Overground
 

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?

Overground
 

"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?

Where?

Overground
 

Recliner wrote on 16 September 2009
15:20:54 ...
"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?

Where?

I guess he means the sub-surface bits of the ex-ELL, but the only deep
tube section of this is the Thames Tunnel, isn't it?

Overground = NLL +ELL + ELL extensions + GOBLIN + WatfordJn-Euston.
Very little of that is underground.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Overground
 

"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.

Overground
 

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...

"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.

And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground Rail
Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway
and DB Regio.

Overground
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
m
Recliner wrote on 16 September 2009
15:20:54 ...
"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?

Where?

I guess he means the sub-surface bits of the ex-ELL, but the only deep
tube section of this is the Thames Tunnel, isn't it?

Overground = NLL +ELL + ELL extensions + GOBLIN + WatfordJn-Euston.
Very little of that is underground.

Yup, that's what I thought, and I can't think of any deep tube bits
apart from the (very) old Brunel tunnel.

Overground
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Richard J." wrote in message
m
Recliner wrote on 16 September 2009
15:20:54 ...
"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?

Where?

I guess he means the sub-surface bits of the ex-ELL, but the only deep
tube section of this is the Thames Tunnel, isn't it?

Overground = NLL +ELL + ELL extensions + GOBLIN + WatfordJn-Euston.
Very little of that is underground.

Yup, that's what I thought, and I can't think of any deep tube bits apart
from the (very) old Brunel tunnel.


And indeed, that could be described as much "underWATER" as "UndergrounD".
:)

DW downunder (neither ground nor water)

Overground
 

Graham Harrison wrote on 16
September 2009 16:59:33 ...
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
"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.

No, the government decided to delegate management responsibility for
these lines to TfL.

Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under
National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU.

It is part of TfL in the same way that the DLR is part of TfL. The
signalling rules are irrelevant; there are parts of LU that operate
under Network Rail signalling. Yes, the conditions of carriage are
those for National Rail - so what?

And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground Rail
Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway
and DB Regio.

It's not a franchise. The London Rail Concession is an agreement
between DfT and TfL under which TfL is responsible for managing services
on the London Overground lines. TfL have contracted LOROL to operate
the trains and stations.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Overground
 

"Richard J." wrote in message
om...
Graham Harrison wrote on 16
September 2009 16:59:33 ...
"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message ...
"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.

No, the government decided to delegate management responsibility for these
lines to TfL.

Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under
National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU.

It is part of TfL in the same way that the DLR is part of TfL. The
signalling rules are irrelevant; there are parts of LU that operate under
Network Rail signalling. Yes, the conditions of carriage are those for
National Rail - so what?

And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground
Rail Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit
Railway and DB Regio.

It's not a franchise. The London Rail Concession is an agreement between
DfT and TfL under which TfL is responsible for managing services on the
London Overground lines. TfL have contracted LOROL to operate the trains
and stations.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

OK, let see if I've got this right

The Dft and Tfl have an agreement that allows Tfl to operate what is known
as the "Overground". Tfl have then let a contract to LOROL to actually run
the services. I'm intrigued - what's the difference between a franchise
and the Dft/Tfl agreement?

As for the issue of Network Rail conditions of carriage it makes a
difference (to me - ymmv).

Overground
 

On Sep 16, 6:39*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

"Richard J." wrote:

Graham Harrison wrote on 16
September 2009 16:59:33:

"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.

No, the government decided to delegate management responsibility for these
lines to TfL.

Correct.


Therefore, it's not part of Tfl as such - for instance it works under
National Rail rules/signalling and passenger terms/conditions not LU.

It is part of TfL in the same way that the DLR is part of TfL. *The
signalling rules are irrelevant; there are parts of LU that operate under
Network Rail signalling. *Yes, the conditions of carriage are those for
National Rail - so what?

The easiest thing to say is that it's both part of TfL and of
'National Rail' (the latter in itself being a somewhat amorphous
concept).


And to make matters more complicated although (as I understand it) the
franchise is let to Tfl it's actually run for them by London Overground
Rail Operations Ltd (LOROL) which is owned half by Hong Kong Mass Transit
Railway and DB Regio.

It's not a franchise. *The London Rail Concession is an agreement between
DfT and TfL under which TfL is responsible for managing services on the
London Overground lines. *TfL have contracted LOROL to operate the trains
and stations.

OK, let see if I've got this right

The Dft and Tfl have an agreement that allows Tfl to operate what is known
as the "Overground". * Tfl have then let a contract to LOROL to actually run
the services. * I'm intrigued - what's the difference between a franchise
and the Dft/Tfl agreement?

