In his 2021 London Mayoral Election Manifesto, Sadiq Khan proposed giving names (and potentially their own colours) to London Overground lines to give them a unique identity.
“TfL’s London Overground network has grown considerably over recent years, and to reflect this I’ll launch a programme to name individual routes, giving each its own identity.”
Sadiq Khan
So confusing are the Overground lines, all of the same orange on all TfL maps, that passengers often call it orange spaghetti. The Evening Standard quoting Khan as stating at the time that the name proposals for the Overground lines will be:
“rigorously assessed to ensure they only serve to enhance the passenger experience… based on individuals, places or local landmarks who have made noteworthy, but potentially under-recognised, contributions to London life.
“Naming the lines will not only help educate visitors about what our amazing city and incredible history but will also make it easier for people who live, work or visit London to more easily navigate the city.”
sadiq khan
The TfL 2023-24 Budget was released 22 March 2023, and included the understated and easy to miss text “£4m LO renaming” on a chart that this project is going forward. This budget is notable for TfL’s optimism around further recovery in passenger numbers.
Before anyone gets too excited, the header image is TfL’s 2015 Tube Map mockup, and is not official. More about it later.
Public transport maps are critical for navigating systems, especially complex networks such as London’s numerous rail networks: Underground, Overground, Crossrail, Trams, (and Thameslink). The more complex the network, the more crucial the need for clarity.
On the surface, it appears that giving names to the individual Overground lines would be quite straightforward. Just pick some line names and colours, add them into the Tube Map legend, change some station signs, and you’re good to go. Passengers will be less confused, more will ride these lines, and everyone will be happy. But as with any transport change in London, what we see is only the tip of the iceberg, there are far more substantial issues under the surface that have to be dealt with.
The need for, and delivery of, clarity
The need for public transport information clarity was something that Harry Beck understood in the early 1930s when he created his now famous London Tube map. It has spawned many similar maps around the world, as well as a dedicated field of study and the practice of public transport map design.
The idea of much simpler Overground line names is nothing new, having been voiced whence the Overground was initially launched in 2007. Originally consisting of four lines – the North London, GOBLIN, West London, and Watford DC, and even with the addition of the East London Line in 2010, the single Overground identity still seemed manageable. However with the addition of the South London Line in 2012 and the three devolved Lea Valley branches to Overground in 2015, the plethora of lines and terminals tipped things over the edge. With the four southern branches of the East London Line, the need for clarity of line names was increasingly evident.
Overground line renaming has been in work since at least 2015
In fact, this image below shows that TfL has been working on this for a long time, starting well before the Mayor’s 2021 campaign pledge. This image of a never released May 2015 Tube Map Poster was posted to the internet at that time, showing the six Overground lines with unique names and differently coloured hollow (railway track) lines:
It is amazing how less cluttered the Map appears without the mass of orange spaghetti.
What TfL, and no-one else, calls its Overground lines
Although Overground line names are well-established and widely used, such as East London Line (which used to be part of London Underground before 2007), North London Line, GOBLIN, West London Line, Lea Valley lines, Watford DC, and Romford – Upminster Line, they are not officially named as such on TfL’s Tube Maps, posters, Status Updates displays etc.
Instead, TfL refers to these six lines by their terminals:
- Richmond and Clapham Junction to Stratford
- Watford Junction to Euston
- Gospel Oak to Barking
- Highbury & Islington to New Cross, Clapham Junction, Crystal Palace and West Croydon
- Liverpool Street to Enfield Town, Cheshunt (via Seven Sisters) and Chingford
- Romford to Upminster
Most of these line names are much too long and unwieldy. Not only that, but these line names break with the naming tradition of almost every other Tube line name – only one of which was named after its (initial) terminals (the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway – Bakerloo).
Overground line name changes: Brakes applied
We do not currently know what stopped the release of the individual Overground names in 2015. Tfl is rightly concerned about its brand, and typically studies many angles of any proposed change. TfL knows well that there is plenty of opportunity to get the Overground line breakout wrong – recall the eruption of protest when TfL removed the Thames from the Tube Map in 2009. Clearly, given that more lines will likely be devolved to the Overground eventually (which we’ll look at shortly), something needs to be done to quickly and easily identify the individual lines of the mode.
Nevertheless, we can look at the history of line name changes of Overground and it’s originating railways to get a better idea of name history and what the passengers themselves call these lines.
Déjà vu all over again
To go back a few decades, around 1988 the then recently-formed Network SouthEast (NSE) started rebranding some of its lines with new names, to make the network easier to remember and use. The idea was to make thinking of and describing use of the lines as easy as ‘Take the X to N station and change to the Y’, as a sort of ‘country’ version of London Underground lines, to increase ridership. Unfortunately, not many line names had been converted by the time privatisation was unleashed, but many of the unimplemented NSE names became the names of the let franchises.
One of the NSE services that was renamed was the Watford DC line, becoming the Harlequin line. The name was formed from a portmanteau of stations HARLEsden and QUEENs Park, and was the winner of a local schoolchildren competition.
What’s in a name?
Talking about names, TfL’s Editorial Style Guide refers to the Overground as London Overground – as if there is a Midlands Overground or some other similarly named system in the country. The Underground is well understood in the UK as London’s system. By the same token, passengers call the London’s Overground the Overground. No distinction by city is necessary – unless comparing it to other cities, when one would say London Underground, one would also then say London Overground.
Fortunately, there are historical and/or popular names that could be officially adopted for the individual Overground lines:
North London line
Historical name – North London line, having been built as the North London Railway in 1853.
Notably, the London & North Western Railway later operated an Outer Circle service along the North London Railway and West London Railway, thence along the District Railway, between 1872 and 1908 (although not a complete circumnavigation).
The problem with the ‘North London line’ name is that, although it is close to the historical name of the original railway, it is too similar to ‘Northern line’ (which itself has two branches).
Furthermore, should DfT actually get around to transferring the Northern City Line to TfL, there would be all too many ‘North’ lines, and all in the same quadrant of the map.
In addition, the North London line has its two western terminals south of the Thames.
Some have suggested the Regent, or Regency, line, as much of this railway runs parallel to Regent’s Canal. But do we really need yet another TfL line linked to royalty?
Others have suggested Olympic line, as it connects Olympic Park next to Stratford to Kensington (Olympia), as well as the West London line branch to Clapham Junction passing close to the White City site of the 1908 Summer Olympics and the Shepherd’s Bush Overground station.
Nonetheless, a better representation of the geographical locations of this line and its branches, whilst keeping the link to their historical names, is:
- North & West London line
Colloquial name – North London line
Potential name – North & West London line
Watford DC
Historical name – The LNWR built this line originally and called it the Premier line. This line was then called the ‘Harlequin Line’ by North London Railways and Network SouthEast – the portmanteau of line stations Harlesden and Queen’s Park – before being renamed by Silverlink Metro.
