I dunno, perhaps we could go back to the antediluvian method of reading message boards, listening to announcements, changing trains or even staring into an i-phone. At a quick glance of the increasingly complicated and cluttered travel map, or to those with poor eyesight, it looks as if the "Weaver" line gets you directly to Moorgate.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
London Overground line names announced
- Thread starter THC
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
renegademaster
Member
They grew organically from the private firms they grew from and people had used for decades , not tangentially related historical trivia. For someone in 1940s london its intuitive what the metropolitan refers too, its not so intuitive where the Windrush line is supposed to be for 2024 london. Most of the lines pass somewhere that somebody in the 1950s Caribbean would have emigrated too
Last edited:
The costs are the costs whatever you call them, so if you're upset about the cost then are you saying that the Overground network should have stayed at it was and it shouldn't be split into "lines".
As that's something that most people do agree needed to happen. Therefore, the cost of doing so is the cost of doing so.
As I said if you're going to number then, letter then, call them "Khan's a rubbish mayor", "Starmar the Flipflop" or some other name then the cost is broadly fixed.
Whilst it's possible that they could get renamed
The question comes, without the need to fix the issue of the network being too big to easily understand where there was disruption, which platform you wanted, etc. then why does that money need spending? Ultimately that does become more of a waste of money as they are just changing the name because they are upset by the previous choice.
Maybe one of the mayoral candidates could put forwards they are going to rename the Suffragette Line to the Donald Trump Line and see how well that goes down...
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
When they actually start the rebranding of signs, announcements, online material such as in Journey Planner, etc. will it be monitored in this thread, or is this one just for discussing the name choices. It seems like any update on the actual project progressing would get lost here! 
Dstock7080
Established Member
The London Overground names are new for services previously not named.
London Underground are not altering any of their Lines
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,125
I am because I used the services when they were just "British Railways" and before they were electrified. That was when they formed the "Jazz" service operated by N7 0-6-2 tank engines hauling Gresley "Quint-art" articulated compartment stock carriages. Even then, you could not go solely by the train's destination. Apart from the Cambridge Heath and London Fields problem, many of the peak hour Chingford trains ran fast from Liverpool Street to St James Street. But I accept that not everybody has that advantage. But the important point is that the service served both Enfield Town and Chingford (though not Cheshunt) but few people were confused because they looked at destination and calling point information provided at the station.
You cannot simply look at a map in isolation. If you did you would think you could get on any train travelling from Kings Cross to Edinburgh and get off at Oakleigh Park.
But leaving that admittedly frivolous remark aside, in any case, you still wouldn't know even if they were split because, despite usually using the "slow" lines, most of the trains to and from Cheshunt do not serve Cambridge Heath and London Fields either. There is a little "dagger" adjacent to each of those stations on the map and the key says "Services or access at these stations are subject to variation. To check before you travel visit www.tfl..."
You could pose your question equally about the Metropolitan Line:
"Let's say I'm looking at the tube map and want to get the Metropolitan line to Preston Road. Is this in anyway clear to you which destination train I get on?"
In fact the tube map at least gives you a little prompt with its daggers against Cambridge Heath and London Fields, but gives you no such clue with the Met Line and its "fast" services. But nobody, as far as I know, has made any serious suggestions that the line should be split into two for that reason.
So perhaps.....
Peter Sarf
Established Member
Also. Just because names on older lines might not be ideal does not provide an excuse for continuing that trend. If a name is historically there then leave it alone.
For the new Overground lines I would prefer something vaguely geographical as it would make it easier to understand which lines they are. Now I have to learn a new set of names that give no clue as to which ones they are. For me North London Line and East London Line immediately let me know where they are - I know that both lines stray from the area described BUT it is a quick way of identifying which is which.
Some of the objections will be because change is always something to come to terms with when it is imposed on people. But I think many of the names have obscure or irrelevant connections.
I do agree that the two lines out of Liverpool Street would be better having different names as they hardly share any common stations.
Perhaps Paris has it right :-
RER lines are letters not names.
- They are really what our Crossrail network will one day be (ha) but they were doing it before 1985 (forty years ago).
Metro (Tube) lines are numbers not names.
For lines like those out of Liverpool Street they would be RER so Crossrail and go THROUGH London. London is forty years behind and all we are doing is giving lines a name (la la land) not getting them into and across London.
Maps :-
Incidentally - are we to become burdened with names for all the National Rail lines in and around London ?. Or even the entire UK ?.
Maps are a tricky thing when there are so many rail lines involved. Need a bigger piece of paper or a smaller City !.
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 1,909
I think it’s disingenuous to use line names such as “Metropolitan”, “District”, “Central” or “Waterloo/Hammersmith & City” lines as examples of poor naming.
The vast majority of those lines were built prior to the formation of London Transport in 1933.
