Talk:London Overground

Control

Who is to control the railway exactly? The article says about it being controlled by London Rail but also talks about TOCs. What is going on? Simply south 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

London Rail will control it and specify the service levels/branding etc. However, they will not supply the services. They will select a TOC to do that. MRSC 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Relationship with the Overground Network?

Will there be any relationship between the London Overground and the Overground Network? Or is this just an infelicitous similarity in names? --Jfruh (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Overground Network is purely a branding exercise designed to encourage the use of the more frequent of the National Rail lines in London. TfL would eventually like to take over control of all the National Rail lines in London but this is a long way off. If London Overground is a success then they will be well placed to make the case for control of other lines.

Yes, the London Overground will just be a suburban system, but part of the National Rail network. Simply south 11:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Bakerloo Line

The section north of Queen's Park transferred to the Bakerloo Line.

but of course the section north of Queen's Park actually shares the existing track of the Bakerloo Line (as far north as Harrow & Wealdstone. rephrase? Morwen - Talk 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably they mean that all trains on this section will be branded as Bakerloo only -- but will they add more trains to make the frequency of service equal to current levels? I think "transfer" would be a legitimate description of this process if so, but maybe there's a clearer way to put it? --Jfruh (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw in the near future, the Bakerloo Line may be re-extended back to Watford Junction. Do you think this will happen at the same time? Simply south 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

TfL reportedly gave a presentation to the Watford Rail Users' Group on 11 September 2006 on their proposals to re-extend the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction. I am trying to obtain details of these proposals and will post them when I do. THC 09:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image problems?

What browsers and operating systems are the users who are having trouble with the image using? And what sort of problems are you having with it? It's displaying fine for me (OS X/Safari).

I'm putting the image on the talk page so that it doesn't get discarded as orphaned. The map was incredibly useful for me trying to visualize the network and it needs to go into the article in some form.

The full extent of the network with selected stations shown. The sections in orange are definite. The section in brown is likely to be transferred to the Bakerloo Line and the section in green to the DLR, with the sections in grey probably closing and the section through Primrose Hill reopened. The blue section is phase 2 of the East London Line extension and will open much later.

--Jfruh (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The image did not display in Firefox or IE in Monobook or Cologne Blue (although it does now). You should watch what you are doing when you revert pages as you reintroduced the "featured article" tag removed in the previous edit and removed some newly introduced text. MRSC 06:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Displays fine in Firefox2 on OS X. Definitely should be included in some form - very informative graphical representation. DJR (T) 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Extended Article

I've made an attempt to extend the article with a bit more context and detail, and also separate out initial operations and planned future operations -possibly the map could reflect this? As far as I know, the Queens Park - Stratford has been mooted but not a certainty. Please add/correct my versionSurfermoon 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This has indeed been mooted (albeit not specifically) in TfL's Transport Vision 2025 document. However, funding and planning issues mean that any such proposal is a long way off (TfL employee talking here).

The map could do with Stratford - North Woolwich being removed. I'm not sure why it is there as it will not form part of the service. MRSC 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally should have three images -the initial network, the planned network (adding the confirmed East London extensions), and the proposed network (which is pretty much the current image) Surfermoon 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Added no of stations and distance, please check -where will depots be? Surfermoon 11:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Rolling stock

There is no mention of the stock the GOBLIN section will use. This section is not planned to be electrified by 2010 (at least there is no funding yet) so the Electrostars will not work this section. Do we have any sources for what stock will be used on that section? MRSC 12:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a brief mention of electrification (not the rolling stock, i don't think) here. Simply south 13:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently...

...overground will be featured on the tube map some day. Should it join WikiProject Underground? Lenny 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The BBC have a prospective tube map with the overground shown on it here, though I don't know where they got it from. It does look like it might have been prepared by the people at TFL who do the normal tube map, but I can't find it at the TFL website. JonoP 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It appeared I needed to look harder - it is in the press image gallery [here]. JonoP 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New Cross extension

Someone added info on a New Cross extension without reference- I haven't seen this elsewhere. Is there any other info -else maybe it should be deleted or be mentioned briefly on the East London line page under extension possibilities Surfermoon 06:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Some of the edits around this are getting increasingly speculative. Where future events are detailed they need to come direct from a reliable source such as TfL press release, not hearsay or editorial. Newspapers etc. tend to make things up or get things wrong and things change all the time, especially for things that are a long way off. Also, the distiction between what is planned and funded (and is definitely going to happen) should not be getting blurred with what might be happening. MRSC 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A little bit of perspective

I've just spent the best part of half an hour removing the London Overground route boxes from the pages of existing stations. Why? you may ask. I'll tell you - I think people on here are getting a teensy bit too excited and ahead of themselves, particularly when it comes to the proposed route via Clapham Junction - it hasn't even been approved yet!! As far as the route goes, can everybody just calm down please? Don't forget it'll be 2010 before the whole of the Phase 1 part is up and running. I've left the four stations north of Whitechapel alone, as the LO route box is relevant. Can we therefore leave the rest until a bit nearer the time? Hammersfan 01/11/06, 18.30 GMT

Future candidate for WP:LAME

The ongoing furious revert war over whether the rail company infobox should stay or go is awesome to behold, and is an excellent candidate for WP:LAME. Perhaps the antagonists should take a moment to discuss things over here first? --Jfruh (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this Overground thingy is a weird beast- it is a franchise but from Tfl and not National Rail. It is provided by Tfl but unlike other Tfl lines is maintained by Network Rail. It is a hybrid between a commuter rail system (non-segragated lines) and metro rail (aim is metro style frequencies throughout but not immediately). I don't have an immediate sense of what may be right here, and of course, it hasn't even started yet, but I agree it may be worth stepping back and thinking a bit more Surfermoon 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for sensible discussion and another vote against edit warring here! In my view, the problem is that the National Rail structure is very complicated and not entirely consistent in the way it is documented here in Wikipedia. I think it would be sensible for people to look at how Silverlink is documented, although I am not sure what conclusion that supports. They have the rail company infobox on their page but is that because they are a ToC or a franchise? Silverlink is both the franchise name and the ToC name, right? Ugh! What a mess! Maybe we need to pull it all apart and have a rigourous system of separate pages for ToCs/franchisees, parent companies, franchises themselves, service providers/franchisers and lines/services. That would be fun. OK. Maybe not. I don't know. My first view was that the infobox was wrong but I am now completely unsure. --DanielRigal 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Constructive ideas....

I'm not going to get involved in a past edit war, but I'll drop in my suggestions here. LO is obviously a bit of an odd beast as it's half-way between a Tube service and a rail franchise. Having both infoboxes looks really untidy and doesn't enhance the article (I'm not about to remove any, however). The way I see it, the options are:

Option 1 - treat the whole LO as a new transport "mode". Like the London Underground article, give it the Template:Infobox Public transit, as there is room in that for an owner/operator differentiation. Then there is scope for the different lines (North London, East London etc) to be treated rather like separate tube lines. Or...

Option 2 - treat the whole LO system as a sub-part of TfL, and model it on the DLR article, with the Template:Infobox TfL line. If there is anything in the Template:Infobox Rail companies that is really needed (e.g. franchising info), someone could work on updating Template:Infobox TfL line to support this - especially adding a space for a small image and/or logo (which I rather like ).

Option 3 - treating it like an ordinary NR franchise doesn't adequately reflect the system, and we really need to get away from this idea.

