Why did East London Line become part of London Overground?

Jass · 19 Jul 2019

Why was the ELL integrated into the London Overground network, when Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Rotherhithe, Wapping, and Shadwell were all UNDER the ground.

The London Overground causes a lot of confusion as it is not split into different lines clearly.

This could mean that tourists might think that they can get a direct train from Dalston junction to Wembley Central, which is far from reality.

It just makes no sense as to why the East London line was converted to London Overground, in my opinion.

RailUK Forums

RichardGore · 19 Jul 2019

Are you referring to just the change of name? Or you think it shouldn’t have been connected to rest of the network?

swt_passenger · 19 Jul 2019

RichardGore said:
Are you referring to just the change of name? Or you think it shouldn’t have been connected to rest of the network?

I think the supposed issue is that all the separate bits use the same orange line, but surely the normal tube map interchange symbols make it pretty clear you can’t get a through train from Dalston Jn to Wembley Central anyway?

bramling · 20 Jul 2019

swt_passenger said:
I think the supposed issue is that all the separate bits use the same orange line, but surely the normal tube map interchange symbols make it pretty clear you can’t get a through train from Dalston Jn to Wembley Central anyway?

They *could* have kept it branded as an Underground line, there’s precedent for Underground lines running over NR.

However, from an operational perspective it would have been an issue as do you go for LU procedures over the LU section, or so you keep the structure as it is and merely make the Underground distinction a passenger-facing branding exercise. Once you get to that point it starts to become inefficient keeping separate branding, with all its implications.

Having said that, personally I’d have probably done exactly that and kept it as the LU East London Line, albeit operated as it is now. But only really for historical neatness.

swt_passenger · 20 Jul 2019

bramling said:
They *could* have kept it branded as an Underground line, there’s precedent for Underground lines running over NR.

However, from an operational perspective it would have been an issue as do you go for LU procedures over the LU section, or so you keep the structure as it is and merely make the Underground distinction a passenger-facing branding exercise. Once you get to that point it starts to become inefficient keeping separate branding, with all its implications.

Having said that, personally I’d have probably done exactly that and kept it as the LU East London Line, albeit operated as it is now. But only really for historical neatness.

I think the decision about whether LO or LU would possibly have been based on the ratio of normal network rail infrastructure to their own separate infrastructure; taking into account the 3 longest branches. But they also possibly wanted to market the orbital aspect, and the existing NLL and WLL and future SLL probably made the case for it being all named the same way...

Ethano92 · 20 Jul 2019

Jass said:
The london overground causes a lot of confusion as it is not split into different lines clearly.

Although I agree TFL need to name the separate overground lines which should be easy as they each already have names, you can't say it shouldn't be called overground because some stations are underground, especially when the majority of the line is above ground. The term 'overground' is a brand, not a promise. Same as the tube being known as 'Underground' despite 60% of it running above ground.

civ-eng-jim · 20 Jul 2019

Jass said:
Why the f*** was the ELL converted into overground....

Blimey! That's a rather angry reaction to something that happened the best part of a decade ago. "Why was the ELL converted into overground" would have sufficed.

matt_world2004 · 20 Jul 2019

Jass said:
It just makes no sense as to why the East London line was converted to London Overground, in my opinion

The old East London line had very limited utility and benefited hugely from the connection to the wider network. It's called London Overground because it is not run by London Underground but a private company contracted to TfL in a similar arrangement to the DLR, bus and tram networks.

Personally, I think branding Overground/Elizabeth it as part of the 'tube' network is a mistake when paper 'tube' tickets are only valid on some of the network.

JBuchananGB · 20 Jul 2019

It is always mentioned that at Whitechapel the Underground (District and Hammersmith & City lines) goes over the Overground. The East London Line is a great survivor, passing as it does through the oldest transport tunnel below a river anywhere in the world (opened to pedestrians in 1843). Before the "Underground" brand was invented, the service commenced in 1865 operated by the London, Brighton & South Coast Railway, with lots of interesting routes over the years. Such as Liverpool Street to Brighton between 1876 and 1883. Various railway companies operated passenger and freight trains, including the Metropolitan District Railway, the Great Eastern Railway and the South Eastern & Chatham Railway. In 1933 it became the responsibility of the London Passenger Transport Board. I suppose that is when it became part of the "Underground", although maybe that was in 1948 when all the other railways were nationalised, and the ELL was taken over by the London Transport Executive, with BR (Eastern Region) continuing to run freight trains.

After two protracted closures for refurbishments (1995-1998 & 2007-2010), it re-opened as London Overground, with the extensions of service to both the north and the south. And long may it survive and thrive!

