boiledbeans2
Member
Well, the Overground also has a comparable core - a high frequency service through the ELL, which is both underground and formerly Underground.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why is the Elizabeth line not "Overground"
- Thread starter andy33gmail
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Mgameing123
Member
But it's not really cross London. It's more an orbital route and the classic Suburban train (Lea Valley Line)
It's certainly got a lot in common but I think Overground generally acts a distributor across more suburban, less densely populated areas. The service, again generally, being less frequent, slower, and yes running overground, reflects this.
The Elizabeth line on the other hand is a full scale, long distance, commuter railway. It also is underground within zone 2. And yes the closest to this is Thameslink.
Personally I'd love to see Thameslink come under the TfL umbrella. The Crossrail brand could then be revived for the mode, with the Elizabeth line and Thames line being it's services.
The Elizabeth line on the other hand is a full scale, long distance, commuter railway. It also is underground within zone 2. And yes the closest to this is Thameslink.
Personally I'd love to see Thameslink come under the TfL umbrella. The Crossrail brand could then be revived for the mode, with the Elizabeth line and Thames line being it's services.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
This is exactly what I came up with. But I’d leave Thameslink as is but ideally prune its suburban services over to the Overground.
I've quite supported the idea of bringing some Thameslink operations into the TfL umbrella under a common brand like Crossrail as well. I envision it to be something similar to the RER system in Paris that serves as a commuter/urban rail system on the outskirts of the city but acts as some sort of express rapid transit system beneath the city centre serving only major hubs. This is sort of what the Elizabeth Line falls under compared to the Overground which is purely an urban rail system, though to some that distinction might seem a bit more arbitrary.
Farnborough
Member
Uncle Buck
Member
I would suggest Mass Transit Railway (MTR) as an appropriate name for all TFL rail services, whether Overground or Elizabeth Line.
Hopefully in time some of the other suburban services running into the terminals would come under this umbrella.
“Overground” is wrong to me for the simple reason that parts of the network would be subterranean.
MTR is a name which has worked well in Singapore and Hong Kong.
Hopefully in time some of the other suburban services running into the terminals would come under this umbrella.
“Overground” is wrong to me for the simple reason that parts of the network would be subterranean.
MTR is a name which has worked well in Singapore and Hong Kong.
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 18,879
Presumably "Underground" is wrong for you as well, then, as quite substantial part of the Underground network are above ground.
Some of the Berlin u-bahn network is not underground and some of the s-bahn (suburban) network is underground. There are similar examples in cities around the world and they are known by their names rather than questioning how appropriate the name is terms of 'altitude'.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
What about ‘Network SouthEast’?
Or TFL Rail?
andy33gmail
Member
I hadn’t twigged that. I mapped it more to along & across.
I like Overground as a brand. It works well alongside Underground in that they are similar but different.
While I have got used to the Lizzy/Purple Line and Crossrail has faded into the distance, if/when Crossrail 2 and 3 ever happen then something will probably need to be done to link it to the Elizabeth Line and perhaps Thameslink into a London regional network identity. MTR is too much like "Empty R".
Uncle Buck
Member
I mean, yeah technically, but “Underground” is a very established part of London’s culture in a way that “Overground” isn’t.
Because it wouldn’t serve anything like the same area as the old Network SouthEast; it would be for London suburban services, not expresses to Brighton or diesels trundling round Devon and Suffolk. And also because we should come up with more contemporary ideas rather than forever harking back to the early 90s!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I know that there are differences between the Overground and the Elizabeth Line, but there are not that many, in my opinion. They are trains, rather than tubes. They run on the mainline network. They get people around London and its environs (yes, I know the Elizabeth goes out as far as Reading!). They are all in all fairly similar. Why complicate things by having umpteen types of transport? If you wanted to get really extreme you could say that the DLR could become the Docklands Line of the London Underground!
Having lived through most of the BR years and into the 21st century (so far), what was named the 'Overground' first, which was essentially the NLL and the Goblin, the name established a type of service that was far better than the previously a very poor excuse for an urban railway. In a comparatively short time,new trains, tidied up electrification and much more regular services attracted a great deal of passenger traffic. The Overground brand played a major part in that boom so there was no need to change it when logical metro lines were added to it. It is now a valuable, almost community-linking system that provides key circumferential links across across much od to he city's inner suburban areas. Any change in brand name would be pointless
Mgameing123
Member
I think I a have a theory to why it’s not called the Underground nor Overground. If we consider the Metropolitan Line then the Elizabeth Line would qualify as an Underground line but let’s be real, advertising the Elizabeth Line as the Underground is like telling people “Don’t ride with me”. The Underground has a poor reputation of smelling like sweat, severely overcrowded and delayed.
Meanwhile the Overground is a brand used for the less frequent suburban services with trains “only” running every 15 - 5 minutes. (I say only meanwhile my local station only has a train every 60 - 30 minutes)
If the Elizabeth Line didn’t have the core then this brand would work.
