Other lines that could be "Overground-ised"

[Wolfie]

I haven't ignored anything. George Osborne reduced the grant London received from central taxation during Boris Johnson's period in office. Despite that, TfL remained solvent.

If you want to belittle Boris Johnson, you'll get no argument from me.

I don't want to belittle Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson at all. I lived in London through his indifferent, except for PR stunts, at best period as mayor. I also know people who worked for the GLA and had dealings with him. Similarly l know people who had to deal with him in his brief stint as Foreign Secretary....

 

[SynthD]

The fare freeze was a small amount compared to all the other numbers listed, and a lot smaller than the cut in central gov funding.
Is Herts actually at risk of being served differently for being outside of London? Is there any service TfL ends on political borders rather than where it makes sense for traffic or logistics? They aren’t turning back Crossrail at West Drayton.

 

[willgreen]

I haven't ignored anything. George Osborne reduced the grant London received from central taxation during Boris Johnson's period in office. Despite that, TfL remained solvent.

I mean, can TfL ever become insolvent, if it's a government body? If it can keep racking up debt it's clearly not being run as a business anyway.

The fare freeze was a small amount compared to all the other numbers listed, and a lot smaller than the cut in central gov funding.
Is Herts actually at risk of being served differently for being outside of London? Is there any service TfL ends on political borders rather than where it makes sense for traffic or logistics? They aren’t turning back Crossrail at West Drayton.

You can argue that the Met Line extension through Croxley would have happened had it been within Greater London. Apart from that, you're spot on - TfL tends to take account of existing travel flows (Crossrail is a very good example).

 

[Mikey C]

The fare freeze was a small amount compared to all the other numbers listed, and a lot smaller than the cut in central gov funding.
Is Herts actually at risk of being served differently for being outside of London? Is there any service TfL ends on political borders rather than where it makes sense for traffic or logistics? They aren’t turning back Crossrail at West Drayton.

TfL have removed the off peak fast Met trains from Amersham and replaced them with stoppers which arguably benefits people living in London at the expense of those outside of London...

 

[LLivery]

As to the Great Northern services joining the London Overground network, it's been discussed I believe but it has gone no further then that.

I would think that the Southern Metro services might be a good fit for the London Overground with services such as:

London Victoria to Epsom via Carshalton

London Victoria to Sutton/Epsom Downs via Norbury

London Victoria to West Croydon via Gipsy Hill

London Victoria to London Bridge via Sydenham

London Bridge to Coulson Town via Sydenham

London Bridge to Epsom

London Bridge to Caterham/Tattenham Corner

London Bridge to Caterham via Norbury

London Bridge to Caterham via Peckham Rye

But we will see what the future sees

Ah, I thought GN was all but confirmed. With Southern and Southeastern both not too far off from their contracts ending, and the railways changing, it'd make sense or some kind of improvement. Just what that will be...

I strongly believe that if the DfT takes more control of TfL, and all the TOCs, it will look at things a bit different. There are surely of logistical issues with the GN inners becoming part of TfL, such as how to manage drivers who work on the outers, how you split depots, manage servicing etc.

Not insurmountable, but probably easier if whoever operates GN simply rebrands the inner trains as Overground and nothing more. The drivers remain with GN, and you simply sort out a way to get Oyster to work up to WGC in addition to contactless cards. Oh, and you put it on the Tube map!

I really don't think it could be done any other way, as waiting for TfL to be able to do it would mean it perhaps taking many, many years or not happening at all.

From the DfT's point of view, even this is probably not a high priority anymore. It's not as if people living in Hertfordshire aren't already aware of the trains as they are. Changing the seat pattern isn't really going to make much of a difference to them. The benefit came from new, air conditioned, trains, 4tph, and services all weekend and late into the night.

Other places with more run down stations and old trains would benefit more, but they're likely even less cost effective to do right now.

Now that the fleet has been replaced, the merit of transferring to LO has reduced.
The next year will be very interesting concerning the path forward.

London Overground was a great success in creating/promoting orbital services, starting with the original North London line. By creating the full outer Orbital, it's provided London with something genuinely useful, one which gets far more passengers than if the lines had existed separately without the connections and orange line on the tube map

I'm not so convinced whether it makes a great deal of difference to commuter trains. Fine if you want to create a single brand for all London inner suburban routes - a smaller Network Southeast - but someone in Bexleyheath commutes into London for work or leisure, whatever the colour of the train

I agree - any takeover wouldn't see the Silverlink to LO level of change without billions pumped into it and even then, it's not as bad as Silverlink. South Londoners use the network out of necessity - it doesn't matter who runs it. A cheaper alternative of a single brand with the four South London operators working with TfL however, could see some real improvements without a huge overhaul.