I think a bit of lateral thinking and collaboration will get around this issue - LO is a new type of system, it's not going to fit existing templates exactly, so let's update the templates to accommodate it. -Cnbrb 11:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is an ordinary NR train operating company, at least in the near term. The current setup seems more than adequate. --Mr Thant 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is technically and legally NR, as you say, but there is a ambiguity brought about by the branding, which is bound to affect the understanding of LO. Anyway, I just felt that the double infobox stack was a bit cumbersome, and if there's any neat way of sorting that bit out, I'd welcome it. --Cnbrb 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

State railway

Wouldn't this line actually count as the first line that is owned and operated by the government since privatisation? Does the brief spout with South Eastern mean otherwise? Simply south 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

London Overground will be operated to Transport for London’s specifications by a private company, in a manner similar to the Docklands Light Railway; South Eastern Trains, on the other hand, was an entirely public (if temporary) operation under the control of the national government. David Arthur 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it?

I've been pondering this question over the last few days and have reached some conclusions:

• London Overground is (or will be) the name of the network of lines to be incorporated in 2007 by TfL consisting of the North London, West London, Watford DC and Gospel Oak to Barking, with the East London becoming part of it in 2010.
• However, London Overground will also be the brand name given to the London Rail concession (as the actual franchise is described).

I believe the confusion stems from lumping everything we know about London Overground together. Given that, might it not be better to split the article in two, with one about London Overground the network (in the style of the other London Underground lines) and the other concerning London Overground the train operator (in the style of the other UK TOCs)?. Hammersfan 10/11/06, 14.05 GMT

London Overground Rail Operations Limited is the train operator (it is a private consortium company). They operate the "London Overground" service under control of TfL, in the same way that Serco Docklands operate the "Docklands Light Railway" service under control of TfL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.72.109 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think having an article for both is the solution - one should be incorporated in the other. The LU lines are run by a private operator, and this is covered in the article about the line. In contrast, franchised network information is generally incorporated into the articles about the UK TOCs. So basically, it needs a decision as to whether London Overground, as a TfL line, follows the convention of "operator-within-network"; or whether it is just another TOC, following the "network within operator" style. Given that both have the same name, this is more a structural issue than a major split. DJR (T) 19:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While this is almost certainly too late to be anything other than redundant (at least for a few years), may I refer you to Talk:Island Line, Isle of Wight#Split which reached rather different conclusions on a similar matter. Admittedly that relates to a single line more akin to the East London (as was) rather than the Southern Metro services (for example). I'm not trying to stir, but this may crop up in the future, especially if/when LOROL loses the franchise to operate the LO network...--Peeky44 (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Transfer of existing stock

I've removed somebody's "cite needed" tag here - the way that UK rail privatisation works is that all rolling stock is owned by banks, rented to TOCs, and new franchisees *always* inherit the previous franchise's trains. We'd only need a cite if we were claiming that LO *wasn't* going to take over the 313s and 150s. --Stalinism 14:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how this will work with the 150s. There are 8 of these which are shared between the Gospel Oak to Barking line and the Marston Vale Line (which will not be part of the London Overground franchise). Both lines are expected to expand their operations in the future and they will need more than 8 trains between them if the changes go ahead. Does anybody know how they intend to manage this? Will the fleet of 150s be split between the two railways (and, if so, how?) or will they contine to run as a single shared fleet? What about maintenance and spares? I assume that they will want to share resources for that? --DanielRigal 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that somebody has put the Class 150 fleet down as being 4 units. I find this implausible but I won't change it as I have no definite knowledge otherwise. By my esimates, it would take all 4 units to run the 3tph peak time service and that doesn't leave any scope for a spare unit to cover breakdowns or maintenance. Marston Vale line does probably not need 4 units anyway. Does anybody know what is going on? It seems to me that a more sensible split would be 5-3, not 4-4. Are we really sure they are splitting the fleet at all? If so, which units are going to which lines? --DanielRigal 15:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

By the current timetable the Goblin needs four and the Marston Vale needs two. I read somewhere LO were getting custody of all of them and supplying two to London Midland on a day-to-day basis, but I have no idea of the provenance of this. --Mr Thant (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the User Group, two trains are being sent back to the leasing company. I don't know how this fits in. By my recconing, they probably need all 8 between the two lines. 6 to run the services, one for an available spare and one off being cleaned or repaired. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was standing by the NLL last week and noticed two Goblin trains pass me, both with overground stickers but both with panels still affixed to them stating the Martson Vale service. --AlisonW (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

London Midland have brought in some rolling stock from their Network West Midlands metro franchise, which usually operates in Birmingham and the Black Country, for use on the Marston Vale line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.90.42 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Londonoverground.jpg

Image:Londonoverground.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use the word "Franchise"

As is hopefully made clear in the article, LO exists outside the franchising system. Additionally, it's TfL that are essentially the "franchisee" of the service, and they've contracted out the gritty parts of running the trains to MTR Laing. Please make sure all future edits reflect this. --Dtcdthingy 08:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Roundel logo

Can I suggest we move the roundel image to the top of the article, above the main infobox? This would make the article more consistent with the London Underground and Docklands Light Railway articles. Also, we currently have no image whatsoever at the top of this article. Mtford 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, although I think that the operator infobox should remain as part of the operator section of the article. Therefore, I've moved this back and added the roundel on its own at the top. Hammersfan 01/10/07, 13.55 BST —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Clapham Junction to Stratford clarification

"Although the exact nature of operation on these lines is still to be announced, it is likely that there will be a number of through services from Clapham Junction to Stratford."

Currently it takes 22 minutes to travel from Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction, and 44 minutes from Willesden Junction to Stratford, hence 66 minutes from Clapham Junction to Stratford on a direct Overground train. Meanwhile, it takes about 8-10 minutes to travel from Clapham Junction to Waterloo on Southwest Trains, and 20-25 minutes from Waterloo to Stratford by tube (Jubilee, or W&C+Central via Bank) - hence about 40-45 minutes from Clapham Junction to Stratford by rail+tube. As such, the Overground route from Clapham Junction to Stratford will still be at least 20 minutes slower than the existing rail+tube route. The new direct Overground service will only be beneficial to passengers travelling to intermediate stations in north London. I'll try to clarify it. Mtford 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

True but other than convenience for those who want to avoid stressful stations (and both Waterloo and Bank are), orbital suburban railway services are not really planned for end to end travel but for travel on points within the system. If you're even one stop down the WLL or NLL then that's yet another change you'd have to make for the "quicker" route so it becomes about the same length of time to just take the orbital route round. Plus the route won't go through zone 1 so should be cheaper. -- Timrollpickering (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

MTR Laing/LOROL

From [1]: "London Overground Rail Operations Ltd (formerly known as MTR Laing)".

In summary MTR Laing has been rebranded as London Overground Rail Operations Ltd. Therefore, the company should only be referred to as MTR Laing when describing the bidding process. Anything relating to current operations should now refer to the operator by its new name, or the abbreviation LOROL. --Jorvik 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge? Simply south 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Jorvik 18:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

List of stations

I've added a list of stations, based on the list on Silverlink - I hope this is useful. It's just the stations that will be on the LO from 7 November and doesn't include future development like the East London line or the southern bit. This seemed to be the clearest way to format it rather than a long, winding list, but if anyone feel it should be reformatted in some way, go ahead.

I thought it best to leave in Shepherd's Bush and Imperial Wharf for clarity, even though they're not open yet.

