Talk:London Overground

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on London's transport system. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or visit the Portal.
London Transport To do: Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Things you can do

London Overground was the selected article of the London Transport Portal between 12th September - 18th September.

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is maintained by the Operations task force.

[edit] Control

Who is to control the railway exactly? The article says about it being controlled by London Rail but also talks about TOCs. What is going on? Simply south 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

London Rail will control it and specify the service levels/branding etc. However, they will not supply the services. They will select a TOC to do that. Mrsteviec 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with the Overground Network?

Will there be any relationship between the London Overground and the Overground Network? Or is this just an infelicitous similarity in names? --Jfruh (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Overground Network is purely a branding exercise designed to encourage the use of the more frequent of the National Rail lines in London. TfL would eventually like to take over control of all the National Rail lines in London but this is a long way off. If London Overground is a success then they will be well placed to make the case for control of other lines.

Yes, the London Overground will just be a suburban system, but part of the National Rail network. Simply south 11:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bakerloo Line

The section north of Queen's Park transferred to the Bakerloo Line.

but of course the section north of Queen's Park actually shares the existing track of the Bakerloo Line (as far north as Harrow & Wealdstone. rephrase? Morwen - Talk 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably they mean that all trains on this section will be branded as Bakerloo only -- but will they add more trains to make the frequency of service equal to current levels? I think "transfer" would be a legitimate description of this process if so, but maybe there's a clearer way to put it? --Jfruh (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw in the near future, the Bakerloo Line may be re-extended back to Watford Junction. Do you think this will happen at the same time? Simply south 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

TfL reportedly gave a presentation to the Watford Rail Users' Group on 11 September 2006 on their proposals to re-extend the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction. I am trying to obtain details of these proposals and will post them when I do. THC 09:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image problems?

What browsers and operating systems are the users who are having trouble with the image using? And what sort of problems are you having with it? It's displaying fine for me (OS X/Safari).

I'm putting the image on the talk page so that it doesn't get discarded as orphaned. The map was incredibly useful for me trying to visualize the network and it needs to go into the article in some form.

The full extent of the network with selected stations shown. The sections in orange are definite. The section in brown is likely to be transferred to the Bakerloo Line and the section in green to the DLR, with the sections in grey probably closing and the section through Primrose Hill reopened. The blue section is phase 2 of the East London Line extension and will open much later.

--Jfruh (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The image did not display in Firefox or IE in Monobook or Cologne Blue (although it does now). You should watch what you are doing when you revert pages as you reintroduced the "featured article" tag removed in the previous edit and removed some newly introduced text. Mrsteviec 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Displays fine in Firefox2 on OS X. Definitely should be included in some form - very informative graphical representation. DJR (T) 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extended Article

I've made an attempt to extend the article with a bit more context and detail, and also separate out initial operations and planned future operations -possibly the map could reflect this? As far as I know, the Queens Park - Stratford has been mooted but not a certainty. Please add/correct my versionSurfermoon 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The map could do with Stratford - North Woolwich being removed. I'm not sure why it is there as it will not form part of the service. Mrsteviec 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally should have three images -the initial network, the planned network (adding the confirmed East London extensions), and the proposed network (which is pretty much the current image) Surfermoon 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Added no of stations and distance, please check -where will depots be? Surfermoon 11:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling stock

There is no mention of the stock the GOBLIN section will use. This section is not planned to be electrified by 2010 (at least there is no funding yet) so the Electrostars will not work this section. Do we have any sources for what stock will be used on that section? Mrsteviec 12:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a brief mention of electrification (not the rolling stock, i don't think) here. Simply south 13:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently...

...overground will be featured on the tube map some day. Should it join WikiProject Underground? Lenny 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The BBC have a prospective tube map with the overground shown on it here, though I don't know where they got it from. It does look like it might have been prepared by the people at TFL who do the normal tube map, but I can't find it at the TFL website. JonoP 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It appeared I needed to look harder - it is in the press image gallery [here]. JonoP 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Cross extension

Someone added info on a New Cross extension without reference- I haven't seen this elsewhere. Is there any other info -else maybe it should be deleted or be mentioned briefly on the East London line page under extension possibilities Surfermoon 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Some of the edits around this are getting increasingly speculative. Where future events are detailed they need to come direct from a reliable source such as TfL press release, not hearsay or editorial. Newspapers etc. tend to make things up or get things wrong and things change all the time, especially for things that are a long way off. Also, the distiction between what is planned and funded (and is definitely going to happen) should not be getting blurred with what might be happening. Mrsteviec 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little bit of perspective

