![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Jfruh ( talk) 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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 version Surfermoon 11:42, 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)
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)
...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)
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)
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
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)
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)
I've been pondering this question over the last few days and have reached some conclusions:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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) |
|
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)
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 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)
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'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 |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Fulham Broadway towards
Wimbledon
|
District line |
Earl's Court towards
Upminster or
Edgware Road
| ||
Preceding station |
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
- 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)
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 Welsh
Buzzard –
12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
PS: tongue slightly in cheek there... Basket Feudalist 17:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
London Overground’s five-car extension: ‘A three-year programme delivered in 18 months’ - mattbuck ( Talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
'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)
Would someone be kind enough to update [2] please. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
LO ceased to be part of the NR network (i.e. ATOC members) in 2013 [3] -- MBRZ48 ( talk) 04:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"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:
(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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/documents/CP5-Enhancements-Delivery-Plan-June-15.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://london.gov.uk/oldoakWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable
if the event is notable and almost certain to take place
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
-- Jfruh ( talk) 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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 version Surfermoon 11:42, 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)
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)
...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)
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)
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
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)
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)
I've been pondering this question over the last few days and have reached some conclusions:
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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) |
|
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)
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 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)
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'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 |
![]() |
Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Fulham Broadway towards
Wimbledon
|
District line |
Earl's Court towards
Upminster or
Edgware Road
| ||
Preceding station |
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
- 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)
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 Welsh
Buzzard –
12:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
PS: tongue slightly in cheek there... Basket Feudalist 17:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
London Overground’s five-car extension: ‘A three-year programme delivered in 18 months’ - mattbuck ( Talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
'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)
Would someone be kind enough to update [2] please. Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
LO ceased to be part of the NR network (i.e. ATOC members) in 2013 [3] -- MBRZ48 ( talk) 04:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
"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:
(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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/documents/CP5-Enhancements-Delivery-Plan-June-15.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://london.gov.uk/oldoakWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable
if the event is notable and almost certain to take place
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)
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)