Marland wrote:
Recliner wrote:
From
https://www.cityam.com/mayor-of-london-election-sadiq-khan-pledges-to-name-london-overground-lines/

Sadiq Khan has pledged to give individual names to London Overground train
lines if re-elected as mayor of London next month.

Khan’s manifesto, released today, said the “London Overground network has
grown considerably over recent years” and that “to reflect this I’ll launch
a programme to name individual routes, giving each its own identity”.

The London Overground now has 112 stations over six different lines,
however none of the lines are named like on the London Underground.

The policy announcement will see a programme launched by Khan to choose
names for the six lines, if he wins re-election on 6 May, however no
details were given on what the criteria will be.


Does the East London line even though services now go further still retain
that name or has it been dropped, if it has been renewing it would seem
logical. The Met only had exclusive use of it from the mid 1960’s till the
Overground took over ,a comparatively short period in its long history
when services like now went further.

None of the LO services currently have official names, though of course
locals might continue to use the historical names (DC Line, etc). The
problem with some of the old geographic names is that multiple modern
routes share some lines.

For example, the physical East London line is used by routes to New Cross,
West Croydon and Clapham Junction. Should these three routes warrent their
own, different names? Or should they simply be regarded as three branches
of the East London Line, just as the District Line has four western
branches? But shouldn't the Clapham Junction route be called the South
London Line? So you might have an East London Line with branches to New
Cross and West Croydon, and the South London Line which shares part of the
route, but then heads west to Clapham Junction.

The old names also have oddities: the North London Line goes further west
than the West London Line, and further east than the East London Line,
while the East London Line to West Croydon goes further south than the
South London Line.

Net result:
- the northern-most most LO branch isn't the North London Line
- the eastern and western-most LO branches are on the North London Line
- the southern-most branch is the East London line.

A further complication is the possible confusion between the Northern LU
line (which is the southern-most LU line) and the entirely separate North
London LO line. Despite crossing each other, the Northern LU line has no
single station interchanges with any LO line.

Or you could invent Bakerloo-style composite names, but would the two
entirely separate routes from H&I to Clapham Junction cause confusion?

Other countries would just use route numbers, but that seems not to be our
style.