So the best solution was to create a new image and brand for the Elizabeth Line and encourage people use it over the Underground, so they made a separate identity.
And so far this has worked for TFL.
Meanwhile the Overground is a brand used for the less frequent suburban services with trains “only” running every 15 - 5 minutes. (I say only meanwhile my local station only has a train every 60 - 30 minutes)
If the Elizabeth Line didn’t have the core then this brand would work.
So the best solution was to create a new image and brand for the Elizabeth Line and encourage people use it over the Underground, so they made a separate identity.
And so far this has worked for TFL.
generalnerd
Member
MTR wouldn’t work for the London overground because I wouldn’t call it mass transit, plus the overground and the Elizabeth line are fundamentally different transport operations
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Pedantry alert: it's elevation rather than altitude as the trains don't fly (yet!).
They do have flyovers and diveunders though.Pedantry alert: it's elevation rather than altitude as the trains don't fly (yet!).
To be boringly pedantic, Singapore is MRT
bramling
Veteran Member
If you were going to go for full neatness, Romford-Upminster could just as easily be a branch of the District Line. Operationally it would actually work well, with the District having drivers and a rolling stock depot at Upminster. It isn’t to be though.
The true origins of
Don't short branch shuttle services on LU lines sometimes get closed, - thinking of the Holborn Kingsway - Aldwych, or Acton Town - South Acton's destinies. There would also be the issue of new LVDC on exposed rails to consider. If it was an 'up' facing connection to the parent line, a'la Mill Hill east, the Hainault - Woodford loop or Kensington Olympia, it would be easier to justify sending the odd through train along it, but the configuration at Upminster really faces the wrong way.
bramling
Veteran Member
Yeah the whole issue of electrification is why I said it wouldn’t happen, and in any case it wouldn’t be worth changing the electrification just to make it sit better on a map.
But if we were having this conversation in different circumstances, it would have made full sense. It isn’t a given that LU shuttle services go, those which have been lost have tended to be because of poor use. Presumably the “push pull” (as it is locally known) attracts enough demand to secure its continued operation.
4-rail electrification would have been quite simple, and in fact could possibly even have been achieved without the need for any new substations. So you’d just have an S stuck shuttling up and down with an Upminster driver. One of those “might have beens”.
London Overground does arguably meet the definition of mass transit, that being a system of moving large numbers of people by train within an urban area. Nevertheless, I would definitely not use the MTR name because Underground, and so a lesser extent Overground, have become cultural icons of London, and are still technically different modes of rail transport. Plus it might also not sit well with MTR Corporation for legal reasons? (I can't be sure about that one)
I was once told that an additional substation would be necessary. I have no idea how accurate that was but my informant was a serious rail nerd.
I believe that some of the pedestrian level crossings are still in place which would require closure or replacement.
Historically the connection at Romford was also necessary for goods traffic. Hall & Co's private siding went in the 60s but Victoria Road was the last coal yard in the area to close.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I think there’s a bit of a fashion to look at already existing system names abroad to used here. The S-Bahn obsession is another one. Ultimately, I think Overground is a uniquely British name that should be kept and rolled out in other cities in England. Crossrail should never have been ditched. I’ve said before it should be resurrected and the individual service groups within it given line names. If we really need something to tie the whole lot together, either resurrect Network SouthEast or come up with something less violently 1980s.
Uncle Buck
Member
Can we at least agree that the current Overground and Elizabeth Line should have the same name- whatever that name might end up being?
You could argue that the line running from Paddington to Liverpool Street should be “the Elizabeth Line of the Overground”, in the same way that you have “the Windrush Line of the Overground”*.
They are heavy-rail, conventional systems which function as suburban services. The only difference is that one goes under central London in a tunnel.
(*= I strongly dislike naming lines after people/groups- but let’s not go off on too much of a tangent).
You could argue that the line running from Paddington to Liverpool Street should be “the Elizabeth Line of the Overground”, in the same way that you have “the Windrush Line of the Overground”*.
They are heavy-rail, conventional systems which function as suburban services. The only difference is that one goes under central London in a tunnel.
(*= I strongly dislike naming lines after people/groups- but let’s not go off on too much of a tangent).
No, - they are totally different in concept and in operation. Whilst I also disagree with the Lizzie's name, there's no point in treating the two distinct operations as in anyway generically similar, let alone the same.
Last edited:
Uncle Buck
Member
We will have to agree to disagree!
Farnborough
Member
I can certainly agree with the restoration of the Crossrail brand, to group the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink (plus Crossrail 2 if it ever happens)
I'm with AM9, that these two are sufficiently different with the rest of the Overground with it's shorter journeys (I was going to add slower, but Thameslink is not exactly fast...) to justify a different brand.
I'm with AM9, that these two are sufficiently different with the rest of the Overground with it's shorter journeys (I was going to add slower, but Thameslink is not exactly fast...) to justify a different brand.
- Status