I'm pro TfL running all the metro services. Great video, by the way - lots of excellent points: I absolutely agree that the idea of trains every 7 or 8 minutes should be a real winner - that would mean I never have to look at the timetable; should produce lots of new customers/passengers. After all, the tube has operated like that since the 1920s, so why not the 'main-line metro services'? The tube is a great model of how easy it is changing lines - good signage and a train in a few minutes, so no worries. Your bit about how all this looks on the map is really important. One idea, not to clutter it too much, and to avoid too much orange: pair up 'opposite' lines (e.g. the West Anglia lines and the lines from Waterloo to Wimbledon and S.W London); colour them the same (maybe even give them one name - e.g. 'Swanglia Line') - and connect them across central London with a dotted line of the same colour (indicating a long-term intention to build a rail link, or maybe have a special connecting bus route). That would halve to number of colours you'd need. Look forward to your next offering...
The only issue I'd have is if they just replace all the older stock with boring aventra stock. Like.the 710s and the 345s, they make no sound amd look rather dull, I mean their body shells are nice, but the front ends are ...MEH.. Sure this is purely from an enthusiats point of view, but even so it's an opinion I'm willing to stick by , but your right with regards to the frequency of the service's , I guess I'm making assumptions with regards to what will happen, the frequency of the service's will 100% be a win.
A major problem with Southeastern on my local line at least isn’t necessarily the frequency, although it has yet again been reduced, making the trains even less attractive, it’s the fact that they’re not evenly spaced. Gaps between services might range from 30 minutes to 5 minutes, there’s no consistency. There’s also the added complexity of Thameslink running half hourly/hourly which of course are integrated with the rest of the Thameslink timetable which goes all over the place, from Medway in Kent, to Luton via Central London, which in rewriting timetables adds even more complexity when you want to add consistently spaced metro style services in addition. I’m sure it could be done, but it makes me worry about the reliability of these potential lines given Southeastern and Thameslink don’t exactly have the best track records as is. Regardless, I think Thameslink should really remain it’s own thing given how sprawling outside of London it is, but it should be taken into nationalised hands and run in close partnership with TfL. When it comes to branding, I think your idea of a ‘London SouthEast(LSE)’, and ‘London South(LS)’ is a good idea, especially to avoid confusion at the major termini at London Bridge, and Victoria where different services all stop together.
The Luton-Medway is unpopular so they should return that to South eastern with the old semi fast patter via Woolwich and Blackheath, leaving the Dartford/Gravesend stoppers via the Greenwich, Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines
That would be difficult because then the Overground would have to cross over to the main line at New Cross and then cross again just before Grove Park which would slow down fast trains going towards Kent. That line is busy enough as it is.
@@SenorSupreme176 it's gonna need alot of change. you're going to have to fix the bottleneck at lewisham, you will need dedicated overground tracks for the high frequency, and terminating platforms at grove park. you cannot go to bromley north because the line is 1 track and links to the up fast at grove park.
The problem with the "overground all the things" mentality is that you just won't get the same improvements on most services that we saw with the initial wave of overgrounding (e.g. the north london line) - those original services ran on underutilised routes, so there was plenty of scope to increase the frequencies. Services in the south are very much NOT underutilised, with the vast majority of track being at, or very close to, capacity. You might be able to gain some additional capacity by simplifying the service pattern - i.e. instead of each station trying to serve all the terminuses that it can, just serve one and rely on interchange instead - but as a percentage this will be quite underwhelming. The _only_ way to solve it properly is by building additional infrastructure, whether thats additional junctions, flyovers/unders or entirely new routes. And then, to a large extent, it doesn't really matter which operator runs services over the new infrastructure. Regarding branding. I think if TfL took on a lot more routes then a bit of rebranding could be in order. I'd be in favour of separating out orbital routes (i.e. the original phase 1 network), radial routes (including the services out of liverpool st and the Euston-Watford line) and through routes into separate brands - perhaps they could be called TfL orbitals (in Overground orange), TfL Metro (in TfL Rail blue?) and TfL link (in Elizabeth purple?)
I agree with most of that, but not sure about 'the vast majority of track [in S London] being at...capacity'. I think that if TfL treated most of the lines like the tube (i.e. with all trains every station) they could get at least 8 trains/hr on most of them; at present an awful lot of services are every half-hour (combining on stretches to give some stations 4 trains/hr. Again at present, the services are all aimed at getting passengers to central London. But people in the suburbs mainly travel outside the centre (even sometimes for work) - that's why so many of them have cars. The additional infrastructure you mention definitely needs more and better interchange stations - Brockley and Streatham Common (as mentioned by Nathan) for example; and - maybe the big one - platforms on the SE main line at 'New Bermondsey' connecting with the O/G circle - and maybe also on the nearby O/G line to Forest Hill. Brixton is another O/G 'missing link' - how come Boris didn't even have a plan for that?