It might make more sense to remove Shepherd's Bush and Imperial Wharf so there's only stations that are actually served and maybe add a note about them in Future Developments -- Imperial Wharf is certainly not going to be around any time soon. 87.112.94.230 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a similar table of future stations could be useful, but it does run the risk of speculative additions. --Cnbrb 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, I've put together a list here. Before I put it in the article itself I thought I'd put it up for review here. I don't think should be seen as speculative, as it is based on actual information given out by TfL, so it has a basis in a cited source. If there are no objections, I can add it later to the "future extensions" bit, or we can just keep it on the talk page for reference.

Proposed future extensions
East London Line (opens 2010)	South London Line (proposed)
Highbury & Islington (2011) Canonbury (2011) Dalston Junction Haggerston Hoxton Shoreditch High Street Whitechapel Shadwell Wapping Rotherhithe Canada Water Surrey Quays New Cross (branch) New Cross Gate Brockley Honor Oak Park Forest Hill Sydenham Crystal Palace (branch) Penge West Anerley Norwood Junction West Croydon	Surrey Canal Road Queens Road Peckham railway station Peckham Rye Denmark Hill railway station Clapham High Street railway station Wandsworth Road railway station Clapham Junction railway station

Euston/Primrose Hill closure

Further to stuff about speculative writing, I'd like to ask if anyone has a reference for the claim that the Euston line will close? I've heard about this proposal a lot (so I know it's not just been plucked out of thin air!) but I can't find any references to this on the TfL website or anywhere else - it only exists on blogs, wikis and other assorted rumour mills. I don't disbelieve it, but strictly speaking, we should cite a TfL press release or document or something. Anyone got one? --Cnbrb 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The [Cross London RUS response] is the most detailed info released about TfL's ideas for service patterns. The pattern outlined in 2.3.1 includes no trains to Euston, and 2.3.11 says the extended Bakerloo will "replace" the Watford to Euston service. Admittedly neither of these are explicit, but I think they're good enough. --Mr Thant 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I had a look through that doc. And no, it doesn't say explicitly that Euston will be taken off the LO system. Wonder why...? Do you think they're playing it down, or is this so uncertain nothing's been officially put into print? We should keep an eye on that proposal for more confirmation either way. --Cnbrb 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The document is essentially TfL arguing with Network Rail about whose service pattern proposals are best. Not mentioning negatives is to be expected, especially when the target audience can reasonably be expected to instantly understand the implications of any particular proposal. --Mr Thant 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of Roundel

London Overground
Overview
Owner	Transport for London
Locale	London, UK
Transit type	Regional rail
Number of stations	57
Operation
Began operation	2007
Technical
System length	86 km
Track gauge	Standard

I've seen the "discussion" over the use of the Overground Roundel in this article and have had a bit of a think. One point of view uses the London Underground example of having the roundel at the top of the article. However, similar use is dependent on how London Overground is seen - is it seen as merely a collection of lines (as one can see something like the District line), or is it a seperate part of TfL? If the latter is the case, then the roundel should certainly be at the top of the article, and should be part of the {{Infobox Public transit}} template, that is a part of every other TfL main article. However, if the former is the case, and it is merely an amalgamated group of lines, then the roundel should be taken from the top and put in the operator infobox. Hammersfan, 08/12/07, 15.28 GMT

The way that TfL and the Mayor are presenting 'London Overground' to the general public is that it is a newly-integrated part of TfL which currently has four 'lines/routes' in the same way that the DLR has or the tube has. Except for the West London line metals, no other operator runs passenger services on the 'Overgound' lines or is (sfaiaa) planning to. Top of article, therefore imho. --AlisonW (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, for much the same reasons. Overground is not an Underground line. It is a separate part of TfL with its own branding (including its own version of the roundel), like the DLR or the Buses. It is owned by a separate subsidiary company and TfL's website regards it as part of the "Rail" mode (given pride of place above the other National Rail operators) rather than lumped in with the Underground. Its presence on the Tube Map does not make it part of the Underground any more then the DLR is. I think the roundel should stay at the top although I don't think we really need it twice in full size. Where I would not like to see the roundel is on the individual lines' articles. The lines themselves are not exclusively Overground's domain as there is Southern and the freight services to consider as well. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In which case, a box something like this should be on the page. This will then fit in with the other TfL pages. Hammersfan, 12/10/07, 17.10 GMT

Agree with Daniel Rigal's reasoning and big thumbs up to Hammersfan's infobox.
 — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would happily support this style, but would need to remove the TOC box, for which IIRC the logo image is a required parameter. In the meantime, to comply with WP:NFCC #3a, I have removed the duplicate roundel from the top of the page. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done it, (Personal attack removed). MickMacNee (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Orbirail

The Orbirail article has been pretty much overtaken by events and it seems to me that it should be cut down and merged into the History section here. Does that seem sensible to everybody? --DanielRigal (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --AlisonW (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The main discussion seems to be happening at Talk:Orbirail. Simply south (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NFCC

Please can someone show how the artist's impression of the future LO stock violates the NFCC? I've read it and can't see in what way it's breached. D-Notice (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know whether there are any other objections, but at the moment Image:Ldn Ovrgrd Train.jpg only has a fair use rationale for the article British Rail Class 378; use anywhere else would require a separate rationale. David Arthur (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #8 states the image should be used only where it adds significantly to the understanding of the topic being discussed. Dropping an image into a stock line-up for illustrative purposes must by definition fail this test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.31.177 (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was gettng at - it's informative, yet for some reason it keeps being removed. Must depend on what classed as "significantly"... D-Notice (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it depends on whether or not an artist's impression of a Class 378 adds to the reader's understanding of London Overground, which it clearly and patently does not. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It does, though: the Class 378 — as opposed to any train currently existing — is used almost universally to promote London Overground, and so, I think, is integral to the service’s identity. What’s strange is that the image keeps being inserted in such an obscure place in the article, make it seem less significant than it is. David Arthur (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it an obscure place? It appears to be in the correct section... D-Notice (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Placing it there suggests that it is being used only to illustrate the Class 378 stock — which Wikipedia rules probably do not permit — rather than London Overground itself. David Arthur (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll add it under the info box at the top of the article. D-Notice (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me; I’ve added a fair-use rationale for this article to the image’s page. David Arthur (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't simply add a caption saying "this image was used in promotion for the project" and magically beat #8. The image illustrates the 378, and can be reasonably used there. Unfortunately, the image does not significantly add to the reader's understanding of the London Overground network, and therefore #8 is failed, and cannot be passed. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be 2 against 1 in favour of it being included, but I'd interested in other views... D-Notice (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Numbers never count. Reasoning counts. The desire of two users to see the image included does not trump the requirements of policy not to include it. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring at having a third party view to try and resolve it either way D-Notice (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems a number of users are missing the point. If you have to make contrived edits, such as roundabout narrative or creative captioning, in order to try and make a case for including non-free images, it's generally a pretty good sign that the criterion of significance hasn't been met. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong (yes, I'm told it should happen occasionally ;-P ) but doesn't this image provide the *only* indication of the colour scheme to be used on the Overground, and as such is distinct to the article topic? If there is a better pic for that purpose then let that serve, but otherwise this one seems to do the job adequately (until someone actually paints a damn train and we take a real photo of it, anyway!) --AlisonW (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely how does that "significantly improve understanding"? To put it another way, does removing the image make the article fundamentally less understandable? More importantly, I believe we have already established before that, other than discussing the actual stock itself, artists' impressions are considered replaceable, as at some point the real trains will emerge. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having a picture makes no difference to the understandability of the article, but does improve the usefulness of it (imho, obviously) --AlisonW (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Criterion #8 refers specifically to the reader's understanding, not how useful the image is. If dropping the image does not impair the reader's understanding, then there's no case for it. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's all that TfL are using to promote LO at the moment D-Notice (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

