Graham Harrison wrote:

"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

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?

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.

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?

In article ,
() wrote:

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?

To some extent they are both - Network Rail signalling but with train
stops.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

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.

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?

Graham Harrison wrote:
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

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.

Signalling and rules are of no relevance. The ATO lines are not declared to
be a different system to the driven lines, for instance.

On Sep 16, 7:04*am, "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?

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

FYI. There are no deep tube parts on the Overground as is. Although
I would guess the tunnel under the Thames is somewhat deep.

"1506" wrote in message
...
This is something I have wondered for some time. The Overground name
is contrived. The East London Line is a former Underground line
anyway.

As far as I'm concerned if there are more than 3 rails it's "Underground".
By that definition the East London Line no longer qualifies.

D A Stocks