Future of the London Overground?

[Gareth]

Crossrail is better.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What for? Just changing the branding and putting services on the underground map isn't sufficient reason to switch the operation.

There needs to be a genuine difference which putting lines into the London Overground operation needs to deliver reflecting infrastructure constraints.

Speaking as a Londoner, the Overground is a remarkably successful brand that psychologically tethers areas closer into the orbit of London. I'd be interested in being proven right or wrong, but I would imagine placing an area on an Overground line most likely provides a small economic uplift to the area as it no longer seems "off the beaten track". Away from Whitehall-think, having an integrated transport system in a metropolis just makes sense for its citizens. It may not make sense to the DfT, but that's because the DfT is not a semi-organic organism made up of millions of people. In fact, it's almost diametric opposite. You're not going to convince Londoners that not moving a rail service onto the Overground isn't a good idea because there won't be enough of a "genuine difference" to do so.

TfL's system is already used for all ticketing on services in London. Indeed, its ticketing is being pushed well outside London.

No one can properly answer the question about whether the needs of Londoners or those from further afield should dominate on those bits of infrastructure which are used by both Londoners and those travelling to and from London.

I mean, how can you answer that question? And how is that relevant? In an ideal world they would be completely segregated. Any idea for a dedicated purpose built freight line to avoid the North London Line seems to get shot down in flames on here. So the best you can do is tinker with the existing infrastructure as much as you can as a compromise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2024 ==

Crossrail is better.

Agreed.

 

[JLH4AC]

Speaking of the Overground, perhaps we could take some of the liens over from Chiltern or the local lines or Southwestern

Southwestern and Southeastern metro services becoming part of the Overground makes sense given that they operate in a similar manner to the Silverlink Metro services before London Overground took them over and they were part of the Overground Network pilot. I can't see it making it to transfer any of the Chiltern Railways services to the Overground.

 

[Transilien]

Great Northern services out of Moorgate could also be transfered to London Overground as they use different rolling stock from the rest of Great Northern.

 

[TheGuy77]

Great Northern services out of Moorgate could also be transfered to London Overground as they use different rolling stock from the rest of Great Northern.

They could take over the Hertford/Welwyn services, but Stevenage is a bit far-fetched.

 

[JonathanH]

Away from Whitehall-think, having an integrated transport system in a metropolis just makes sense for its citizens.

Yes, but in what practical sense does London not have an integrated transport system? From a travelling perspective, a passenger travels from Orpington into Charing Cross, gets through some barriers, goes down to the Bakerloo line, travels to Paddington, and goes back above ground to travel west. No one is suggesting that the faster train from Orpington is painted in Overground colours. The Elizabeth Line trains aren't going to be painted in Overground colours.

 

[SynthD]

The only difference would be that TFL would have control over ticketing and the long term planning.

They would still avoid a cliff at the border of the TfL controlled zone, so the control is weak. Long term planning usually involves building new things based on debt TfL can’t take out.

No one can properly answer the question about whether the needs of Londoners or those from further afield should dominate on those bits of infrastructure which are used by both Londoners and those travelling to and from London.

The home county councils have agreed with TfL that these lines could become TfL controlled, which is enough of an answer to your question to move forward.

A neat map with the ‘right’ colours is money down the drain.

 

[Transilien]

A neat map with the ‘right’ colours is money down the drain.

If this is going to happen with GBR then why not let it be the underground. Also not everyone is a rail enthusiast so they might ignore a service run by SWR instead of TFL as it’s not advertised making journeys longer as say if you were travelling to Richmond from Clapham going by the tube is much longer than by train but many people won’t take a service if it isn’t run by TFL. It just makes practical sense for the branding to work this way for similar reasons to the naming of the Overground lines.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, but in what practical sense does London not have an integrated transport system? From a travelling perspective, a passenger travels from Orpington into Charing Cross, gets through some barriers, goes down to the Bakerloo line, travels to Paddington, and goes back above ground to travel west. No one is suggesting that the faster train from Orpington is painted in Overground colours. The Elizabeth Line trains aren't going to be painted in Overground colours.

Well yeah, but you're forgetting the metropolitan identity, which has a difference. Whether or not it should make a difference, and whether or not, if it does make a difference, we need to satisfy that difference is another question. Whilst your hypothetical journey demonstrates a high amount of integration in London's rail system, it ignores the psychological, and by extension the wider economic effects the Overground system has on London on a macro and micro level.

