Reworking the London Overground Network

[Farigiraf]

Inspired by recent posts about permanent East London Line services from London Bridge and to East Croydon, what changes would you make to 'rework' the Overground network - adding, removing or redirecting services to correctly match station flows? (e.g. Forest Hill - East Croydon)
This would be using current infrastructure, but post-GBR, so taking other NR services under the Overground name could work if logical.

For example, of the 4tph to West Croydon, 2 could be diverted to East Croydon, and then either the London Bridge - Epsom service could be converted to Overground, or the other 2tph extended to Sutton/Epsom/Epsom Downs.

The Bexley loop line and Dartford services (with the exception of the Rainham service) under the LO brand could be streamlined to have an even number of services to London Termini (e.g. 2 to Victoria, 2 to Charing Cross/Cannon Street, 2 as part of an orbital network to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye and beyond)

The Victoria-Orpington stopper, already 4tph, is a good candidate for Overground. The 4 trains an hour to Victoria would be good to keep, as it is one of the main destinations from the intermediate stations on the line, but depending on capacity, extra services could run up to Blackfriars (and potentially further), providing better onward connections, such as to St Pancras. Combined with the Sutton Loop services (which also have lots of potential, but the solution for increasing the ridership on that route is more complicated) it would provide Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction with effectively a metro frequency service into zone 1.

I'm sure some other routes, such as the GA commuter services, and the SWR network (apparently due for a timetable recast, but many of those routes are 'reserved' for Crossrail 2) could benefit from small service alternations too.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

You seem to believe that re-labelling an existing service London Overground will automatically make it better. It won't. The two main reasons London Overground works so well are 1) In the days before Sadiq Khan, TfL had money and invested very heavily; and 2) TfL have always made sure their objectives are easy to achieve. It is noticeable that in recent years when they have taken over a previously fairly good service, they have made no dramatic improvements.

Re-routing two trains an hour to East Croydon instead of West Croydon may well over stress an already congested stretch of track, and East Croydon has very little spare capacity, even off peak. Similarly, shoving more trains through the "core" to St. Pancras and beyond - where beyond incidentally? - has major capacity problems and would anyway require Class 700 train sets.

Suburban services in South London should certainly be re-examined periodically, but London Overground is not some magic formula for success.

 

[Zomboid]

I think there is an argument that if some of the south London services were shown on TfL maps and the trains painted to match, the overall system would appear more integrated to prospective users.

As they're largely operationally independent of the existing Overground services then just having a new livery and system map isn't going to make anything run better.

 

[cle]

I think swapping more, very valuable paths onto 5 car trains isn't always going to be the best option.

London Bridge - Epsom seems fairly universally to be a good Thameslink candidate, no doubt an 8 car, but better than 5. This is already an issue on the Forest Hill stretch which is so well subscribed.

I would consider removing New Cross and reallocating those to East Croydon/Caterham - or maybe extending it after Bakerloo goes to Hayes and there is a little extra pathing. But again, it's a short train on a finite stretch. If I did extend it, I quite like the idea of either reinstating the Blackheath bay, or going to Plumstead via Blackheath - but I doubt it would be possible.

The ultimate one for me, on this thread - would be a GOBLIN/WLL Clapham Junction merger - with a Gospel Oak rebuild to 4 through platforms.

 

[Mikey C]

You seem to believe that re-labelling an existing service London Overground will automatically make it better. It won't. The two main reasons London Overground works so well are 1) In the days before Sadiq Khan, TfL had money and invested very heavily; and 2) TfL have always made sure their objectives are easy to achieve. It is noticeable that in recent years when they have taken over a previously fairly good service, they have made no dramatic improvements.

Re-routing two trains an hour to East Croydon instead of West Croydon may well over stress an already congested stretch of track, and East Croydon has very little spare capacity, even off peak. Similarly, shoving more trains through the "core" to St. Pancras and beyond - where beyond incidentally? - has major capacity problems and would anyway require Class 700 train sets.

Suburban services in South London should certainly be re-examined periodically, but London Overground is not some magic formula for success.

I still think the Overground brand is best suited to the orbital routes. It was with these that there was a massive step change in passenger numbers and frequency, as they always tended to be ignored, unlike either the Underground or the London commuter lines.

Other than replacing the trains, are the Weaver Line services out of Liverpool Street much better than before and are they any better than the parallel Greater Anglia Lea Valley services, for example?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I still think the Overground brand is best suited to the orbital routes. It was with these that there was a massive step change in passenger numbers and frequency, as they always tended to be ignored, unlike either the Underground or the London commuter lines.

Other than replacing the trains, are the Weaver Line services out of Liverpool Street much better than before and are they any better than the parallel Greater Anglia Lea Valley services, for example?