I've just spent the best part of half an hour removing the London Overground route boxes from the pages of existing stations. Why? you may ask. I'll tell you - I think people on here are getting a teensy bit too excited and ahead of themselves, particularly when it comes to the proposed route via Clapham Junction - it hasn't even been approved yet!! As far as the route goes, can everybody just calm down please? Don't forget it'll be 2010 before the whole of the Phase 1 part is up and running. I've left the four stations north of Whitechapel alone, as the LO route box is relevant. Can we therefore leave the rest until a bit nearer the time? Hammersfan 01/11/06, 18.30 GMT

[edit] Future candidate for WP:LAME

The ongoing furious revert war over whether the rail company infobox should stay or go is awesome to behold, and is an excellent candidate for WP:LAME. Perhaps the antagonists should take a moment to discuss things over here first? --Jfruh (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this Overground thingy is a weird beast- it is a franchise but from Tfl and not National Rail. It is provided by Tfl but unlike other Tfl lines is maintained by Network Rail. It is a hybrid between a commuter rail system (non-segragated lines) and metro rail (aim is metro style frequencies throughout but not immediately). I don't have an immediate sense of what may be right here, and of course, it hasn't even started yet, but I agree it may be worth stepping back and thinking a bit more Surfermoon 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for sensible discussion and another vote against edit warring here! In my view, the problem is that the National Rail structure is very complicated and not entirely consistent in the way it is documented here in Wikipedia. I think it would be sensible for people to look at how Silverlink is documented, although I am not sure what conclusion that supports. They have the rail company infobox on their page but is that because they are a ToC or a franchise? Silverlink is both the franchise name and the ToC name, right? Ugh! What a mess! Maybe we need to pull it all apart and have a rigourous system of separate pages for ToCs/franchisees, parent companies, franchises themselves, service providers/franchisers and lines/services. That would be fun. OK. Maybe not. I don't know. My first view was that the infobox was wrong but I am now completely unsure. --DanielRigal 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State railway

Wouldn't this line actually count as the first line that is owned and operated by the government since privatisation? Does the brief spout with South Eastern mean otherwise? Simply south 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

London Overground will be operated to Transport for London’s specifications by a private company, in a manner similar to the Docklands Light Railway; South Eastern Trains, on the other hand, was an entirely public (if temporary) operation under the control of the national government. David Arthur 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is it?

I've been pondering this question over the last few days and have reached some conclusions:

• London Overground is (or will be) the name of the network of lines to be incorporated in 2007 by TfL consisting of the North London, West London, Watford DC and Gospel Oak to Barking, with the East London becoming part of it in 2010.
• However, London Overground will also be the brand name given to the London Rail concession (as the actual franchise is described).

I believe the confusion stems from lumping everything we know about London Overground together. Given that, might it not be better to split the article in two, with one about London Overground the network (in the style of the other London Underground lines) and the other concerning London Overground the train operator (in the style of the other UK TOCs)?. Hammersfan 10/11/06, 14.05 GMT

I don't think having an article for both is the solution - one should be incorporated in the other. The LU lines are run by a private operator, and this is covered in the article about the line. In contrast, franchised network information is generally incorporated into the articles about the UK TOCs. So basically, it needs a decision as to whether London Overground, as a TfL line, follows the convention of "operator-within-network"; or whether it is just another TOC, following the "network within operator" style. Given that both have the same name, this is more a structural issue than a major split. DJR (T) 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfer of existing stock

I've removed somebody's "cite needed" tag here - the way that UK rail privatisation works is that all rolling stock is owned by banks, rented to TOCs, and new franchisees *always* inherit the previous franchise's trains. We'd only need a cite if we were claiming that LO *wasn't* going to take over the 313s and 150s. --Stalinism 14:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how this will work with the 150s. There are 8 of these which are shared between the Gospel Oak to Barking line and the Marston Vale Line (which will not be part of the London Overground franchise). Both lines are expected to expand their operations in the future and they will need more than 8 trains between them if the changes go ahead. Does anybody know how they intend to manage this? Will the fleet of 150s be split between the two railways (and, if so, how?) or will they contine to run as a single shared fleet? What about maintenance and spares? I assume that they will want to share resources for that? --DanielRigal 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)