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.