The current mayor intends to give each overground line its own sub branding with names and colours on the tube map no? Any TfL expansion into south London can be put into the Overground network with the same distinction. Provided there are enough colours for all the lines.
Ashley Rabot has done a couple of videos going into more detail (search TfL Takeover). These include infrastructural work, including grade separation and digital signalling, which would provide more capacity on the lines involved. Interestingly, several of these would provide significant housing opportunity.
@@WMD4929 To be honest, the tube manages frequencies of up to 20 trains/hr with 'as is' signalling, by having standard calling patterns for all trains. If TfL instituted this service pattern on the Southern 'metro' lines, it could save the infrastructure upgrade money for more and better interchange-stations, and still increase journeys made. You are right that better transport links are a big boost to house-building programmes. Ashley Rabot's analysis make me think that the TfL plans he showed (2 yrs ago) were result of a designer playing with computer maps; people I've talked to in south London would prefer a simple frequent service from their station (all trains of the same pattern) to a dog's-breakfast of 2/hr to Victoria, 2/hr to Charing X, 2/hr to Cannon St (etc., etc.) - AS LONG AS there were plenty of easy interchanges, with good way-finding signs.
Nice video Nathan. I agree with most of what you say in that TFL has improved services where they have taken over rail. Other points to consider: 1) they have had to deal with freight intrusion into passenger timetables and this is still a problem, 2) The short trains on the North London Line and the Gospel Oak to Barking Riverside line mean heavy overcrowding. It is fine stimulating demand if you have capacity. 3) Trains are often cancelled without notice 4) Accessibility and connectability have not been improved with stations they have now run for years. 5) Where accessibility has been improved by providing level access, it has been by providing huge walking distances (see the Elizabeth Line) 6) Mapping has been awful, with misleading connections which are sometimes a kilometre apart. The journey planner also takes no account of disability, prams, luggage, etc. 7) The Southern is not the same as the rest of London. The interconnections are many and train usage and destinations going through junctions are vast. Many duplicating and overlapping routes came about through the competition of the pre-1923 companies. If you want to see how poor the Underground service alone is for the physically impaired, those with prams those with luggage, see the "avoiding stairs" tube map on TFLs site and see how many stations are actually useful out of the whole network. It is all only lip service from TFL. That map , as well as the "step free tube map" have been poorly created, inconsistent are difficult to understand, lack walking distances between interchanges and are not comprehensive. To cap it all, signage is often misleading and absent at stations. It is sometimes very difficult to find the lift and sometimes, one has to use two lifts without knowing where the second one is located. Some parts of London are an accessibility wilderness, with few stations giving any access. No one at TFL seems to have noticed. Hackney is full of Overground ststions, but few are accessible. The whole scheme is empire building and creeping nationalisation, though I do admit that privatisation has been a failure. Let them make a success of what they have so far before taking on more
Makes perfect sense to move all these services to the Overground. On the map, lines could be double coloured, i.e. orange and blue, orange and green etc. Opens up the possibility of new service patterns and routes.
Yes! At this point, there should just be a secondary map for overground services though, maybe mark them on the tube map in grey/some other unintrusive colour and mark underground services in grey on the overground map. Yes, you would need two maps to plot routes through both systems, but honestly why not just use an app?
@@notenoughpaper The NYC subway map does that for all passager lines outside of NYC subway services. So the other Rapid Transit system(Path) intercity lines(Amtrack), and the regional/commuter/suburban lines(Metro North and Lirr) are all given the same color.
The biggest issue is how the Metro services would intermingle with mainline and/or intercity services. If you've got two separate operators or authorities sharing timetabling and pathing on one shared line, then... how would TfL be able to adjust or improve service frequency without impacting on access for mainline services? This isn't such an issue for 4-track lines, but for 2-track lines, which are quite common in Kent, this could be quite hard to manage.
There isn't many lines where this issue would present itself barring the Chatham Main Line. There's proposed interventions such as extending the passing loops at Kent House, effectively creating a few miles of 4 track main line near Penge, and introducing in cab signalling on the route. The aim is to run a morning peak service of 18tph between Herne Hill and Beckenham Junction. 10 fast, 6 stopping and 2 Thameslink.
Would love to see this happen, especially if fares are brought in line with the overground. A single within zone 2 is 50% higher on national rail services!
