15 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: MIG wrote: On 17 Sep, 10:15, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Sim" wrote Some differences between Overground and Underground: 1. Third rail electrification rather than fourth, so not compatible for through running. The NLL is 25 kV OHLE between Acton and Camden Road, and between Dalston Kingsland and Stratford, and will be all the way between Acton and Stratford once the NLL refurbishment is complete. The WLL switches from 25 kV OHLE to 3rd rail between North Pole Junction and Shepherds Bush. Goblin remains diesel worked (and if it is electrified it will be 25 kV OHLE. BTW, the Broad Street to Dalston line, most of which is being incorporated into the ELL, was originally 4th rail, but IIRC was converted to 3rd rail before closure. Peter And all electrified parts of the current London Overground were four rail at some point, weren't they? *Ah, maybe not Dalston to Stratford. I believe the stretch from Queens Park to Harrow & Wealdstone is still four rail, otherwise Bakerloo passengers would have to get out and push! It is 3rd rail with the 4th rail bonded to the running rail which carries the traction return current. The LU 4-rail system does not have a deliberate electrical connection between the 3rd/4th rails and the running rails and is only loosely connected to earth/0v to enable control equipment to detect earthing of either electric rail. A further consequence of this arrangement is that trains running over such sections require higher-rated insulation than is necessarily on LU (660v to earth rather than 420v to earth) although IMU all current LU stock ... has been so equipped since the 1960s. I'm afraid all that technical theory stuff just goes over my head. I'm a straightforward, practical sort of person, and as far as I'm concerned, if you count the rails and there are four of them, then there are four rails. *That's just common sense, and no amount of fancy electrical theory is going to change that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Now let's be nice to each other! I did not know the details Charles kindly provided, but it does make sense. Interestingly, not only does fourth rail (however wired) exist as far north as Harrow, but the last time I looked there was quite a lot left further on, although some of it was lying rather dismally in the four foot rather than perched on insulators. It was never formally removed, in other words, although doubtless disconnected. And another poster has also rightly pointed out the existence of 25kV in various places, which is why dual-voltage roilling stock is needed. To add a little savour, parts of the 25kV NLL route (Camden Road area?) have third rail as well as OHLE -- a rare combination, I would suggest. Although the amount of mixed track will be reduced once the current works have finished, as the 3rd rail will be removed from the NLL tracks through Camden and the 3rd rail will only reach Highbury & Islington on the southern pair of tracks from the East London line. There will be a short dual system connection between them. If I came across such a compromise system in a foreign capital, I would be intrigued. There are some dual system units in use in Hamburg. As it is, it's in London. Hooray! |
Overground
"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". |
Overground
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message "Recliner" wrote in message ... 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". The problem as I see it, is that 'London Rail' is primarily an 'overview organisation', which has a remit to take a strategic view on all heavy rail in London, but it is only a subset, the TfL managed Overground, that it has real control over. IMHO 'Overground' was flawed as a choice of name from the off, due to both the earlier 'Overground Network' in south London, that just seemed to wither away, when another (better) idea came along; but mainly because of the colloquial use of 'overground' to mean anything that isn't underground. IMX many Londoners use the term for ANY heavy rail, not just suburban services, e.g. some (by no means all) would consider the WCML an 'overground service'... Paul S |
Overground
"Paul Scott" wrote in message
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message "Recliner" wrote in message ... 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". The problem as I see it, is that 'London Rail' is primarily an 'overview organisation', which has a remit to take a strategic view on all heavy rail in London, but it is only a subset, the TfL managed Overground, that it has real control over. IMHO 'Overground' was flawed as a choice of name from the off, due to both the earlier 'Overground Network' in south London, that just seemed to wither away, when another (better) idea came along; but mainly because of the colloquial use of 'overground' to mean anything that isn't underground. IMX many Londoners use the term for ANY heavy rail, not just suburban services, e.g. some (by no means all) would consider the WCML an 'overground service'... Yes, that's why I think the LOROL routes should have a distinct branding that doesn't get confused with other kinds of trains operating in London. |
Overground
|
Overground
|
Overground
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. |
Overground
"Willms" wrote in message
Am Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:30:54 UTC, schrieb "Recliner" auf uk.railway : I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't get confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be 'Metro' No, I think that "London Overground" is perfect companion to "London Underground", using more or less the same sign just in a different color (orange instead of red). Yes, it sounds logical, but as others have pointed out, it gets confused with all the other non-underground railways in London Calling it "Metro" would confuse overseas visitors who would take that for what they know as "Metro" in their countries, and which in London is called "Underground". Yes, that's why I proposed some other, less confusing, name. In any case, London already has the Metropolitan line, often called the Met. |
Overground
wrote in message ... In article Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, There have been a number of proposals for Merseyrail to maintain their own track, because it can be segregated from the wider network (unlike the 'Overground') but so far nothing has changed, as NR fundamentally disagree. Paul |
Overground
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Yes, that's why I think the LOROL routes should have a distinct branding that doesn't get confused with other kinds of trains operating in London. But then what you do about the opposite case, of a station on the ELL 'southern extension', managed by LO, which will have two platforms on a route where LO trains will never be seen, but will presumably be fully signed up in the LO colour scheme? I'm thinking about Crystal Palace. But using the precedent of Clapham Junction, there's little reason AFAICS why the two platforms shouldn't retain Southern branding? Paul |
Overground
Willms wrote:
Am Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:30:54 UTC, schrieb "Recliner" auf uk.railway : I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't get confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be 'Metro' No, I think that "London Overground" is perfect companion to "London Underground", using more or less the same sign just in a different color (orange instead of red). But it confuses the public, who for a long time have called all non-Underground/DLR services "overground", even the services which the authorities have not now officially called "Overground". Calling it "Metro" would confuse overseas visitors who would take that for what they know as "Metro" in their countries, and which in London is called "Underground". Whereas Overground confuses locals. Maybe they should have tried S-something, if that could be got past the "my grandad didn't fight the boche for the trains to be called..." brigade. Tell them it's Danish, or something. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk