I think it’s worth reiterating just how *bad* some of these services were before the Overground. Infrequent service, old trains, dirty unstaffed stations, poor connections to other modes. To think they had closed the line from Shoreditch to Dalston in the 1980s! The vast amount of development occurring around LO stations is testament to its success.
Yes indeed. And also how DANGEROUS the pre Overground services were. Making services feel safe is a significant part of the Overground's success. Longitudinal seating helps - harder to get attacked from behind.
@@fToo They're still a bit sketchy in the outskirts - I've seen plenty of crazy people talking to themselves/shouting at each other on the Overground, and I've only been on it a handful of times.
The Overground is a great example of how relatively straightforward (and not especially expensive) changes can make a big difference. I rarely used the predecessor services when in London, but the integrated fares, branding and minimum service consistency has meant I now use the Overground quite a bit each time I’m there. Would love to see a similar approach taken with Thameslink, which is currently quite confusing for people who don’t use it regularly.
The bad thing about the Thameslink is that TfL won't include it on the main map so most people ignore it, even though it more or less operates as another intra-London route
@@Eddie36144 Yep, it’s good that it’s included - loads of visitors have no idea it existed otherwise, and it’s actually a really useful service for getting to eg Kings Cross.
@@memofromessex All National Rail you can use Oyster on is on the main map (the Tube & Rail Map that's on every platform and that TfL's website defaults to). Thameslink inside zone 1-9 is also on the tube map - even stations that only see 1 train per day (and that not going to the core).
The Silverlink Metro lines had integrated fares before Overgroundisation (though Oysterisation and Overgroundisation were fairly close timewise). Though, certainly, going from a neglected 'branch line' to the main route of an operator trying to get people to use it drastically changed the feel of the line (eg stations were deep cleaned and visibly staffed), even before service increases that came due to the increased popularity. The ex-Greater Anglia routes were less dramatic a difference when the orange roundels appeared - there were still the improvements at the stations, and (more recently) new trains replacing elderly trains, but service hasn't increased. TfL was worried that the brand would take a bit of a hit due to the reduced scope for improvement - and for similar reasons they have explicitly said they don't want to take over Thameslink as the service is good already and slapping roundels on it wouldn't improve it (and also because Thameslink primarily serves places outside Greater London's journeys to Central London, rather than Greater London itself).
Just saying hello. I used to be a London Overground train driver. Often overlooked, but it's a great little network to get people around London, and has really good punctuality.
@caw25sha I used to drive Clapham Junction and Richmond to Stratford and Gospel Oak to Barking. Fun fact, although trainspotters call it the GOBLIN, internally the Gospel Oak to Barking Line was simply known as The GOB.
Isn't there a plan to convert some old lines in Glasgow, and integrate them with the subway? Liverpool had pretty ok rail too, and a few new stations opening.
As somebody thats lived in the North and currently work in London, the difference is the integrated transportation. I can work anywhere around London by walking 10 mins to the tube, but If I lived in Leeds unless I drove I wouldn't contemplate working in Manchester or Bradford, despite them not being too far.
1. Glasgow does. Not that it works very well. Similarly Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham and Edinburgh all had attempts to build electric urban rail, but they destroyed their city centres too much, refused to build stuff next to train stations so the lines were all disappointments. Also they run them like steam trains ca. 1912 instead of Hamburg or Nagoya in 2023. And so they decided to build dud tram systems instead. 2. It would be nice. But that would mean that those cities would become like London and they would rather decay and die then do that (See history of Outer Britain since 1914).
It would be nice if other cities where net contributors to the U.K. economy. London gets nice things because it’s the only place that contributes more in tax than it takes from the state.
Sucks because it wouldn't be too expensive to expand/build new transit systems around the UK either. Lots of abandoned trackbeds in and around Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, Edinburgh and some other urban areas that would just need some foliage cleared back and a few small land purchases for stations. Very easy wins that could help to kick-start local transit authorities on par with TfL. Sadly, I know it won't happen any time soon with the current autocrats in Westminster. Every politician in this country seems to believe that it is their God given right to embezzle as much money as is possible, and they sure as hell don't want to waste any of that cash on us proles. The corruption scandal embroiling the SNP right now gives me little hope for any of the devolved governments, too.
Funnily enough, there are actually parts of the Overground that are underground. In fact, at Whitechapel station in east London the London Overground runs below the London Underground! you have to go up stairs to change to the Underground
@@scofield1154 In London, probably a lot of other places too, the categorisation is more about which budget it gets funded from than the actual characteristics of the line. The East London Line - was originally owned by the Metropolitan Railway, which was reorganised as part of London Transport in the 1930s. It later became its own separate line instead of a branch of the Metropolitan Line, then was moved over to the Overground. The Northern City Line was also originally owned by the Metropolitan Railway. When it was reorganised as part of London Transport, they moved it to be a branch of the Northern Line, then later it was moved over to British Rail / Network South East / West Anglia Great Northern / First Capital Connect / Great Northern The Waterloo and City Line was originally owned by the South Western Railway. In the 1930s it was reorganised as part of Southern Railway, then British Rail, then Network South East, then moved over to TFL as an underground line. The eastern bit of the Central Line was moved over from Great Eastern Railway / LNER in the 1940s, and some of the western bits were originally Great Western Railway The western bit of the Hammersmith / Circle Line was originally a branch line of the Great Western Railway
The Overground also goes under the Underground at Shepherd's Bush. There the Overground is in a cutting below street level, but you can look up and see the sky. The Hammersmith & City / Circle Line is elevated above street level.
When I was in London, I was staying in Marylebone, and making weekly trips to the National Archives at Kew. The Overground was such a blessing. It was clean, reliable, and wide reaching.
Again, a key phrase in understanding London's excellent real network is thus: "already there" . A lot of the above-ground rail passenger service lines and right away existed in some form or another going back to Victorian decades; in other words, good work can be done by joining things together rather than starting from scratch. They are lucky that way.
The other thing is that a lot of the time, these existing train lines are underused and not necessary for national rail. Meanwhile in my city, we have a fairly large suburban commuter rail network, but our track is shared with the national trains that go to and from London, etc. Without space to overtake, it’s very difficult to increase frequency for local station service because then the local train timetables would have a knock on effect on the national services.
Some of my family live out on one of the radial Overground lines so we use the services quite a lot when we see them. The trains are great and the TfL branding is really sensible, it makes it so much easier to use from a passenger perspective, especially with the overground being on the tube map.
Parts of it are charmingly baffling, like at Whitechapel where the overground platforms are beneath the underground platforms! (Edit: I need to be patient!) Parts of the overground are actually older than the tube, the Thames tunnel actually predates the railways.
A guy asked me once where the District line was while I was waiting for the Overground train at Whitechapel. I pointed to the stairs heading up ...but he didn't seem to believe me as clearly he was expecting to be heading down ,as logic would dictate.
@@RMTransit It often comes into my head how old the Thames Tunnel is and how it was built when I'm going through it. It was started 198 years ago and opened 180 years ago. There are occasional walking tours through it when the rest of the line is closed for maintenance.
Erm ... the City of Liverpool Region plus the Merseyrail terminal areas, eg Chester, is almost 1.75 million population. I have suggested to RMT he does the Merseyrail as it is now the most modern, second most extensive and only vertically integrated UK Mass Transit system.
In a few respects the Overground is like the S Bahn in German speaking countries. They do number their S Bahn lines. For instance last week I was in Vienna and amongst other things I visited every station on the U Bahn network. Helping me in this challenge was the U2Z replacement tram as well as S80, S2 and S45 S Bahn trains
Sort of! However, that's why I bring up the Elizabeth line, it in combination with the Overground does many of the things an S-Bahn does, albeit without having the same type of integrated service pattern
Excellent summary! BTW when the Overground network was being put together from existing (usually less frequent) services, a major - and popular - selling point was that all its stations are staffed. You are absolutely right that the branding and publicity (such as way-finding signage) have been critical in getting people to see it as something they could use. Custom could be grown by doubling the minimum frequency to 8 per hour - but this may not be possible everywhere, as some of the OG routes are shared with freight trains
Also, the East London Line already has 4 different services with 4 trains per hour, so going up to 8 tph on all those services would mean 32 trains per hour between Dalston Junction and Surrey Quays. That's more than the line capacity, considering the signalling system that's in use. It might also cause issues because some of these services share tracks with suburban/regional trains on the branches.
RMTransit had an older version of the Overground video that discussed the aspect of sharing with freight. It's sadly missing in this one and that's something I want greater understanding on.
@@wasmic5z Agree that 32 trains per hour is not practical. My solution would be to enlarge the proposed 'New Bermonsey/Canal Road' station on the OG line to Peckham Rye and Clapham, with platforms on the SE suburban lines from London Bridge, and also on the OG line to New Cross Gate, Crystal Palace and Croydon. so no need for the OG New Cross branch: the New Bermondsey interchange would be much better, allowing easy transfers from all the OG lines to SE trains to Greenwich and Woolwich, as well as via Lewisham and Grove Park. Doubled services to Clapham, Crystal Palace and Croydon would give a manageable (and desirable) 24 trains per hour on the OG East London 'main line', and - with 8/16 Southern tph from London Bridge - 24 tph on the Forest Hill/Peckham Rye lines. At last south London would have tube frequencies! A New Bermondsey interchange would fill one of the gaps in the Overground circle's links. Still remaining would be West London (which is to get Old Oak Common for interchange with the GW main line), Camden Town/Camden Road, Hampstead, and maybe Tuffnell Park (all for interchange with the Northern tube), maybe a better transfer point with the GE mainline at Shoreditch, and OG platforms at Loughborough Junnction; and - of course - Brixton!
@@RMTransit The main pinch-point is the bridge just west of Camden Road station, where four tracks in each direction narrow down to just one pair. Ideal solution would be for a flyover for the freight tracks from Stratford to run (over the Overground tracks) direct to the Primrose Hill route on to the west coast main line. It would be good to know the limits of what modern signalling can enable, in the way of combining a frequent regular suburban service with an infrequent, but highly variable freight schedule!
I commute on one of the Lee Valley routes every day to work and they're wonderful, imo the best way to commute in London. It's quick, reliable,and the new trains are genuinely nice (especially in summer as the air con actually works)
Great video. A driver here for 14 years on LO and its predecessors. Overground in some ways is victim of its own success. Every time it expands and the service increases, new things added, more people come. During COVID for a example only one operator UK wide saw a passenger recovery as strong as on LO. New developments pop up everywhere along its routes and that's testament to its success as a lot of customers see it as a valuable and pleasant option compared to other TOCs. The lines they took over were woeful. (Former Silverlink/Greater Anglia) was a bit of a free for all with limited information, poor frequency, old trains, unmanned stations with no assistance, antisocial behaviour, with most stations looking like they were abandoned in the early 90s. (I kid not some hadn't seen a lick of paint since then) Now its a very different story. Its now a state of the art, safe, reliable railway that truly has transformed the areas it serves. It is still technically split internally into three distinct areas known as North (NLL/GOB/DC) East (West Anglia) and South (ELL) with each area having its own pool of staff. The changes have been huge over the years and it is still in my opinion one of the best Train Operating companies in the UK from a passenger and staff perspective. Expansion my be on the cards soon lots of new ideas have been pushed about as once again it has outgrown its success. Watch this space.
Excellent video as always. Before LO, the routes were all very underutilised, Clapham Junction to Willesden had a handful of peak hour services that only ran to Kensington, and nothing north of that other than an occasional Inter-City service that only stopped at Kenny. The bit of the North London Line that now has a train every 7/8 minutes used to get a 3-car service every twenty minutes. And the trains are busy - build it, and they will come. Another great thing about the orbital routes is that they're busy across the day, not just in the peaks, and they are busy along their length not just at one end as with most radial rail lines.
The London overground system was a real blessing when I travelled there... By the way, you should also make a video about Athens and its metro and tram services.
The Overground is great, especially the "Night Overground" that operates on part of the East London Line on Friday and Saturday nights. I use the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to get to work. The 15 minute frequency could possibly be higher but it is also an important freight route around London to get to docks like Tilbury and London Gateway. It's worth mentioning the "West London Orbital Line" proposal from Hounslow to West Hampstead and Hendon, which would add to the Overground network, partly using existing lines which are mostly used by freight.
Unfortunately the 15 minute frequency couldn't be higher. The signalling sections are very long and a bay platform at Gospel Oak restricts the frequency. As you mention, it is an important freight route and on some days, there can be a freight train between each overground train. Increasing the frequency would mean late running and reduced reliability.
Whats something that really confusing me about a lot of countries, is how many different train operators there are. In Germany, all short-distance train transport is carried by the same company. We have S- and U-Bahn, thats it. And even the busses - who are operated by different companies follow the same branding. To a degree, that during a busstrike you weren't sure which busses would run. So, I obviously believe, the London Overground is amazing and does the absolute right thing. Making PT easily accessable is one of its most important features. (Also - I subscribed to the channel like a week ago, and all I wanted, was a video about the Overground. So good job, bringing me EXACTLY what I waited for xD)
That thing about same bus different company is also the case in London. Arriva, GoAhead and others all operate routes despite them all having the red branding and being Oyster compatible
The idea of a single operator in Germany was long abolished. I remember the time where the operator switched from DB on most diesel lines in Rhineland Palatinate and Baden-Würtemberg to Vlexx as well as various lines in Hesse (electrified and otherwise) to HLB.
In the UK there is almost always only one company running trains on a particular line. One exception is that both LNER and Lumo run trains between London and Edinburgh. There a probably one or two other examples.
When the separate Overground lines are individually named and coloured on the transit map it will help attract even more ridership. Hope they have a competition to create the names.
I'll doubt there'd be a competition, lest we have Tubey McTubeFace (or worse). There will perhaps be a consultation, maybe even with a write in box as well as options TfL have come up with, but no more than that.
Thanks for the in-depth but easy to understand Over-view of the Overground. As a London railway enthusiast I’m particularly proud of it. I look forward to the names given to the various lines within the Network although that might take some getting used to. I feel the service announcements on the Network could simply be more specific. Finally, I would definitely like more of Londons rail services brought under TfL. Cheers
I Agree about the need to name the lines - the current map, briefly shown on this video, is difficult even for me to understand quickly, despite having lived in London for more than forty years. The Brunel line would be good for the one that goes under the Thames in East London, and continues to Clapham Junction via Denmark Hill.
Toronto could apply the overground model to the midtown/CP rail line, though I would divert the line so it passes through Scarborough Town Centre and Mississauga City Centre. It would serve as a connection between the main east and west CBD's in Greater Toronto. Great content as usual RM!
Correction: The Western branch of the Lea Valley line does not connect with the GOBLIN at South Tottenham. Their paths cross but there is no stop at South Tottenham. If you want to connect, you have to get off at Seven Sisters and walk about two blocks to get to South Tottenham station (and funnily enough, you have to walk SOUTH and not North as the tube map would have you believe). Source: me! I live at South Tottenham at the moment and I'm hearing the GOBLIN drive past right now
Judging by the plain "Walthamstow" for the Goblin/Chingford connection, the notion was that the Goblin and Cheshunt/Enfield branch both stop near one another in the South Tottenham area (it appears on maps, including the OS), which is true. Though obviously that's confusing due to one station being called that, and the other being called Seven Sisters.
@@sihollett Yep, I should have referred to it as a connection "near" rather than at - but, I think thats sort of the point of the connectivity stuff I mentioned!~
@@RMTransit if Crossrail 2 had happened, it would have become one station (as Hackney Downs/Central now is - though probably with a shorter walk between the sets of Overground platforms!). The Seven Sisters interchange is the best OSI the Goblin has - not far and well signed. And I'd much rather have a bad OSI than the nothing that many other cities would have in a similar situation!
@@sihollettJust for glueing multiple stations alone (two Dalstons & giant Euston McPancras) Crossrail 2 has to happen!! Big fan of non-gateline interchanges
Seeing firsthand the improvements to both the Goblin and Northern London line in my opinion the Overground has been the most successful additions to London’s public transport infrastructure in recent years. More so than the Lizzy line. I first used the both lines in 2006 a year before TFL took over. And they were both neglected in so many ways. Since the much needed investment and attention brought from its branding. It has transformed them into well utilised and essential services and opened up parts of London not many people not aware of.
The concept behind the Overground is really similar to what the "Metrovia" independent project aims to do in Rome. Rome's transit situation is a real mess, but it could be interesting to make a video about it.
As someone who's been visiting London regularly since the late 90s, finding our that the Overground has only been a thing since 2007 really threw me. This is the understated genius of its branding; it wasn't jarring or controversial, it just fitted in so cleanly and seamlessly that it feels like it's always been there. It probably also helps that it fits into the theme tune from The Wombles, which practically every child in the UK since the 1970s has known ("Underground, overground, wombling free...").
I have spent literally ALL WEEK trying to find a good source of information on the Overground--almost to the point of directly asking you to make a video on it. This could not have been more perfectly timed!
The Overground is a resounding success, taking lines that were scarcely used and making them into important commuter corridors for millions of people....bring on the West London Orbital line!
yay! another RMTransit video! I reacon Perth dosent really need the Overground type railway yet....BUT your content always entertains me! Thanks again!
Hey Reece, I really appreciate you making this video as a regular Overground user. It's such a positive force in London's transport network and I hope more South London suburban rail routes get taken over by TfL in some way. I would like to clarify that I THINK in the radial lines further out (definitely separately at Cheshunt and Enfield Town), trains are every 30 minutes during off-peak periods which can be a bit stifling when trying to use it during those periods.
I love how colorful trains in London are. I wish we added more color to our subway cars too. Whether that's NY Subway, Chicago L or other systems! Less silver, more color!
It's a great way to combine the low capital costs and features of commuter rail with the service of a metro, in which we get Regional Rail! The Overground is so good that some of New York's commuter rail services could be like this and if Kathy Hochul knew what regional rail was so that the IBX could exercise the potential of RER. But this requires a change of attitude that the MTA will never do.
Interesting comparison with IBX in NY. Sadly, although this is predicted to have largest ridership of any new transit system in the US, the current plan is crippled by choice of Light Rail and street running, with LRVs turning onto and off a through truck route every 2.5 minutes.
I remember when the Overground was first launched. I was a bit sceptical. I tried it out when it was new, but there weren't many lines, the frequencies were only every 20 minutes and some lines were using class 172 DMUs. It didn't feel like the Underground at all. BUT, within a few short years, it has become a regular feature of my journeys around London and mostly a pleasure to use. My only beef is that the seats are quite hard for a long journey half way around the city. Otherwise, I can't really fault it.
The overground is great if you want to cross town without passing central London. Used to live in east so I would take it from stratford to go to Hampstead to see friends! Or when out partying in Clapham to get To Whitechapel and then continue into east London
The Overground has been an excellent edition even if there are still one or two notable omissions to it's network (the biggest one being passing through Brixton without stopping due to the cost of building on a elevated railway). As for the multitude of operators in London being confusing, this is mitigated by the fact that Oyster Card is accepted on all operators within Greater London (and even to a number of stations outside of Greater London such as up to the two Hertford stations, out to Grays, down the Brighton mainline to Gatwick, etc)
Being local to the NLL (north London line) I was very pleased to see this video, and a brilliant explanation of it too! One of the things I find most fascinating is the presence of heavy freight trains on the network connecting from one main line to another via the orbital routes. A wonderful video!
That was great Reece. When I was a kid and visited my Nanny and Grandad in Tottenham, Bruce Grove was the nearest British Rail station. Diesel engines, dirty stations, every forever to run. ow it is on the Overground Enfield Town/Chestnut line, and now connects with the Victoria line. Well done TFL!
A big part of the success is the integrated payment system - Oyster card or tap to pay, just like the tube and busses. Removes a huge barrier to usage.
A key part of the overground as a student, the huge advantage of the overground is fare intergration, and cheap fares to begin with. Yes you can use oyster on all but you end up paying double fares is you don't cap. Though it is also less liked than southern where it operates shared routes due to it's little trains which become very crouded at peak and only-having tube style seating.
@@katrinabryce That what I mean about it being TFL intergrated, however if you don't travel enough for a travel card, the fare prices when traveling on nation rail are about twice as much in the case of southern and if you use NR and tube you get charged the sum of both fares, which doesn't happen with overground as you say, making it far cheaper.
@@MaebhsUrbanity This is/was only a benefit of Overground on the East London Line's southern extensions. The lines into Euston and Liverpool Street have seen TfL have to keep legacy London Terminals fares as they were cheaper than the zonal fare (which included LU/DLR in the price pre-Overground takeover). Also, the Liverpool Street lines north of the Victoria line/east of Stratford have some non zone-1 fares more expensive than the standard TfL scale, due to keeping some other legacy fares in return for keeping the London Terminals fare (until they stopped it as the fare freeze on zonal fares, coupled with the standard NR fare increases on point-to-point, meant it wasn't cheaper anymore)
Always thought that the Overground should encompass all urban rail services in London. So TfL operate Southeastern, Southern, Southwest etc. suburban services that are currently hideously unreliable and inadequate
Love the overground. I used to travel from Manor House to West Ham for work so caught 4 trains in less than 30 minutes (3 for one stop). The beauty of the networking is the redundancy built in. If there were issues on a line there were multiple workarounds to get home.
Reece. I think you understate the changes required to create London Overground even where there was no new railway line. Frequencies were increased, new through services created, and rolling stock vastly improved. The other key change was staffing of stations and improvement of station environments and facilities. It was a lot more than a rebrand as you imply.
In the sixties there were plans to have four urban motorways in London and some of the pre-Overground lines would be converted to roads. The Minister of Transport owned a road construction company ,Marples Ridgway-he later fled to Monaco....
They wouldn't have been converted to motorways, but rather the motorways would have been built alongside the rail viaducts as that created an easier alignment to plough a motorway through as already somewhat visually and sonically blighted, and already somewhat severed by the transport link. That Marples owned a motorway company is neither here nor there for the existence of plans - they were drawn up in the war before Marples was even an MP, and the inner motorway box was a GLC project, not an MOT one. And lets not forget that even with Marples' motorway construction madness, we have a much more threadbare motorway network in Britain compared to other developed Western European countries - especially when it comes to urban motorways.
New or old, the number one thing I takeaway from London is that we, in Canada, need to focus more on quantity of stations/size of network, than on beautification of them. Yes, a nice station is well..nice; however, London, (and other cities with large, older networks,) show that a station doesn't have to be unique or fancy to be nice and useful. The vast majority of stations in London are simple brick stations with iron or wood covers over only part of the platform nearest the entrance, and the entrance/concourse is usually a simple shelter. Art and colour can be added, but imo we spend far too much money on making each station unique and over complicated when it could be spent on having more stations. 5 beautiful and unique stations, or 10 basic ones that actually serve their main purpose of being public transportation? I would choose the latter.
Not having to walk to far to or from the trainstation means you are much more likely to use it. Having it integrated with tube and bus makes it even more so.
in terms of sharing track with the underground, quite a great length of the Watford DC line is shared with the bakerloo, still doesn't make it any less weird to have a third rail line running next door to a 4 track overhead electrified line!
5:27 fun fact…That exact train (class 378/201) *dual voltage* was the first new overground train introduced in to service back in 2008, a year after London overground started. Back then it was numbered 378/001 with 3 cars until a few years later when they increased capacity, lengthened platforms and added 2 more carriages. The identical dc/3rd rail only class 378/1**s were then introduced on the East London line.
One thing you didn't mention about the current uniform colour and branding is how confusing this can be in the line diagrams inside Tube carriages. Tge Victoria Line, for example, connects with the London Overground at Euston, Highbury and Islington, Seven Sisters, Blackhorse Road and Walthamstow Central, but these are all on completely different lines which isn't obvious just from the line diagram.
So I grew up in London from 1999 to 2018, so I saw the whole process unfold. The Overground is proof you need to take a leap of faith when trains aren't good enough. One of the main excuses for northern towns getting hourly services is 'low passenger numbers'. This is both untrue and also because of how bad the service is. The North London Line was falling apart by 2007, and Silverlink were going to pull the plug either way. It was the perfect backbone for something like LO, and while it was redirected at Stratford, and never got to go to Woolwich, it was still a huge improvement, so much so that the trains went from 3 cars to 4, and then 4 to 5 in a matter of years. Seriously, TfL proved something with LO, to the point it is consistently in the top 3 train operating companies in the UK to date.
The Overground is underrated for tourists. Modern, tall, fast, colorful, and very easy. In my opinion, the US should have something like that, but it probably won’t happen anytime soon
'The Overground is underrated for tourists.' As explained, the Overground skirts the touristy parts - the City and West End - and tourists go for the more familiar inter-connectivity of London Underground.
It does, sort of, but with the Liz reaching Reading I don't see that as too dissimilar to Thameslink reaching Peterborough, even it is much further. Regular user of the Peterborough branch here.
Love taking the dog for a walk and listening to your videos. He get fed up with me coz I keep stopping to rewind and watch what you said about. I live in London and I barely use the overground. But I do think it is one of the better networks in London
Good summation. I live in Walthamstow and catch the Chingford line or Goblin over the tube. I also travel to Stoke Newington a lot from my work at Soitwark and would rather go the xtra distance to Canada Water and get the Overground than do the Jubilee/Victoria line. New airconditioned trains that rarely have delays. Weekends are a lottery though, especially the Chingord line.
Overground is what Paris painfully tries to make with tram trains running on the old Great Belt railroad (Grande Ceinture). Moscow is doing the same by turning a old freight circle railroad into a ringbahn of sorts. Seems to work quite well.
@@jandron94 No, you're confusing Grande Ceinture and Petite Ceinture ! The Grande Ceinture is indeed being used for new and recent tram-train lines, namely T12 and T13. It is located well into the suburbs, not touching the core city. What you are mentioning are the T3a & T3b, also known as the "Maréchaux trams", running on the Maréchaux boulevards, roughly parallel to the "Périphérique" inner ring road and the *Petite* Ceinture, not the *Grande* Ceinture !
From my schooldays in the 1960s I remember often having to use the grotty old Broad Street to Richmond line. It was even a target of the incredibly short-sighted and destructive Beeching axe, but fortunately was saved. Always a struggle using it. The revamp as part of the Overgound has utterly transformed it.
Its worth mentioning that ticketing integration is not the same thing as a line becoming part of London Overground. Mainline stations that are on the London suburban rail map shown as being in a London fare zone are all valid for contactless travel and subject to TfL fare capping, and that zone is about to expand massively to include many more stations in new zones. Because of a very high degree of interworking between metro and suburban rail services, it isn't really possible to rebrand the trains themselves to LO. For the time being, i think the best thing for TfL to do is to add some local trains to their maps (looking at you, Moorgate line!), as they have done for Thameslink. Most travellers can't tell that Thameslink isn't a part of TfL, but do understand its brand identity. If we can manage that with all of the principal metro area rail operators, then it will really improve way finding.
@@richardwills-woodward I suspect a neo-NSE would be more like a "GBR metropolitan" brand, and would bear little to no resemblance to the former NSE. It's worth remembering that Tokyo is not a unified or simple system, but JR East is. City center lines need to be tightly differentiated for wayfinding purposes (like Thameslink and the EL), but it's perfectly possible that the suburban rail network covered by contactless travel could be unified later.
There are new services opening up - a load of new stations in the West Midlands (following on from the creation of the cross-city line some years ago), a reopened line out of Newcastle, and new suburban stations around Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds. etc. But the rail network is much more dense in London - the city grew with the spread of the suburban railways and is uniquely dependent on them - in other UK cities the size of cities and nature of employment meant that buses and trams worked better at the time, and there are no motorways in central London unlike most of the regional cities. Things are changing, demand has shot up elsewhere, new services are being created, and so on. But traffic density is always going to make this more difficult to justify. A half of all rail journeys in the UK start or end in London, and the Elizabeth Line carries about a sixth of all National Rail traffic (in terms of journeys) by itself.
Unlike most other countries the UK is heavily centralised. Politicians in Westminster decide how much gets spent on infrastructure elsewhere, as sub-national government is given only a tiny proportion of tax revenue, and isn't allowed to raise its own taxes. Unsurprisingly, Westminster polititicians are only interested in what is best for London. That is how areas like Greater Manchester and the West Midlands which each are just under 1/3 the population of Greater London, but get only a tiny fraction (1/20th IIRC) of the transport spend. Never mind smaller towns and cities. London has all the good transport because that is what our London-centric political system wants.
@@Kodasik to an extent, but there are factors that make public transport (which is inherently more expensive for governments to provide for) more necessary and financially viable than elsewhere in the UK. Population of the urban area is 4 times that of Manchester or the W Mids. Population density is 40-50% greater. Historically employment in London was very highly focused, but in regional cities it wasn't (by the nature of the relevant industries). There are no motorways into the centre of London. There is a lot more long distance commuting where buses or driving is impractical (50-100 miles each way). Fares are higher (as are wages) and London is one of the few cities in the world where transport operational expenditure has to be met by fares, that makes it difficult to get a good BCR for other cities. Crowding on public transport in London is (at least it was before COVID) a lot worse - I once got a complaint from someone who had to stand for fifteen minutes on his train into Manchester; I had spent an hour and twenty minutes standing to get to London, and then had to wait for four tube trains before I could get to the platform edge and force myself onto a train. I'm not sure how I responded....