All fares for all modes should be integrated and all the same! Other cities have it sussed out, Paris has just 5 zones for the whole Île de France region London has too many zones and the fares are too complicated
I mean I would pay 100 quid a day to ride a mini steam train across the beach to school and back though The thing is the TFLisation or whatever lol comes with tfl-styled longtitudinal seating which is the real bummer. It would also (except for thameslink and intercity services) basically eliminate all national rail services in London. Anyway considering the amount of smart moves TfL has made recently, I think it will be FANTASTIC to ruin all of London’s last remaining rail lines. What’s annoying is that people see TfL, they see oyster cards and don’t see any further. As you said, anything TfL is good enough for people as they are more familiar to it. TfL are gonna do a TERRIBLE job with it and go over the budget on crappy new trains and stations, ruin all the seating for everyone with social anxiety and all together ruin the nice peaceful atmosphere on London metro trains.
Going back to 2004 when I was a H&S rep at Liverpool Street Station, I attended a divisional meeting with Bob Crowe and the management of One Railways (National Express). Towards the end of the meeting, as an aside, management put forward plans that were being drawn up then. The main bulk of the plan was for TfL to take over all suburban lines within the M25 area, on all routes, into/out of London, with a plan to build a circular line connecting all lines. The fare structure to be the same as on the underground. I would say this is probably still going to happen, but it could be a few years till this is completed, unless the government help pay for it. And just as an aside, back in 1973/74, a plan was drawn up to extend the Bakerloo Line from Elephant & Castle to Bromley via Bricklayers Arms, Peckham, New Cross, Lewisham, Catford and Downham. This was to ease the overcrowding on the Orpington/Hayes to Charing Cross routes, and also to help take traffic off the busy A21 which was always very heavy with traffic. It was a shame it was never acted upon.
This sounds like the reinvention of Network SouthEast minus the express services. Nathan, surely you will still get your liveries on the express services, leaving TfL to create a single Metro livery (good for the interchangeability of train units). I don't think it should come under the branding "Overground" though. That has such a strong identity of its own.
i've always been absolutely desperate for the overground to run on the track between richmond and clapham junction just to create a loop, it would open up a lot of journeys for an area that is really unlikely to ever see any new lines and could also relieve some of the congestion caused by the closure of hammersmith bridge
I think those plans are a bit too ambitious for Tfl right now. In my opinion they should take over the Greenford branch as that is currently a GWR service than runs between two stations that are only served by Tfl services. Tfl would also probably electrify the line like they did with the GOBLIN. The Greenford branch to me is the Romford to Upminster route of West London. It just makes logical sense for Tfl to take that route over.
I doubt that line will get electrified anytime soon knowing the 165s currently used are due to get replaced with battery powered class 230s. I must admit though if it did become part of london overground, it would be pretty funny seeing london underground rolling stock in london overground livery
@@GenericLifts I know about the 230s but I'm saying that if TFL took it over they'd probably electrify it and introduce new rolling stock like they did with the GOBLIN
They would do what SWR did and replace the brand new trains with crap Tesco 30p reusable plastic bags which have AWKWARD LONGITUDINAL SEATING!!! Tbh I can tell they want all the metro rail services (and might even get them :/). Apart from C2C, Thameslink and all Intercity/Refional services they could take over the whole London rail network. And because TfL have such a strong brand with the Oyster card everyone recognises, people will be supportive of it. Oh and obviously they will go over budget being TfL, so all the taxpayers will be pleased. Knowing what they did with the 14/74/414 bus routes as well as the Overground 710s and 378s god knows what they will do next. Ah well let’s just watch the actually nice rail lines turn into tube lines with fancy inreliable trains!
amazin video nathan, as someone in south london, our transport systems are ridiculously bad on the south east side of town, i live near the Greenwich line, and the connectivity in the south east, is a joke, i'm just near canada water, so we have LO and the tube, but i feel for people in other boroughs like lewisham,, bexley, greenwich etc
In term of naming the services I would create a separate mode. I would co-brand the Overground with a new Metro brand. Most of the current Overground would stay orange, but services that are Zone1 terminating (Liverpool Street and Euston routes) would be Metro. Overground=Orbital, Metro=Radial. The biggest issue I see if TfL got all these services though would be mapping and journey planning. NR north of the Thames is relatively simple, but south it’s a tangled spaghetti mess of lines and services and operators. That brings us to two solutions, keep the existing service patterns, or re-engineer it to make it more simple and efficient. Ashley Rabot did a good series on his channel about TfL’s proposed plans. Keeping it as is would be be simpler to implement and for existing commuters, but increasing frequency may be hard given how interconnected the current network is. Also Southern, SWR, and SER would be easier to give service to TfL, but ThamesLink might be harder. With almost all TL service running though the core tunnels at a high frequency introducing another operator to the mix could be problematic, so either GTR give up some southern TL routes and increase frequencies to other destinations or give the entire TL franchise to TfL. So that pretty much rules out the metroisation plans on ThamesLink. Any other leftover London service (eg Greenford shuttle, Bromley North shuttle, Stratford-Meridian Water) could also be eventually put on the Overground.
