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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Basil Jet wrote:

the Chancellor over in Bonn.

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

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

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

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).