Talk:Orbital railways in London

It seems to me that this article has been overtaken by events to the point where it either needs to be rewritten or merged into London Overground as part of the history section. What is the consensus? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that merging it with LO would be the best idea, as Obirail appears to have become LO. How about merging the LO History section with this? D-Notice (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking initially but now I am wondering about an alternative, which might be less disruptive to the London Overground article: How about we rename Orbirail to "Orbital railways in London" and take in the whole history of the outer circle lines (which is currently in Circle line but feels a bit out of place), the various Orbirail proposals and the creation of London Overground? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not sure where it will eventually end up, I am going to cobble something together in a history section. I will also change the rest so it is not misleading. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AIUI from GLA/Mayoral documents, "Orbirail" is the concept, "London Overground" is the practice, ie. 'orbirail' wasn't planned to appear on stations or timetables. --AlisonW (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Orbirail is something I have found a bit hard to pin down. The article was never well referenced. If you know of any references to proposed revivals of the orbital routes (whether called Orbirail or not) which pre-date the Overground plans then that would be helpful. In particular, any suggestions pre-dating or very early in the history of TfL or the GLA would be interesting in order to track the development of the idea.

Currently I have written/cobbled something in the History section which is a bit rambling and totally deficient in dates and references but it establishes a sort of narrative for the rise, fall and second rise of London's orbital routes. It is a probably too big to merge into London Overground. I will not have much time to work on it during the week so anybody who wants to hack it into a better shape is very welcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've definitely had early stuff discussing the Orbirail concept in the Mayor's draft transport plan well pre-Overground. Whether I still have it somewhere I'm not too certain, but I shall take a look. The 'orbirail' route though is what is now proposed for the final evolution of the Overground. --AlisonW (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast! "Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball" applies here, as the Peckham-Clapham route for Overground is still only a plan and not a firm proposal. London Overground might never be what Orbirail was aspiring to, so the Orbirail article should remain for the foreseeable future.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Orbirail mentioned in November 2007 issue of Transport Times by Ian Brown, TfL director of Rail. So still alive and kicking and in the minds of TfL people.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest including a reference to Tokyo's Yamanote Line for a conceptual comparison? This also helps to explain the possible economic benefits of orbirail: Presently London's zone 2 is constrained economically by the dominance of radial transport into overcrowded zone 1. Improved lateral transport around zone 2 could help develop multiple new economic centres like those found around the Yamanote line and reduce the pressure on zone 1.87.194.80.255 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, but isn't the Yamanote line more like the Circle line in London? I'm not sure exactly how far out it is. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Yamanote and the Circle Line are around 30 kilometers long. The orbital rail route for London is much, much longer. --Duncan (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New Comment: origins of the London orbirail. Started in talks by Peter Hall and Drummond Robson in late 90s, then embodied in a report of 1999 intended for the new mayor. Picked up by Nicky Gavron and found its way into ken's plans. The 199 report was unobtainable for years and we have now dug out an electronic copy and it is downloadable free at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1369585/ 89.240.30.126 (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Michael Edwards m.edwards@ucl.ac.uk

What would you call it? GarethBaloney (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Which are you referring to? The combination of the Mildmay Line and the Windrush Line? Or the new line in London that is proposed but probably won't get a name until later in the project? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 18:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I am referring to the combination of the Mildmay and Windrush lines yes. In the same vein that the Circle Line is a combination of the Metropolitan and District lines (or actually separate railways as it was back then) GarethBaloney (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It probably won't get a name. The Circle line currently is a single service going around the centre of London as a through route whereas the two other lines are two separate services in outer London with interchanges needed at Clapham Junction and Highbury & Islington/Canonbury with no through service. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 22:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)