I live in North London and I use the Victoria line every day. I think that connections are good on that line as all stations on it have connections to another train/tube service apart from Pimlico) but TFL Thameslink to Sutton is kinda weird. Anyway you got a new subscriber.
Since the benefits of unifying all happen because of the changed management, I don't think the pros you've listed actually negate the possibility of carving up the branding. Having only one term to refer to so many services would actually be kinda confusing in my eyes. I see this as a great opportunity to have sub-branding. Subdivided colour/naming schemes for the different networks but all conferring to one style to show they're related, you'd be able to organise things visually much nicer than they currently are. Anyway, your southeastern/southcentral idea got me thinking that maybe the cross-london routes like clapham jnc/richmond to the east london line and stratford along with thameslink and crossrail retain some kind distinctness to the networks that run into a terminus - perhaps the former is Overground and the latter is TfL Rail - with names like Tfl Lea Valley and Tfl SouthCentral.
Holy Moly, similar to Silverlink services from.back in the day, your right . I guess they'd also operate semi fasts too because they are still important imo.
…or (and hear my out on this one)… London could just join the rest of the civilised world and introduce route numbering. I mean, if Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Zurich, Brussels, Vienna and Copenhagen, just to name a few, all have route numbering (either numbers or letters, or both), how come London can’t figure out such a system? Having travelled extensively on these commuter rail networks as well as on many serviced in and around London, I can also confidently say that they're much more intuitive to use.
One of the problems we have in London is that the old Victorian railway companies, who built most of the railways into London were run by knob-heads who were all trying to put each other out of business. They tried to grab territory by making lots of different branches. But every time you split of a branch, you have to send some of the trains up that branch. And when the branches all come together on the mainline, you get a bottleneck. Plus the Victorian government really did not like the idea of railways coming into London. So we got a lot of terminal stations that could not do high frequency services to every commuter line. Eventually the British government was forced to merge all the railways into British Rail, to try to make the railways work together more effectively. And in London they handed over a bunch of railways to the London Passenger Transport Board instead. What happened with Crossrail taking over National Rail tracks and London Overground taking over National Rail tracks has previously happened with the Northern Line, Central Line and District Line taking over tracks that were originally owned by private railway companies or British Rail. (If you go exploring the London Underground stations in Outer London and check out the architecture, some of the stations are radically different from how London Underground stations look in Central London. There is even a website that shows historic railway lines and you can do stuff like see what the Hammersmith & City Line used to be called.) Anyhoo, we had some modernisation in London going on in the 20th Century and then World War I happened and it got paused. Then it got restarted and World War II happened and London Underground actually built bomb shelters instead of Underground lines. The bomb shelters were hoped to become new full-size deep level lines (similar to Crossrail) but that never happened. The "Northern Heights Program" in North West London got cut back. Central government kicked the can down the road again and again and again, on rail investment, both in London and elsewhere in the UK. Crossrail finally got the green light about 100 years after being first proposed. More stuff needs to be done. Giving the commuter lines over to Transport for London is just the first step. Crossrail 2 needs to happen. It is going to take some of the commuter lines that currently go to Waterloo and throw them into a tunnel near to Wimbledon Station. That will free up all the train slots those trains normally use at Waterloo and allow other trains to go into Waterloo instead. The same approach needs to eventually be done with the trains from South East London that terminate at Charring Cross. If they are dropped into a "Crossrail-like" tunnel on the approach to London Bridge, they can go to a line that does underground stations at Waterloo East and Charring Cross before passing through London and onto an underground station at Marylebone. The line could pop up north of Marylebone station and take over that line. So we could eventually have a bunch of "purple trains" that do the same thing as Crossrail and Thamelink, as well as a number of different coloured London Overground lines, that go in circular routes around London, so that people can go to other communities, without needing to go in and out. Check out the deep level National Rail line to Moorgate sometime. It's just begging to be extended into somewhere in South London. It's a fairly unused railway right now, but given some love it would be massively useful to Londoners. So giving all those railway lines to Transport for London means that the Mayor gets to listen to the people and put forward plans that help Londoners. And people can vote to change the Mayor of they are not happy. They can't vote to change the management of an operator like South Eastern. We have zero control of private operators and they try to push up ticket prices, so they can give more money to shareholders.