Lots and lots. TfL take the revenue risk, for a start. And TfL specify
the level of service - not sure if there's a concordat with the DfT on
the bare minimum, but given the demand that's almost irrelevant. (I
suppose there must be some sort of understanding, as the DC line is
part of LO and covers territory outside of Greater London.)

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.


As for the issue of Network Rail conditions of carriage it makes a
difference (to me - ymmv).

*Network* Rail conditions of carriage - what are they?

Overground
 

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?

Overground
 

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.

Overground
 

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.

Overground
 

Overground
 

"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

Overground
 

On 16 Sep, 23:00, 1506 wrote:
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.

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.
2. Comparatively little exclusive route (only the former ELL, really,
and arguably the Watford DC, except that even that is shared between
Queen's Park and Harrow & W with the Underground).
3. Almost entirely surface, except again for the former ELL of course.
4. Essentially a suburban network. With the transfer of the ELL, all
Underground lines now enter (and mostly cross) central London. No
Overground line does, with the exception of the Watford DC which gets
as far as Euston. My understanding is that there is a longer term plan
to remove the DC from Euston, reviving the connection at Primrose Hill
to take the Watfords on to the NLL instead. This may be tied in with a
second proposal to restore the Bakerloo between Harrow and Watford,
but some Overground service will have to continue if the stations
between Queen's Park and the Primrose Hill connection, such as Kilburn
High Road, are to stay open. These developments are probably at least
a decade away, because they are also linked to some extent with
replacing the Bakerloo fleet, after c.2016.
5. I think the intention is to create a kind of S-Bahn, to take the
German model. The Underground, of course, is the U-Bahn.
6. There are also plans to extend Overground services further, taking
in more south London routes in particular (see the new Southern
franchise).l
7. On balance, I feel the decision to create Overground was logical
enough. All ticketing, of course, is compatible, so many passengers
don't notice the join, I suspect. Red roundel, orange roundel: it's
all TfL.

Overground
 

On 17 Sep, 09:55, Sim wrote:
On 16 Sep, 23:00, 1506 wrote: 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.

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.
2. Comparatively little exclusive route (only the former ELL, really,
and arguably the Watford DC, except that even that is shared between
Queen's Park and Harrow & W with the Underground).
3. Almost entirely surface, except again for the former ELL of course.
4. Essentially a suburban network. With the transfer of the ELL, all
Underground lines now enter (and mostly cross) central London. No
Overground line does, with the exception of the Watford DC which gets
as far as Euston. My understanding is that there is a longer term plan
to remove the DC from Euston, reviving the connection at Primrose Hill
to take the Watfords on to the NLL instead. This may be tied in with a
second proposal to restore the Bakerloo between Harrow and Watford,
but some Overground service will have to continue if the stations
between Queen's Park and the Primrose Hill connection, such as Kilburn
High Road, are to stay open. These developments are probably at least
a decade away, because they are also linked to some extent with
replacing the Bakerloo fleet, after c.2016.
5. I think the intention is to create a kind of S-Bahn, to take the
German model. The Underground, of course, is the U-Bahn.
6. There are also plans to extend Overground services further, taking
in more south London routes in particular (see the new Southern
franchise).l
7. On balance, I feel the decision to create Overground was logical
enough. All ticketing, of course, is compatible, so many passengers
don't notice the join, I suspect. Red roundel, orange roundel: it's
all TfL.

A quick postscript. By former ELL I also mean the restored bit north
of Whitechapel as far as Dalston. Never part of the Underground,
strictly. I'm mentioning it before someone else does!

Overground
 

"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

Overground
 

1506 wrote:

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

But before it became part of the 'Underground' it was part of the main line
network, so it is just back where it was originally...

Paul

Overground
 

Isn't it also pertinent that overground routes are part of the National Rail
system for ticketing/timetabling purpose?

The signaling is also to main line standard and much of the system is used
by Freight.

Overground
 

On 17 Sep, 09:55, Sim wrote:
On 16 Sep, 23:00, 1506 wrote: 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.

Some differences between Overground and Underground:

3. Almost entirely surface, except again for the former ELL of course.

Even the former ELL only had about 3km (from a total of around 9km) in
tunnel; from Whitechapel - Surrey Quays. The DC lines from Euston to
Kensal Green are probably in tunnel for a similar distance, although
not continuously and the NLL has the lengthy Hampstead Heath tunnel.
This doesn't invalidate your point though.

Overground
 

....though of course, as pointed out elsewhere, the Underground goes
over the Overground at Whitechapel :)

Overground
 

Sim wrote:

5. I think the intention is to create a kind of S-Bahn, to take the
German model. The Underground, of course, is the U-Bahn.