Colloquial name – Watford line
Likely name – Watford line
GOBLIN
Historical name – Tottenham and Hampstead Junction line (T&H), then Gospel Oak to Barking line (GOBLIN).
Colloquial name – GOBLIN has it all, history, evocative name.
Likely name – GOBLIN
East London line
This line now has four (southern) branches, so individual branch names would be helpful (in for a penny, in for a pound).
Historical name – The East London Railway, and later London Transport’s East London line (ELL) only went as far south as New Cross and New Cross Gate. However, the Clapham Junction and Sydenham corridor Overground branches now extend south from the ELL and are shared with other operators’ services. Passengers of those sections do not associate them as being ELL, but as part of a multi-operator service.
To better represent the geographical locations of these segments, however, as well as keeping the link to their historical names, it would be instructive to use the example of the North & West London line:
- East & South London line
Despite being called the East London railway or line since it opened in 1869, Brunel line would be an historic alternate choice – Sir Marc Isambard Brunel invented the tunneling shield, then constructed the pioneering Thames Tunnel, through which the core East London line operates. And as for diversity, he was also French.
Colloquial name – East London line
Potential names – East & South London line, Brunel line
Lea Valley lines
This line has a trunk and three branches, to Enfield Town, Cheshunt, and Chingford.
Historical name – The Enfield and Chingford branches were previously known as the Jazz services before nationalisation.
Transport names – West Anglia Inners. These lines are also known by train drivers as the impressive triple portmanteau ‘Chenford’, from CHEshunt, ENField, and ChingFORD. However, another Lea Valley, non-Overground line has since been added: Stratford – Meridian Water (formerly Angel Road), operated by Greater Anglia.
Colloquial name – Lea Valley lines.
Likely names – Lea Valley lines. If the branches are split out, Forest Line would be good for the Chingford branch, given Chingford is in Waltham Forest and is at the edge of Epping Forest.
Romford – Upminster
Historical name – This shuttle has long been called the ‘Push-and-Pull’ by many using it.
Colloquial name – Rominster is the portmanteau used at LR Towers, and perhaps to a lesser extent in the community.
Likely name – As this shuttle’s only intermediate station is Emerson Park, this makes the Emerson line a strong contender. Rominster is also in the running.
The following image is from TfL’s Overground May 2015 Tube Map Poster mock-up above:
Comparing Overground names & line colours
| TfL Official Name | Generally Accepted Name | May 2015 Tube Map Mock-up Name & Colour | |
| Richmond and Clapham Junction to Stratford | North London | North London (Bakerloo line brown?) | |
| Watford Junction to Euston | Watford DC | Watford local (Northern line black?) | |
| Gospel Oak to Barking | GOBLIN | Barking (Hammersmith & City rose?) | |
| Highbury & Islington to New Cross, Clapham Junction, Crystal Palace, and West Croydon | East London | East London (Overground orange) | |
| Liverpool Street to Enfield Town, Cheshunt (via Seven Sisters) and Chingford | Lea Valley | Lea Valley (District line green?) | |
| Romford to Upminster | Romford – Upminster | Emerson Park (Jubilee line silver?) |
How to deal with the branches?
Historically, London Transport had sometimes named individual branches of lines:
- In 1970, the East London Railway section of the Metropolitan line was renamed the Metropolitan line – East London Section.
- Around the same time, the Northern City line was known as the Northern line – Highbury Branch.
- The Piccadilly line’s Aldwych Branch.
- The District line’s Kensington (Olympia) Branch
The Overground branch name could follow the precedent of the first two instances immediately above, taking the name of the branch terminus station. This would enable identification of individual branch disruption or works thus:
- North London line – Richmond branch
- North London line – Clapham Junction branch
- East London line – New Cross branch
- East London line – West Croydon branch
- East London line – Crystal Palace branch
- East London line – Clapham Junction branch
- Lea Valley line – Enfield Town branch
- Lea Valley line – Cheshunt (via Seven Sisters) branch
- Lea Valley line – Chingford branch
This provides the simple ability to identify of the core line, or just the branch, has a disruption. For instance, a closure on the Lea Valley line would mean the trunk and all branches, whereas a Lea Valley line – Chingford Branch closure would just be that branch.
What complicates the Lea Valley lines is that the line to Chingford uses different tracks from the Enfield Town and Cheshunt branches. This is most clearly shown on the Overground Network TfL map, as the Chingford branch trains don’t stop at Cambridge Heath or London Fields (although all branches’ trains do stop at Bethnal Green). Hence the Lea Valley lines’ common section is only a short trunk.
What will, and should, the line naming process be?
Whilst speculating on line names is an interesting exercise, it all comes down to how the Mayor wishes to proceed. In line with his promise to bring individuals, places or local landmarks who have made noteworthy contributions to London life, would the Mayor put the naming of Overground lines to a public consultation?
Other cities allow local communities input on the names of new stations – why not ask the public about the name of lines? This would be better than some politician picking a name to curry favour of a person or for political reasons. Obviously, a short list is preferable, to avoid the controversy of Orange McOverground flavoured lines. The Evening Standard had stated that “Borough councils, London Travelwatch and the Mayor’s Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, will be asked their views” on prospective Overground line names.
Naming lines is not something TfL treats lightly, as we investigated a few years back when Crossrail was ordained the Elizabeth line. However, one hopes that TfL will respect and use the names that the majority of passengers themselves use, instead of the name of some personage who is not nearly as well known or relevant.
Victoria car line diagram: Overground is an anonymous connection
Looking at the Victoria Line diagram map, the north Zone 3 stations such as Walthamstow Central, Blackhorse Road, and Seven Sisters connect with Overground services. However, to find out which of these Overground services are available at which station, passengers would need to look at the Tube Map.
Whenever there’s an issue on this network, TfL lists the Overground status as a single entry. If there is a disruption, passengers must expand the TfL website or TfL Go app to see full details about which part of the Overground is disrupted. Providing unique identities to Overground services will make it easier for them to know which services have been disrupted. This is the crux of the naming issue.
Future devolution to Overground – Northern City Line?
Any Overground line nomenclature will need to take into account potential additions to this network. At least one devolution is quite likely – LR had previously looked at the possibility of devolution of the Northern City Line back in 2013 in looking at the service patterns of The Hertford Loop and the Northern City line. In 2016 TfL proposed to transfer more London rail services to Overground. Then on 19 June 2020, in a letter sent by Minister Chris Heaton-Harris to London Deputy Mayor Heidi Alexander, DfT proposed the transfer of Great Northern services operating out of Moorgate station to the Overground. At that time, both sides expected the transfer to occur in September 2022. No such transfer happened.
There is form for this particular line’s devolution, having previously belonged to London Underground prior to 1975 as the Northern City line. In August 1976, British Rail took over the line and extended services north.
