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.