I believe the fundamental difference between a U-Bahn and an S-Bahn is that
people who are unhappy with the U-Bahn should try to kick the mayor out of
the Rathaus, whereas people who are unhappy with the S-Bahn should try to
get rid of the Chancellor over in Bonn. This distinction doesn't really seem
to be the case with the Overground.

Overground
 

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.

Overground
 

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?

Overground
 

On 17 Sep, 12:39, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Sim wrote:

5. I think the intention is to create a kind of S-Bahn, to take the
German model. The Underground, of course, is the U-Bahn.

I believe the fundamental difference between a U-Bahn and an S-Bahn is that
people who are unhappy with the U-Bahn should try to kick the mayor out of
the Rathaus, whereas people who are unhappy with the S-Bahn should try to
get rid of the Chancellor over in Bonn. This distinction doesn't really seem
to be the case with the Overground.

It depends on how fundamental political control is to this particular
discussion. I have to confess it wasn't at the top of my mind!

In the past London suburban railways were the responsibility of the
Big Four/BR/National Rail franchisees+Network Rail, whereas now the
emphasis is being changed by Overground. The intention was to move
within-London local rail services away from National Rail to the
London mass transit authority -- i.e. TfL. As I said, I think it's
more logical on balance and also more logical than the German
situation as you describe it too. The rest is branding. They prefer S-
Bahn and U-Bahn, we prefer Overground and Underground. Both are clear
enough for me.

There is also no doubt that TfL, assisted of course by substantial
budgets, is transforming the Overground service and stations compared
to the rather dismal Silverlink days. Considering that the passenger
service on the NLL (more properly the NLR now) was included in
Beeching's list of closures in 1963, we have come quite a long way.

Overground
 

Basil Jet wrote:

the Chancellor over in Bonn.

Er, that's the Plattdeutcsh name for Berlin, obviously.

Overground
 

On Sep 17, 12:39*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

I believe the fundamental difference between a U-Bahn and an S-Bahn is that
people who are unhappy with the U-Bahn should try to kick the mayor out of
the Rathaus, whereas people who are unhappy with the S-Bahn should try to
get rid of the Chancellor over in Bonn. This distinction doesn't really seem
to be the case with the Overground.

ITYM Berlin.

But the distinction *does* exist - the Overground is part of the
national rail network in both countries, including the fares system.
It just happens that the structure of said national rail system in the
UK is different to Germany.

Merseyrail is, I suppose, a similar example of an S-Bahn.

Neil

Overground
 

On Sep 17, 1:20*pm, Sim wrote:
They prefer S-
Bahn and U-Bahn, we prefer Overground and Underground. Both are clear
enough for me.

And there are odd examples. In Hamburg, there is a large section of S-
Bahn that is underground, and a large section of U-Bahn that is
elevated (hence Hamburger Hochbahn AG - the overhead railway!).

Neil

Overground
 

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).

Overground
 

On 17 Sep, 13:49, Neil Williams wrote:
On Sep 17, 1:20*pm, Sim wrote:

They prefer S-
Bahn and U-Bahn, we prefer Overground and Underground. Both are clear
enough for me.

And there are odd examples. *In Hamburg, there is a large section of S-
Bahn that is underground, and a large section of U-Bahn that is
elevated (hence Hamburger Hochbahn AG - the overhead railway!).


To my way of thinking the S-bahns generally serve areas further out
than the U-bahns. Much of the S-bahn track is now exclusively for S-
bahn trains and the services are no longer directly run by DB (if
thinking about Germany), but put out to tender by the local transport
authority. Both the Met and District, as well as LO have a lot more in
common with various S-bahn networks than with the corresponding U-
bahn.

Overground
 

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.

Overground
 

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...
1506 wrote:

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

But before it became part of the 'Underground' it was part of the main
line network, so it is just back where it was originally...

It was an oddity. It escaped the Grouping because it was part-owned by the
Metropolitan, who ran all the passenger trains, and it escaped the formation
of the London Passenger Transport Board because it was part-owned by the
Southern Railway. Following nationalisation it was administered by the
London Transport Executive, but still figured in the Southern Region
timetable, and it was possible to obtain through tickets from SR stations to
ELL stations, even when through tickets (other than season tickets) from SR
to LT stations did not exist.

Peter

Overground
 

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.

Overground
 

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.

Overground
 

"Great Eastern" wrote in message
...
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.

Several years ago, IIRC at the instigation of TfL, National Rail services
within Greater London which had a frequency of 4 tph or better were branded
'Overground Network'. Some of teh branding still exists, at stations which
are not part of London Overground.

Peter

Overground
 

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!

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Overground
 

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".

Overground
 

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.

Overground
 

On 17 Sep, 17:48, 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".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

IMHO, you can include Overground only if you admit the offside
diagonal rule between South Acton and Richmond.