London Overground isn’t just a set of train services; it’s also a promotional initiative, which involves taking services which were part of the national network, and repositioning them as a London network equivalent to the Underground. Their almost exclusive use of artist’s impressions of future stock rather than images of the actual trains used by previous operators and still operating all services is an important part of this promotional strategy, which is why the image is needed on this page. This is not ‘creative captioning’; it’s the use of the image that interests me, not the stock that it illustrates. David Arthur (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not supporting either side here but I would like to point out that the new livery is mentioned in the article and that the image does serve to illustrate that. I am not saying that this is enough to justify use of the image but it is relevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be a "purely illustrative use", and there is well-established precedent that such uses for non-free images are not acceptable. As for illustrating publicity, I believe there is a better image that can be used somewhere ... 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo (and it's GFDL, too). That will better serve to talk about the publicity surrounding it, but you must talk about the publicity in the article, not just the caption. You should also consider carefully if that would be better on East London Line than here - Wikipedia is not big on duplication, most especially spurious uses of non-free content. I have removed the image as replaceable. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that image is any real improvement frankly, especially as while it may be listed on commons as GFDL it consists solely of a photograph of a copyrighted poster published by TfL. --AlisonW (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's the same provisions that allow you to freely take a photograph of artworks, statues, buildings, etc. while the precise design of those items are still owned by their creators. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works under US law, and the appropriate article is derivative work. I'd reckon the poster photo counts as "not copyrightable" under the descriptions there. The image is therefore not Sunil's to release as GFDL. --Mr Thant (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If BREL own the designs to the 153, and built all examples of it, does that mean that any photos of it are derivative works? Methinks you want to check that at WP:MCQ before committing. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

London Overground line templates

I've just noticed the changes to the line templates on articles for stations served by LO, and it is now very confusing. If you look at West Brompton station, we now seem to be saying that the station is on two lines (District and West London) of three systems (London Underground, London Overground and National Rail) served by three operators (London Underground, London Overground and Southern). That is just plain wrong. London Overground is not a rail system in the sense London Underground and National Rail are. It is both a train operator and a way of funding trains, but it is part of the National Rail system in just the same way as Southern is. My suggestion is that these should look like the following:

Preceding station	London Underground			Following station
Fulham Broadway towards Wimbledon		District line		Earl's Court towards Upminster or Edgware Road
Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Kensington (Olympia)		London Overground West London Line		Clapham Junction
Kensington (Olympia)		Southern West London Line		Clapham Junction

Comments?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a long threaded discussion about treating LO as similar to LU for box purposes, given that the passenger services are distinctly separate in most ways. I'll see if I can track it down again ... --AlisonW (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought there might have been (after all this is WP ;-)) but it didn't seem to have been in any of the obvious places. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As a precedent, I'd quote the similar boxes on the Southport railway station article. The setup for London Overground is very similar to that which has been used for Merseyrail since 2003, with a train operating company within the National Rail system but under a contract awarded by a local transport authority (Merseyside PTE for Merseyrail; TfL for London Overground) rather than the Department for Transport. Yet no attempt is made to pretend that Merseyrail is running on a separate rail system to the one that the Northern Rail trains run on. -- Chris j wood (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right about the "not in the obvious places" as I'm still searching! I guess I'll have to go back through all my contribs to find it as I kicked off the discussion in the first place. I do recall though that treating LO as similar to LU was the main conclusion as the services, with the exception of a very few (two, iirc) stations are separate. Will update again when I find it! --AlisonW (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, clarification (ie I looked on my own talkpage and found some of the discussion there!). Some took place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_7#London_Overground and #Use of Roundel above, but I'm pretty sure there was more elsewhere; I just can't find it yet! --AlisonW (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Chris, and back his proposal. London Overground is (for now) just a National Rail TOC, albeit with unusual ownership. The idea that it's a system in its own right doesn't seem to have bought into by anyone but you. --Mr Thant (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look far closer at how TfL and the Mayor of London are both promoting London Overground then; it is *exactly* as a closed system in its own right, and utilising the proper sequence boxes provides both a recognition of that and also that the routes have defined terminal stations. --AlisonW (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While taking into account how TfL brands things is important, London Overground is still a National Rail service, and I don't think that should be ignored. And if we are deferring to Tfl, they're quite keen to de-emphasise the currently clearly defined routes, to allow service patterns are going to change in future (there are already several Stratford-Clapham services a day that we seem to be ignoring). --Mr Thant (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could Overground be reckoned as an S-Bahn?

Would line diagrams be clearer if London Overground lines were in S-Bahn greens rather than heavy rail reds? If such a change were agreed then now, before ELL gets going, would be the time to make the change. It cannot be objected that as some LO tracks or routes have other trains running on them the colour to use might be problematic, for there is already a need for icons to show dual use. The "New Adlestrop Railway Atlas" shows LO lines in a distinctive manner which has not yet got into the key.--SilasW (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for that idea: it is half metro/ half rail, so pretty much what S-Bahn/RER is and as we are using the German railway templates anyway, I say go for it!  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Franchise?

This article in some places gives the impression that Transport for London are operating under a franchise. As far as I know Transport for London were given control of the network and then elected to contract out the running of the trains. This is explained well in some parts but other parts like the rail infobox and the operator box at the bottom of the page give the impression that Transport for London are are the operator of a franchise.ZoeL (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right: there's nothing comparable to a franchise going on here, any more than with the Docklands Light Railway. I've altered the infobox to make this clearer, but I don't think the succession box is a problem. Its only mention of franchises is with reference to Silverlink, and since Silverlink did hold a franchise, that doesn't seem misleading. David Arthur (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Autumn 2008 closures

I don't really understand the import of the comment attached to the start of this sub-section, nor why the subsection has been moved to the end of its section. Since the closures are imminent, or perhaps current by the time you read this, it would seem to make sense to put it first in the list of future events. The subsection is mainly a factual statement of the intended service situation. I intend to move it back to the start of the section, remove the comment, and update it as events unfold (ie whether the closures/reoponings happen on time), which will decrease the length of the subsection. Once the system is restored to normal I will delete the subsection, and replace it with a brief comment in the history section. As regards the last sentence, it is merely a statement of fact that an 'opportunity' to judge the market exists; I have no idea whether they will actively monitor this, but would be appalled if they didn't. By the way the tfl publiciity implies that the works will lead to future improvements to the service, but I suspect they are more about clearing the route for W10 freight traffic, would could arguably work in the opposite direction! Does anyone have information on this? Ivanberti (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, the shorten tag may not have been the best message to slap on there, but I didn't want to just dive in and delete a load of stuff which you'd obviously worked hard on compiling. However, do please take a look at WP:NOTTRAVEL - my feeling is that this section reads like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia: detail about which lines close and when, what bus to get, etc. It's all very interesting, and I'm sure your facts are quite right, but I doubt Wikipedia is the place for information of this type. (Maybe you don't agree, or think it's a grey area.) This section could easily be covered in one sentence, with a reference to the full info from TfL. If someone criticises the closures in the press, by all means stick that in too. However, if you wanted to build on this topic area, there's some interesting background about the engineering work here, which you may find has some material worth referencing and which would sit more happily on WP.

