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.

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.