 

[Transilien]

Do you also think Scotrail is an inappropriate brand because it covers too many different types of services across too large an area?

Yes it would make sense for there to be a return of SPT rail in the Strathclyde region and something like that around Edinburgh.

 

[Royston Vasey]

would be to create an outer-London link service, running from Aylesbury and Chesham to Watford Junction and then on to St Albans, taking over the Abbey line. This could be operated by London Overground, since it would run alongside the Metropolitan line for some parts, but then again, it wouldn't enter London, so maybe it could be run by Chiltern.

Sort of a micro East West Rail!

 

[Tester]

An idea of mine (if the Croxley rail link ever goes ahead) would be to create an outer-London link service, running from Aylesbury and Chesham to Watford Junction and then on to St Albans, taking over the Abbey line. This could be operated by London Overground, since it would run alongside the Metropolitan line for some parts, but then again, it wouldn't enter London, so maybe it could be run by Chiltern.

I fear that crossing all lines at Watford Junction would be a bridge too far.

But into the DC platforms - absolutely!

 

[MarkyT]

I fear that crossing all lines at Watford Junction would be a bridge too far.

If rolling stock was procured that could negotiate tighter curves than usually found on heavy rail systems, such as the tram-train vehicles for South Wales Metro, a new link line under the WCML might be built under the Stephenson Way viaduct.

 

[Tester]

If rolling stock was procured that could negotiate tighter curves than usually found on heavy rail systems, such as the tram-train vehicles for South Wales Metro, a new link line under the WCML might be built under the Stephenson Way viaduct.
View attachment 162195

Full marks for ingenuity - now just the political will!

 

[SynthD]

An idea of mine (if the Croxley rail link ever goes ahead) would be to create an outer-London link service, running from Aylesbury and Chesham to Watford Junction and then on to St Albans, taking over the Abbey line.

A smaller version of this, from the third platform at Rickmansworth to the Watford DC platforms, was suggested before. Even at that shorter distance, it was thought there's not enough demand for the county to fund it.

If rolling stock was procured that could negotiate tighter curves than usually found on heavy rail systems, such as the tram-train vehicles for South Wales Metro, a new link line under the WCML might be built under the Stephenson Way viaduct.
View attachment 162195

That could be size appropriate for the low needs of the Abbey line, and I see the appeal in connecting to the High Street station, but that is duplicating the existing line.

 

[MarkyT]

A smaller version of this, from the third platform at Rickmansworth to the Watford DC platforms, was suggested before. Even at that shorter distance, it was thought there's not enough demand for the county to fund it.

That could be size appropriate for the low needs of the Abbey line, and I see the appeal in connecting to the High Street station, but that is duplicating the existing line.

It's a short overlap so both DC line and Herts local transit services could serve both High Street and Junction.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The Turning South London Orange proposal concerned this, but seems to have gone nowhere since, but with the one party controlling Westminster and City Hall anything's possible.

Turning South London Orange: Reforming Suburban Rail to Support London’s Next Phase of Growth

London is experiencing growing pains. The need to transport an ever-larger workforce has seen overcrowding on the rail network in London and the South East double over the last twenty years. By...

centreforlondon.org

Yes. Blown apart because Chris Grayling didn’t like the idea of a Labour mayor getting control of London rail system. How useless

 

[miklcct]

Yes. Blown apart because Chris Grayling didn’t like the idea of a Labour mayor getting control of London rail system. How useless

And the same with Labour Government as well

Labour 'will not allow TfL to run Southeastern Metro' if it wins election - The Greenwich Wire

Labour will not allow Sadiq Khan to take over south east London’s rail service if it wins the general election, despite the mayor recently talking up the possibility, it has been reported. Khan said in April that he would work with a future Labour government to “end the misery of failing outer...

greenwichwire.co.uk

Labour officials told the FT that it had no plans to proceed with Khan’s proposal, and that the lines would be renationalised and run by the new Great British Railways instead.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

And the same with Labour Government as well

Labour 'will not allow TfL to run Southeastern Metro' if it wins election - The Greenwich Wire

Labour will not allow Sadiq Khan to take over south east London’s rail service if it wins the general election, despite the mayor recently talking up the possibility, it has been reported. Khan said in April that he would work with a future Labour government to “end the misery of failing outer...

greenwichwire.co.uk

Imagine, (sensible) line names for each branch. 4tph at least all week on all lines, massive upgrades at Lewisham, Peckham, Streatham Common etc to make modern interchange stations. A man can dream...