JBuchananGB · 20 Jul 2019

Another question could be, why is Romford to Upminster part of London Overground, when it has no links to any other part of the London Overground network. Based on its history, it should be part of C2C! {London, Tilbury & Southend Railway, became part of Midland Railway, then London Midland & Scottish, under nationalisation part of Eastern Region, but now C2C [Trenitalia]}

CaledonianBlue · 20 Jul 2019

Arguably the East London Line was a bit of an outlier, for some years with only one connection to the rest of the Underground, and tangential, wasn't it the only line that didn't go into central London? It makes perfect sense to me that it became part of a bigger suburban / tangential / orbital system. Funny to think it was once part of the Metropolitan, given that there is now no obvious connection.

JBuchananGB · 20 Jul 2019

The connection to the rest of the Metropolitan line, known as the St. Mary's curve, was removed during the 2007-2010 closure. In the preceding 150 years, trains had run through from Hammersmith to New Cross for example, but in the later years it was only used for empty stock movements.

Ianno87 · 20 Jul 2019

civ-eng-jim said:
Blimey! That's a rather angry reaction to something that happened the best part of a decade ago. "Why was the ELL converted into overground" would have sufficed.

Putting aside the fact that usage today is light years above what the old LU East London Line achieved.

Busaholic · 20 Jul 2019

CaledonianBlue said:
Arguably the East London Line was a bit of an outlier, for some years with only one connection to the rest of the Underground, and tangential, wasn't it the only line that didn't go into central London? It makes perfect sense to me that it became part of a bigger suburban / tangential / orbital system. Funny to think it was once part of the Metropolitan, given that there is now no obvious connection.

When I was growing up not too far from New Cross in the 1950s I was an avid collector of all issues of LT bus and underground maps, and the latter always showed the East London line as part of the Metropolitan i.e. the same colour. and no indication on the map of it being in any way separate, although there may have been an interchange symbol at Whitechapel. I do remember being very disappointed to discover there being no through passenger trains onto the Metropolitan/District lines at Whitechapel!

Ianno87 · 20 Jul 2019

Busaholic said:
When I was growing up not too far from New Cross in the 1950s I was an avid collector of all issues of LT bus and underground maps, and the latter always showed the East London line as part of the Metropolitan i.e. the same colour. and no indication on the map of it being in any way separate, although there may have been an interchange symbol at Whitechapel. I do remember being very disappointed to discover there being no through passenger trains onto the Metropolitan/District lines at Whitechapel!

Whilst there was no regular services, I think there were odd services via the St Mary's Curve. Start/end of day, plus after Millwall matches?

LUYMun · 20 Jul 2019

I wonder what rolling stock would run now if the LU kept running on the ELL, but replaced all of its A60 stock? 4-car S Stock (S4 Stock)?

JBuchananGB · 20 Jul 2019

According to my reference book (East London Line by Vic Mitchell & Keith Smith), quoting the LT Museum, the St. Mary's curve was only used for football specials, rail tours and empty stock movements after 6th October 1941 until closure in 2007.

Taunton · 20 Jul 2019

What does it matter what it is called?

The Central has long sections way outside the centre. The Circle is no longer a circle (and it used to be a grossly distorted one, unlike the Moscow one that looks on a geographical map like it was designed with a compass). The southernmost point of the Underground is on the Northern Line. And the majority of the Underground is above ground.

I bet Geoff Marshall will make a video one day about all the naming inconsistencies.

John Webb · 20 Jul 2019

The East London line history is a complex one. It was opened 1879 from New Cross to Shoreditch, and owned no rolling stock. Trains were operated by a number of companies, and in 1882 a joint committee was set up of the LBSC, SER, LCDR, Metropolitan and Metropolitan District to lease the line. The GER joined them in 1885. Electrified on the fourth-rail system in 1913, the Metropolitan then operated the passenger service. Ownership passed to the SR in 1925 and to London Transport in 1948. (Acknowledgements to "The Oxford Companion to British Railway History" by Simmons and Biddle, OUP 1997.)

So it's been associated with 'surface' railways a lot longer than with the underground. The works that have taken place in recent years to make it part of a sort of London Circular Railway seems to me to be a sensible idea.

CaledonianBlue · 20 Jul 2019

Busaholic said:
When I was growing up not too far from New Cross in the 1950s I was an avid collector of all issues of LT bus and underground maps, and the latter always showed the East London line as part of the Metropolitan i.e. the same colour. and no indication on the map of it being in any way separate, although there may have been an interchange symbol at Whitechapel. I do remember being very disappointed to discover there being no through passenger trains onto the Metropolitan/District lines at Whitechapel!

As far as I can recall I only ever knew it as having the Metropolitan colour, but the 'hollow' look, or possibly a dashed effect on some maps.

CaledonianBlue · 20 Jul 2019

Taunton said:
What does it matter what it is called?