Normally I feel like youve missed something or not quite got a nuance with the UK, but this video is pretty much spot on, excellent work! It would have been interesting to hear you disucss 2 concepts in a bit more depth if you could stretch to 15 minutes - the use of the core and branches model to run metro frequencies where its busiest, and the impact of rebuild the passenger areas of stations into nice places to be that transformed riderships. Perhaps a deeper look at the North London and East London lines might follow in a future video?
I wonder if NYC can learn from the Overground how to use already-there rail infrastructure effectively. I'm thinking specifically of inter-outer-borough train service, though I think East Side Access is an example, albeit one that's highly focused on one station obviously. Great video as always!
I remember staying at my Aunts' flat in Battersea in the late 80's/very Early 90's, which overlooked the section of track between Clapham Junction and Imperial Wharf (Imperial Wharf hadn't been built back then!). Before the Overground, it was very infrequently used for passenger services and was mainly for freight movements. My 12 to 15 year old self would often wonder where those trains were going, and it wasn't until very recently I got to travel over that section in person.
Good work as always! There are a few transit systems about which I'd like to see explainer videos: * Buenos Aires Subte - because it's the oldest metro system in the Southern Hemisphere, and one of the oldest in the Americas * Bilbao's various conveyances - it's kind of a crazy hodgepodge of different systems, but overall seems like a very good system for a medium-sized city * The Moscow and/or St. Petersburg and/or Kyiv Metro - well ... there's the famously ornate station architecture, the insane depth of many of the lines, and then there's this thing called the "horizontal lift" which they have in St. Petersburg - Wikipedia says it's a variant of platform screen doors, but doesn't really show or explain how it works. Thanks for everything!
I have lived in London for over 60 years . only found about these lines fairly recently , I mainly use the Nw london section , either to Hamstead . Shepherds Bush and Richmond . it,s much nicer to use than the Underground and much better and quicker in some cases
I remember the old lines that a portion of the Overground took over. The Silverlink Metro / North London Line service which ran from North Woolwich - Richmond via Highbury and Islington and Stratford. A portion of which the Elizabeth Line runs on from Custom House to Woolwich Arsenal, with the absence of the stops at Silvertown and North Woolwich. (Which used to have a train museum, loved it as a kid). They ran class 313s and 315s I believe. They did a rebrand somewhere in the mid 90s I remember their Blue, White and Red carriages becoming a green and purple colour and a yellow painted interior. Service wasn't great and I still remember the smell. (discarded alcohol usually)
when i was living i england this past year I took the overground, themes link and Elizabeth line and i was definitely surprised at how similar the urban london part of themeslink was to the others. I also saw calls to bring the Southeastern lines under the overground, not only because of branding but also because TfL services were far better managed snd had fewer cuts to future services (such as an Elizabeth line connection) than the national rail carriers did
Fun fact: I’m pretty sure you can get from and zone 2+ station to any other zone 2+ station without every going into zone 1 and paying an extra fair, albeit with a lot of train hopping and an indirect route, however money is saved.
One issue with the Overground is that a lot of people often refer to stations that are not part of the Overground but another national rail operator as the "Overground". Especially when advertising spare rooms or events/venues, e.g. "nearest Overground Station: Lewisham".
That's because the term "overground" was used long before it became a brand to distinguish national rail lines (particularly the Southern Region) from the Underground. I remember it being used thus in the 1970's.
@@1258-Eckhart growing up, I’ve never heard the term ‘overground’ being used prior to the conception of “London Overground”. National rail or simply trains was always used. I guess it depends on where you grew up.
Nice video, although I would note that on the branches to Enfield and Cheshunt trains run every alternate 15 minutes, which means that beyond the point where the line splits there is only a half hourly service - annoying for me as I sometimes travel to Southbury on the Cheshunt branch.😢 Edit: BTW, you can get from one end of London to the other without going through the central area. The ticketing system takes this into account when calculating the fare. So for those who are time rich but cash poor, you can save a couple of quid in exchange for a slightly longer journey time.
Come now. I’m from Gateshead and there is no chance Newcastle is the third biggest city in England. Also, Newcastle is not Sunderland and Sunderland is not Newcastle. Never has, never will. It’s like those annoying people that call it NewcastleGateshead. Grrr
It's surprisingly exhilarating hearing somebody from overseas mentioning Enfield Town and the Lea Valley lines. Mind you, as much as I enjoy Enfield's trains, I hate its bus routes. Frequently stuck in traffic and at the mercy of industrial vehicles entering from the M25. Plus there's the A1010 Great Cambridge road blasting its noisy way through the centre of the borough... At least they've started making some effort with cycling initiatives. I just wish they'd do some East/West rail links. Going North and South is fine, but it can take more time to go from Waltham Cross to Enfield Town (only buses, around 29 to 35 minute) than it does going from Waltham Cross to Liverpool Street (via train, 32 minutes). Completely baffling. I kinda want trams like they have in Plzeň. Their integration is superb!
I live right off a London overground station that was included in the East London Line extension, I think the overground is amazing, it practically acts like a metro system, very reliable and clean too. I think it would be great to see more national rail lines be converted to overground, especially those going properly into London suburbs down south. One issue I do have though is the reduction in National Rail services from the intermediate stations into east Croydon and further south, now almost entirely replaced by a weird and very infrequent u-shaped service between Victoria and London Bridge. I know the Mayor has tried to get all suburban services under LO but if it doesn’t happen certain routes like the Hayes mainline which would be near perfect for metro style operation REALLY need to be added to the overground network although it’s actually planned to be part of the baker loo line which is arguably better
Very underrated. Use it all the time but one major issue is the transfers. Gospel Oak terminates from Barking riverside but doesn't seamlessly connect to the main line. This is to allow for freight traffic I believe.
Nice to have an independent external view of this, especially so appreciative and positive. Fully agree that it has been a great success story of the last 15 years, particularly useful for orbital travel and making use of previously abandoned or run-down lines. The new routes were popular from day one and indeed can get pretty crowded. An interesting parallel is Croydon Tramlink which took some very underused or deserted suburban lines and linked them together, adding street running through central Croydon, so that they took people where they really wanted to go and have been a great success.
Yes - amazing isn't it - you put on frequent services, and people use them! I wonder why British Rail (and the companies before it) didn't ever give it a try? South London is generally poorly served, with trains just every half hour - crying out for tube-frequency, and most peole consequently own cars, road traffic is congested, buses get slower and less reliable ...
3:14 Worth noting that the western branch of what is shown as the east London line is the south London line and at 4:14 the eastern branch of what is shown as the north london line is the west london line. Other than that, great video Reece! 👍
When I take the Overground, I'm confused as to whether to call this a rail service or a metro service - the stations and trains feel like a rail service but the frequency makes it look like a metro! And if you think that the Overground is going to stop any time soon, they are STILL proposing new routes (namely the West London Orbital along the Dudding Hill freight line).
Something I think some people take for granted in Victoria is that we have (almost) unified ticketing across most of the state and each type of network (trams, suburban rail, regional rail) only has one operator, and all of it is under the one brand for timetabling. Even if we complain about that unified ticket constantly for it's very silly implementation.
I think it’s worth reiterating just how *bad* some of these services were before the Overground. Infrequent service, old trains, dirty unstaffed stations, poor connections to other modes. To think they had closed the line from Shoreditch to Dalston in the 1980s!
The vast amount of development occurring around LO stations is testament to its success.
Yes indeed. And also how DANGEROUS the pre Overground services were. Making services feel safe is a significant part of the Overground's success. Longitudinal seating helps - harder to get attacked from behind.
@@fToo They're still a bit sketchy in the outskirts - I've seen plenty of crazy people talking to themselves/shouting at each other on the Overground, and I've only been on it a handful of times.
Until Overground I was only vaguely aware any of these lines existed, and never used any of them. I doubt if I'm unusual in that respect.
@@caw25sha my strongest memory of the Silverlink Metro was the smell of urine, and feeling unsafe !
I think you're right, development is a great indicator that a service is seen as having permanence and a positive trajectory!
The Overground is a great example of how relatively straightforward (and not especially expensive) changes can make a big difference. I rarely used the predecessor services when in London, but the integrated fares, branding and minimum service consistency has meant I now use the Overground quite a bit each time I’m there. Would love to see a similar approach taken with Thameslink, which is currently quite confusing for people who don’t use it regularly.
The bad thing about the Thameslink is that TfL won't include it on the main map so most people ignore it, even though it more or less operates as another intra-London route
@@memofromessex It's on the 2023 map.
@@Eddie36144 Yep, it’s good that it’s included - loads of visitors have no idea it existed otherwise, and it’s actually a really useful service for getting to eg Kings Cross.
@@memofromessex All National Rail you can use Oyster on is on the main map (the Tube & Rail Map that's on every platform and that TfL's website defaults to). Thameslink inside zone 1-9 is also on the tube map - even stations that only see 1 train per day (and that not going to the core).
The Silverlink Metro lines had integrated fares before Overgroundisation (though Oysterisation and Overgroundisation were fairly close timewise). Though, certainly, going from a neglected 'branch line' to the main route of an operator trying to get people to use it drastically changed the feel of the line (eg stations were deep cleaned and visibly staffed), even before service increases that came due to the increased popularity.
The ex-Greater Anglia routes were less dramatic a difference when the orange roundels appeared - there were still the improvements at the stations, and (more recently) new trains replacing elderly trains, but service hasn't increased. TfL was worried that the brand would take a bit of a hit due to the reduced scope for improvement - and for similar reasons they have explicitly said they don't want to take over Thameslink as the service is good already and slapping roundels on it wouldn't improve it (and also because Thameslink primarily serves places outside Greater London's journeys to Central London, rather than Greater London itself).
Just saying hello. I used to be a London Overground train driver. Often overlooked, but it's a great little network to get people around London, and has really good punctuality.
Were you assigned to a specific line or did you drive on various lines?
@caw25sha I used to drive Clapham Junction and Richmond to Stratford and Gospel Oak to Barking. Fun fact, although trainspotters call it the GOBLIN, internally the Gospel Oak to Barking Line was simply known as The GOB.