Well. Back in the 1990s I thought I'd catch a Silverlink train on the Goblin Line from Gospel Oak to Harringay Green Lanes. I was sitting on an ancient diesel waiting for it to go and a helpful lady pointed out that it wasn't going at 14:56 as I thought but the train was waiting until it was due to go at 15:56! I certainly agreed with her when she commented about how rubbish the service was at the time. Thank goodness for the Overground.
Would be interesting to see the interchange at Brockley you speak of. As far as I am aware there would not be room to insert platforms again at the old Brockley Road Station. The old wooden ones were rather thin I believe.
@@Super_Trainspotter I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just said it would be interesting to see it. The platforms years ago on the se part were never very near to where the line crosses the bml you can still see the old station building just under the bridge next to the road at Brockley cross which is further east towards Lewisham. In the late 1960s you could still see part of the old wood platforms if you buncked onto the embankment.
I think to solve the issue of the map, there should be several different maps. This is cause the map is already too crowded so they should probably have different maps for different modes. That would make it clearer as to what mode you are on, what line you are on (as there are less lines), and how it connects with the rest of the mode. For instance, a London Overground Map with the various stops, and it can include these national rail lines if TFL does take over them. Plus you would not just put these maps in Overground stations but in various places to show its connection to other modes link the Underground.
For James Wetherly - yes very good idea. Like the former London bus maps. They're called quadrants. The only issue confronting this is the continual development of relying on IT. On line, the South East england area map covers everything, and you just zoom in. Do you think that one day Station poster maps will become a thing of the past.?
I suppose you could say that this would one day have been inevitable because South East London (in particular) has no Underground. In North East London, a start has already been made, as you know. And I think the future idea is for tfl to take over all stopping services within greater London, following the example of the first original pioneer example of Euston Harrow Watford. However, I think it's odd that such services extend to such places as Reading, Epping, or anywhere else outside London, unless those counties are contributing to TFL's budget.
0:57 yeah tell that to an American and they'd be like "what, half-hourly is considered infrequent, here we get 1 train a day. 🤣 Nice Job, this is the first video I've seen from you.
Good, currently I commute outside of London. SWR charges 10.80 for me to go 4 stops unless I book in advance and I can't use contactless despite the fact my journey starts from an overground station. I had to dodge fares because I couldn't afford to pay 21.60 a day to go to work. It's also every half hour so sometimes I have to wait ages and my commute home takes up to 2 hours.
I think it’s unlikely that the operators will increase frequency anytime soon, especially as the DfT forced Southern to withdraw its 455s, which means it had to cut services to other destinations to replace those. Also, TfL will take over some SWR services if Crossrail 2 gets built.
The issue is on south western is that stopping services go all the way to Guildford and Woking which are so many stations back that they would look like reading on the tube map
I have to get a southern train to get home, it’s so goddamn annoying being able to get really close to home on the tube, then wait 30 mins sometimes to do the last tiny bit. A TFL takeover would be game changing
Okay, so if you increase the frequency on metro lines as you imply (in some cases turn up and go), how on earth will you find track space to run services to out of London destinations. I reckon there simply isn't the capacity to run more services on existing infrastructure. Interesting discussion point nonetheless. Thanks for this.
Proposals rest on introduction of digital signalling to increase throughput on routes into terminals. There's also a lot of inefficiencies in the current timetables with many trains waiting around at the terminal for longer periods of time than is necessary so if a redesign of the timetable was done, this would be fairly feasible in most locations without the signalling upgrades.
Firstly, a very interesting video with some well discussed points. I agree with what you say on the map being the main tool for tourists to get around, but I’m not convinced that having everything under TfL is for the better - especially with the strike situations as it would allow the unions to bring London and it’s suburbs to a complete standstill and that’s a huge risk with a larger network. I’m also not convinced that there will be huge advantages for passengers as those using travelcards or Oyster can already use the existing services. I think the issue is the map - as you say people use that to get around and the advertising - people especially tourists need to know they can use their travel card/ oyster on the existing companies trains as some assume you can only use them on TfL services which I guess is where a single branding might make things easier. For me though, the big drawback is financial - TfL is basically bankrupt and surviving on government bailouts. The cost of buying out and standardising all the metro services, given the economy as it is I think would be unjustifiable at this time, Conceptually however it’s a great idea, logistically and practically however I’m less sure, so my vote goes with keeping things unchanged.
