Talk:London Overground

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

London Overground was the selected article of the London Transport Portal between 12th September 2006 - 18th September 2006.

	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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways. Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport. High This article has been rated as high-importance within the London Transport WikiProject.
	This article is within the scope of the Operations task force.

	This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This page is within the scope of the Hertfordshire WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hertfordshire. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments
???	This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

[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. MRSC 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. MRSC 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)

This has indeed been mooted (albeit not specifically) in TfL's Transport Vision 2025 document. However, funding and planning issues mean that any such proposal is a long way off (TfL employee talking here).

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. MRSC 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? MRSC 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. MRSC 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)

Constructive ideas....

I'm not going to get involved in a past edit war, but I'll drop in my suggestions here. LO is obviously a bit of an odd beast as it's half-way between a Tube service and a rail franchise. Having both infoboxes looks really untidy and doesn't enhance the article (I'm not about to remove any, however). The way I see it, the options are:

Option 1 - treat the whole LO as a new transport "mode". Like the London Underground article, give it the Template:Infobox Public transit, as there is room in that for an owner/operator differentiation. Then there is scope for the different lines (North London, East London etc) to be treated rather like separate tube lines. Or...

Option 2 - treat the whole LO system as a sub-part of TfL, and model it on the DLR article, with the Template:Infobox TfL line. If there is anything in the Template:Infobox Rail companies that is really needed (e.g. franchising info), someone could work on updating Template:Infobox TfL line to support this - especially adding a space for a small image and/or logo (which I rather like ).

Option 3 - treating it like an ordinary NR franchise doesn't adequately reflect the system, and we really need to get away from this idea.

I think a bit of lateral thinking and collaboration will get around this issue - LO is a new type of system, it's not going to fit existing templates exactly, so let's update the templates to accommodate it. -Cnbrb 11:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is an ordinary NR train operating company, at least in the near term. The current setup seems more than adequate. --Mr Thant 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is technically and legally NR, as you say, but there is a ambiguity brought about by the branding, which is bound to affect the understanding of LO. Anyway, I just felt that the double infobox stack was a bit cumbersome, and if there's any neat way of sorting that bit out, I'd welcome it. --Cnbrb 17:41, 3 November 2007 (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

London Overground Rail Operations Limited is the train operator (it is a private consortium company). They operate the "London Overground" service under control of TfL, in the same way that Serco Docklands operate the "Docklands Light Railway" service under control of TfL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.72.109 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

I see that somebody has put the Class 150 fleet down as being 4 units. I find this implausible but I won't change it as I have no definite knowledge otherwise. By my esimates, it would take all 4 units to run the 3tph peak time service and that doesn't leave any scope for a spare unit to cover breakdowns or maintenance. Marston Vale line does probably not need 4 units anyway. Does anybody know what is going on? It seems to me that a more sensible split would be 5-3, not 4-4. Are we really sure they are splitting the fleet at all? If so, which units are going to which lines? --DanielRigal 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

By the current timetable the Goblin needs four and the Marston Vale needs two. I read somewhere LO were getting custody of all of them and supplying two to London Midland on a day-to-day basis, but I have no idea of the provenance of this. --Mr Thant (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the User Group, two trains are being sent back to the leasing company. I don't know how this fits in. By my recconing, they probably need all 8 between the two lines. 6 to run the services, one for an available spare and one off being cleaned or repaired. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was standing by the NLL last week and noticed two Goblin trains pass me, both with overground stickers but both with panels still affixed to them stating the Martson Vale service. --AlisonW (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Londonoverground.jpg

Image:Londonoverground.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't use the word "Franchise"

As is hopefully made clear in the article, LO exists outside the franchising system. Additionally, it's TfL that are essentially the "franchisee" of the service, and they've contracted out the gritty parts of running the trains to MTR Laing. Please make sure all future edits reflect this. --Dtcdthingy 08:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roundel logo

Can I suggest we move the roundel image to the top of the article, above the main infobox? This would make the article more consistent with the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway articles. Also, we currently have no image whatsoever at the top of this article. Mtford 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, although I think that the operator infobox should remain as part of the operator section of the article. Therefore, I've moved this back and added the roundel on its own at the top. Hammersfan 01/10/07, 13.55 BST —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clapham Junction to Stratford clarification

"Although the exact nature of operation on these lines is still to be announced, it is likely that there will be a number of through services from Clapham Junction to Stratford."

