On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:27:49 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

On 21 Sep, 23:08, asdf wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:55:45 -0700 (PDT), Sim wrote:
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.

How much of the Met/Circle/District/H&C lines run through metal
tunnel? Why aren't these switched to the 3-rail system?

LU power supply, stock movements, shared sections etc?

On the sub-surface lines there are still armoured cables (and in the
old days, lead-sheathed cables) and air pipes which don't take kindly
to traction currents taking a short cut through them. More modern
materials and methods possibly reduce the risk of stray currents but
the signalling systems in current use IMU are still designed around
running rails devoid of traction currents.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:55:45AM -0700, Sim wrote:

6. There are also plans to extend Overground services further, taking
in more south London routes in particular (see the new Southern
franchise).

What's changed?

--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the
entrails of the ******* denying me access to anything else.

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

"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

In article , damduck-
says...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:53:29 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



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


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,

Was there not a reversal of that situation for Stations on the
Hammersmith and City ? I'm sure I remember my grandfather muttering
something about buying a ticket at Hammersmith for a destination on
the Western region as it would save having to go the booking office at
Paddington.

G.Harman


Yes, the H&C was originally a Metropolitan & Great Western Joint line
and thus through bookings were possible to stations as far away as
Penzance. These were certainly possible into LT Board times.

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.

"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

Great Eastern wrote:
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.

People have been calling National Rail trains in London "overground" for
a lot longer than LOROL has existed. There was even an Overground
Network branding on a few routes, which lasted about as long as it took
for people to say "WTF are the new signs about?" - but many of the signs
are still there.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" wrote

People have been calling National Rail trains in London "overground" for a
lot longer than LOROL has existed. There was even an Overground Network
branding on a few routes, which lasted about as long as it took for people
to say "WTF are the new signs about?" - but many of the signs are still
there.

I suspect people started referring to the overground at least as long ago as
the time the Wombles emerged from Wimbledon Common. Actually, Wimbledon is a
good place to make the distinction between the underground route via Earls
Court and the other routes into Waterloo or Blackfriars.
http://www.toonhound.com/wombles.htm

Peter

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.


If you want a stupid contrived use of the word, FirstBus titled the
Bristol bus map "Overground"... a BUS map!!!

Matt