The Central has long sections way outside the centre. The Circle is no longer a circle (and it used to be a grossly distorted one, unlike the Moscow one that looks on a geographical map like it was designed with a compass). The southernmost point of the Underground is on the Northern Line. And the majority of the Underground is above ground.

I bet Geoff Marshall will make a video one day about all the naming inconsistencies.

There could be a whole thread on that!

John Webb · 20 Jul 2019

CaledonianBlue said:
As far as I can recall I only ever knew it as having the Metropolitan colour, but the 'hollow' look, or possibly a dashed effect on some maps.

Early editions of Mr Beck's diagrammatic map showed the Metropolitan line in purple, and the East London line as a separate 'hollow' red line. By 1934, with the formation of the LTPB, the East London line was shown in the same solid purple as the rest of the Met. Various changes took place in 1935 and 1937 to red and green respectively, the latter colour shared with the District Line until 1949, when the Met resumed its purple colour, as did the E London line. The colour changed to a redder hue early 1960s, and remained that way until the forthcoming adoption into LO's network around 1994 when it was separately marked as once again the East London line in a light orange colour. (Acknowledgement to "Mr Beck's Underground Map" by Ken Garland, Capital Transport, 1994-2008.)

JBuchananGB · 20 Jul 2019

I think the introduction of the light orange colour on the map for the ELL coincided with the rebranding of the Hammersmith to Barking Metropolitan Line services as "Hammersmith & City Line", with the introduction of a pink colour on the map for that service. Now of course it is the darker orange of London Overground.

ChiefPlanner · 20 Jul 2019

Ianno87 said:
Putting aside the fact that usage today is light years above what the old LU East London Line achieved.

Indeed ,it could be very quiet. (Had Sunday services extended to Shoreditch for Petticoat Lane market !)

I am advised that despite the nature of it being a shuttle and "quiet" - staff enjoyed working it. Haven of calm from the bustle of the other lines , and the same wages of course.

PeterC · 20 Jul 2019

Considering how much of the Underground network is on the surface .... lets not go there.

I agree that branding Romford - Upminster as Overground makes little sense. It would make more sense, currently, to market it as TfL Rail and eventually as a feeder to the Elizabeth Line.

Before I get a pompous reply about the length of a class 345 I did say market NOT operate!

Dr_Paul · 20 Jul 2019

Jass said:
Why was the ELL integrated into the London Overground network, when Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Rotherhithe, Wapping, and Shadwell were all UNDER the ground. The London Overground causes a lot of confusion as it is not split into different lines clearly. This could mean that tourists might think that they can get a direct train from Dalston junction to Wembley Central, which is far from reality. It just makes no sense as to why the East London line was converted to London Overground, in my opinion.

Today's ELL is not just Shoreditch to New Cross and New Cross Gate, but goes from Highbury and Islington and Dalston Junction at one end down to New Cross, Crystal Palace and West Croydon at the other ends, and seamlessly into the South London Line round to Clapham Junction. The ELL is rather more integrated into the Overground than into the Underground, seeing that it is physically connected to other Overground routes and shares platforms with them at Highbury and Islington and at Clapham Junction, and with the SLL, West London Line and North London Line it completes a circular route via those two stations. It would make more sense to have the ELL in the Overground for that reason.

The presentation of Overground lines on maps is another question, although the TFL ones here and here show reasonably well where one has to change Overground trains to go from one route to another.

baz962 · 20 Jul 2019

PeterC said:
Considering how much of the Underground network is on the surface .... lets not go there.

I agree that branding Romford - Upminster as Overground makes little sense. It would make more sense, currently, to market it as TfL Rail and eventually as a feeder to the Elizabeth Line.

Before I get a pompous reply about the length of a class 345 I did say market NOT operate!

As far as I am aware, it is actually driven by TFL drivers, rather than Arriva.

frodshamfella · 24 Jul 2019

I used the East London Line on and off during my teenage years when I had a friend that lived in Wapping. I also used it a bit while I was working at the top end of Bishopsgate, using the peak hour service to Shoreditch and changing at New Cross for Bexleyheath, as a change to stopping on the train to Cannon Street.

I never remember it packed which was rather nice, I also remember the damp musty smell you had at Wapping and Rotherhithe Stations.

Bletchleyite · 24 Jul 2019

frodshamfella said:
I never remember it packed which was rather nice, I also remember the damp musty smell you had at Wapping and Rotherhithe Stations.

If you want that memory to return, try any of the "deep level" Merseyrail stations, particularly Hamilton Square and James St.

frodshamfella · 24 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
If you want that memory to return, try any of the "deep level" Merseyrail stations, particularly Hamilton Square and James St.

I used James Street for the first time not too long ago, it felt more like the London Underground of old than the London Underground !

Why did East London Line become part of London Overground?

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member