TfL are proposing to take over these services in the same way as Overground: run by a private contractor (currently Arriva) but branded and ticketed by TfL. The DfT doesn't want to nationalize, and there isn't money to buy it out, so that is how it would happen. This means it wouldn't affect unions: the Elizabeth Line and Overground had strikes on different days to the Underground this month, TfL isn't one singular employer. Even with separation multiple rail operators were hit simultaneously, since ASLEF and RMT already manage most workers at Southern/Thameslink, Southeastern, Southwestern, and the rest. The solution is to give them better working conditions, not mitigate their power to strike. The advantages to passengers would be reliability (TfL isn't running a cost calculation for how much it will be fined if it doesn't maintain its trains appropriately, its sole purpose as a non-profit organization is to make the trains run better) and possibly fares (which could be unified with the tube/overground rates rather than the more expensive NR fares).
@@speedstyle. presumably however TfL would absorb the metro lines into the overground network which would be subcontracted to one company to run the whole London Overground network rather than different companies for different sections which I can’t help but feel makes the strike issue a bigger problem. The reason the strikes have been on different days is to cause maximum inconvenience - they are coordinated as such. Whilst I don’t think we’ll agree on strikes - I do feel we need to mitigate the risk of strikes and having one company (albeit subcontracted to TfL) taking over all the London metro lines currently run by 3 or so other companies on top of the London Overground network they already have allows for militant unions to hold a much greater proportion of the network to ransom - whereas separate companies spreads the strike risk. The fair pay argument is a double edged sword, naturally inflation has made wages in real terms worth less however TfL is already financially crippled and with travelling numbers down since pre-pandemic levels, money has to come from somewhere and that’s the issue… one could also question whether or not their pay is already ‘fair’ when compared to other sectors, but this would be largely subjective. Sadly however when there’s less money coming in through ticket sales the viability of meeting Union demands is not there and ultimately it will lead to an impasse as spiralling staff costs will be mitigated through redundancies and automaton in the long run, but I digress - I think creating a bigger London Overground network if subcontracted to a single operator could be very dangerous and give unions too much to hold to ransom. Your points on ticketing and pricing is fair but I believe that could be achieved without the need for TfL to absorb the metro lines, though I’m not sure they are more reliable - I get more cancellations on my journeys with London Overground than I do with SWR/ Southern/ SE metro routes. Thameslink however are pretty hit and miss 😂 But some interesting points you make and a great insight into things - it’s nice to read a well thought out and reasoned response and whilst I think our viewpoints differ, I like hearing other peoples as it provides food for thought 🙂
@@Alto53 definitely a possibility I’d say but I think if that’s the case, maybe better integrating the metro network we have now might be a better option but I’m not sure how best to achieve that.
@@AnthonyFurnival the success of TfL services is largely down to the brand. Any solution of incorporating the current operators I'd imagine would mean they'd have to renegotiate what services they do, their frequencies, the signalling and that they'll need to give up their own branding on digital, rolling stock and at the stations. This level of control will require TfL to have control of everything anyway. The DfT could do this on behalf of TfL, but TfL are better placed to do it on their own. What do you think?
Here's how to make sense of it with all the additions of services to the tube map. Just think of them as lines just like the tube with branches. Such as the Thameslink line Sutton branch service to Wimbledon etc... What would also be cool is if tfl kept at least the airport services to gatwick and Luton.
Many of these services go well beyond Greater London. You don't mention Thameslink (already on the tube map) going north as well as south. Would a Thameslink train from Farringdon to Brighton or Cambridge be TfL?
Tfl obviously wouldn't take over the Brighton to Cambridge/Bedford services. If they were to take over some Thameslink services it would likely be Luton-Sutton or Blackfriars-Orpington.
The Elizabeth Line is its own thing, so surely so can the Thameslink! Also, should TfL consider taking over the Moorgate to FInsbury Park (mainline) line? As in the line that's not "Underground" or "Tube", but south of Drayton park is very much underground, in tubes!
I guess this is the most practical, cost effective, speediest way tfl can do something to bring better transit line services to south of the Thames, historically the poorer relation in connectivity compared with the rest of London. It's ironic that the first tube line was into south London, but that the far greater part of the network subsequently developed on the north side of the Thames. For this reason, south London always seems to me to have more road traffic than the north (unless it's my imagination). The proposed Bakerloo extension to Lewisham is the first extensive tube incursion deep into south London since the first historic City & South London line. The Victoria line is not a deep incursion into the south. So how about a video on what tube extensions into the south you would like to see,? With the Northern line , Waterloo & City line, Victoria line, Bakerloo line (possible branch of it) even the defunct Holborn Aldwych line all pointing southwards, why not try out a bit of brainstorming creativity. Could be a fun interactive vid getting your followers to come up with their ideas? My first choice would be a long overdue (in my opinion ) Victoria line extension from Brixton to Streatham Hill, Streatham, and possibly Streatham Common stations with possibly a stop also at the South Circular.
I think having subbranding under the Overground or TFL Rail brand could work well, it would just take time to get used too. Like lines on the Underground. Colours would be a difficult though because there are already so many taken up.
Some lines are difficult to increase frequency like the Windsor lines too many level crossings people in barnes are moaning about the time stuck at the double set west of the station now ,even overground north London line has bollo lane and Acton central
On the liveries, it could be like in Japan where each region is in the same livery. In Tokyo the Yamamote Line trains are green, Chuo Line trains are orange, etc. so there is a different coloured version of the same stripes. Southeastern, Southwestern, Southern, GWR, etc. would have their own variant of the Overground livery. What is old is new again... A reunification of BR liveries and London Overground branding.
Go the Paris RER style where metro lines come under the dedicated RER services with its own route map. Thus at the same time decluttering the tube map leaving something similar to the Paris Metro system with its own dedicated map.
The Overground as we know it rn is completely fine. Maybe the odd extension to existing lines every here and there would be nice and all but national rail as is does an ok enough job by themselves I think (emphasis on I think)
Frankly, I find the 'Overground' branding confusing because there are at least four separate routes and all are coloured orange. It is not clear where you need to Change and where a route runs through. It would be easy to say give the routes different names - in fact GOSpel Oak to Barking LINe was informally called the GOBLIN. Colouring can be done by using striped or mutli-coloured lines, say outer is orange, inner white, Green, Blue, Pink whatever.
As a Gravesender, I like the idea of using Oyster card on an integrated Rail - Tube - Bus system. The issue I have is political. How long would it be before Gravesham becomes an outer borough of London.
I think it’s a very good idea, let’s look at the Liverpool Street to shenfield and Paddington to reading, obviously these lines are connected by Elizabeth line, however the reintroduction of TFL RAIL with a nicer navy branding on the Elizabeth line style class would work well for the south of London, for example a TFL rail line running from Victoria to Coulsdon for example with stations operated by TFL and therefore leading to a faster timetable, fares could be lowered for example by optimising the user of fare zones 7-9 and as well as that, and so,etching I think could be Implemeted out to reading on the Elizabeth line is what I would call a outside far zone barrier, this barrier would be a new zone that would have a higher charge then the 1-9 zones but still be cheaper then national rail, therefore lowering commuter costs, expanding the unification of Greater London into the TFL network and a major Improvement to the current metro style services offered by the south western eastern and southern operators.
I think the Thameslink brand can be kept as is. Thameslink, with its unique City North-to-South underground through route, stands out from just another Overground or rail service.
Moreover, it has to be express service within all Big London boundaries (M25) as this is its key feature but that means that it has to be paired with Overground services which would provide local train connectivity. So Thameslink should be properly named as "Thameslink Express" then
I agree that TfL taking over routes such as Thameslink makes perfect sense. Thameslink, in particular, is the best match as it almost fulfils the role of Crossrail 2.
I think Thameslink is much less likely to be replaced than the others, because of the central core section. Through trains from Brighton to Bedford/Cambridge obviously wouldn't be TfL, and mixing operators every 2.5mins through the automated core wouldn't be as easy as the older underutilized tracks the current Overground was built on. Southern, Southeastern and Southwestern services should totally be TfLified though
I'd be suprised if they took over Thameslink since it runs as far as Cambridge and Brighton and isn't really a metro service. Sadiq wants to name (and colour) the different Overground lines so I suspect this would be applied to any other services transferred to London Overground - however the government's plans for Great British Railways might well scupper that.
they're not taking over the companies. they are taking over the services they run. this just means that thameslink wont have to worry about the metro routes and instead focus on improving services such as brighton to cambridge
I wasn’t happy when the Shenfield to Liverpool Street/Romford-Upminster and Lea Valley services were taken over by TfL but if this is ever going to happen they should introduce a “London Metro” branding for TfL run services that terminate at the London terminals (i.e. Waterloo/Victoria/Charing Cross) and keep the London Overground branding for the orbital services.
How about LONDON METRO SOUTH, LONDON METRO SOUTH EAST, SOUTH WEST etc etc ... all as groupings of services but a quality standard - much like 'London Overground'?