TfL’s recent tumultuous funding struggles and the hit on Government coffers by the Covid pandemic have pushed aside non-urgent issues like rail devolution. Even in calmer periods, devolution has not always been smooth. With ridership patterns, and rail revenues, still somewhat in the post-pandemic flux, the government’s enthusiasm for such projects is dampened.
Nonetheless, there are a number of factors regarding a potential Great Northern services devolution:
- ECTS resignaling is ongoing and due to complete in 2025, so devolution after that is complete makes more sense.
- 2022 date was the original end of the GTR contract, but has been renewed until 1 April 2025.
- The outer tentacles of the Great Northern routes are not currently in TfL fares/ticketing areas. But this will change with Project Oval, which will expand contactless payments to over 230 mainline rail stations outside London (and into TfL’s payment system) by December 2024.
- DfT have minimal issues with Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), despite it operating Great Northern, Thameslink, and Southern franchises concessions.
Furthermore, this may also line up with the London Mayoral election in May 2024, as Sadiq Khan has decided to stand again and has been selected as Labour’s candidate for the next London Mayor election. He may leave devolution of Great Northern, and other lines, until after that election.
Whenever this devolution were to go ahead however, Overground name clarification would need to be investigated – ‘Northern City line’ may be too close to ‘Northern line’ and its already-confusing two central London branches.
History of proposed devolution of inner suburban lines to TfL
TfL has had three major attempts at trying to turn the commuter routes south of London into Overground lines to date:
1. London’s Railways – The Case for a London Regional Rail Authority, TfL 2004.
This document looked at commuter routes all round London, but also proposed turning lines as long as London – Guildford into TfL routes. In return, the local authorities into which such lines would run would be offered two seats on a new London Regional Rail Authority.
Unfortunately, many county councillors did not want TfL encroaching on their turf despite:
- Having a county councillor representative would give them a lot more democratic oversight than they were getting with the DfT awarding rail franchises, where the county had no direct influence at all.
- TfL already running many London Buses routes into many of the surrounding counties.
- There being little revenue incentive for South West Trains (SWT, as was) to improve its inner London services as the Travelcard capped fares income.
- TfL likely to spend more on trains and station facilities that SWT ever would, to the benefit of county passengers.
As a result, there wasn’t any great push to take this proposal forward.
2. a) Turning South London Orange, Centre for London Report, August 2016
This report proposed a more limited network of Overground services. Our own Jonathan Roberts was one of the authors.
2. b) Rail devolution business case narrative, TfL, October 2016
The Turning South London Orange report has the appearance of being the catalyst for TfL’s own report Rail devolution business case narrative of October 2016. But in fact, Southeastern sent its own devolution proposal to DfT and TfL in April 2016. In turn, DfT in September 2016 requested that TfL provide business case details. TfL’s subsequent October 2016 report noted:
“the recently devolved West Anglia services… has increased 27 per cent since devolution in May 2015 [in only 18 months]. TfL expects an increase of 14 per cent in southeast London. The additional revenue can itself be re-invested in service enhancements…
“The package has a quantified benefit cost ratio of 4.3:1, based on railway passenger benefits, which shows that this offers high value for money…
“TfL anticipate greater reliability (three percentage points on the public performance measure, five points on the ‘right time’ measure), reduced fares evasion (four percentage points), all-day staffing thus enabling turn-up-and-go mobility assistance (rather than booking 24 hours ahead), and integrated fares and information. [which would drive the expected 14 per cent growth on Southeastern inners]”
In this 2016 case study, TfL identified that the following suburban service groups would be suitable for devolution:
- To/from Charing Cross, Cannon Street, and Victoria serving southeast London to Dartford, Gravesend, Hayes, Orpington, Bromley North, and Sevenoaks.
- To/from London Bridge and Victoria serving south central London to Sutton, Epsom Downs, Epsom, and West Croydon, plus Southern services along the West London line.
- To/from Waterloo serving southwest London to Chessington South, Shepperton, Hampton Court, Dorking, and Kingston and Hounslow loop services.
- To/from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage via Hertford North.
3. Strategic Case for Metroisation in south and south east London, TfL March 2019.
Being a Strategic Case, and not a Business Case, this Overground devolution document of south and southeast London commuter lines has less detail and only general cost estimates, and no cost-benefit analysis. Nevertheless, this report does include the following map:
London Overground network could get a lot larger
Should metroisation of London inner commuter lines go ahead at some point, there would be a cornucopia of lines converted to Overground standard. Any naming and map colour schema that TfL develops for the existing six Overground lines will also have to take into account further potential Overground lines.
One important limiting factor is that there is relatively small number of colours actually available – this is a consequence of the technical limitations in colouring enamelled system maps, a function of the suspension of coloured particles in the enamel solution. Nonetheless, when the Waterloo & City was transferred from British Rail in 1994, the Underground were offered about four colours to represent the new line on signage and on the Tube Map:
- the chosen lime green (eau-de-nil)
- light green
- light red
- tawny/light brown
- different darker grey
Unlike blue and red, green has no widely understood boundaries between its many shades – grass green, light green, eau-de-nil, lime, acid, hunter green etc.
What might be a better solution for the devolved metroisation lines is a different classification, like TfL Rail, but perhaps as TfL Suburban Rail for the radial lines (the Lea Valley lines could be grouped with them).
Potential new Overground line – West London Orbital (WLO)
This is a proposed Overground line in West London to improve public transport by completing a missing orbital link in North and West London. TfL and an alliance of seven west London boroughs – Barnet, Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, and Hounslow. Together they developed the strategic case for the proposed West London Orbital Overground.
The line would upgrade the existing Dudding Hill Line between Acton and Cricklewood, which is currently lightly used, and only by freight. The route would connect ten new and existing Underground, Overground, Elizabeth, and National Rail lines, as well as the future High Speed 2 interchange, and build four new stations, use 17 existing stations, and carry up to an estimated 11.9 million passengers a year.
As the Overground has spurred substantial economic growth near most of its stations and nearby town centres, the WLO is also predicted to act as a catalyst for economic development. Released in October 2021, this proposal is in concept design phase.
The problem with using people‘s names
Renaming for un- or under-heralded individuals who have made a contribution to society or their community is a noble goal. However, it might be difficult to find someone sufficiently well known who lived or worked near each line to be a generally accepted renaming. Furthermore, naming lines after long forgotten people really doesn’t help many current residents nor new comers to London. Renaming long standing rail line services would cause passengers much confusion and extra work for TfL.
As a hypothetical example, Southeast metro services via Greenwich could be renamed the ‘Angerstein line’, after the former local MP for the Greenwich Peninsula and early social reformer from Russia (ignoring the rail freight line of that name still operating there). Whilst this potentially meets some of Sadiq Khan’s naming criteria, does it “make it easier for people who live, work or visit London to more easily navigate the city”?