In fact if we go by the Metropolitan line, which was the Metropolitan Railway it did in fact live up to its name at one point, since it served the metropolis of London, and I don’t mean its current incarnation of Aldgate/Baker Street to Uxbridge/Watford/Amersham/Chesham, until 1990 the Metropolitan line served most parts of London, the Hammersmith & City and East London lines were once branches of the Met that took the line into South East London, East London and West London, plus if we include the District line (formerly Metropolitan & District) then it also served South West London too ergo it was a line that served the metropolis
The Central line is probably the most central of the lines and serves both the City and West End of London.
The Hammersmith & City and Waterloo & City lines does what it says on the proverbial tin, links those areas with the City of London.
The Northern line in hindsight is probably the best name for it despite it going further south, seeing as the southern end goes deep into Southern Railway territory (at the time all railways south of the river were known as Southern Electrics) so a Southern line and Southern Electric at Balham would have caused some confusion especially as Balham is on the Southern Railway network.
By the time LTPB was formed in 1933 the names were ingrained and most knew their function and what part of the city each line served, so they stuck.
The new names for the Overground reflect nothing of the areas they serve, except for perhaps Mildmay and even that’s for the wrong line, these are vanity projects to feed an ego and are self congratulatory as being “look at how diverse and kind we are”
The fact that most across the political spectrum have reviewed this as being poor shows that it’s not just the so called “gammon” or anti-woke types that think the names are utterly stupid.
If the Overground takes over other rail lines in London; ie the Dartford/Gravesend routes or the Great Northern inners, what names will they be given? They’ve set up a precedent now.
The vast majority of those lines were built prior to the formation of London Transport in 1933.
In fact if we go by the Metropolitan line, which was the Metropolitan Railway it did in fact live up to its name at one point, since it served the metropolis of London, and I don’t mean its current incarnation of Aldgate/Baker Street to Uxbridge/Watford/Amersham/Chesham, until 1990 the Metropolitan line served most parts of London, the Hammersmith & City and East London lines were once branches of the Met that took the line into South East London, East London and West London, plus if we include the District line (formerly Metropolitan & District) then it also served South West London too ergo it was a line that served the metropolis
The Central line is probably the most central of the lines and serves both the City and West End of London.
The Hammersmith & City and Waterloo & City lines does what it says on the proverbial tin, links those areas with the City of London.
The Northern line in hindsight is probably the best name for it despite it going further south, seeing as the southern end goes deep into Southern Railway territory (at the time all railways south of the river were known as Southern Electrics) so a Southern line and Southern Electric at Balham would have caused some confusion especially as Balham is on the Southern Railway network.
By the time LTPB was formed in 1933 the names were ingrained and most knew their function and what part of the city each line served, so they stuck.
The new names for the Overground reflect nothing of the areas they serve, except for perhaps Mildmay and even that’s for the wrong line, these are vanity projects to feed an ego and are self congratulatory as being “look at how diverse and kind we are”
The fact that most across the political spectrum have reviewed this as being poor shows that it’s not just the so called “gammon” or anti-woke types that think the names are utterly stupid.
If the Overground takes over other rail lines in London; ie the Dartford/Gravesend routes or the Great Northern inners, what names will they be given? They’ve set up a precedent now.
Last edited:
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
And why is "line" there for Overground and not Underground? We asked this with the Elizabeth line and were told it's because it's a separate mode. OK, but the Overground is the mode in this situation, not Mildmay/Suffragette/Weaver and whatever the other woke words they've chosen were
Purple Train
Established Member
Indeed, that's considerably more annoying than the names!And why is "line" there for Overground and not Underground? We asked this with the Elizabeth line and were told it's because it's a separate mode. OK, but the Overground is the mode in this situation, not Mildmay/Suffragette/Weaver and whatever the other woke words they've chosen were
Oof! Sorry about the 4-page delay, BUT...
- Crossrail is the best piece of urban public transport infrastructure in the UK. Not the Elizabeth Line, Crossrail.
- The actual Elizabeth Line famously was listed as the worst in the country for delays and cancellations
- German systems aren't actually all what they're chalked up to be, and you're looking at them the wrong way.
I can't see any reason for TfL to have chosen just one line name for the LV Lines, aside from maybe having one shared terminus and being taken over together. It's hardly the same "core-and-branch" system used on the NLL and ELL, it's more of a "tuning fork" setup so doesn't really leave much room for a core section!
Cost benefit analysis on the cost of changing different signs is the only reason I can think of for this…
Unless this means that's what they're doing for the DLR in the future too..!!! There's not enough colours of the rainbow.And why is "line" there for Overground and not Underground? We asked this with the Elizabeth line and were told it's because it's a separate mode. OK, but the Overground is the mode in this situation, not Mildmay/Suffragette/Weaver and whatever the other woke words they've chosen were
announcements
Member
- Joined
- 31 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 342
I don't want to labour my previous point, but the general public don't care about the different TfL rail modes, they just see each line as a line (Elizabeth line included!), not least because the fares are the same.And why is "line" there for Overground and not Underground? We asked this with the Elizabeth line and were told it's because it's a separate mode. OK, but the Overground is the mode in this situation, not Mildmay/Suffragette/Weaver and whatever the other woke words they've chosen were
The number one question I was told to ask on a TfL Comms training course I attended was "why should I care?" In this instance, I'm going to ask why should I care if it is Overground instead of Underground? The answer is: I don't care. I just want to get from A to B. I am interested in the line name. It would be good if there was a bit of consistency, given the whole purpose of this exercise in the first place was to facilitate simplification.