@@ONhistoryplus I don't think TfL will get that past their marketing consultants!
Live a 5 min walk to gospel oak station. Might have used one of your trains.
The newcross terminal should go to lewisham, and the trains are so slow towards whitechapel.
Would be nice if we could get anything like London in other uk cities
Isn't there a plan to convert some old lines in Glasgow, and integrate them with the subway? Liverpool had pretty ok rail too, and a few new stations opening.
As somebody thats lived in the North and currently work in London, the difference is the integrated transportation. I can work anywhere around London by walking 10 mins to the tube, but If I lived in Leeds unless I drove I wouldn't contemplate working in Manchester or Bradford, despite them not being too far.
1. Glasgow does. Not that it works very well. Similarly Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham and Edinburgh all had attempts to build electric urban rail, but they destroyed their city centres too much, refused to build stuff next to train stations so the lines were all disappointments. Also they run them like steam trains ca. 1912 instead of Hamburg or Nagoya in 2023. And so they decided to build dud tram systems instead.
2. It would be nice. But that would mean that those cities would become like London and they would rather decay and die then do that (See history of Outer Britain since 1914).
It would be nice if other cities where net contributors to the U.K. economy. London gets nice things because it’s the only place that contributes more in tax than it takes from the state.
Sucks because it wouldn't be too expensive to expand/build new transit systems around the UK either. Lots of abandoned trackbeds in and around Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, Edinburgh and some other urban areas that would just need some foliage cleared back and a few small land purchases for stations. Very easy wins that could help to kick-start local transit authorities on par with TfL.
Sadly, I know it won't happen any time soon with the current autocrats in Westminster. Every politician in this country seems to believe that it is their God given right to embezzle as much money as is possible, and they sure as hell don't want to waste any of that cash on us proles. The corruption scandal embroiling the SNP right now gives me little hope for any of the devolved governments, too.
Funnily enough, there are actually parts of the Overground that are underground. In fact, at Whitechapel station in east London the London Overground runs below the London Underground! you have to go up stairs to change to the Underground
oh you say this, never mind!
Yeah, same thing in Berlin. Overground has a lot of underground stations and underground has a lot of overground stations.
@@scofield1154 In London, probably a lot of other places too, the categorisation is more about which budget it gets funded from than the actual characteristics of the line.
The East London Line - was originally owned by the Metropolitan Railway, which was reorganised as part of London Transport in the 1930s. It later became its own separate line instead of a branch of the Metropolitan Line, then was moved over to the Overground.
The Northern City Line was also originally owned by the Metropolitan Railway. When it was reorganised as part of London Transport, they moved it to be a branch of the Northern Line, then later it was moved over to British Rail / Network South East / West Anglia Great Northern / First Capital Connect / Great Northern
The Waterloo and City Line was originally owned by the South Western Railway. In the 1930s it was reorganised as part of Southern Railway, then British Rail, then Network South East, then moved over to TFL as an underground line.
The eastern bit of the Central Line was moved over from Great Eastern Railway / LNER in the 1940s, and some of the western bits were originally Great Western Railway
The western bit of the Hammersmith / Circle Line was originally a branch line of the Great Western Railway
Great to see you here Jon!
@@scofield1154 Hamburg too like Landungsbrücken whose U-Bahn stop is elevated while the S-Bahn stop is underground.
The Overground also goes under the Underground at Shepherd's Bush. There the Overground is in a cutting below street level, but you can look up and see the sky. The Hammersmith & City / Circle Line is elevated above street level.
Indeed! Albeit north of the station!
Although the Underground's Central Line does pass under the Overground in Shepherd's Bush itself !
The Middle Ground 😊
Also near Chiswick Park.
When I was in London, I was staying in Marylebone, and making weekly trips to the National Archives at Kew. The Overground was such a blessing. It was clean, reliable, and wide reaching.
Again, a key phrase in understanding London's excellent real network is thus: "already there" . A lot of the above-ground rail passenger service lines and right away existed in some form or another going back to Victorian decades; in other words, good work can be done by joining things together rather than starting from scratch. They are lucky that way.
The other thing is that a lot of the time, these existing train lines are underused and not necessary for national rail. Meanwhile in my city, we have a fairly large suburban commuter rail network, but our track is shared with the national trains that go to and from London, etc. Without space to overtake, it’s very difficult to increase frequency for local station service because then the local train timetables would have a knock on effect on the national services.
Yes, that's what he said in his video.
Some of my family live out on one of the radial Overground lines so we use the services quite a lot when we see them. The trains are great and the TfL branding is really sensible, it makes it so much easier to use from a passenger perspective, especially with the overground being on the tube map.
The Overground is a triumph of good thinking - and one of the ultimate expressions of recycling and reusing. Love it!
Parts of it are charmingly baffling, like at Whitechapel where the overground platforms are beneath the underground platforms! (Edit: I need to be patient!) Parts of the overground are actually older than the tube, the Thames tunnel actually predates the railways.
A guy asked me once where the District line was while I was waiting for the Overground train at Whitechapel. I pointed to the stairs heading up ...but he didn't seem to believe me as clearly he was expecting to be heading down ,as logic would dictate.
The Underground passes over the Overground on the Watford DC line too - at Northwick Park/Kenton. 😄
The Thames tunnel is so marvelous because most commuters probably don't recognize how special it is as they go through!
@@brianparker663 only place in the world where two 6-track railways cross without an interchange station.
@@RMTransit It often comes into my head how old the Thames Tunnel is and how it was built when I'm going through it. It was started 198 years ago and opened 180 years ago. There are occasional walking tours through it when the rest of the line is closed for maintenance.
Would love to see a video on Liverpool with its meresyrail system. Its tunnel network is incredibly impressive for a city that size
Erm ... the City of Liverpool Region plus the Merseyrail terminal areas, eg Chester, is almost 1.75 million population.
I have suggested to RMT he does the Merseyrail as it is now the most modern, second most extensive and only vertically integrated UK Mass Transit system.
@@uingaeoc3905so have i
I'll likely cover it in person at some point!
I think Geoff Marshall has covered it on his channel.
@@PeterGaunt what you mean
In a few respects the Overground is like the S Bahn in German speaking countries.
They do number their S Bahn lines. For instance last week I was in Vienna and amongst other things I visited every station on the U Bahn network. Helping me in this challenge was the U2Z replacement tram as well as S80, S2 and S45 S Bahn trains
Sort of! However, that's why I bring up the Elizabeth line, it in combination with the Overground does many of the things an S-Bahn does, albeit without having the same type of integrated service pattern
Excellent summary! BTW when the Overground network was being put together from existing (usually less frequent) services, a major - and popular - selling point was that all its stations are staffed. You are absolutely right that the branding and publicity (such as way-finding signage) have been critical in getting people to see it as something they could use. Custom could be grown by doubling the minimum frequency to 8 per hour - but this may not be possible everywhere, as some of the OG routes are shared with freight trains
Also, the East London Line already has 4 different services with 4 trains per hour, so going up to 8 tph on all those services would mean 32 trains per hour between Dalston Junction and Surrey Quays. That's more than the line capacity, considering the signalling system that's in use. It might also cause issues because some of these services share tracks with suburban/regional trains on the branches.
If the UK could rein in the cost issues I would really reccomend moving the freight service on the NLL!
RMTransit had an older version of the Overground video that discussed the aspect of sharing with freight. It's sadly missing in this one and that's something I want greater understanding on.
@@wasmic5z Agree that 32 trains per hour is not practical. My solution would be to enlarge the proposed 'New Bermonsey/Canal Road' station on the OG line to Peckham Rye and Clapham, with platforms on the SE suburban lines from London Bridge, and also on the OG line to New Cross Gate, Crystal Palace and Croydon. so no need for the OG New Cross branch: the New Bermondsey interchange would be much better, allowing easy transfers from all the OG lines to SE trains to Greenwich and Woolwich, as well as via Lewisham and Grove Park. Doubled services to Clapham, Crystal Palace and Croydon would give a manageable (and desirable) 24 trains per hour on the OG East London 'main line', and - with 8/16 Southern tph from London Bridge - 24 tph on the Forest Hill/Peckham Rye lines. At last south London would have tube frequencies!
A New Bermondsey interchange would fill one of the gaps in the Overground circle's links. Still remaining would be West London (which is to get Old Oak Common for interchange with the GW main line), Camden Town/Camden Road, Hampstead, and maybe Tuffnell Park (all for interchange with the Northern tube), maybe a better transfer point with the GE mainline at Shoreditch, and OG platforms at Loughborough Junnction; and - of course - Brixton!
@@RMTransit The main pinch-point is the bridge just west of Camden Road station, where four tracks in each direction narrow down to just one pair. Ideal solution would be for a flyover for the freight tracks from Stratford to run (over the Overground tracks) direct to the Primrose Hill route on to the west coast main line. It would be good to know the limits of what modern signalling can enable, in the way of combining a frequent regular suburban service with an infrequent, but highly variable freight schedule!
I commute on one of the Lee Valley routes every day to work and they're wonderful, imo the best way to commute in London. It's quick, reliable,and the new trains are genuinely nice (especially in summer as the air con actually works)
Great video. A driver here for 14 years on LO and its predecessors. Overground in some ways is victim of its own success. Every time it expands and the service increases, new things added, more people come. During COVID for a example only one operator UK wide saw a passenger recovery as strong as on LO. New developments pop up everywhere along its routes and that's testament to its success as a lot of customers see it as a valuable and pleasant option compared to other TOCs. The lines they took over were woeful. (Former Silverlink/Greater Anglia) was a bit of a free for all with limited information, poor frequency, old trains, unmanned stations with no assistance, antisocial behaviour, with most stations looking like they were abandoned in the early 90s. (I kid not some hadn't seen a lick of paint since then) Now its a very different story. Its now a state of the art, safe, reliable railway that truly has transformed the areas it serves. It is still technically split internally into three distinct areas known as North (NLL/GOB/DC) East (West Anglia) and South (ELL) with each area having its own pool of staff. The changes have been huge over the years and it is still in my opinion one of the best Train Operating companies in the UK from a passenger and staff perspective. Expansion my be on the cards soon lots of new ideas have been pushed about as once again it has outgrown its success. Watch this space.