 

[Mojo]

From a customer point of view, the Greenford to West Ealing branch line, given that it links to the London Underground at one end and Crossrail at the other end. Would really help open up North West London to Crossrail and HS2.

Of course, given that Overground or MTR have no diesel depots nearby it makes no sense from an operational point of view.

 

[JonathanH]

From a customer point of view, the Greenford to West Ealing branch line, given that it links to the London Underground at one end and Crossrail at the other end. Would really help open up North West London to Crossrail and HS2.

There is a big revenue risk to take before that is true. What magic bullet is there going to be that changes the fortune of the Greenford line under new management? Are there hundreds of people who would travel on the line but only don't do so because it isn't on the tube map?

For a start, a connection between North Acton Station and Old Oak Common Station or the often talked about Chiltern Station would give much more simple access from North West London to HS2 and Crossrail than getting people to change at Greenford and West Ealing.

Have loadings on the Romford to Upminster line increased since it appeared on the TfL map?

 

[Mojo]

For a start, a connection between North Acton Station and Old Oak Common Station or the often talked about Chiltern Station would give much more simple access from North West London to HS2 and Crossrail than getting people to change at Greenford and West Ealing.

*If* it ever happens, and is promoted / offers a decent enough service (ie. runs more than hourly).

The fact is, the train service runs and is paid for as it stands, so there is no real risk of anything as the cost won’t change, even if the trains and crewing are still provided by Great western.

 

[JonathanH]

The fact is, the train service runs and is paid for as it stands, so there is no real risk of anything as the cost won’t change, even if the trains and crewing are still provided by Great western.

Yes, I guess an option is to apply London Overground branding but get GWR to continue to operate it.

The point about revenue risk is around trying to source a second unit to the route so it could run every 15 rather than 30 minutes. My guess is that no one senses that demand would increase dramatically with a more frequent service.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, I guess an option is to apply London Overground branding but get GWR to continue to operate it.

The point about revenue risk is around trying to source a second unit to the route so it could run every 15 rather than 30 minutes. My guess is that no one senses that demand would increase dramatically with a more frequent service.

There's no necessity to immediately provide more frequent than a halfhourly service; Overground runs the line via Emerson Park which is only halfhourly.

 

[JonathanH]

There's no necessity to immediately provide more frequent than a halfhourly service; Overground runs the line via Emerson Park which is only halfhourly.

I agree, there isn't. I am trying to understand what change to the West Ealing to Greenford line is going to "really help open up North West London to Crossrail and HS2". People already pay 'tube fares' if they change at Greenford to go via West Ealing into London.

 

[Mojo]

I agree, there isn't. I am trying to understand what change to the West Ealing to Greenford line is going to "really help open up North West London to Crossrail and HS2". People already pay 'tube fares' if they change at Greenford to go via West Ealing into London.

As it stands, the awareness of the line is poor, and journeys after 8.30p.m. or on Sundays aren't possible. If it was made welcoming to customers by being put into the TfL family then I've no doubt that people could take advantage of it to access Crossrail.

 

[Meglos]

Yes, I guess an option is to apply London Overground branding but get GWR to continue to operate it.

The point about revenue risk is around trying to source a second unit to the route so it could run every 15 rather than 30 minutes. My guess is that no one senses that demand would increase dramatically with a more frequent service.

Seems to me a option would be to either increase the LUL 2024 stock order by 3-4 short units (W&C stock length), transfer the line to the Central line, and operate a West Ruislip-West Ealing Shuttle. Otherwise keep a small fleet of ex-W&C 1992 stock, and use these instead between West Ruislip and West Ealing.

 

[swt_passenger]

I agree, there isn't. I am trying to understand what change to the West Ealing to Greenford line is going to "really help open up North West London to Crossrail and HS2". People already pay 'tube fares' if they change at Greenford to go via West Ealing into London.

Network Rail‘s last route study (2016) reckoned there was no point in increasing frequency in the next 20 odd years, (up to 2043). There just isn’t the demand.

 

[willgreen]

Network Rail‘s last route study (2016) reckoned there was no point in increasing frequency in the next 20 odd years, (up to 2043). There just isn’t the demand.

Chicken and egg?

 

[swt_passenger]

Chicken and egg?

Well for one thing they (rightly?) assume the vast majority of the local demand at Greenford already uses the Central Line. So it’s about the intermediate stations.