Oh, and re. the opportunity to judge the market etc. - a good point indeed, but WP being what it is, someone else has to have written about this first (e.g. in a newspaper article) so if you can reference that, it's good for WP. But I'll leave that all in your capabale hands. All the best, Cnbrb (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wide image

I noticed a few editors are tinkering with the artists' impression of a train and changing the width of it on an almost daily basis. I'm not touching it, but if there's some sort of quiet edit war brewing it might be worth discussing it here first!

The issue seems to be the size of the image, which has been inserted using the Template:Wide image. This template is designed to hold very wide images such as panoramic shots and display them with a vertically scrolling box (DIV tag for the technically-minded) to enable detailed exploration without breaking the page layout.

• The fact that this is being changed suggests there might be a problem with rendering the container. Does this layout cause problems in some web browsers or at certain screen resolutions? Try out the sample images if you're not sure.
• If browser rendering isn't the problem, then it's possibly a matter of taste, in which case it would be worth discussing the pros and cons of using this template. For my part, I think it's a good idea to display a wide version of the image (about 1500px would be a sensible size) in the scrolling box. I can have a close look at the picture without leaving the article, but the size of it does not disrupt the page layout. IMO A limited use of vertical scrolling is quite a comfortable browsing experience and users are accustomed to this kind of presentation nowadays (c.f. Google Maps). It also makes the article a bit more visually interesting. For these reasons I would vote to have a wide scrolling image. Cnbrb (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are three options here:

1. Small image of the whole train. This is not good as you can't see much detail on it without clicking on it.
2. Large image of the train full width. This either means sideways scrolling or an impossibly wide page. Of the two, sideways scrolling is better but do we really need the whole train to illustrate the livery? What do we gain from this?
3. A cropped image of 1 coach. This seems much better as it shows all the features of the livery in good detail without any need to scroll sideways or make the page too big.

I am going to put my cropped version back for now. I think it is by far the best option and it makes edit warring over the width of the full size image moot. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have put the cropped version back. I have also put in a link to the complete train image so that anybody who wants to see the details of the other three coaches can get to it easily.

I also thought of another reason to only show the one coach. There will be two, three and four coach trains operating on LO. By only showing one coach the image can stand for all of these configurations. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pity, I quite liked the scrolling wide version. I guess it just looked nice. :-( Cnbrb (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Class 508s

Why are the 508s showing as "past fleet"? Two of the three (508302 and 508303) are still in service! —Preceding unsigned comment added by L1v3rp00l (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Circular Route Maps

The circular route maps look good, but they seem to display an erroneous route, especially for the current situation. Reading the map one should get the idea that the line between Canonbury and Stratford is some sort of spur, when it is part of the main line. Nor do I get the impression reading the TfL site that this shall alter once the East London Line has been redeveloped into the Overground system. It is that line which shall end at Dalston, and then a little while later at Highbury & Islington, while the old North London Line still operates from Richmond to Stratford.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The map may be a pretty design conceit but qua map it has wrong routes (see above), far too many spelling mistakes and distorts the actual geography appallingly (at least the U-D map shows loosely what is where). I tend to think it has no place in this article--SilasW (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Distorting the actual geography is in the spirit of the tube map and I would sort of like us to keep it if we can, in addition to the geographical map. We can't use TfL's schematic map and this is a nice alternative. The thing does need to be corrected for accuracy though. It must not give the impression that more of an orbital route exists than actually does. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The tube map distortion is to give clarity and is basically one of changing radial and circumferential scales as it gets away from the centre. This map's distortion is of a different magnitude and character and I think it contributes little to an encyclopedic article.--SilasW (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of some sketches Harry Beck did in the 1960s where he made the Circle line into an oval shape. This is a really clear representation of the Orbirail concept and adds a lot to an encylopedic article by summarising complex information visually. It's a nice piece of work and is very clear. However, I suspect the designer made a rod for his own back by designing around a circle: placing stations at regular intervals has moved a number of stations in south London too far west. Furthermore the lines to Watford and Crystal Palace definitely don't sit well curved around like that - it would be worth experimenting with a "frying pan" layout to put Watford in the far NW (rather than as a neighbour of Hampstead!). Don't know what would become of Crystal Palace - a spatula, perhaps? Anyway I vote to keep it, but would advocate revisions. And some proofreading. Cnbrb (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That map is still there and still the same. Please someone change it or delete it.--Amedeo Felix (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I like the concept, I agree that the circular maps should not be in the article in their current, inaccurate, form. I have commented both of the circular maps out. They can be uncommented once they are fixed. I also restored the boring old geographical map. That should be kept even if the circular maps are corrected and uncommented. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New Geographical Map

Well done first off! One or two comments to make though. I suggest adding in perhaps a dotted line at the end of the East London Line to denote its 2011 extension to Highbury & Islington.--Amedeo Félix (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

shared line with the london underground

The section from harrow and wealdstone to queens park appears to share lines with the london underground. On theese lines are underground trains running on national rail track? are overground trains running on underground controlled track? or is something else entirely going on? comment added by Plugwash 12:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Gunnersbury to Richmond! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They do run on the same track, Network Rail owns the track on the Watford DC but has a forth rail, I think the third rail has 750DC volts, so I think Network rail controlles it. I have no idea with the Gunnerbury-Richmond I would expect to be the same arrangement.Likelife (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving to railway stations

Stations on the former ELL are still called 'tube station'. As we all know the London Overground is a national rail service and as i understand the line will be reopend as the EAST LONDON RAILWAY. So im woundering when Surrey Quarrys, Wapping, Rotherhithe and Shadwell should be moved to 'railway station' and also when Canada Water and Whitechaple should be moved to 'station'. New Cross and New Cross Gate have already been moved by me to railway station. Likelife (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that ownership was transferred a few days ago so any time from now on would be fine. Take care with the interchange stations though. They may still be staying with London Underground in the same way as Blackhorse Road did. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean the Page name still has tube station eg 'Surrey Quays tube station' this will change as LO will take over the services.Likelife (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know what you meant. I have just had a look at the articles in question and I think they need a bit of a tweak. I don't like them referring to the stations in the past tense. They are only closed as a temporary measure. I am going to rename and fix the ones that I am sure of. I am assuming that Whitechappel and Canada Water will stay with Underground. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done Wapping but I need an administrator to remove the redirects that I want to move over. I have requested this and will do the others once this is done. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I find Wikipedia's Tube/Rail distinction inadequate not to say annoying. 'Tube' is a nickname. The London Underground comprises trains running on rails. It is a railway system and its stations are railway stations. In popular culture the tube/rail distinction is made as is tube/train, but this has no place in an encyclopaedia as a classification criterion. 82.46.163.160 (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Whitechapel and Canada Water will be mixed Underground and Overground, so a "neutral" Canada Water station and Whitechapel station (cf. Willesden Junction station) should be more appropriate? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was saying!Likelife (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Iv'e moved Whitechaple and Canada Water to 'station' instead of 'tube station'.Likelife (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help with the previous/next boxes and their icons

I was discussing the previous/next boxes with User:Likelife after he moved Overground to National Rail and I think I have a good idea to make the status of Overground clearer. I think we should have both the orange roundel and the National Rail logo on the Overground box (as the Overground stations do themselves) and we should also have just the NR logo on the NR box. So, do we all agree that this is OK? Assuming that we do, the next question is how to do it. I am a bit out of my depth when it comes to very complex templates. s-rail seems to be protected anyway. Also, are there any copyright problems with having the tiny logos, or are they too small to be a problem? Can anybody help with implementing this? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing some investigation and it seems that we get away with the roundels because they can be described as "simple geometry". I was not sure that the NR logo can be said to be the same but there is an icon for it here: which has the same claim but which is entirely unused. The alternative is to use the generic train icon: . I am not sure the generic icon is worth it as it does not clearly identify National Rail so what do we think about the proper NR logo? Is it OK to use? Why is everybody else avoiding it? --DanielRigal (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that was a NR on Wikipedia I can't see why not to use the NR logo.Likelife (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal observations on the orbital proposal.