Currently it takes 22 minutes to travel from Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction, and 44 minutes from Willesden Junction to Stratford, hence 66 minutes from Clapham Junction to Stratford on a direct Overground train. Meanwhile, it takes about 8-10 minutes to travel from Clapham Junction to Waterloo on Southwest Trains, and 20-25 minutes from Waterloo to Stratford by tube (Jubilee, or W&C+Central via Bank) - hence about 40-45 minutes from Clapham Junction to Stratford by rail+tube. As such, the Overground route from Clapham Junction to Stratford will still be at least 20 minutes slower than the existing rail+tube route. The new direct Overground service will only be beneficial to passengers travelling to intermediate stations in north London. I'll try to clarify it. Mtford 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True but other than convenience for those who want to avoid stressful stations (and both Waterloo and Bank are), orbital suburban railway services are not really planned for end to end travel but for travel on points within the system. If you're even one stop down the WLL or NLL then that's yet another change you'd have to make for the "quicker" route so it becomes about the same length of time to just take the orbital route round. Plus the route won't go through zone 1 so should be cheaper. -- Timrollpickering (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTR Laing/LOROL

From [1]: "London Overground Rail Operations Ltd (formerly known as MTR Laing)".

In summary MTR Laing has been rebranded as London Overground Rail Operations Ltd. Therefore, the company should only be referred to as MTR Laing when describing the bidding process. Anything relating to current operations should now refer to the operator by its new name, or the abbreviation LOROL. --Jorvik 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge? Simply south 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Jorvik 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of stations

I've added a list of stations, based on the list on Silverlink - I hope this is useful. It's just the stations that will be on the LO from 7 November and doesn't include future development like the East London line or the southern bit. This seemed to be the clearest way to format it rather than a long, winding list, but if anyone feel it should be reformatted in some way, go ahead.

I thought it best to leave in Shepherd's Bush and Imperial Wharf for clarity, even though they're not open yet.

It might make more sense to remove Shepherd's Bush and Imperial Wharf so there's only stations that are actually served and maybe add a note about them in Future Developments -- Imperial Wharf is certainly not going to be around any time soon. 87.112.94.230 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a similar table of future stations could be useful, but it does run the risk of speculative additions. --Cnbrb 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I've put together a list here. Before I put it in the article itself I thought I'd put it up for review here. I don't think should be seen as speculative, as it is based on actual information given out by TfL, so it has a basis in a cited source. If there are no objections, I can add it later to the "future extensions" bit, or we can just keep it on the talk page for reference.

[edit] Euston/Primrose Hill closure

Further to stuff about speculative writing, I'd like to ask if anyone has a reference for the claim that the Euston line will close? I've heard about this proposal a lot (so I know it's not just been plucked out of thin air!) but I can't find any references to this on the TfL website or anywhere else - it only exists on blogs, wikis and other assorted rumour mills. I don't disbelieve it, but strictly speaking, we should cite a TfL press release or document or something. Anyone got one? --Cnbrb 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The [Cross London RUS response] is the most detailed info released about TfL's ideas for service patterns. The pattern outlined in 2.3.1 includes no trains to Euston, and 2.3.11 says the extended Bakerloo will "replace" the Watford to Euston service. Admittedly neither of these are explicit, but I think they're good enough. --Mr Thant 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I had a look through that doc. And no, it doesn't say explicitly that Euston will be taken off the LO system. Wonder why...? Do you think they're playing it down, or is this so uncertain nothing's been officially put into print? We should keep an eye on that proposal for more confirmation either way. --Cnbrb 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The document is essentially TfL arguing with Network Rail about whose service pattern proposals are best. Not mentioning negatives is to be expected, especially when the target audience can reasonably be expected to instantly understand the implications of any particular proposal. --Mr Thant 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Roundel

I've seen the "discussion" over the use of the Overground Roundel in this article and have had a bit of a think. One point of view uses the London Underground example of having the roundel at the top of the article. However, similar use is dependent on how London Overground is seen - is it seen as merely a collection of lines (as one can see something like the District Line), or is it a seperate part of TfL? If the latter is the case, then the roundel should certainly be at the top of the article, and should be part of the {{Infobox Public transit}} template, that is a part of every other TfL main article. However, if the former is the case, and it is merely an amalgamated group of lines, then the roundel should be taken from the top and put in the operator infobox. Hammersfan, 08/12/07, 15.28 GMT