THC
Member
As the OP I'd quite like to keep it in here as I've followed this thread through hilarity to incredulity and back again. I can't wait to see the frothing when the new names are implemented. Got the popcorn on order and everythingWhen they actually start the rebranding of signs, announcements, online material such as in Journey Planner, etc. will it be monitored in this thread, or is this one just for discussing the name choices. It seems like any update on the actual project progressing would get lost here!
THC
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Now that really would have been an offensive name!
TT-ONR-NRN
Established Member
Spurs line gets my vote
And White Hart Lane renamed to “Tottenham Hotspur” as was once proposed. If the unfortunate organisation next to Finsbury Park can do it, it’s only fair!
Deepgreen
Established Member
Those who bemoan so-called 'woke' actions are to be treated with great suspicion in my view. Why is it so wrong to recognise vital parts of history that have contributed to London's development?
Peter Wilde
Member
I don’t have a problem with the names.
I do see a problem with the colours, even for people with average to good eyesight. For example the reddish-orange one and the reddish-purple one can only just be distinguished on the 'potted version" of the map that only shows the Overground.
When the map is the one of the entire LT rail network, this issue becomes far worse. Let alone on the map that used to exist of the entire London rail network, Network Rail as well as LT (and after all, that complex map is the most useful one for efficient journey planning).
Something more distinctive needs to be done, using a graphically different line style for certain routes, for example. Colour alone does not work now that there are so many lines.
I do see a problem with the colours, even for people with average to good eyesight. For example the reddish-orange one and the reddish-purple one can only just be distinguished on the 'potted version" of the map that only shows the Overground.
When the map is the one of the entire LT rail network, this issue becomes far worse. Let alone on the map that used to exist of the entire London rail network, Network Rail as well as LT (and after all, that complex map is the most useful one for efficient journey planning).
Something more distinctive needs to be done, using a graphically different line style for certain routes, for example. Colour alone does not work now that there are so many lines.
Falcon1200
Established Member
It has been pointed out more than once that one of the lines affected already had a well known, long standing and geographically descriptive name, and while it is laudable that the Mildmay Hospice should be recognised and remembered there can be other ways of doing that than replacing the North London Line's title.
Indeed, the pigeon community wish to express their concern at their species name being used in this way, it opens a can of worms....
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Yes, I think it was a mistake for TfL to brand all the Overground lines in the same way. To my mind, the distinct identity that merited a separate branding was the former North and West London lines (Stratford - Richmond/etc.) and the extended former East London line (Stratford - Canada Water - etc.). Both of those lines share the characteristic of being very slow orbital lines that avoid central London. That's a distinction from other lines that is useful to your average non-rail enthusiast, so would have merited its own branding.
But then TfL stupidly applied the same branding to other lines that have nothing to do with the 'orbital' Overground and are basically national rail local metro lines into London termini - which, even with TfL running them, are really no different from most of the local National Rail routes - the TfL Rail branding was pretty good for that, and I think is really what should've been used for Euston-Watford and Liverpool Street - Chingford/Enfield/etc. (Which doesn't prevent the lines having individual names as well, in just the same way that underground lines have individual names while still being grouped together as 'The Underground').
cirithungol
Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2012
- Messages
- 8
They should have called one the Thatcher Line, just for a laugh.
themiller
Member
Anyone for The Ripper Line?
renegademaster
Member
With the recent breakdown of franchising , its not a totally implausible scenario that in a decades time overground will get most of the london suburban rail handed to it, the map and names will be a terrible mess then.
Journey Planners will just refer to the TOC, not the line names.When they actually start the rebranding of signs, announcements, online material such as in Journey Planner, etc. will it be monitored in this thread, or is this one just for discussing the name choices. It seems like any update on the actual project progressing would get lost here!
Well, unfortunately it's tough luck for you because journey planners will refer to the TOC name, not the line name.
They've not thought it through and have no intention to do so. I don't think their aim is for it to make sense or be consistent.
Assuming they aren't intelligent enough to work out which line it is from the origin/destination.
NorthKent1989
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2017
- Messages
- 1,909
Because they’re too vague sounding at best, the Suffrage movement was up and down the country and not unique to London.
The Windrush community aren’t the only immigrants who’ve contributed to London’s recent history.
And you may view those who view this as being woke with suspicion, it doesn’t make it any less true that these names to pander to progressives who like to box tick diversity.
- Status