 

[Transilien]

And the same with Labour Government as well

Labour 'will not allow TfL to run Southeastern Metro' if it wins election - The Greenwich Wire

Labour will not allow Sadiq Khan to take over south east London’s rail service if it wins the general election, despite the mayor recently talking up the possibility, it has been reported. Khan said in April that he would work with a future Labour government to “end the misery of failing outer...

greenwichwire.co.uk

This is ridiculous. It just makes sense for all transport within London to be under the TFL umbrella. Why does there need to be a difference in operator between the Lea Valley Lines and the Southeastern commuter lines? Politics at it's worst!

 

[JamesT]

This is ridiculous. It just makes sense for all transport within London to be under the TFL umbrella. Why does there need to be a difference in operator between the Lea Valley Lines and the Southeastern commuter lines? Politics at it's worst!

Because the Southeastern services are not solely within London?
Would you be happy to have your rail services managed solely by councillors for Glasgow?

 

[SynthD]

Because the Southeastern services are not solely within London?
Would you be happy to have your rail services managed solely by councillors for Glasgow?

In this case that's moot, as the surrounding counties agreed with TfL's wishes to take over certain portions of services (metro).

 

[Transilien]

Because the Southeastern services are not solely within London?
Would you be happy to have your rail services managed solely by councillors for Glasgow?

I’m talking about the Southeastern metro services not all of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because the Southeastern services are not solely within London?
Would you be happy to have your rail services managed solely by councillors for Glasgow?

Ormskirk isn't in the Liverpool City Region, nor are Chester and Ellesmere Port. You don't see them complaining about the fact that the LCR taxpayer basically funds them to have 4tph (2tph at EP) rather than an hourly DMU they'd probably otherwise have.

I also suspect the residents of Watford (also not in Greater London) are not complaining either.

 

[JamesT]

I’m talking about the Southeastern metro services not all of them.

Can the metro services be disaggregated from the rest of them? SE share staff and rolling stock between their operations.

 

[JLH4AC]

Because the Southeastern services are not solely within London?
Would you be happy to have your rail services managed solely by councillors for Glasgow?

Is TFL having control over the lines to are most in London apart from a few short sections that go to Kent that big of a deal when Kent County Council has expressed support for the plans? If a city transport authority having control over the lines that has stubs going into surrounding counties is such a problem, the Lea Valley lines, Elizabeth line, Watford DC line, Central line, and Metropolitan line should be transferred to the GBR.

 

[87015]

Can the metro services be disaggregated from the rest of them? SE share staff and rolling stock between their operations.

Yes, fairly easily, like Anglia was into three parts - the works all done and on a shelf at the DfT

 

[jon0844]

There seems to be no real need to make London Overground even bigger than it is already (especially now they're all getting names). There are surely far more important things to spend money on?

If it was a simple case of, say, Great Northern (and eventually the Dft) just running the Moorgate services with LO branding and the drivers wearing a different uniform (although many drivers work on outer suburban services too) then I guess it's the cost of some vinyls, and longer term a new paint job and seat covers etc.

But if you split them off entirely, what do you do with the staff (especially those who might do inners one minute, outers the next) and the depots, staff mess rooms and so on? It is all going to get a lot more complicated and for what purpose if TfL and the DfT are gradually becoming more connected anyway?

Do commuters really care what the line is called? I suspect the only reason they wanted TfL taking over was because they didn't want private operators, but with that ending - it's not an issue.

 

[PGAT]

Do commuters really care what the line is called? I suspect the only reason they wanted TfL taking over was because they didn't want private operators, but with that ending - it's not an issue.

The rationale is not rebranding for the sake of it but because TfL provide better services than the private operators

 

[greatkingrat]

The rationale is not rebranding for the sake of it but because TfL provide better services than the private operators

The only reason the Overground is better is because more money is spent on it. Simply transferring lines to TfL won't make any difference unless funding for improvements is available (which seems unlikely at the moment).