The current colloquial line names (listed above) are well known and usually geographically named, as well as being historically well used, so actually meet the Mayor’s criteria better than an arbitrary renaming for a person. Otherwise, such renaming will serve to confuse passengers, which would really work against the stated goal of making the Overground network easier to understand. If the new names don’t make sense to passengers, they will continue to use the old names. It is notable that the Harlequin line rename never caught on, and riders still call it the Watford line.
Good line names are simple, unambiguous, and reflect common public usage.
Insufficient Status update displays at stations
There are 16 unique line colours on the current Tube Map (including Thameslink and Trams), which are replicated on the station Status update displays, as well as online and on the TfL Go app. Given that the number of colours is restricted by what can be applied to enamel signage, it is worth looking at other means of uniquely identifying new lines.
The Tube Map has long used hollow lines (ie DLR, Overground, Trams) to indicate different modes. However as the Status update displays are currently used, these three modes appear as solid colours. Hence duplicating existing Underground colours for new hollow lines would not work, unless the Status update displays are redesigned. App displays on the much more limited screens of mobile phones also need to be considered. TfL could identify routes with abbreviations of Overground line names, which would work better for mobile phones and some Status update displays. For example, ELL, NLL, LV (Lea Valley), Wat, Rom, & GOBLIN, were these names to be chosen officially.
Another impact of Overground splitting into individual line identities is that the number of station Status update displays would likely need to be doubled or tripled. Similarly, additional displays would allow individual DLR & Tram lines to also be broken out and similarly displayed when there are disruptions, greatly aiding passengers. Nonetheless, more lines on each display may well mean the size of all the others is reduced, making the space available for legible text to describe disruption even smaller. Whilst TfL can install larger screens in time, mobile phone screen space is quite limited, and any solution needs to work seamlessly at both scales. The line names and colours are only part of the solution, the whole user interface design has to be done well.
This is a screenshot of the TfL Status update – would you be able to guess from this that Sydenham – West Croydon is closed, with a reduced service level on the core ELL section?
The zoom function on the TfL website’s Tube disruption map is often quite slow and sometimes unresponsive, but with numerous zooming clicks, eventually this appears:
Unfortunately, this requires too many clicks and user actions to see this detail. This information needs to be quicker and more readily accessible. Furthermore, ideally passengers would be informed on alternate services, such as Southern or SouthEastern trains, and buses.
In service disruptions, there is key difference between most of the Underground and most of the Overground networks. An example: if there be a problem on the whole or the end of a District branch, the core service level can pretty much be maintained by increasing services on other branches, and some services terminated short. Same for most other Underground lines. However, the situation is different for the East London line and the Lea Valley services out of Liverpool Street, in that core section service levels and passenger capacity are immediately reduced as turnback opportunities are non-existent or minimal.
In another example, if there be a service disruption on the East London line Clapham Junction / New Cross / Crystal Palace branch, this means immediate loss of 4tph in the core. Loss of the Sydenham – West Croydon trains can be just about handled by Crystal Palace trains, or about 6tph if turning back at New Cross Gate. So how best can reduction of the East London line’s core service (eg between Whitechapel and Canada Water be communicated? “No Clapham Junction, and reduced core services”? Or a lighter orange to indicate reduced service on the core?
This is an interesting user information presentation challenge. We do not know if or how much TfL is looking into this. But presenting such disruption information effectively and succinctly, an ideally with alternate routing, will be a next level improvement.
Furthermore, many mainline stations could also do with additional displays – one display at a 12-car long train platform really isn’t good enough, yet this appears to be quite common. In the long term, the solution should be to ensure that screens (at stations and on mobiles) can display the information that TfL and train companies want to display.
TfL revenue is as precarious as ever
This Overground navigational clarification could be seen as part of a strategy, along with the SuperLoop orbital bus routes recently announced, to provide additional awareness of public transport options when the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is expanded later this year. Already in place in Central London, the ULEZ will be implemented across all London boroughs from 29 August 2023.
Implementing individual Overground line names and colours may not increase revenue in the short term – but it will improve Overground navigation, decrease confusion, declutter portions of the Tube Map, and prevent some passengers from missing trains.
Is it worth the cost?
£4m sounds like a lot of money for changing line names. Some of this will be for the consultation on the name changes,but most is to update or replace every sign on the Overground network, as well as signage in every station connecting to the Overground. It would also include replacing Tube and strip maps in stations and on trains and publicity spend. Jago Hazzard’s video puts these costs into perspective. It all adds up.
We have shewn a couple different TfL Overground line mock-ups from 2015, so considerable work has already been done on this initiative. The £4m just announced appears to be the final push. Nevertheless, Overground line breakout is a long overdue improvement and should see a corresponding increase in ridership. The TfL 2023-24 Budget is now approved, so nothing is preventing this going ahead now.
Ultimately, however, the new Overground line names should be what passengers themselves call the lines, not what some politician wants them to be called.
A few parts of this article on the 2015 TfL mock-ups were published on 21 May 2021 by CLondoner92 at his blog.
As Mayor Khan stated that the new Overground lines will be named, not lettered or numbered, we shall not brook any numbering or lettering suggestions in the comments.
Changing colours seems like it ought to be well out of scope. The trains themselves use orange throughout (livery, grab poles, etc) and surely changing those would cost way more than £4m? Whilst the colours on the map could be different from the trains themselves, that’d be super confusing. Even if the trains could get repainted, don’t some of the lines share rolling stock anyway (judging by how many different line diagrams are shown in the carriages)?
Orange is also part of the Overground brand, which is surely not going away – the named lines will remain within the Overground network and its orange roundel.
@Frankie Roberto Also the commitment was to provide names, not change the service name or colours. Even the Daily Mail got that right “Overground Lines To Get Individual Names”.
Another reason to avoid use of names of people is that today’s (or yesterday’s) heroes can sometimes become tomorrow’s villains. This is being played out in disputes about street names here and there.
The London Transport bus maps of days gone by were usable with one colour (a bit of green at the edges) for hundreds of routes, overlapping and with different destinations.
Question is – does anyone outside the transport community / people who work in the transport industry call the Gospel Oak to Barking line “Goblin”?
I would suspect not – “it’s the Overground”.
As a stand-alone name, Goblins don’t have great PR “small, grotesque, monstrous creature”, especially when some depictions of them in media use anti semitic (Harry Potter) or deformed tropes…
The issues with changing the colours of each line are that it no longer looks like a network of services and makes the map more difficult to navigate. At least with the orange lines, passengers can easily see a route and where to change.
The other option could be of different patterns, as used on the large print black and white tube map, but all in orange, may work better, but is not ideal.
As an aside, the hollow purple Elizabeth line doesn’t work on the tube map either, it’s not prominent enough, and looks far better as a solid line on the London rail map.
Naming is tough due to all the branches, portmanteau names would be fun but difficult to separate. Richford would exclude Clapham Junction, Highdon would exclude Clapham Junction, Crystal Palace and New Cross, Lea Valley, and Watford seems the obvious for these lines as well as Rominster.