Excellent video as always. Before LO, the routes were all very underutilised, Clapham Junction to Willesden had a handful of peak hour services that only ran to Kensington, and nothing north of that other than an occasional Inter-City service that only stopped at Kenny. The bit of the North London Line that now has a train every 7/8 minutes used to get a 3-car service every twenty minutes. And the trains are busy - build it, and they will come. Another great thing about the orbital routes is that they're busy across the day, not just in the peaks, and they are busy along their length not just at one end as with most radial rail lines.
The London overground system was a real blessing when I travelled there... By the way, you should also make a video about Athens and its metro and tram services.
A video about Athens is definitely in the cards, just have a long list of planned videos!
The Overground is great, especially the "Night Overground" that operates on part of the East London Line on Friday and Saturday nights. I use the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to get to work. The 15 minute frequency could possibly be higher but it is also an important freight route around London to get to docks like Tilbury and London Gateway.
It's worth mentioning the "West London Orbital Line" proposal from Hounslow to West Hampstead and Hendon, which would add to the Overground network, partly using existing lines which are mostly used by freight.
Unfortunately the 15 minute frequency couldn't be higher. The signalling sections are very long and a bay platform at Gospel Oak restricts the frequency. As you mention, it is an important freight route and on some days, there can be a freight train between each overground train. Increasing the frequency would mean late running and reduced reliability.
Whats something that really confusing me about a lot of countries, is how many different train operators there are. In Germany, all short-distance train transport is carried by the same company. We have S- and U-Bahn, thats it. And even the busses - who are operated by different companies follow the same branding. To a degree, that during a busstrike you weren't sure which busses would run.
So, I obviously believe, the London Overground is amazing and does the absolute right thing. Making PT easily accessable is one of its most important features.
(Also - I subscribed to the channel like a week ago, and all I wanted, was a video about the Overground. So good job, bringing me EXACTLY what I waited for xD)
Forgot to mention, that I'm from Germany. But all you metro-nerds should be able to guess that from my comment :)
That thing about same bus different company is also the case in London. Arriva, GoAhead and others all operate routes despite them all having the red branding and being Oyster compatible
The idea of a single operator in Germany was long abolished. I remember the time where the operator switched from DB on most diesel lines in Rhineland Palatinate and Baden-Würtemberg to Vlexx as well as various lines in Hesse (electrified and otherwise) to HLB.
In the UK there is almost always only one company running trains on a particular line. One exception is that both LNER and Lumo run trains between London and Edinburgh. There a probably one or two other examples.
@@caw25sha some of the lines inside London have multiple operators. For example Thameslink and Southern or southern and the overground
When the separate Overground lines are individually named and coloured on the transit map it will help attract even more ridership. Hope they have a competition to create the names.
I'll doubt there'd be a competition, lest we have Tubey McTubeFace (or worse). There will perhaps be a consultation, maybe even with a write in box as well as options TfL have come up with, but no more than that.
@@sihollett Or Goblin McGoblinface.
Yep, waiting for it too. I think the Romford-Upminster line should just be branded as part of the Elizabeth Line for convenience,
Thanks for the in-depth but easy to understand Over-view of the Overground. As a London railway enthusiast I’m particularly proud of it. I look forward to the names given to the various lines within the Network although that might take some getting used to. I feel the service announcements on the Network could simply be more specific. Finally, I would definitely like more of Londons rail services brought under TfL. Cheers
I Agree about the need to name the lines - the current map, briefly shown on this video, is difficult even for me to understand quickly, despite having lived in London for more than forty years. The Brunel line would be good for the one that goes under the Thames in East London, and continues to Clapham Junction via Denmark Hill.
Toronto could apply the overground model to the midtown/CP rail line, though I would divert the line so it passes through Scarborough Town Centre and Mississauga City Centre. It would serve as a connection between the main east and west CBD's in Greater Toronto.
Great content as usual RM!
Thanks for watching, such line diversions probably make sense, but they'd require careful cost control to be practical!
isn't John Tory's "Smart Track" supposed to be like this? Still waiting...
I love the overground. I use it every day. It’s my favorite. I love it. I love it so much. Again I love it.
Correction: The Western branch of the Lea Valley line does not connect with the GOBLIN at South Tottenham. Their paths cross but there is no stop at South Tottenham. If you want to connect, you have to get off at Seven Sisters and walk about two blocks to get to South Tottenham station (and funnily enough, you have to walk SOUTH and not North as the tube map would have you believe). Source: me! I live at South Tottenham at the moment and I'm hearing the GOBLIN drive past right now
Judging by the plain "Walthamstow" for the Goblin/Chingford connection, the notion was that the Goblin and Cheshunt/Enfield branch both stop near one another in the South Tottenham area (it appears on maps, including the OS), which is true. Though obviously that's confusing due to one station being called that, and the other being called Seven Sisters.
@@sihollett Yep, I should have referred to it as a connection "near" rather than at - but, I think thats sort of the point of the connectivity stuff I mentioned!~
@@RMTransit if Crossrail 2 had happened, it would have become one station (as Hackney Downs/Central now is - though probably with a shorter walk between the sets of Overground platforms!).
The Seven Sisters interchange is the best OSI the Goblin has - not far and well signed.
And I'd much rather have a bad OSI than the nothing that many other cities would have in a similar situation!
@@sihollettJust for glueing multiple stations alone (two Dalstons & giant Euston McPancras) Crossrail 2 has to happen!! Big fan of non-gateline interchanges
@@rynabuns, what's wrong with OSIs?
Seeing firsthand the improvements to both the Goblin and Northern London line in my opinion the Overground has been the most successful additions to London’s public transport infrastructure in recent years. More so than the Lizzy line.
I first used the both lines in 2006 a year before TFL took over. And they were both neglected in so many ways. Since the much needed investment and attention brought from its branding. It has transformed them into well utilised and essential services and opened up parts of London not many people not aware of.
The overground is such a nice network which connects the suburbs of London.
The concept behind the Overground is really similar to what the "Metrovia" independent project aims to do in Rome.
Rome's transit situation is a real mess, but it could be interesting to make a video about it.
As someone who's been visiting London regularly since the late 90s, finding our that the Overground has only been a thing since 2007 really threw me. This is the understated genius of its branding; it wasn't jarring or controversial, it just fitted in so cleanly and seamlessly that it feels like it's always been there.
It probably also helps that it fits into the theme tune from The Wombles, which practically every child in the UK since the 1970s has known ("Underground, overground, wombling free...").
I have spent literally ALL WEEK trying to find a good source of information on the Overground--almost to the point of directly asking you to make a video on it. This could not have been more perfectly timed!
The Overground is a resounding success, taking lines that were scarcely used and making them into important commuter corridors for millions of people....bring on the West London Orbital line!
yay! another RMTransit video! I reacon Perth dosent really need the Overground type railway yet....BUT your content always entertains me! Thanks again!
Perth has it's own interesting above ground railways!
Hey Reece, I really appreciate you making this video as a regular Overground user. It's such a positive force in London's transport network and I hope more South London suburban rail routes get taken over by TfL in some way. I would like to clarify that I THINK in the radial lines further out (definitely separately at Cheshunt and Enfield Town), trains are every 30 minutes during off-peak periods which can be a bit stifling when trying to use it during those periods.
That is an excellent summary of the system. Thanks you for posting
Reese, I really like your point of rebranding/integrating the mishmash of systems in metro area transit; it will make it better to navigate.
I love how colorful trains in London are. I wish we added more color to our subway cars too. Whether that's NY Subway, Chicago L or other systems! Less silver, more color!
It's a great way to combine the low capital costs and features of commuter rail with the service of a metro, in which we get Regional Rail! The Overground is so good that some of New York's commuter rail services could be like this and if Kathy Hochul knew what regional rail was so that the IBX could exercise the potential of RER. But this requires a change of attitude that the MTA will never do.
Interesting comparison with IBX in NY. Sadly, although this is predicted to have largest ridership of any new transit system in the US, the current plan is crippled by choice of Light Rail and street running, with LRVs turning onto and off a through truck route every 2.5 minutes.
I remember when the Overground was first launched. I was a bit sceptical. I tried it out when it was new, but there weren't many lines, the frequencies were only every 20 minutes and some lines were using class 172 DMUs. It didn't feel like the Underground at all. BUT, within a few short years, it has become a regular feature of my journeys around London and mostly a pleasure to use. My only beef is that the seats are quite hard for a long journey half way around the city. Otherwise, I can't really fault it.
Hey, be thankful they don't have hard and slippery plastic/metal seats!
@@ballyhigh11 Haha. Yeah, I guess it could be worse.
The overground is great if you want to cross town without passing central London. Used to live in east so I would take it from stratford to go to Hampstead to see friends! Or when out partying in Clapham to get
To Whitechapel and then continue into east London
The Overground has been an excellent edition even if there are still one or two notable omissions to it's network (the biggest one being passing through Brixton without stopping due to the cost of building on a elevated railway). As for the multitude of operators in London being confusing, this is mitigated by the fact that Oyster Card is accepted on all operators within Greater London (and even to a number of stations outside of Greater London such as up to the two Hertford stations, out to Grays, down the Brighton mainline to Gatwick, etc)
Being local to the NLL (north London line) I was very pleased to see this video, and a brilliant explanation of it too! One of the things I find most fascinating is the presence of heavy freight trains on the network connecting from one main line to another via the orbital routes. A wonderful video!
That was great Reece. When I was a kid and visited my Nanny and Grandad in Tottenham, Bruce Grove was the nearest British Rail station. Diesel engines, dirty stations, every forever to run. ow it is on the Overground Enfield Town/Chestnut line, and now connects with the Victoria line. Well done TFL!