I have studied the proposals mentioned in the article for the orbital route where the Watford DC line is transferred to the Bakerloo line and orbital route uses the section of the DC line between Willesden Junction and South Hampstead, linking to the North London line via the existing goods line. Purely from looking at maps and aerial photos and my own knowledge of the Watford DC and its accompanying section of the West Coast Main Line as a passenger I have come to the conclusion the proposal as listed may have been abandoned or modified (although possibly just delayed) and would explain why the official 2010 Overground maps (citations 37 & 42) show the DC line still in place and the orbital line following the North London Line via West Hampstead. I won't go into details now (unless asked). I would add this to the article, except it is purely an observation and I cannot supply any material to independently verify my findings. Is anyone in a position to help me verify my observations or should I add my observations to the article and wait for it to be verified by others?

Mark rumsey (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like wp:original research to me. In most of the world it's a good thing - but not here in wikipedia which is meant to summarise the world's knowledge, not add to it. Sorry. Grblundell (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Battersea Park

Should Battersea Park, seeing as it is served by the London Overground, be included in the list of stations? Of course, it would be with a note regarding the minimal service. tractakid (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I reckon so, could stick it on the South London Line list with a note I suppose? Would the total number of stations need to be updated since it's not on the network map? MrBoyt (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I heard on the grapevine that it's one of those ghostly Parliamentary trains as it only runs at 6am to keep the line officially open. Needs some research but it would be an interesting quirky addition to the topic.Cnbrb (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The services are as follows:

- Mon-Fri the 2217 from Highbury and Islington terminates at Battersea Park instead of Clapham Junction, all other stops are as normal. - Mon-Fri there is a 0618 service from Battersea Park to Highbury and Islington, calling at all the usual stops (except Clapham Junction obviously) MrBoyt (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

PS to add to the intrigue, Battersea Park does not feature on the new Tube maps issued since the completion of the LO/SLL transfer.Cnbrb (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

When I modified the 2013 map for my website I included Battersea Park station but show it 'disconnected' from the main network. I also added the route via Primrose Hill, as this too is used "sometimes" by LO trains in passenger service. http://citytransport.info/Overground.htm Simon Spsmiler (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

London Overground has carried its millionth passenger after being open for just over a month.

London Overground has carried its millionth passenger after being open for just over a month. This is confusing. The BBC have this today as a major news item.
Does not seem to fit with our article here.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say Overground's millionth passenger. It says "A new rail link that completes an orbital route on London Overground"'s millionth passenger, i.e. just the extra bit that opened on 9 December between Surrey Quays and Clapham Junction. -- Alarics (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Alarics for your prompt explanation –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 13:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Post script: So not worth recording on the article (?) –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 13:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Unless we mention the monthly travelling stats for each section of the line!!! Basket _Feudalist 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Question addressed to Basket _Feudalist —How many sections is the London Overground divided into?
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the 'extra bit that opened on 9 December' ...and at least one other. Basket _Feudalist 17:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: tongue slightly in cheek there... Basket _Feudalist 17:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Typical Irish banter. You are not on television, are you? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not yet!

On a serious note if you want to put that statistic in, I don't suppose there's any harm in iit- it will bring the article up to date, and if it becomes outdated later, np. Basket _Feudalist 17:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Best I think to leave that task to the railway buffs who are regulars here, unlike this casual visitor to the big world of railways enjoying a bit of an amusing jaunt
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 18:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent linkage! Cheers. And to the buffs too, of course... Basket _Feudalist 19:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Interchanges

Here's a rather interesting assessment of London Overground interchanges. This blogger gives a fairly thorough overview of the remarkable number of Underground/National Rail lines crossed by LO with no interchange and takes the view that the network consequently falls short of the Orbirail concept. It would be interesting to include this issue but unfortunately I don't think this in itself will pass as a reliable source to cite. Has the problem of bypassed interchanges been covered in any books or magazines? Cnbrb (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue occurred to me one day as I was trying to use Overground to get to Heathrow via Gunnersbury - the Chiswick Park Switchback Manoeuvre is worthy of Radio 4's Mornington Crescent! It would be interesting to know if TfL or the Mayor were considering any new stations to improve connections. Cnbrb (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I should be surprised if Modern Railways hasn't covered this at some point. The most recent extension of the Overground sails right over the top of Brixton station which would be an obvious interchange but it has been ruled out on grounds of cost. -- Alarics (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there was some coverage of the Brixton "flyover" in the press and it does appear in the Inner South London Line article, but I haven't seen anything about the other non-interchanges. Anyone seen anything in Modern Railways or similar publications? Cnbrb (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article here http://www.londonreconnections.com/2012/the-end-of-an-era-on-the-south-london-line/ apologies if not directly relevant to you. Basket _Feudalist 19:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There used to be an East Brixton station, serving the current LO tracks,and situated between Southeastern's Brixton station and the bridge carrying the Thameslink route at Loughborough Junction. It closed as recently as 1976. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There was indeed. Someone once suggested it be rebuilt to give Brixton LO access, tho' it's a bit of a hike to Brixton tube & rail stations - not really an ideal interchange opportunity! Cnbrb (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Another of those classic interchanges that are miles apart!!! Basket _Feudalist 14:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

... like this ... and I quote, "It is close to Northwick Park Hospital, the Harrow campus of the University of Westminster, and the suburb of Kenton. Kenton station on the Bakerloo Line and London Overground's Watford DC Line is within walking distance. If a journey is chosen between the northern end of the Metropolitan line and stations on the Watford DC line on Transport for London's journey planner, walking between Kenton and Northwick Park is generally given as the quickest route."
Not much fun in this weather –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the winter Olympiads are making their way there as we speak... Basket _Feudalist 20:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

... Harrow-on the Hill would serve well.
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 17:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Useful reference

London Overground’s five-car extension: ‘A three-year programme delivered in 18 months’ -mattbuck (Talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Rewording

'Finalised plans for granting TfL greater control over London's suburban railways are expected to be announced in April 2013' - were they? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

London Wiki

Would someone be kind enough to update [2] please. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a wiki! Anyone can do it, including you! Cnbrb (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look I am doing a fair bit of the editing there - I was inviting interested parties (as transport is low on my particular list of priorities). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Fares

Following the new routes added in May 2015 it would be advisable to review the comments about the fares charged.

I say this because the fares charged on the new routes seem to be at the National Rail fares scale, rather than that of the Underground / DLR.