@Frankie Roberto – Interesting points about the ‘Orange’ identity. It should continue as the Overground brand identity in the same way as Underground Red with a LT/TfL Red for any Transport edge.
Overall I started reading this as a naming article, then somehow it was a political manifesto about governance, with a crayoning addition. The theme I guess is that a naming convention adopted should be capable of expansion.
Going back to the ‘Map’ and navigation the key is simplicity. WHY are you including ‘line’ and ‘branch’. Emirates was OK as line on a cable but all railways are rail lines and branches please stop this. You have a Victoria Line map and train but it is always Victoria on services and maps and interchanges.
Forest is too generic as there are others, would you have a Heath (line). City Forest recognises both the ends and the ownership.
The TfL mock up was clear. To retain an Overground service brand maybe double the Outer edge colour with a light orange fill.
The El-Nl-Wl-Sl is the only line that takes you back to your origin. As we have an established Circle and a proposed Orbital, how about using Ring or Loop instead of line. History and Origin remain in the story and lore but are not determinants of operation such as Silverlink. To distinguish identities use the geography as a Suffix instead of a leading Prefix so it becomes Ring North or Loop West.
Emerson is not a place in the clarity game. That service is a link between two arterials so why not emphasise it’s utility. At least call it the Emerson Link instead of line, which will also describe the bus replacement service.
If it is redundant to repeat The London Underground and it is not The London Overground then surely it is time to drop the Londons in the local lines.
The Bakerloo was ‘named’ by the press/News and publicly adopted before yielding to popularity. GOBLIN is fun but not efficient and redundant. A line line is like a Battersea Station station. The terminating area name is an International convention recognised by the most users and it takes you back to the core ‘ring’. It is not the ‘main’ or only line to Barking like Watford but depending where you start from it can be the ‘best’ route.
“on 19 June 2000” should probably read “on 19 June 2020”.
[Cheers, fixed. LBM]
They’d better not take away our orange roundels! There is a precedent to keep them. All tube roundels are red.
How about “The Runt” for the Romford – Upminster shuttle? Short, pithy and accurate!
Whatever solutions are decided upon, I fear more people will be unhappy with them rather than happy/satisfied, even if most agree with the premise of trying to make things easier and more specific.
Given the need for this naming system to expand, I can see a strong case for starting at O1 and continuing O2, O3, etc. Simple and easy to rebrand. It’s good enough for Amsterdam, whose transport strategy is very good.
@Ian Sergeant The italicised footnote appears like a citation but is pertinent.
“As Mayor Khan stated that the new Overground lines will be named, not lettered or numbered, we shall not brook any numbering or lettering suggestions in the comments.”
@LBM Highlighting within this article displays Orange – nice touch!
Romford-Upminster should be the Havering line – it links the borough that few have heard of, so why not give it some prominence (rather than the tiny stop and mini suburb in the middle of the line)?
I have to wonder if creating an “outer oribtal” line is viable and desirable?
That would solve the problem of the “East London Line” also serving the south and the “North London Line” also serving the east & west.
Running a service from Clapham Junction all the way around and back to Clapham Junction and calling it something like the “Outer Orbital”.
The various branches such as Crystal Palace and Stratford would then get new suitable names.
But I suspect there are a multitude of reasons why this can’t or shouldn’t be done.
Regarding the use of Orange:
Rather than having hollow coloured lines, the center (or indeed the edge) could keep the orange colour. Or another pattern could be used, e.g. orange dots along a solid or hollow line.
This way the distinction from the rest of the system is retained, and the orange branding remains relevant (although some colour combinations would likely be unusable).
One thing to consider with this though is how it will affect the colourblind version of the map, which must already be running out of available distringuishable patterns?
It is worth pointing out that the official (“in car”) DLR map uses multiple colours which aren’t on the Tube Map proper? They’re not used in the stations though…
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/dlr-route-map.pdf
@Aleks
Thanks for both!
@Brian Butterworth
Yes, this is a good point. The article was already getting quite long, thanks for providing the DLR route map link. LBM
@DJL Boris Johnson’s “London Infrastructure Plan 2050: Transport Supporting Paper” had an “R25” which as I recall was that general I idea of another ring. outside the current Overground.
https://ukfree.tv/styles/images/2014/Tube2050/London%20Infrastucture%20Plan%202050%20Transport%20v6.svg
Some of it has been built like Barking Riverside and Brent Cross Thameslink!
I’ve been contacted by someone in the know, and the header image shows purported line names and colours by Geoff Marshall (Geofftech video), although since deleted. As a result, I’ve updated the text accordingly, and removed its column in the table. LBM
Would it make sense for the TfL Rail brand to be used as a ‘mode’ now that it is no longer used for the pre-Elizabeth line services? This could be used if/when the Northern City line is devolved… as much as I’d like to see an Overground roundel outside my local (Essex Road), I do hope it would keep its NSE vibe.
There was a brown TfL roundel with RAIL written across the bar that I recall seeing… what was this planned for?
PS: Love the Orange highlighting on this article.
@Brian I couldn’t remember Johnson’s name for the 2050 so as it is Ring and includes the Dudding Hill Line for it’s W segment that’s Ring-W with Barking Ring-E. Likely to remain a segmented ‘ring’ long after 2050.
That releases Orbital for the advertising gang to have a field day with a rebrand.
London Overground Orbital Path featuring branches to Richmond, Stratford, Croydon & Crystal Palace.
A disruption to the Richmond-Stratford service could be announced as a branch or LOOP-N to locate the issue and patterns affected.
If the rail funding hole is filled this century and we plan a fourth Circle it would likely be suburban Watford-St Albans-Hatfield-Hertford- Thurrock and likely Heathrow in the West. ‘Spherical County’ line.
London was dropped from the Central London Railway. As most lines are arterial the & City could be dropped for consistency.
Most names indicate the location served including Metro-land and suburban Districts. The anomalies are Jubilee and Elizabeth indicating time periods, given time their usefulness will diminish as references. Future alterations will generate new name opportunities.
Thank you for a great article and it agrees with very much what I thought anyway, but I would like to add a few of my comments.
On some other sites people have been getting a bee in their bonnet over the names and have been over-thinking and over-complicating things with letters, numbers and codes: The Mayor selected names only to sit well with the exiting nomenclature.
Firstly, obscure references are out, as are foreign names and terminology. Also contrived, meaningless and portmanteau words are out and anything that people will react to by saying: “What’s that?”.
Names also need to take account of future developments and proposals, and while this has been touched on in the article, I have added a few extra suggestions and pointed out possible clashes.
So, geographical names it is, and they have to be distinctive, obvious and possibly a little dull, so I’m going to offer my opinions, plus a few extras.
