Talk:London Overground

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:

More information Preceding station, London Underground ...

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

Close

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

LO ceased to be part of the NR network (i.e. ATOC members) in 2013 --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)

"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

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)

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:

• 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

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)

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)

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. .

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)

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)