Cheshunt.
I was staying at my sisters house which is near South Acton station. I was traveling on the overground every day to get to central London
A big part of the success is the integrated payment system - Oyster card or tap to pay, just like the tube and busses. Removes a huge barrier to usage.
A key part of the overground as a student, the huge advantage of the overground is fare intergration, and cheap fares to begin with. Yes you can use oyster on all but you end up paying double fares is you don't cap. Though it is also less liked than southern where it operates shared routes due to it's little trains which become very crouded at peak and only-having tube style seating.
You are capped at the price of a one day or one week travel card. If you change between underground and overground, it is treated as a single journey.
@@katrinabryce That what I mean about it being TFL intergrated, however if you don't travel enough for a travel card, the fare prices when traveling on nation rail are about twice as much in the case of southern and if you use NR and tube you get charged the sum of both fares, which doesn't happen with overground as you say, making it far cheaper.
@@MaebhsUrbanity This is/was only a benefit of Overground on the East London Line's southern extensions. The lines into Euston and Liverpool Street have seen TfL have to keep legacy London Terminals fares as they were cheaper than the zonal fare (which included LU/DLR in the price pre-Overground takeover). Also, the Liverpool Street lines north of the Victoria line/east of Stratford have some non zone-1 fares more expensive than the standard TfL scale, due to keeping some other legacy fares in return for keeping the London Terminals fare (until they stopped it as the fare freeze on zonal fares, coupled with the standard NR fare increases on point-to-point, meant it wasn't cheaper anymore)
I do think I huge issue in London is the fare systems are still rather complex! It's not good for sure!
As a Londoner interested in railways, I think your video is a wonderful concise but comprehensive overview of the London Overground.
It is useful for orbital routes that avoid Central London. For example I have used it to travel from Gospel Oak to Richmond.
Always thought that the Overground should encompass all urban rail services in London. So TfL operate Southeastern, Southern, Southwest etc. suburban services that are currently hideously unreliable and inadequate
Love the overground. I used to travel from Manor House to West Ham for work so caught 4 trains in less than 30 minutes (3 for one stop).
The beauty of the networking is the redundancy built in. If there were issues on a line there were multiple workarounds to get home.
Reece. I think you understate the changes required to create London Overground even where there was no new railway line.
Frequencies were increased, new through services created, and rolling stock vastly improved. The other key change was staffing of stations and improvement of station environments and facilities.
It was a lot more than a rebrand as you imply.
It was still a lot easier and a LOT cheaper than the Lizzie Line.
And the GOBLIN electrification was an epic undertaking. With the usual delays and frustrations and cost overruns.
In the sixties there were plans to have four urban motorways in London and some of the pre-Overground lines would be converted to roads.
The Minister of Transport owned a road construction company ,Marples Ridgway-he later fled to Monaco....
They wouldn't have been converted to motorways, but rather the motorways would have been built alongside the rail viaducts as that created an easier alignment to plough a motorway through as already somewhat visually and sonically blighted, and already somewhat severed by the transport link.
That Marples owned a motorway company is neither here nor there for the existence of plans - they were drawn up in the war before Marples was even an MP, and the inner motorway box was a GLC project, not an MOT one. And lets not forget that even with Marples' motorway construction madness, we have a much more threadbare motorway network in Britain compared to other developed Western European countries - especially when it comes to urban motorways.
New or old, the number one thing I takeaway from London is that we, in Canada, need to focus more on quantity of stations/size of network, than on beautification of them. Yes, a nice station is well..nice; however, London, (and other cities with large, older networks,) show that a station doesn't have to be unique or fancy to be nice and useful. The vast majority of stations in London are simple brick stations with iron or wood covers over only part of the platform nearest the entrance, and the entrance/concourse is usually a simple shelter. Art and colour can be added, but imo we spend far too much money on making each station unique and over complicated when it could be spent on having more stations.
5 beautiful and unique stations, or 10 basic ones that actually serve their main purpose of being public transportation? I would choose the latter.
Not having to walk to far to or from the trainstation means you are much more likely to use it. Having it integrated with tube and bus makes it even more so.
in terms of sharing track with the underground, quite a great length of the Watford DC line is shared with the bakerloo, still doesn't make it any less weird to have a third rail line running next door to a 4 track overhead electrified line!
5:27 fun fact…That exact train (class 378/201) *dual voltage* was the first new overground train introduced in to service back in 2008, a year after London overground started. Back then it was numbered 378/001 with 3 cars until a few years later when they increased capacity, lengthened platforms and added 2 more carriages. The identical dc/3rd rail only class 378/1**s were then introduced on the East London line.
Another great thing about the overground is they're unionised differently, so they're rarely on strike when the tube is! XD
Same unions but they negotiate directly with TFL. The National Government has less opportunity and reason to interfere in the negotiations.
One thing you didn't mention about the current uniform colour and branding is how confusing this can be in the line diagrams inside Tube carriages. Tge Victoria Line, for example, connects with the London Overground at Euston, Highbury and Islington, Seven Sisters, Blackhorse Road and Walthamstow Central, but these are all on completely different lines which isn't obvious just from the line diagram.
So I grew up in London from 1999 to 2018, so I saw the whole process unfold.
The Overground is proof you need to take a leap of faith when trains aren't good enough.
One of the main excuses for northern towns getting hourly services is 'low passenger numbers'. This is both untrue and also because of how bad the service is.
The North London Line was falling apart by 2007, and Silverlink were going to pull the plug either way. It was the perfect backbone for something like LO, and while it was redirected at Stratford, and never got to go to Woolwich, it was still a huge improvement, so much so that the trains went from 3 cars to 4, and then 4 to 5 in a matter of years.
Seriously, TfL proved something with LO, to the point it is consistently in the top 3 train operating companies in the UK to date.
The Overground is underrated for tourists. Modern, tall, fast, colorful, and very easy. In my opinion, the US should have something like that, but it probably won’t happen anytime soon
'The Overground is underrated for tourists.' As explained, the Overground skirts the touristy parts - the City and West End - and tourists go for the more familiar inter-connectivity of London Underground.
Thameslink does serve a slightly different purpose. But definitely still a lot of scope for London to push on further
It does, sort of, but with the Liz reaching Reading I don't see that as too dissimilar to Thameslink reaching Peterborough, even it is much further. Regular user of the Peterborough branch here.
TFL shows how government run rail could be done around the country, instead of the current hell that is rail travel and it's price.
Long standing Londoner here. I know a fair bit about all this, but what a great summary you gave there! V good indeed.
Love taking the dog for a walk and listening to your videos. He get fed up with me coz I keep stopping to rewind and watch what you said about.
I live in London and I barely use the overground. But I do think it is one of the better networks in London
Great video Reece!!
Yes, they've started the process of making each of the different Overground lines stand out more, with their own colours, etc...
Good summation. I live in Walthamstow and catch the Chingford line or Goblin over the tube. I also travel to Stoke Newington a lot from my work at Soitwark and would rather go the xtra distance to Canada Water and get the Overground than do the Jubilee/Victoria line. New airconditioned trains that rarely have delays. Weekends are a lottery though, especially the Chingord line.
Overground is what Paris painfully tries to make with tram trains running on the old Great Belt railroad (Grande Ceinture).
Moscow is doing the same by turning a old freight circle railroad into a ringbahn of sorts. Seems to work quite well.
@@jandron94 No, you're confusing Grande Ceinture and Petite Ceinture !
The Grande Ceinture is indeed being used for new and recent tram-train lines, namely T12 and T13. It is located well into the suburbs, not touching the core city.
What you are mentioning are the T3a & T3b, also known as the "Maréchaux trams", running on the Maréchaux boulevards, roughly parallel to the "Périphérique" inner ring road and the *Petite* Ceinture, not the *Grande* Ceinture !
From my schooldays in the 1960s I remember often having to use the grotty old Broad Street to Richmond line. It was even a target of the incredibly short-sighted and destructive Beeching axe, but fortunately was saved. Always a struggle using it. The revamp as part of the Overgound has utterly transformed it.
When talking about Overground, it's always worth pointing out that East London Line runs via first underwater tunnel to be build
I loved Geoffe Marshall and Vicki Pipe's Overground races. They were a great team and the races were fun.
Its worth mentioning that ticketing integration is not the same thing as a line becoming part of London Overground. Mainline stations that are on the London suburban rail map shown as being in a London fare zone are all valid for contactless travel and subject to TfL fare capping, and that zone is about to expand massively to include many more stations in new zones.
Because of a very high degree of interworking between metro and suburban rail services, it isn't really possible to rebrand the trains themselves to LO.
For the time being, i think the best thing for TfL to do is to add some local trains to their maps (looking at you, Moorgate line!), as they have done for Thameslink. Most travellers can't tell that Thameslink isn't a part of TfL, but do understand its brand identity. If we can manage that with all of the principal metro area rail operators, then it will really improve way finding.
@@richardwills-woodward I suspect a neo-NSE would be more like a "GBR metropolitan" brand, and would bear little to no resemblance to the former NSE.
It's worth remembering that Tokyo is not a unified or simple system, but JR East is. City center lines need to be tightly differentiated for wayfinding purposes (like Thameslink and the EL), but it's perfectly possible that the suburban rail network covered by contactless travel could be unified later.
The whole UK has so many tracks but London looks like the only place that actually develops good transit.
That's because the government spends significantly more in London and the South East compared to the rest of the country.
There are new services opening up - a load of new stations in the West Midlands (following on from the creation of the cross-city line some years ago), a reopened line out of Newcastle, and new suburban stations around Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds. etc. But the rail network is much more dense in London - the city grew with the spread of the suburban railways and is uniquely dependent on them - in other UK cities the size of cities and nature of employment meant that buses and trams worked better at the time, and there are no motorways in central London unlike most of the regional cities. Things are changing, demand has shot up elsewhere, new services are being created, and so on. But traffic density is always going to make this more difficult to justify. A half of all rail journeys in the UK start or end in London, and the Elizabeth Line carries about a sixth of all National Rail traffic (in terms of journeys) by itself.
