"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Willms" wrote in message

Am Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:00:32 UTC, schrieb 1506
auf uk.railway :

This is something I have wondered for some time. The Overground
name is contrived. The East London Line is a former Underground
line anyway.

It is marketing, and probably a good move.

This could create a brand for urban and suburban railways similar
to "S-Bahn" in Germany and German speaking countries, distinct from
"U-Bahn" resp. "Underground".

Yes, I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't
get confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be
'Metro' but that risks confusion with the Metropolitan line.

Wasn't that the purpose of "London Rail"?

But it's certainly not branded that way, and it would be pretty
confusing if that name was used. What struck me was that the loop will
soon be complete, so you could have names like "London Ringrail".

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Yes, I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't
get confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be
'Metro' but that risks confusion with the Metropolitan line.

Wasn't that the purpose of "London Rail"?

But it's certainly not branded that way, and it would be pretty confusing
if that name was used. What struck me was that the loop will soon be
complete, so you could have names like "London Ringrail".

The problem as I see it, is that 'London Rail' is primarily an 'overview
organisation', which has a remit to take a strategic view on all heavy rail
in London, but it is only a subset, the TfL managed Overground, that it has
real control over.

IMHO 'Overground' was flawed as a choice of name from the off, due to both
the earlier 'Overground Network' in south London, that just seemed to wither
away, when another (better) idea came along; but mainly because of the
colloquial use of 'overground' to mean anything that isn't underground. IMX
many Londoners use the term for ANY heavy rail, not just suburban services,
e.g. some (by no means all) would consider the WCML an 'overground
service'...

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"DW downunder" reply@newsgroup wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Yes, I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't
get confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be
'Metro' but that risks confusion with the Metropolitan line.

Wasn't that the purpose of "London Rail"?

But it's certainly not branded that way, and it would be pretty
confusing if that name was used. What struck me was that the loop
will soon be complete, so you could have names like "London
Ringrail".

The problem as I see it, is that 'London Rail' is primarily an
'overview organisation', which has a remit to take a strategic view
on all heavy rail in London, but it is only a subset, the TfL managed
Overground, that it has real control over.

IMHO 'Overground' was flawed as a choice of name from the off, due to
both the earlier 'Overground Network' in south London, that just
seemed to wither away, when another (better) idea came along; but
mainly because of the colloquial use of 'overground' to mean anything
that isn't underground. IMX many Londoners use the term for ANY
heavy rail, not just suburban services, e.g. some (by no means all)
would consider the WCML an 'overground service'...

Yes, that's why I think the LOROL routes should have a distinct branding
that doesn't get confused with other kinds of trains operating in
London.

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Both London Overground and Merseyrail (the electric lines) are
"concessions" as opposed to franchises, and the DfT has delegated
responsibility away in both cases - for LO, to TfL, and for
Merseyrail, to Merseytravel (the PTA - well actually it's an ITA now -
Intergrated Transport Authority). Merseyrail is however a somewhat
different type of arrangement - for example, the operator (a Serco-
NedRailways joint venture) takes the revenue risk.

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, unlike London Overground where
Notwork Rail still do it?

It's Integrated, not Intergrated, BTW.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
() wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
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.

The starting signal at Amersham eastbound was definitely set up as
a National Rail signal, and it was not a road signal over a
repeater signal.

What about between Putney and Wimbledon and between Gunnersbury and
Richmond?

To some extent they are both - Network Rail signalling but with train
stops.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 18 Sep, 13:48, wrote:
In article
,

(Mizter T) wrote:
Both London Overground and Merseyrail (the electric lines) are
"concessions" as opposed to franchises, and the DfT has delegated
responsibility away in both cases - for LO, to TfL, and for
Merseyrail, to Merseytravel (the PTA - well actually it's an ITA now -
Intergrated Transport Authority). Merseyrail is however a somewhat
different type of arrangement - for example, the operator (a Serco-
NedRailways joint venture) takes the revenue risk.

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack, unlike London Overground where
Notwork Rail still do it?

It's Integrated, not Intergrated, BTW.

If there isn't such a word, there should be.

Then LU lines could be integrated with each other and intergrated with
Overground.

"Willms" wrote in message

Am Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:30:54 UTC, schrieb "Recliner"
auf uk.railway :

I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't get
confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be
'Metro'

No, I think that "London Overground" is perfect companion to "London
Underground", using more or less the same sign just in a different
color (orange instead of red).

Yes, it sounds logical, but as others have pointed out, it gets confused
with all the other non-underground railways in London


Calling it "Metro" would confuse overseas visitors who would take
that for what they know as "Metro" in their countries, and which in
London is called "Underground".

Yes, that's why I proposed some other, less confusing, name. In any
case, London already has the Metropolitan line, often called the Met.

wrote in message
...
In article

Don't Merseyrail also maintain the tack,

There have been a number of proposals for Merseyrail to maintain their own
track, because it can be segregated from the wider network (unlike the
'Overground') but so far nothing has changed, as NR fundamentally disagree.

Paul

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

Yes, that's why I think the LOROL routes should have a distinct branding
that doesn't get confused with other kinds of trains operating in London.

But then what you do about the opposite case, of a station on the ELL
'southern extension', managed by LO, which will have two platforms on a
route where LO trains will never be seen, but will presumably be fully
signed up in the LO colour scheme?

I'm thinking about Crystal Palace. But using the precedent of Clapham
Junction, there's little reason AFAICS why the two platforms shouldn't
retain Southern branding?

Paul

Willms wrote:
Am Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:30:54 UTC, schrieb "Recliner"
auf uk.railway :

I think the London 'Overground' needs a new brand that doesn't get
confused with other overground trains. The obvious one would be 'Metro'

No, I think that "London Overground" is perfect companion to "London
Underground", using more or less the same sign just in a different
color (orange instead of red).

But it confuses the public, who for a long time have called all
non-Underground/DLR services "overground", even the services which the
authorities have not now officially called "Overground".

Calling it "Metro" would confuse overseas visitors who would take
that for what they know as "Metro" in their countries, and which in
London is called "Underground".

Whereas Overground confuses locals.

Maybe they should have tried S-something, if that could be got past the
"my grandad didn't fight the boche for the trains to be called..."
brigade. Tell them it's Danish, or something.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK