Should the East London Line have remained a part of London Underground?

[PTR 444]

The East London Line ceased to be a Tube line in 2008 since it was closed to allow for extensions north and south, but when it reopened in 2010 it became part of a new brand called London Overground. While this brand has become hugely successful by creating an orbital railway around inner London, part of me wonders why the ELL couldn’t have remained a Tube line.

The only major difference between the Underground and Overground is that the former is fully run in-house by TfL, while the latter is a TOC managed under contract by TfL mostly running on track owned by Network Rail. I believe the former LU part of the ELL is still owned by TfL, and yes it now runs on NR metals south of New Cross Gate, but the Bakerloo Line also does so north of Queens Park so I can’t see why it couldn’t have remained a Tube Line on that basis.

Perhaps TfL always wanted to amalgamate the ELL and NLL under one unified brand, but there’s no strict definition that the Underground has to be underground in a physical sense and the Overground has to be overground like the general public assume. The Metropolitan Line is mostly overground so you could have made the North London Line a fully overground Tube line if you really wanted. Yes, freight uses it but you could also apply the Bakerloo north of Queens Park argument here.

Would it have made sense back when the ELL extension was being planned to keep it as a Tube Line, while also having what are now the Overground routes become part of the Tube network?

 

[quantinghome]

I don't think so TBH. The Overground is much more of a suburban railway than the Underground which is essentially a metro, so it makes sense to differentiate them. Sure, *some* bits of the Underground are basically suburban railway (Metropolitan), thanks to its peculiar history. And *some* bits of the Overground are in tunnel (but not much). It would be odd to focus on the exceptions when defining the networks. Also the Overground now encompasses other suburban rail, so it is clearly differentiated from the Underground.

 

[hdennis13]

To most travellers, they probably aren't bothered by name, but rather punctuality and comfort.
Also, as mentioned, little of the line is in tunnel and mostly overground and runs as suburban rail rather than through central London as a metro tube line. And as the overground forms a "loop" outside zone 1, it makes sense to differentiate to highlight alternative routes avoiding zone 1.

 

[bramling]

The East London Line ceased to be a Tube line in 2008 since it was closed to allow for extensions north and south, but when it reopened in 2010 it became part of a new brand called London Overground. While this brand has become hugely successful by creating an orbital railway around inner London, part of me wonders why the ELL couldn’t have remained a Tube line.

The only major difference between the Underground and Overground is that the former is fully run in-house by TfL, while the latter is a TOC managed under contract by TfL mostly running on track owned by Network Rail. I believe the former LU part of the ELL is still owned by TfL, and yes it now runs on NR metals south of New Cross Gate, but the Bakerloo Line also does so north of Queens Park so I can’t see why it couldn’t have remained a Tube Line on that basis.

Perhaps TfL always wanted to amalgamate the ELL and NLL under one unified brand, but there’s no strict definition that the Underground has to be underground in a physical sense and the Overground has to be overground like the general public assume. The Metropolitan Line is mostly overground so you could have made the North London Line a fully overground Tube line if you really wanted. Yes, freight uses it but you could also apply the Bakerloo north of Queens Park argument here.

Would it have made sense back when the ELL extension was being planned to keep it as a Tube Line, while also having what are now the Overground routes become part of the Tube network?

If the question is whether it should have remained a segregated New Cross / New Cross Gate to Highbury service then I’d probably say yes. However the moment the through running comes in to play then that changes things, and I’d say what we have now is probably the best solution.