The way that TfL and the Mayor are presenting 'London Overground' to the general public is that it is a newly-integrated part of TfL which currently has four 'lines/routes' in the same way that the DLR has or the tube has. Except for the West London line metals, no other operator runs passenger services on the 'Overgound' lines or is (sfaiaa) planning to. Top of article, therefore imho. --AlisonW (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for much the same reasons. Overground is not an Underground line. It is a separate part of TfL with its own branding (including its own version of the roundel), like the DLR or the Buses. It is owned by a separate subsidiary company and TfL's website regards it as part of the "Rail" mode (given pride of place above the other National Rail operators) rather than lumped in with the Underground. Its presence on the Tube Map does not make it part of the Underground any more then the DLR is. I think the roundel should stay at the top although I don't think we really need it twice in full size. Where I would not like to see the roundel is on the individual lines' articles. The lines themselves are not exclusively Overground's domain as there is Southern and the freight services to consider as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In which case, a box something like this should be on the page. This will then fit in with the other TfL pages. Hammersfan, 12/10/07, 17.10 GMT

Agree with Daniel Rigal's reasoning and big thumbs up to Hammersfan's infobox.
 — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would happily support this style, but would need to remove the TOC box, for which IIRC the logo image is a required parameter. In the meantime, to comply with WP:NFCC #3a, I have removed the duplicate roundel from the top of the page. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done it, (Personal attack removed). MickMacNee (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of Orbirail

The Orbirail article has been pretty much overtaken by events and it seems to me that it should be cut down and merged into the History section here. Does that seem sensible to everybody? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --AlisonW (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The main discussion seems to be happening at Talk:Orbirail. Simply south (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFCC

Please can someone show how the artist's impression of the future LO stock violates the NFCC? I've read it and can't see in what way it's breached. D-Notice (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know whether there are any other objections, but at the moment Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train.jpg only has a fair use rationale for the article British Rail Class 378; use anywhere else would require a separate rationale. David Arthur (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #8 states the image should be used only where it adds significantly to the understanding of the topic being discussed. Dropping an image into a stock line-up for illustrative purposes must by definition fail this test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.31.177 (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was gettng at - it's informative, yet for some reason it keeps being removed. Must depend on what classed as "significantly"... D-Notice (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it depends on whether or not an artist's impression of a Class 378 adds to the reader's understanding of London Overground, which it clearly and patently does not. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It does, though: the Class 378 — as opposed to any train currently existing — is used almost universally to promote London Overground, and so, I think, is integral to the service’s identity. What’s strange is that the image keeps being inserted in such an obscure place in the article, make it seem less significant than it is. David Arthur (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it an obscure place? It appears to be in the correct section... D-Notice (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Placing it there suggests that it is being used only to illustrate the Class 378 stock — which Wikipedia rules probably do not permit — rather than London Overground itself. David Arthur (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll add it under the info box at the top of the article. D-Notice (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me; I’ve added a fair-use rationale for this article to the image’s page. David Arthur (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't simply add a caption saying "this image was used in promotion for the project" and magically beat #8. The image illustrates the 378, and can be reasonably used there. Unfortunately, the image does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the London Overground network, and therefore #8 is failed, and cannot be passed. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be 2 against 1 in favour of it being included, but I'd interested in other views... D-Notice (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers never count. Reasoning counts. The desire of two users to see the image included does not trump the requirements of policy not to include it. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring at having a third party view to try and resolve it either way D-Notice (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a number of users are missing the point. If you have to make contrived edits, such as roundabout narrative or creative captioning, in order to try and make a case for including non-free images, it's generally a pretty good sign that the criterion of significance hasn't been met. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong (yes, I'm told it should happen occasionally ;-P ) but doesn't this image provide the *only* indication of the colour scheme to be used on the Overground, and as such is distinct to the article topic? If there is a better pic for that purpose then let that serve, but otherwise this one seems to do the job adequately (until someone actually paints a damn train and we take a real photo of it, anyway!) --AlisonW (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely how does that "significantly improve understanding"? To put it another way, does removing the image make the article fundamentally less understandable? More importantly, I believe we have already established before that, other than discussing the actual stock itself, artists' impressions are considered replaceable, as at some point the real trains will emerge. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a picture makes no difference to the understandability of the article, but does improve the usefulness of it (imho, obviously) --AlisonW (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Criterion #8 refers specifically to the reader's understanding, not how useful the image is. If dropping the image does not impair the reader's understanding, then there's no case for it. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's all that TfL are using to promote LO at the moment D-Notice (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