 

[willgreen]

Well for one thing they (rightly?) assume the vast majority of the local demand at Greenford already uses the Central Line. So it’s about the intermediate stations.

Oh, I agree - it's never going to be a busy line - but IIRC demand on the line dropped hugely after the end of through trains to Paddington. That indicates that usage can be higher than it is at the moment, it's just currently inconvenient in terms of frequency and where the service goes. Operating it as a Central Line service, with the White City terminators extended, would give a 3tph frequency and put it on the Tube Map. But there are dozens of more important transport projects in the capital alone (I also think it may be needed as a freight route?).

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I mean, can TfL ever become insolvent, if it's a government body? If it can keep racking up debt it's clearly not being run as a business anyway.

You can argue that the Met Line extension through Croxley would have happened had it been within Greater London. Apart from that, you're spot on - TfL tends to take account of existing travel flows (Crossrail is a very good example).

The reason TfL was cash rich prior to Sadiq Khan is exactly the same reason that decades ago London Transport was cash rich: London Underground. Buses in London have throughout my life time traded at a loss, but the cash surplus achieved by London Underground has always been far more. In the days of London Transport both the deficit on the buses and repairs/maintenance on the Tube were adequately financed even though the political consensus in those days was to reduce London's population by expanding towns like Peterborough and Basingstoke and building Milton Keynes.

In more recent times, London's ever-growing population greatly increased use of the Underground and therefore its cash surplus until Sadiq Khan appeared on the scene.

London Overground, I suspect, trades at a loss. The number of staff doing next to nothing at stations is something to see! At my station in late morning or early afternoon there are usually three members of staff . . . . and they almost never venture out onto the platforms! This huge overhead combined with the fact that the Overground does not run through central London makes it probable that London Underground now has a second companion to subsidise. Could it do so? In normal, non-Covid circumstances yes, and TfL would again be solvent, but it requires a Mayor with a sense of responsibility about public finances who recognises that to maintain that crucial cash surplus fares on the Underground must rise at least in line with inflation.

As for TfL's territorial ambitions outside London, TfL go where easy profits are available. The Great Western Main Line to Reading? Certainly; who cares that it's outside London: there's already a large captive market. Extending the Metropolitan Line back to Aylesbury? Certainly not: it's way outside London and there's no money in it.

 

[Fincra5]

The reason TfL was cash rich prior to Sadiq Khan is exactly the same reason that decades ago London Transport was cash rich: London Underground. Buses in London have throughout my life time traded at a loss, but the cash surplus achieved by London Underground has always been far more. In the days of London Transport both the deficit on the buses and repairs/maintenance on the Tube were adequately financed even though the political consensus in those days was to reduce London's population by expanding towns like Peterborough and Basingstoke and building Milton Keynes.

In more recent times, London's ever-growing population greatly increased use of the Underground and therefore its cash surplus until Sadiq Khan appeared on the scene.

London Overground, I suspect, trades at a loss. The number of staff doing next to nothing at stations is something to see! At my station in late morning or early afternoon there are usually three members of staff . . . . and they almost never venture out onto the platforms! This huge overhead combined with the fact that the Overground does not run through central London makes it probable that London Underground now has a second companion to subsidise. Could it do so? In normal, non-Covid circumstances yes, and TfL would again be solvent, but it requires a Mayor with a sense of responsibility about public finances who recognises that to maintain that crucial cash surplus fares on the Underground must rise at least in line with inflation.

As for TfL's territorial ambitions outside London, TfL go where easy profits are available. The Great Western Main Line to Reading? Certainly; who cares that it's outside London: there's already a large captive market. Extending the Metropolitan Line back to Aylesbury? Certainly not: it's way outside London and there's no money in it.

I believe LO needs staffed stations as they removed the guards from services. SO staff are required to assist passengers on/off trains.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think Wimbledon to Sutton is so underused, with alternate routes to Central London adjacent to much of it - that a Tramlink solution works best.

The Thameslink paths via Mitcham could go on to Epsom and even Guildford, like the good old days, 4tph might be good, and replace something else. Terminate them in Blackfriars.

Wimbledon to Streatham I'm not sure about. Would closure be so bad? Or Victoria via Herne Hill - better for that crossing.

I always wonder about that section of line. I think the best thing would be to, as you say, have a 4tph Sutton to Blackfriars service. Although may as well hand it over to Southern like the good old days (before Thameslink!). I don't think you should close the Streatham to Wimbledon line it serves some small communtities along the way that could benefit from a more regular service. Perhaps with more stations added, such as were the line crosses Mitcham Lane.