Unlike most other countries the UK is heavily centralised. Politicians in Westminster decide how much gets spent on infrastructure elsewhere, as sub-national government is given only a tiny proportion of tax revenue, and isn't allowed to raise its own taxes. Unsurprisingly, Westminster polititicians are only interested in what is best for London. That is how areas like Greater Manchester and the West Midlands which each are just under 1/3 the population of Greater London, but get only a tiny fraction (1/20th IIRC) of the transport spend. Never mind smaller towns and cities. London has all the good transport because that is what our London-centric political system wants.
@@Kodasik to an extent, but there are factors that make public transport (which is inherently more expensive for governments to provide for) more necessary and financially viable than elsewhere in the UK. Population of the urban area is 4 times that of Manchester or the W Mids. Population density is 40-50% greater. Historically employment in London was very highly focused, but in regional cities it wasn't (by the nature of the relevant industries). There are no motorways into the centre of London. There is a lot more long distance commuting where buses or driving is impractical (50-100 miles each way). Fares are higher (as are wages) and London is one of the few cities in the world where transport operational expenditure has to be met by fares, that makes it difficult to get a good BCR for other cities. Crowding on public transport in London is (at least it was before COVID) a lot worse - I once got a complaint from someone who had to stand for fifteen minutes on his train into Manchester; I had spent an hour and twenty minutes standing to get to London, and then had to wait for four tube trains before I could get to the platform edge and force myself onto a train. I'm not sure how I responded....
Kind of fun watching this video whilst passing through Denmark Hill on a Thameslink train and looking out at an Overground train 😊
Normally I feel like youve missed something or not quite got a nuance with the UK, but this video is pretty much spot on, excellent work!
It would have been interesting to hear you disucss 2 concepts in a bit more depth if you could stretch to 15 minutes - the use of the core and branches model to run metro frequencies where its busiest, and the impact of rebuild the passenger areas of stations into nice places to be that transformed riderships. Perhaps a deeper look at the North London and East London lines might follow in a future video?
I wonder if NYC can learn from
the Overground how to use already-there rail infrastructure effectively. I'm thinking specifically of inter-outer-borough train service, though I think East Side Access is an example, albeit one that's highly focused on one station obviously.
Great video as always!
I remember staying at my Aunts' flat in Battersea in the late 80's/very Early 90's, which overlooked the section of track between Clapham Junction and Imperial Wharf (Imperial Wharf hadn't been built back then!). Before the Overground, it was very infrequently used for passenger services and was mainly for freight movements.
My 12 to 15 year old self would often wonder where those trains were going, and it wasn't until very recently I got to travel over that section in person.
Good work as always!
There are a few transit systems about which I'd like to see explainer videos:
* Buenos Aires Subte - because it's the oldest metro system in the Southern Hemisphere, and one of the oldest in the Americas
* Bilbao's various conveyances - it's kind of a crazy hodgepodge of different systems, but overall seems like a very good system for a medium-sized city
* The Moscow and/or St. Petersburg and/or Kyiv Metro - well ... there's the famously ornate station architecture, the insane depth of many of the lines, and then there's this thing called the "horizontal lift" which they have in St. Petersburg - Wikipedia says it's a variant of platform screen doors, but doesn't really show or explain how it works.
Thanks for everything!
The Overground has underground sections and the Underground is majority overground. London is weird.
Could be worse, you could be Whitechapel, where the Overground goes under the Underground
Weird and I love it!
Dalston Kingsland and Dalston Junction are also very close
I have lived in London for over 60 years . only found about these lines fairly recently , I mainly use the Nw london section , either to Hamstead . Shepherds Bush and Richmond . it,s much nicer to use than the Underground and much better and quicker in some cases
I remember the old lines that a portion of the Overground took over. The Silverlink Metro / North London Line service which ran from North Woolwich - Richmond via Highbury and Islington and Stratford. A portion of which the Elizabeth Line runs on from Custom House to Woolwich Arsenal, with the absence of the stops at Silvertown and North Woolwich. (Which used to have a train museum, loved it as a kid). They ran class 313s and 315s I believe. They did a rebrand somewhere in the mid 90s I remember their Blue, White and Red carriages becoming a green and purple colour and a yellow painted interior.
Service wasn't great and I still remember the smell. (discarded alcohol usually)
when i was living i england this past year I took the overground, themes link and Elizabeth line and i was definitely surprised at how similar the urban london part of themeslink was to the others. I also saw calls to bring the Southeastern lines under the overground, not only because of branding but also because TfL services were far better managed snd had fewer cuts to future services (such as an Elizabeth line connection) than the national rail carriers did
There's also the DLR, Docklands Light Railway, which is separate from both the Underground and the Overground.
Done it before about a year ago
And the trams.
Fun fact: I’m pretty sure you can get from and zone 2+ station to any other zone 2+ station without every going into zone 1 and paying an extra fair, albeit with a lot of train hopping and an indirect route, however money is saved.
It's especially good for south London, which has minimal Tube coverage. I'm certain that it is key part to the gentrification of places like Peckham.
Saw a Singapore Skylines set in the background! I have one too! Singapore's my favorite city/country in Asia!
As a Londoner, I loved this video :)
One issue with the Overground is that a lot of people often refer to stations that are not part of the Overground but another national rail operator as the "Overground". Especially when advertising spare rooms or events/venues, e.g. "nearest Overground Station: Lewisham".
That's because the term "overground" was used long before it became a brand to distinguish national rail lines (particularly the Southern Region) from the Underground. I remember it being used thus in the 1970's.
@@1258-Eckhart growing up, I’ve never heard the term ‘overground’ being used prior to the conception of “London Overground”. National rail or simply trains was always used.
I guess it depends on where you grew up.
Nice video, although I would note that on the branches to Enfield and Cheshunt trains run every alternate 15 minutes, which means that beyond the point where the line splits there is only a half hourly service - annoying for me as I sometimes travel to Southbury on the Cheshunt branch.😢
Edit: BTW, you can get from one end of London to the other without going through the central area. The ticketing system takes this into account when calculating the fare. So for those who are time rich but cash poor, you can save a couple of quid in exchange for a slightly longer journey time.
Pink readers ftw!
Please please please do the Tyne and Wear Metro (serves England's third biggest city, Newcastle - and sadly also 'Sunderland', England's worst city)
In person someday!
Come now. I’m from Gateshead and there is no chance Newcastle is the third biggest city in England. Also, Newcastle is not Sunderland and Sunderland is not Newcastle. Never has, never will. It’s like those annoying people that call it NewcastleGateshead. Grrr
Newcastle isn’t the 3rd biggest city in England, it depends on how you define it but at most it’s about 5th and the city itself is around 7th.
It's surprisingly exhilarating hearing somebody from overseas mentioning Enfield Town and the Lea Valley lines. Mind you, as much as I enjoy Enfield's trains, I hate its bus routes. Frequently stuck in traffic and at the mercy of industrial vehicles entering from the M25. Plus there's the A1010 Great Cambridge road blasting its noisy way through the centre of the borough...
At least they've started making some effort with cycling initiatives. I just wish they'd do some East/West rail links. Going North and South is fine, but it can take more time to go from Waltham Cross to Enfield Town (only buses, around 29 to 35 minute) than it does going from Waltham Cross to Liverpool Street (via train, 32 minutes). Completely baffling.
I kinda want trams like they have in Plzeň. Their integration is superb!
I live right off a London overground station that was included in the East London Line extension, I think the overground is amazing, it practically acts like a metro system, very reliable and clean too. I think it would be great to see more national rail lines be converted to overground, especially those going properly into London suburbs down south. One issue I do have though is the reduction in National Rail services from the intermediate stations into east Croydon and further south, now almost entirely replaced by a weird and very infrequent u-shaped service between Victoria and London Bridge. I know the Mayor has tried to get all suburban services under LO but if it doesn’t happen certain routes like the Hayes mainline which would be near perfect for metro style operation REALLY need to be added to the overground network although it’s actually planned to be part of the baker loo line which is arguably better
Love it
Very underrated. Use it all the time but one major issue is the transfers. Gospel Oak terminates from Barking riverside but doesn't seamlessly connect to the main line. This is to allow for freight traffic I believe.
Nice to have an independent external view of this, especially so appreciative and positive. Fully agree that it has been a great success story of the last 15 years, particularly useful for orbital travel and making use of previously abandoned or run-down lines. The new routes were popular from day one and indeed can get pretty crowded. An interesting parallel is Croydon Tramlink which took some very underused or deserted suburban lines and linked them together, adding street running through central Croydon, so that they took people where they really wanted to go and have been a great success.
Yes - amazing isn't it - you put on frequent services, and people use them! I wonder why British Rail (and the companies before it) didn't ever give it a try? South London is generally poorly served, with trains just every half hour - crying out for tube-frequency, and most peole consequently own cars, road traffic is congested, buses get slower and less reliable ...
when I first started using the overground it was the south suburban railway running in t0 the London terminal Vict0ria and London Bridges
A huge benefit of the overground compared to the tube for me is being able to avoid the higher fares by avoiding central london
3:14 Worth noting that the western branch of what is shown as the east London line is the south London line and at 4:14 the eastern branch of what is shown as the north london line is the west london line. Other than that, great video Reece! 👍
They are talking about giving the Overground lines their own names to help navigation.
When I take the Overground, I'm confused as to whether to call this a rail service or a metro service - the stations and trains feel like a rail service but the frequency makes it look like a metro!
And if you think that the Overground is going to stop any time soon, they are STILL proposing new routes (namely the West London Orbital along the Dudding Hill freight line).
It's close to an S Bahn then
Something I think some people take for granted in Victoria is that we have (almost) unified ticketing across most of the state and each type of network (trams, suburban rail, regional rail) only has one operator, and all of it is under the one brand for timetabling. Even if we complain about that unified ticket constantly for it's very silly implementation.