London Overground isn’t just a set of train services; it’s also a promotional initiative, which involves taking services which were part of the national network, and repositioning them as a London network equivalent to the Underground. Their almost exclusive use of artist’s impressions of future stock rather than images of the actual trains used by previous operators and still operating all services is an important part of this promotional strategy, which is why the image is needed on this page. This is not ‘creative captioning’; it’s the use of the image that interests me, not the stock that it illustrates. David Arthur (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not supporting either side here but I would like to point out that the new livery is mentioned in the article and that the image does serve to illustrate that. I am not saying that this is enough to justify use of the image but it is relevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a "purely illustrative use", and there is well-established precedent that such uses for non-free images are not acceptable. As for illustrating publicity, I believe there is a better image that can be used somewhere ... 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo (and it's GFDL, too). That will better serve to talk about the publicity surrounding it, but you must talk about the publicity in the article, not just the caption. You should also consider carefully if that would be better on East London Line than here - Wikipedia is not big on duplication, most especially spurious uses of non-free content. I have removed the image as replaceable. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that image is any real improvement frankly, especially as while it may be listed on commons as GFDL it consists solely of a photograph of a copyrighted poster published by TfL. --AlisonW (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's the same provisions that allow you to freely take a photograph of artworks, statues, buildings, etc. while the precise design of those items are still owned by their creators. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works under US law, and the appropriate article is derivative work. I'd reckon the poster photo counts as "not copyrightable" under the descriptions there. The image is therefore not Sunil's to release as GFDL. --Mr Thant (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If BREL own the designs to the 153, and built all examples of it, does that mean that any photos of it are derivative works? Methinks you want to check that at WP:MCQ before committing. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London Overground line templates

I've just noticed the changes to the line templates on articles for stations served by LO, and it is now very confusing. If you look at West Brompton station, we now seem to be saying that the station is on two lines (District and West London) of three systems (London Underground, London Overground and National Rail) served by three operators (London Underground, London Overground and Southern). That is just plain wrong. London Overground is not a rail system in the sense London Underground and National Rail are. It is both a train operator and a way of funding trains, but it is part of the National Rail system in just the same way as Southern is. My suggestion is that these should look like the following:

Preceding station		London Underground		Following station
Fulham Broadway towards Wimbledon		District line		Earl's Court towards Upminster or Edgware Road
National Rail
Kensington (Olympia)		London Overground West London Line		Clapham Junction
Kensington (Olympia)		Southern West London Line		Clapham Junction

Comments?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a long threaded discussion about treating LO as similar to LU for box purposes, given that the passenger services are distinctly separate in most ways. I'll see if I can track it down again ... --AlisonW (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought there might have been (after all this is WP ;-)) but it didn't seem to have been in any of the obvious places. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As a precedent, I'd quote the similar boxes on the Southport railway station article. The setup for London Overground is very similar to that which has been used for Merseyrail since 2003, with a train operating company within the National Rail system but under a contract awarded by a local transport authority (Merseyside PTE for Merseyrail; TfL for London Overground) rather than the Department for Transport. Yet no attempt is made to pretend that Merseyrail is running on a separate rail system to the one that the Northern Rail trains run on. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the "not in the obvious places" as I'm still searching! I guess I'll have to go back through all my contribs to find it as I kicked off the discussion in the first place. I do recall though that treating LO as similar to LU was the main conclusion as the services, with the exception of a very few (two, iirc) stations are separate. Will update again when I find it! --AlisonW (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, clarification (ie I looked on my own talkpage and found some of the discussion there!). Some took place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_7#London_Overground and #Use of Roundel above, but I'm pretty sure there was more elsewhere; I just can't find it yet! --AlisonW (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Chris, and back his proposal. London Overground is (for now) just a National Rail TOC, albeit with unusual ownership. The idea that it's a system in its own right doesn't seem to have bought into by anyone but you. --Mr Thant (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look far closer at how TfL and the Mayor of London are both promoting London Overground then; it is *exactly* as a closed system in its own right, and utilising the proper sequence boxes provides both a recognition of that and also that the routes have defined terminal stations. --AlisonW (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While taking into account how TfL brands things is important, London Overground is still a National Rail service, and I don't think that should be ignored. And if we are deferring to Tfl, they're quite keen to de-emphasise the currently clearly defined routes, to allow service patterns are going to change in future (there are already several Stratford-Clapham services a day that we seem to be ignoring). --Mr Thant (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)