4tph Wimbeldon to London Bridge might be an idea. Diverting the London Bridge to Streatham Common train and adding an extra 2tph. Might even be a bit competitive with the Northern Line for passengers in south Tooting.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I believe LO needs staffed stations as they removed the guards from services. SO staff are required to assist passengers on/off trains.

That may be true but they are still a large overhead expense. Incidentally the staff numbers seem to vary between different stations.

 

[Fincra5]

That may be true but they are still a large overhead expense. Incidentally the staff numbers seem to vary between different stations.

It is an expense but necessary for Accessibilty... Unless LO staff every train again (Talking about NLL and WLL and not pre-2000s DOO)

 

[EastisECML]

For some non-London suggestions, maybe:

Warrington Central & Manchester Victoria - Manchester Airport

Bradford Interchange - Leeds

Both would require some additional tracks to be fully segregated from other lines, but not much.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wimbledon is already served by the Underground... of all the places in London it would seem the most fitting to also be served by the Overground (wombling free).

 

[Bletchleyite]

For some non-London suggestions, maybe:

Warrington Central & Manchester Victoria - Manchester Airport

Bradford Interchange - Leeds

Both would require some additional tracks to be fully segregated from other lines, but not much.

There's some discussion of an "S-Bahn-Manchester", which I suppose could be called a "Manchester Overground", going on on the "We have to talk about Castlefield" thread.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

I can imagine that, since the original plans, a flyover between Dalston and H&I would have increased the cost significantly. No real benefit especially as the Victoria Line upgrade would have been in planning around the same time.

I'll preface this by agreeing there's no way whatsoever an ELL-NCL link would be worth the cost. However, I'd argue that if such a link could be magicked into existence it would actually have benefit in relieving the Victoria Line. The quickest way between the NLL/ELL and the segment of North London served by the Piccadilly Line or the inner Great Northern services is a one-stop hop on the Victoria between Finsbury Park and H&I. I'm sure the numbers of people doing this are negligible in proportion to overall usage of the Victoria Line but given this is London they're probably quite high in absolute terms - and it's not a quiet stretch of the Victoria (if that's not an oxymoronic thing to say).

 

[Flange Squeal]

Wimbledon is already served by the Underground... of all the places in London it would seem the most fitting to also be served by the Overground (wombling free).

It may well have even already carried ‘Overground’ branding in the past. In the early 2000s the ‘Overground Network’ pilot saw a number of Connex South Eastern, Southern and South West Trains stations (with four or more trains per hour into London) receiving ‘ON’ branding to try and create an overall brand and highlight the turn-up-and-go offerings of the mainline network south of the Thames. An example of such signage can be found at: https://flic.kr/p/P2t4g

 

[WideRanger]

I'll preface this by agreeing there's no way whatsoever an ELL-NCL link would be worth the cost. However, I'd argue that if such a link could be magicked into existence it would actually have benefit in relieving the Victoria Line. The quickest way between the NLL/ELL and the segment of North London served by the Piccadilly Line or the inner Great Northern services is a one-stop hop on the Victoria between Finsbury Park and H&I. I'm sure the numbers of people doing this are negligible in proportion to overall usage of the Victoria Line but given this is London they're probably quite high in absolute terms - and it's not a quiet stretch of the Victoria (if that's not an oxymoronic thing to say).

What about if trains from Finsbury Park came down through the Canonbury Curve and then through to Stratford, and some or all trains from Camden Road go through to the ELL? Then there would be no conflicts, no?

Changes could be made at Highbury & Islington.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It may well have even already carried ‘Overground’ branding in the past. In the early 2000s the ‘Overground Network’ pilot saw a number of Connex South Eastern, Southern and South West Trains stations (with four or more trains per hour into London) receiving ‘ON’ branding to try and create an overall brand and highlight the turn-up-and-go offerings of the mainline network south of the Thames. An example of such signage can be found at: https://flic.kr/p/P2t4g

I'd forgotten all about that abortive first attempt at launching an "Overground" network...I was just making a bad Womble pun!

But back on-topic, routes such as the Kingston and Hounslow loops would indeed seem entirely suitable for LO branding (even if they remained operated by SWR), what with being frequent services entirely within the TfL zonal system.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

What about if trains from Finsbury Park came down through the Canonbury Curve and then through to Stratford, and some or all trains from Camden Road go through to the ELL? Then there would be no conflicts, no?

Changes could be made at Highbury & Islington.

In that scenario, Canonbury would the station where passengers changed trains.