Existing Lines
• Richmond / Clapham Junction to Stratford. “North London Line”. Comment: well known, used and possibly too ingrained. A true alternative name may be difficult to devise. Suggested alternatives such as “Hampstead Line”, “Heath Line” just don’t seem right. People have lived with the Northern Line/North London Line clash since the 1930s, so I feel this may be a false comparison.
• Watford Junction to Euston. “Watford Line”. Comment: well known, used but don’t use the ‘DC’ suffix as it is too obscure. Suggested alternatives such as “Premier Line” and “Grand Junction Line” are simply too obscure. I don’t think there’ll be any problem distinguishing it from the Metropolitan Line Watford Branch.
• Gospel Oak to Barking. “Goblin Line”. Comment: well known, and used. It’s a tautology but several place names and other features across UK can be translated as: Hill Hill. River River etc. so its’s not a big deal. Suggested alternative “Tottenham and Hampstead Line” is too obscure and the line doesn’t go to Hampstead anyway, although it may do in the future, but unlikely.
• Highbury and Islington to New Cross / Clapham Junction / Crystal Palace / West Croydon. “Effra Line”. Comment: commemorates a river that formerly ran through Brixton to Norwood. Effra Road is in in Brixton. This line should be treated as a single entity like the District Line, after all passengers are used to the multiple destinations and short services. The downside is that it is a little obscure. Suggested alternative “Brunel Line”, while good, doesn’t really adequately cover the extended branches south of the river, so I’m a little unhappy with it.
• Liverpool Street to Enfield Town / Cheshunt / Chingford. “Lee Valley Line”. Comment: well known and used. Suggested alternative “Jazz Line” just seems a little obscure. It’s a term that goes back to Great Eastern Railway days in which carriages had coloured stripes added to identify the class of travel.
• Romford to Upminster. “Emerson Line”. Comment: I can’t see how it could be anything else. Suggested alternative “Ravensbourne Line”. I’d be happy with this: it’s a local waterway. Also “Rominster Line” Aaaargh! No! A plague be upon those who persist with this!
Possible future lines, the names of which may impinge on the above or any other suggestions.
• Wimbledon to Edgware Road. “Kensington Line”. Comment: I’m happy with this, because it goes there. The often-suggested alternative “Wimbleware Line” should be expunged from the record and those who persist in using this term should be publicly shamed. Ugh! Yuck! I can’t get the taste out of my mouth! I don’t think the line will be split from the District Line anyway.
• Northern Line Split: Charing Cross Branch to retain name “Northern”. The Bank Branch to be renamed “City and South London Line” after the original company. Comment: most of the alternative suggestions I’ve seen for both lines are just too terrible to mention. This suggests a clash with the suggested “South London Line”. Alternative “Bank Line” avoids this. This will occur inly if and when the split occurs.
• Hounslow / Kew Bridge to West Hampstead / Brent Cross. “Brent Line” because it roughly follows the Brent valley and serves Brentford and Brent Cross. Alternative “West London Orbital Line” is too awkward. No other comment.
• Great Northern Inner Services to Moorgate. “Park and Palace Line”. This comes from al the stations or localities suffixed ‘Park’ on the line: Finsbury P, Drayton P, Bowes P, Grange P, Oakleigh P, Brookmans P with Alexandra Palace. It has cachet. No alternatives. Comment: this a name I would have originally suggested for the Northern City Line should it have come about in full and split away from the rest of the Northern Line Northern Heights extension.
• Crossrail 2. This is more difficult as several names popped up when I had a go. Any name should be distinct from the “Lee Valley Line” above. Suggestions: “Myddleton Line” from the Builder of the New River and pun that the line goes through the centre of London, “New River Line” because it follows its course but I think this name should be reserved for services to Hertford or Enfield, “Regent Line” as it follows the canal, and my preferred favourite “Phoenix Line” as the proposed Euston/St Pancras station will be more or less under Phoenix Road which runs parallel to Euston Road. The final suggestion is optimistic, upbeat and may appeal.
For the colours of the lines themselves: no comment.
As for the colours of the trains, station roundels, handrails etc…Leave…Them…Alone.
Sorry for the long comment, I’m going to have a bit of a lie down now.
Like many others, I like the idea of the Romford-Upminster shuttle being called the Emerson line. I just hope that many of us who support the idea get discounted rates to travel on it, as a number of us are working class.
You could call it a “fan fare for the common man”
Just looking at https://www.amazon.co.uk/City-Women-London-Reni-Eddo-Lodge/dp/1642594571 City of Women London Tube Wall Map from 2022, I’m quite taken by the idea of Overground lines named after Amy [Winehouse], Mary [Shelley], Kathy [Burke], Virginia [Wolf] and Dua [Lipa]
@MrSW Brent is both descriptive and geographic consistent with naming conventions. The proposal is sufficiently circular as a branch to constitute part of a ring although that identity could wait until there are firmer proposals for future connections. Too many compass directions clash but are shorthand for a quadrant, not immediately apparent if it is inner, middle, or outer without an overlay.
Northern split: as Cross is now available and Charing Cross is one of the options with X long an abbreviation, how about the City X and West-End X. This line is the most Cross Thames line on the tube map.
GOBLIN has a fanbase and the user-group is a hard working campaign for its renewal. It could be a nameplate for a unit with the advertising panels being used to display the origin, history, decline, and rescue of the route, GOBLIN artwork could be commissioned for each end of the Barking line, a GOBLIN mascot/logo could feature on promotion materials and timetables. Riverside would be a good location for a GOBLIN museum history panel display area with any artefacts.
For wayfinding and disruptions it is sufficient to use Barking or Watford with the colour outlines on the diagram. Interchange markings and announcements would replace a generic Overground with the line name. For cost and works the project should be designed to be as minimalist as practical.
.
Although the name is great, I can’t imagine TfL and their marketing consultants will be happy with Goblin line and the negative connotations it evokes. They’re not gonna pick it if they do a focus group and someone says it makes them think of orcs and goblins living in some dark and dingy cave are they?
It doesn’t matter if people have been calling it the Goblin for decades, tourists or someone unfamiliar with the system won’t appreciate the roots of the name.
I like the idea of the GOBLIN being named the Tolkien Line. Those who know will know, for the general public it avoids the negative connotations, it’s a recognisable name internationally, and it also serves Khan’s aim of celebrating noteworthy individuals of significance.
The only problem is his links to London are marginal at best…
One clarification – the LNWR’s “Premier Line” strapline was given for the whole network, not just the Watford DC (“New”) line which was not built until WW1. The name alluded to the fact that it incorporated the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, as well as being the largest pre-1923 railway company.