I discovered this when using the TfL single fares finder to compare the cost of a journey from my local underground station in Zone 4 (Gants Hill) to West Croydon and Enfield Town, both of which are in Zone 5. I should add that I've often travelled on the Overground to Croydon and was considering going to Enfield for a change... but was taken aback when I discovered that for newer routes the fares have not been reduced to the Underground / DLR levels.

To West Croydon the single PAYG fares are £2.80 / £1.50 (peak / off peak), travelling via Zone 2 and changing trains at either Stratford and Canada Water or Mile End and Whitechapel (plus using pink Oyster route validators).

To Enfield Town there are a range of three fares which vary whether a passenger avoids Zone 2 (£2.80 / £2.40) avoids Zones 2 and 3 (£2.40 / £1.90) or travels into Liverpool Street in Zone 1 and then out again (£4.70 / £3.10).

These discrepancies are quite significant!

Simon Spsmiler (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Spsmiler: Wikipedia is not a travel guide and not a source of timetable information. By the same token, fares information is outside our scope; if people need this, National Rail Enquiries and the train operator's website can both give this information accurately and up to date. We cannot, and should not. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64, the reason why I suggested this is because the page includes the text (below) which can be understood to imply that the fares charged are identical to those of the Underground and DLR, when it in fact this only applies to some Overground routes.

″Oyster PAYG is charged on the same zone-based rules as for the Underground and the Docklands Light Railway.″

Maybe this is a matter of interpretation, certainly my comments are based on my initial impression. Perhaps the reference to the Underground and DLR could be replaced with a general reference to fare zones within London? After all the National Rail network also uses the same fares zones system. (This is actually what I meant in my initial comment - rather than quoting actual fares which would revising on an annual basis... I only quoted specific fares by way of example of the discrepancy between what passengers are charged on the newer and older sections of Overground). Simon Spsmiler (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources - such as Modern Railways or The Railway Magazine - describe a discrepancy, then we can mention it, per WP:V and WP:NOR. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

'Ginger line'

Aren't we slightly overdoing this Ginger Line thing? It's already mentioned under the "branding" subsection. I am not sure it deserves to be in the lead as well, where it accounts for about one-quarter of the text. Personally, I have yet to hear anyone use this phrase in real life, as opposed to writers in newspapers. What I hear actual people calling it, living in London as I do, is "The Overground". -- Alarics (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember this cropped up a few years ago and I think at that time there was a Londonist article mentioning it but that was the only reference. Therefore I took great pleasure in removing it from the article because I didn't think it was genuinely notable or in wide usage. But it seems it has become more popular since then, with several mentions in major newspapers. I still think it is not widely used (I too have never heard anybody saying it) and could be a bit like fanciful names for London districts made up by estate agents (or the dreadful 'Midtown', which again is a made-up term not used by real people, except perhaps visiting Americans, who know no better). Dubmill (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as somebody who uses the line 5 days a week, I had never heard of this "ginger line" bollocks before I read it here. I suspect that it is some Hoxton media twerps trying to coin a neologism. Whoever it is, I'd rather we didn't help them. If we can't drop it entirely we should de-emphasise it down to a single mention and keep it well away from the lead section unless, heaven forfend, that people actually start using it in real life, which strikes me as highly unlikely. Quite apart from anything else, it is not a line and people do not think of it as a single line, unless they want to end up in completely the wrong place (i.e. Croydon ;-p). As nicknames go, I prefer "The Orange Octopus" although I doubt that deserves to be included in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding remarks like "it was given the nickname of the Ginger Line by journalists or occasionally" if you don't want this nickname to become a self-fulfilling prophecy via Wikipedia. Hartenhof (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In view of these comments I will remove it from the lead. If anyone wants to go further and remove it from the article altogether, I shall not object. -- Alarics (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

"Part of the National Rail network"

LO ceased to be part of the NR network (i.e. ATOC members) in 2013 [3] --MBRZ48 (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It's still part of the Network Rail network is it not? I.e. not in control of its own infrastructure. Thee status of LO is arguably sinmilar to that of Merseyrail, i.e. a self managed surburban network, but still part of the national rail system. G-13114 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Mostly, yes. I think the ownership of the former London Underground track may still be with LU, but I am not sure and even if it is that is only a small proportion of the whole LO network. I didn't know they had quit ATOC. I wonder why they did that... --DanielRigal (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

If this is correct then why does ATOC still list LOROL as part of the organisation, two years after apparent leaving? Furthermore, many publications from LO and TfL themselves since 2013 have stated that LO is an National Rail service. I'm not 100% convinced. Likelife (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The track, stations & infrastructure remain part of the National Rail network. There's even a British Rail double arrow on the station signs. The difference is that London Overground is technically not a train operating company (TOC), it's a concession. LOROL, the actual operator, is a member of ATOC.Cnbrb (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that pretty much all the track is NR-owned, except perhaps the bit where it uses District line metals to Richmond (but don't quote me on that, I'd have to check our track ownership map tomorrow). The bit north of Queens Park is certainly NR, that keeps getting mentioned in the daily performance review... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The Richmond branch is all NR. The boundary is at 51.70 km, on the curve between Gunnersbury Junction and Turnham Green. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is not a franchise, does not mean that it is not part of the national rail network. How about open-access operaters such as First Hull Trains and Grand Central Railway? They are still part of the network, just not franchised. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gallery with one image

"What's the point of a gallery with one image?" asked an editor, after changing one of my recent edits. Fair question - I'll try to explain. I was looking at inserting a rather nice illustration of a LO train. Because of its dimensions, it's problematic in smaller browser windows, notably when you look at Wikipedia on a mobile phone. The gallery tag seems to have undergone some recent updates and it now behaves rather well with regard to the principle of responsive design. To illustrate what I mean, try resizing your browser window down to the size of an iPhone or iPad, and watch how these two image behave:

Standard thumbnail

Class 378 in London Overground livery

Gallery version

• 
  Illustration of a Class 378 in London Overground livery

(if you're using Internet Explorer, this may not work)

So that's the point of using the gallery tag in this instance. Unless anyone knows of other ready-made responsive CSS solutions, I'd say this does the job very well. Cnbrb (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Future acquisitions

Interesting announcement in January about TfL taking control of other London rail franchises. There have been many headlines (such as this one) declaring that London Overground is poised to take over the whole London rail network. It's worth reading this interesting article which suggests that the headline writers have perhaps got a bit carried away. I would suggest that this information needs to be worded carefully in the article in the interests of accuracy.Cnbrb (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on London Overground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908061630/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/london-overground-network-map.pdf to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/London-Overground-Network-map.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0400lambeth/tm_objectid%3D14173461%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D50100%26headline%3Djunction-joy-south-name_page.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150227102414/http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/10559761.Warning_over_passenger_safety_as_union_vows_to_fight_driver_only_trains_plan/ to http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/wfnews/10559761.Warning_over_passenger_safety_as_union_vows_to_fight_driver_only_trains_plan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130630205659/http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2013/06/mayor-secures-unprecedented-transport-settlement-for-london-to to http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2013/06/mayor-secures-unprecedented-transport-settlement-for-london-to
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/documents/CP5-Enhancements-Delivery-Plan-June-15.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://london.gov.uk/oldoak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Suburban ?