The orbital services which were taken over by TfL and re-labelled London Overground had previously been run by Silver Link on a shoe string budget. The huge investment by TfL in new rolling stock, more staff and improved stations made the services far more attractive to potential passengers. Mind you, passenger numbers were already quite high under Silver Link.

From my experience and observation, the service between Liverpool Street and Chingford is not run better than the services along the far busier West Anglia Main Line.

I've made this point before but it bears repeating. TfL is more impressive the further from London you are!

 

[mr_jrt]

IMHO, you have to look at West Croydon as part of East Croydon, really. There is a four track and a 6 track railway going north from Windmill Bridge Junction, giving you 10 tracks. Two go south to West Croydon, and if the upgrade ever finally happens, 6-8 will go south to East Croydon (it's 5 currently).

If you really over-simplistically split those into sets of fast and slow lines, West Croydon is clearly the slow lines from London Bridge. The fast lines from London Bridge are the Thameslink services, and the fast lines from Victoria are the Southern services, leaving the slow lines from Victoria and Crystal Palace to also serve East Croydon.

You'll struggle to get another line in between East and South Croydon (though it would be nice!), so you will likely have to terminate something at the expanded East Croydon, but I think that's the best you will ever manage, short of some sort of fast line tunnels.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think there is an argument that if some of the south London services were shown on TfL maps and the trains painted to match, the overall system would appear more integrated to prospective users.

As they're largely operationally independent of the existing Overground services then just having a new livery and system map isn't going to make anything run better.

Absolutely, it’s easy to forget that as a London citizen, the Overground paints a psychologically stronger way to move across the city. It’s reassuring and likely has a positive effect to local economies.

The entirety of South London could be placed on the Overground, not least because of the north/south connections, but also due to the wide potential of orbital east/west connections which other parts of London don’t have - apart from North London of course. New interchanges can aid through journeys from say Wimbledon to Bromley, without having to go through central London.

As a fantasy, I’d absolutely love to see the former LCDR Victoria to Blackfriars service be part of the Overground.

 

[cle]

IMHO, you have to look at West Croydon as part of East Croydon, really. There is a four track and a 6 track railway going north from Windmill Bridge Junction, giving you 10 tracks. Two go south to West Croydon, and if the upgrade ever finally happens, 6-8 will go south to East Croydon (it's 5 currently).

If you really over-simplistically split those into sets of fast and slow lines, West Croydon is clearly the slow lines from London Bridge. The fast lines from London Bridge are the Thameslink services, and the fast lines from Victoria are the Southern services, leaving the slow lines from Victoria and Crystal Palace to also serve East Croydon.

You'll struggle to get another line in between East and South Croydon (though it would be nice!), so you will likely have to terminate something at the expanded East Croydon, but I think that's the best you will ever manage, short of some sort of fast line tunnels.

But both the Selhurst route and the West Norwood route both have a basic 2/4tph Victoria and a 2/4tph London Bridge service, depending on peaks etc. I think people would howl if you gave Selhurst to Victoria, and West Norwood to London Bridge (also, what serves Streatham Hill!) - so as much as I'd rather simplify, untangle and then up frequency to metro / TUAG levels, it is harder.

Much harder than say the NLL, which progressively went from 3 -> 8 tph, and people ripped up timetables. Which is the ultimate freedom... and especially for South London, famously underserved by tube. That uniformity and metro frequency means a ton - see the Forest Hill ELL route as a perfect example, and explosion at NXG, Brockley etc...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

But both the Selhurst route and the West Norwood route both have a basic 2/4tph Victoria and a 2/4tph London Bridge service, depending on peaks etc. I think people would howl if you gave Selhurst to Victoria, and West Norwood to London Bridge (also, what serves Streatham Hill!) - so as much as I'd rather simplify, untangle and then up frequency to metro / TUAG levels, it is harder.

Much harder than say the NLL, which progressively went from 3 -> 8 tph, and people ripped up timetables. Which is the ultimate freedom... and especially for South London, famously underserved by tube. That uniformity and metro frequency means a ton - see the Forest Hill ELL route as a perfect example, and explosion at NXG, Brockley etc...

But the previous service through Brockley wasn’t that infrequent. Was it the service frequency increase that drove demand up or being on the tube map?

If you built strategic interchanges at Streatham Common and Leigham Vale, you could permanently seperate Victoria and London Bridge services and give a uniform service to one terminus.

 

[cle]

It was 4tph (which is 'check a timetable') vs today's 8tph to ELL (with another 2tph NR to NXG/LB) - if you were doing Canary Wharf for instance, you can take the first train.

I think branding, new train feel and tube map/vibe also contributed a lot, yes.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It was 4tph (which is 'check a timetable') vs today's 8tph to ELL (with another 2tph NR to NXG/LB) - if you were doing Canary Wharf for instance, you can take the first train.

I think branding, new train feel and tube map/vibe also contributed a lot, yes.

I counted at least 6 in my 2002 timetable