Lea Valley – absolutely the wrong name – it has been used by the GER, LNER, BR and Network Rail, for well over a century, for the line that actually runs along the Lea Valley – the one that doesn’t appear on the Tube map and is often forgotten about – the one between Tottenham Hale, Ponders End, and Cheshunt – hence the “Lea Valley” DMUs (class 125) which operated the line in the 1960s, after the other lines in the area were electrified. It would lead to serious confusion if TfL and Network Rail used the same name for completely different lines. Separate identities please for the Chingford Line (which skip stops to Hackney Downs) and the Enfield Line (which doesn’t). The trains to Cheshunt serve several stations in tghe Londion Borough of Enfield, albeit not Enfiled Town itself)
@Simon Adams “The issues with changing the colours of each line are that it no longer looks like a network of services and makes the map more difficult to navigate. At least with the orange lines, passengers can easily see a route and where to change.” On the contrary, the mass of spaghetti makes it harder to see where the through services are, and where to make a change if one is necessary. Would you have all the Tube lines the same colour?
The 2016 Rail Review – one of its detractors was the MP for Epsom & Ewell, in Surrey – who had just been appointed Secretary of State of Transport – who reminded the then Mayor that it could result in his constituents’ rail services coming under the control of a future Labour Mayor (the horror!). As all but two of the stations in his constituency – despite not being in Greater London – were already in Oysterland Zones 5 and 6 (although one of his other pronouncements revealed him to be unaware of that fact) thanks to the actions of a previous Labour Mayor, this seemed a somewhat odd objection.
“Regency” and “Premier” were both names once suggested for the Hammersmith & City Line – “Regency” because it passes Regents Park, and the Regency architecture of Nash Crescent and Upper Regent Street, and “Premier” because it incororates the first Underground line (the “Metropolitan” name having been long ago lost to what was originally its younger Swiss Cottage branch).
Brunel, Chingford, Emerson, Enfield, Oakbark, Olympic, Watford.
(As a sideline, now that the Met extension is not happening, it is high time Watford Met station, which is over a mile from the town centre, got a less misleading name – West Watford would probably be the least confusing for both regulars and occasional passengers)
@timbeau ‘On the contrary, the mass of spaghetti makes it harder to see where the through services are, and where to make a change if one is necessary. Would you have all the Tube lines the same colour?’
Obviously not but looking at the tube map where all the Overground lines have different colours looks more congested to me than at present.
Since my last comment I have remembered the on-going proposal to reinstate the Hall Farm Curve, thus adding a complication to the Lea Valley System. So, whether or not this comes about, I would further suggest a Stratford/East versus Liverpool Street/West split, with Chingford being allocated to one or the other as appropriate. This indicates three possible naming schemes.
1. “Coppermill Line” for the East section, after a local watercourse, and with order of preference for the West section –
“Lea Valley Line”, “New River Line”, “Myddleton Line”
2. “Olympic Line” for the East, with the same options for the West as above.
3. “Lea Valley Line” for the East, and only the the second and third options for the West.
This would present a possible clash with CrossRail 2. I would also suggest that even if the Hall Farm Curve is never opened, the names still stand.
Hopefully the principles of “Occam’s Razor”, “Simplicity is everything”, and “KISS” apply, and unnecessary complication is avoided whatever the final outcome.
But I fear against fear that something completely toe-curlingly cringeworthy, embarrassing or creepily unctuous could be chosen for any line.
Jago Hazzard has put up a video on this wordy subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E90212F7bc4
An excellent way to avoid embarrassment etc and follow the KISS principle (not to mention avoiding the need for extensive navel gazing) would be to follow the examples of Los Angeles, Denver, Paris, Berlin, Lyon, Moscow, practically every bus/light rail network in the world, etc etc etc, and use letters/numbers to identify routes/lines. And yes, even the London rail network with its headcodes on Southern and London Midland Regions, including precursors of the Overground network.
Simple, easy, understandable, future proofed, in widespread use elsewhere: what’s not to like?
Greg,
Yes. I hope to do notice tomorrow.
I agree with Betterbee. Why not number the lines, like most transit systems do? There is the advantage that associated lines can have linked numbers, as is the case on the Berlin S-Bahn [Snipped. LBM]
@Betterbee:
Surely the KISS approach is to not change what isn’t broken? Especially don’t change it to a group (letters) that have enough similar-sounding items that a formal system of giving them different names exists so you can better distinguish them over radio communications (and numbers have that problem too)…
Anyways, here’s a jokey suggestion that’s still going to come over the PA systems as more distinctive than if they were ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’ (the middle four of which all rhyme):
– Highbury-Clapham/Croydon/Crystal/Cross: ‘Haggerston Line’
– Stratford-Clapham/Richmond: ‘Hampstead Line’
– Romford-Upminster: ‘Havering Line’
– Watford-Euston: ‘Harlequin Line’
– Gospel Oak-Barking: ‘Harringay Line’
– Liverpool St-Enfield/Cheshunt/Chingford: ‘Hackney Line’
DJL
Long ago, there was an “Outer Circle” – via what is now called Kensington Olympia …
Have never come across anyone within London Overground or Network Rail using the term GOBLIN and I’ve been around more than a decade. It’s the GOB or occasionally the T&H. Are we sure it’s more widely used than just the local user group and people on forums like this?
@Londoner in Scotland, Betterbee
Why not numbered or lettered lines? Because the Mayor stated they will be names, not alphabet soup.
Furthermore, London has a rich history of named rail lines. There are good examples to choose from in the article and in the comments.
Any further alphabet soup comments will be removed without hesitation. LBM
Si: any audio communication issues associated with letters/numbers are ones that just about every major urban transport system in the world seems to cope with pretty well, so what makes London different?
And if the current Overground line identification system ain’t broke, why this whole discussion?
The big wide world does – sometimes – have ideas worth considering.
Londoner in Scotland: yes, and even in London. In BR days headcodes displayed on trains and elsewhere included 2 for South London line, B4 North London line, B1 Watford DC, and 31 West Croydon via Forest Hill, so there are precedents for LO lines.
Just seen LBM’s post. Apologies for tempting fate, but as well as a rich history of named lines London has the same of “alphabet soup” ones, as SR and LMR electric commuters in BR days knew well.
Sadiq Khan has already decided to stand again and has been selected as Labour’s candidate for the next London Mayor election.
[Updated, cheers. LBM]
“Goblin” was used, completely anachronistically, in the TV series “The Bletchley Girls”, set in the late 1940s. The “Goblin” moniker was not coined until some time after the western terminus moved from Kentish Town to Gospel Oak, in 1981.
But historical accuracy was not its strong point – despite the wide availability of RT’s when the series was made, the only bus we ever saw was a Routemaster – at least ten years too early.
@timbeau
I have removed the ‘Premier Line’ reference from the Watford line history. Cheers, LBM
WATford-euStON line, WATSON. to go with the sherlock holmes connection of the Bakerloo. (Yes I know unlikely to happen)
@Greg
Yes, I know, which is why I called it the “Orbital”, not the “Circle”.
But anyway, the old “Outer Circle” line is (very) long since dead and I doubt many of the general public would know of it, thus there is little scope for confusion there.
Honestly, the name isn’t the part I expected people to object to!