A typical suburban railway net usually begins rather central and have lines beyond the city limits (as in urban environment limits). And after a bit of countryside the first actual suburbs and suburban stations appears. When for instance traveling between Kensington Olympia and Stratford , isn't the impression one gets suburban, but "outer boroughs" sooner. And on a A-Z map (overview), the entire network rather looks to become circular (?). This isn't the case yet, but it wouldn't be very surprising if some kind of orbiting in London's outer boroughs or districts will be possible to make, within a not very distant future. That's of course a guess, but is the definition we use "Suburban railway" defined by us or is it official. If it isn't the latter, would perhaps "Local railway" or "Local urban railway" be a more proper definition ? (on the other side, might the planners of the Overground's future plan to include lines to Slough, Luton, Ramsgate or similar, which would make it more "truely suburban". I'm mainly rising the question. Boeing720 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it goes out to Watford and there's the West Anglia bits too, and frankly most of London is suburb. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

There are different definitions of suburban. You seem to be using the American definition which refers to what we would call commuter towns like Luton, Slough and Chelmsford. A train which goes to Ramsgate would never be called a suburban train in the UK. Similar to Australia, actual areas of cities are known as suburbs/leafy suburbs/outer suburbs. Kingston, Bromley, Enfield, etc, are considered the outer suburbs because they are on the edge of London. Districts tend to be used for the inner-city areas although, inner suburbs is a phrase not unheard of. That being said, local services in major British cities are always known as suburban or metro routes. Most suburban trains do leave Greater London and serve the closest commuter towns, including LO routes to Watford and Cheshunt. Services beyond that to say Witham, Hildenborough and Petersfield are normally known as commuter services. Likelife (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

West London Orbital

Is this West London Orbital scheme actually real? It keeps getting added to LO articles and inserted into succession templates etc, but I'm not sure that it is even a real proposal. The article itself is very poor and only indicates that this was an idea dreamt up by someone 10 years ago. Is this a real TfL scheme or supported by anyone with influence, or is this just WP:FRINGE? Cnbrb (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

None of the references in that article have TfL as the source. I think I vaguely remember something about TfL looking into stuff in this part of London. The main subject of the article looks like a 10 year old proposal that has gone absolutely nowhere and is unrelated to London Overground anyway. Ideas like this come and go. Very rarely an idea like this comes, goes and then comes back again (like electrifying Gospel Oak to Barking, which was proposed and rejected a dozen times before it finally happened) but most such ideas are irredeemably moribund and we can't assume that one is ever going to be resurrected.

The second paragraph of the intro is about a completely different proposal (which just happens to share the same name, allegedly) for a new London Overground line but its alleged proponent is just a red link and TfL are nowhere to be seen in any of this. In fact that bit is entirely unreferenced.

So is it real? A Google News search is odd. It gets hits but all but one of the top ones are from a single source. Of these only one mentions TfL: http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/west-london-orbital-railway-plans-13933633 (Note: Horrible website that plays noisy video without asking! Click at your own risk!). Possibly more useful is this one, which is the only one on the first couple of pages which isn't from Getwestlondon: http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/15546732._A_real_game_changer___New_orbital_railway_connecting_northwest_and_west_London_on_the_cards/ . This has no mention of TfL at all but apparently somebody spoke to Val Shawcross about it, so that's like 1% officially definitely real then.

Short answer. It doesn't belong here until there are signs that TfL are actually engaging with it as a serious proposal for London Overground. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I've removed it from an article but wanted to check if I was missing something before I did something rash! Cnbrb (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: since I first asked this question, the West London Orbital scheme has actually appeared in official TfL sources and is being consulted on. As this appears to be a real proposal, it now seems worthy of inclusion, so I've made a few updates to represent it. Cnbrb (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on London Overground. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823065642/http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/publications/transport/london%E2%80%99s-forgotten-railway to http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/publications/transport/london%E2%80%99s-forgotten-railway
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506115608/http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/milestone-reached-transformation-londons-overland-rail-network-operator to http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/milestone-reached-transformation-londons-overland-rail-network-operator
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150502130246/http://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/overground-basic-elements-standard1.pdf to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/overground-basic-elements-standard1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608195530/http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/Old_Oak_Common_FINAL_tcm21-135272.pdf to http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/Old_Oak_Common_FINAL_tcm21-135272.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oldest section

What is the date of the oldest section of line used by the Overground? Anyone know? 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:5C8E:C2FC:D6A7:F92E (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably the first mile-and-a-half out of Euston, as far as Camden Junction - opened 16 October 1837. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Chronological Opening

Can someone post when each line - or each section of line - opened chronologically? The article seems to jump around quite a bit before it gets to the East London and South London line extensions to the system. Which lines, specifically, were the original part of the network when it first opened under the London Overground branding? Also, perhaps it can be described which sections were a part of which historic line, and the specific sections that are new-construction trackage. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The first bits were what was taken over from Silverlink when that franchise expired - North/West London lines, Watford DC Line and Gospel Oak to Barking. Then came the East London Line to New Cross / Crystal Palace / West Croydon, and finally the extension to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was able to find this on another article, that clearly shows the four lines prior to TfL taking over (p.12):

https://web.archive.org/web/20110719203115/http://legacy.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/transport/n-london-line.pdf

Anyone, just as a suggestion to those who oversee this article, I think for clarity instead of simply mentioning in the article that the service initially took over for Silverlink Metro, that it should mention in parenthesis or as an aside wish specific infrastructure it took up: Watford DC/Euston-Watford Line, West London Line, North London Line (truncated at Stratford), and Gosepl Oak-Barking Line. I think this could be added in the opening paragraph of the "Introduction" subsection in the "Network" section. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

New Image

I'm not totally sure about the new image used as its a bit too cropped and the old image was fine until the old trains retirement FoxInSpcae (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

So i have changed the image back until threader notice notice FoxInSpcae (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have changed my mind for changing the image instantly i will just be here until a recommended decision comes FoxInSpcae (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The new Aventra image is awful - badly framed/cropped - so per WP:BRD I have reverted back to the original image while we seek to achieve consensus. Personally I see nothing wrong with what was there before. As an aside, I have obvserved that the author who put the new image in has a track record of putting poor quality / unsuitable images into rail-related infoboxes. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Bazza

I recently made edits to the first paragraphs of this article, which I thought would make the fact London Overground is part of the National Rail network clearer whilst also removing excess wording. User 'Bazza 7' undid my edits twice claiming that my change wasn't "clear and accessible". @Bazza 7/other users, please feel free to discuss why you think my wording was not "clear and accessible". I am genuinely bewildered! Kensalrise49 (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but I think the original wording is clearer. No word by word analysis, it's just better. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Overground Line Rename

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/london-overground/the-new-look-london-overground?intcmp=75267

I see there are already redirects from the new names to various places:

• Lioness Line → Watford DC line
• Mildmay Line → London Overground
• Windrush Line → London Overground
• Weaver Line → Lea Valley lines
• Suffragette Line → Gospel Oak to Barking line
• Liberty Line → Romford–Upminster line

Apparently the rename is starting now, with the actual changeover happening in autumn. [4].

I'm wondering at what point we reverse some of those redirects, and rename the articles. Timtjtim (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Timtjtim: WP:CRYSTAL. And WP:DEADLINE. Bazza (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure CRYSTAL applies - this event meets all the requirements, e.g.:

• All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable
• if the event is notable and almost certain to take place

DEADLINE applies which is why I'm asking when we do it, not just doing it, given the above sources. Timtjtim (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watford DC line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Updating

With the Greenford branch section - the Great Western franchise statement needs reworking as it is now 2024. (I cannot find any modern references 'full stop'.)

The Dudding Hill section could be updated this and other sources (mostly similar). Jackiespeel (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)