As for the “Inner Circle”, it could be renamed to the “Sweat line” (a la la long) . [ Sorry, but I couldn’t resist the joke ]
From the tune to the Wombles by Elisabeth Beresford sung by the late, great Bernard Cribbins :”Underground, Overground Wombling Free”
Great Uncle Bulgaria (old and wise – his full name is Bulgaria Coburg Womble)
Tobermory (handyman)
Madame Cholet (chef)
Orinoco (lazy and greedy)
Wellington (clever and shy)
Tomsk (sporty and strong)
Bungo (bossy and excitable)
Ther’ve very (modern parlence) Sustainable.!
@Sparky
Or just “Bakerloo Line, Euston Branch” with a brown line?
The comments so far just go to prove that you can’t please all of the people any of the time. Personally, I’d believed that the Watford DC line once being called the “Harlequin line” was die to the big shopping centre in the town having that name.
Simplistically, and as with the Bakerloo and, I’d argue, Crossrail, lines and routes are named by their users no matter what the intentions of the operator are. Even “Thameslink” doesn’t truly exist now, in many ways.
On the possibility of naming by destination-at-country-end why not go all the way and label all lines by the destination-in-that-direction and get rid of the east-/west-/north-/south-bound signage which often makes no sense?
AlisonW
Again, you can’t please all the people! I find the end of line system really difficult to use, and much prefer the general direction, but then I have a good map in my head and appreciate others don’t.
@ Betterbee
“any audio communication issues associated with letters/numbers are ones that just about every major urban transport system in the world seems to cope with pretty well, so what makes London different?”
London is different because it picked a different system (before alphanumeric systems for naming metro lines existed) and any benefits of a change, if they are any to be had, are not going to be worth the high cost and hassle of changing. Likewise, the majority of major systems that use letters/numbers (though 5 of the 15-most major per ‘Transit Maps of the World’ (excluding Tokyo, which uses both line names and station alphanumeric codes – which is perhaps something worth looking at implementing in London to help tourists) don’t use letters/numbers, but colours or names instead – two thirds is some way short from “just about every”) cope because changing is a bigger problem than letters/numbers sounding similar. Changing is only worth doing if your existing system is broken and letters/numbers aren’t a broken system, even though they are not as good as line names.
“And if the current Overground line identification system ain’t broke, why this whole discussion?”
I never meant to imply that the current Overground line identification wasn’t broke. London’s line identification system, however is not broke. And there’s zero reason why the Overground shouldn’t conform to the line name system used for all other rail routes TfL runs (and lots of reasons why it should).
“The big wide world does – sometimes – have ideas worth considering.”
Yes, indeed – hence why I considered letters before coming to the conclusion that they are not as good as line names, rather than rejected it out of hand as foreign or different. I tend to find this “there’s ideas from elsewhere” argument is often actually a complaint: “why are you doing it differently to how this place I like does” (without a question mark as it isn’t coming from curiosity about different ways of doing stuff, but more out of conformity-pushing).
@AlisonW
The shopping centre is named after the railway. The Harlequin line was so-named June 18th 1988, after a competition. The shopping centre (also named in a competition), had its first phase open in 1990, about the time NSE gave up on the line’s fancy branding.
For years I have used the initial letters of Underground lines in my own notes (and used O for Circle Line and C for Central Line). I’d like any names given to the Overground to use names which start with names which are not already used, which leaves the door open to making the initial letters more prominent at some future time, thus respecting London’s traditional names while also giving non-English speakers single letter designations to focus on.
I like the “in car” DLR route map method as a solution for the Overground. I can’t see how all the existing (and potential future) Overground lines can have a unique and clear colour differential on an already busy tube map, let alone the weird and wonderful line names suggested. So keep the Overground orange on the tube map and publish a separate Overground map to explain the individual routes. Just name the lines by their colours e.g. “Overground Green Line” etc. Otherwise TfL will be tying itself in knotty inventing a plethora of names with the ensuing outcomes.
Tying itself in knotts and ensuing outcries!
Great article!
I would agree that Overground has become problematic, certainly since the addition of the Lea Valley Lines. On the other hand, I feel that adding lots more names would also make the whole concept of named line more confusing. For example I believe a second (or third) status update display would be a net negative – it provides additional information that is little benefit to most traveller while making it more difficult to see the important stuff. So keep it simple, and accept that lines have branches, it seems to work for the District.
So I would go for the following:
1) ‘Orbital’ for everything that goes round, so NLL, WLL, ELL, GOBLIN and the new Cricklewood service, ie from Richmond to West Croydon, from Clapham Junction to Clapham Junction, and to Barking
2) ‘Bakerloo (Euston branch)’ for Watford DC lines into Euston. I doubt anyone north of Queens Park is bothered whether they board a big train or a small train.
3) ‘Lea Valley’
4) ‘Moorgate’ for Northern City Line. Can’t be Northern, but there is a benefit for keeping it short.
5) I would also use one colour (dark grey?) for all short shuttles, but also name them ‘shuttle’, so ‘Havering shuttle’, ‘Greenford shuttle’
6) And I would get rid of the Hammersmith & City. If it is fine for the Circle to go to Hammersmith, it can get a Barking branch too. (Although sending Metropolitan trains to Barking and terminating Hammersmith trains at Aldgate would be neater…)
7) And of course get shot of all the other dross on the tube map!
I agree with Christian Schmidt about the H&C line. It shares tracks and platforms with other lines apart from a short section between Aldgate E and Liverpool St. When there’s non standard service operating on the SSL (probably owing to engineering work) trains from Barking are billed as ‘Circle Line’, where any line name is used. The on platform train describers just say ‘[Destination] via {King’s Cross | Victoria}’ – eg ‘Wimbledon via Victoria’ or ‘Hammersmith via King’s Cross’.
Overground (or over ground) is unfortunately a term used by many people to refer to all non LU services. “London Overground” makes it clearer which lines are being referred to – sometimes necessarily.
Still unhappy about a line being called [place a] to [place b]: Should be [place a] and [place b]. Trains go in both directions. Hammersmith & City; Waterloo & City; Tottenham & Forest Gate; London, Brighton & South Coast; London, Tilbury & Southend etc.
By this logic – ‘Gospel Oak & Barking Riverside Line’ or ‘Barking Riverside & Gospel Oak Line’. I note that the second spells BRAGOL but I doubt that will take off as a name.
My logic:
*Name by a prominent destination or location on each route
*Single name when large part of route is shared
*Split names if shared section is shorter (eg Chingford)
*Avoid choices from branches where name should be shared (eg “Enfield Line”)
*Avoid ambiguous choices (eg “Willesden Line” or “Hackney Line”)
*Minimise syllables and avoid hard to pronounce choices
Watford Line
Stratford Line
Barking Line
Shoreditch Line
Edmonton Line
Chingford Line
Emerson Line
The BBC reports that a public consultation has now started: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66609039