Brand it all Overground, use different colours with the current Overground/Elizabeth Line 2 line pattern and number the lines O1, O2, O3 etc. (Pl, maybe miss out 2 perhaps) as they do in other countries like Germany with the urban trains or S-Bahn S1, S2 etc.
If TfL take over Southern and Southeastern metro routes, that would allow those companies to improve their services on the rest of their network, which is what they badly need right now.
Some ideas what TfL could do: - Tube map: Provide different tube maps: a small one with just the Tube, and a larger one with all rail services. Also maybe maps of areas of London (such as south london, north london, southwest) that also include key bus routes. - Branding: They should use overground brand for metro services except thameslink, which they should just continue calling thameslink. Or they could re-introduce the Network SouthEast brand. I would certainly like that. - Route numbering: TfL should number its rail services. Every route variant of a tube or rail service should get its own route number. It's not necessary to cover every origin-destination pair on complex routes, in that case numbering destinations (plus variations if there's multiple ways to reach a destination) is enough. - Livery: They could give individual livery variations to every single train, that would be maximum variety and a very cool idea. Would even provide variety within trains of the same fleet. Of course they can have some common elements for branding.
That idea about going bk to connex days would be sick, but i just know they wouldn’t revisit that because it would get ppl of a certain age both old and young like us excited for no reason because it would feel like were on our way back to London transport days or British rail 😔
Thameslink should be brought under TfL and put into a category with the Elizabeth Line and that should be the beginning of it's own new network just like the RER in Paris.
The fact it is TfL service or not doesn't really matter. It's all in Oyster zone so technically part of the London integrated transport system. the only potential beneficiaries are new services that would have been outside of the Oyster Zone such as the extremities of Crossrail the development of routes and interchanges, timetables etc. tends to be part of an integrated transport strategy for the most part. That said, the current franchising system has pros and draw backs, franchising has brought us a lot of new trains especially in the London area (also some waste as trains have been ordered by on franchise only to be taken out by next franchise).
It falls down when you look at the services from old street / kings cross to letchworth with 717s now these services are stabled at letchworth and the pool of drivers that operate these services are from peterborough / hitchin /cambridge and kings cross. if you were to operate a metro type service on the GN routes they would terminate at Stevenage and stable at Welwyn garden city
The idea sounds good (maybe), but has a lot of flaws and caveats. The thing is, the point of the Overground was to provide circumfrencial service around London using underused BR lines. That idea worked really well. The improvement possibility (and reality) was huge. With the metro services south of the river, they're radial, so more akin to Tube lines that don't go all the way in (except Thameslink), so they're a different thing. Also, the services are already pretty frequent (many are already every 15 minutes) and they are very full a lot of the time. The trains are also more comfortable than Overground 710s. I would much rather go to Hampton Court on a 707 with 4 abreast seating than a 710 with longitudinal, fairly hard seats. The main thing that would be good is unified fares and branding and higher frequencies, but I just don't think the track has the capacity. Schemes like Crossrail 2 are much better. They would provide a proper RER style service, like the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink do now. Actually, I'd probably suggest changing Thameslink to TFL branding and make the services perhaps shorter and more frequent. Does anyone actually go all the way from Bedford to Brighton on a class 700? I think you'd get a numb bum!
@@rogersanderson1725 You just prove my point. Nobody would sit in a 700 for that long unless they really had to and have no other options or unless they're a train geek and really love 700s. Haha
While this is a great concept there are many flaws to this idea such as the confusion with a potential new map, cost (tfl are broke asf), dealing with aging rolling stock, etc. However, this would be a good idea strictly for lines that don't get a good service currently. Eg. The Blackfriars to Sevenoaks route only operates every 30 mins even during rush hour sometimes. Routes similar to that could benefit from a new Overground style service.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm pro TfL running all the metro services. Great video, by the way - lots of excellent points: I absolutely agree that the idea of trains every 7 or 8 minutes should be a real winner - that would mean I never have to look at the timetable; should produce lots of new customers/passengers. After all, the tube has operated like that since the 1920s, so why not the 'main-line metro services'? The tube is a great model of how easy it is changing lines - good signage and a train in a few minutes, so no worries.
Your bit about how all this looks on the map is really important. One idea, not to clutter it too much, and to avoid too much orange: pair up 'opposite' lines (e.g. the West Anglia lines and the lines from Waterloo to Wimbledon and S.W London); colour them the same (maybe even give them one name - e.g. 'Swanglia Line') - and connect them across central London with a dotted line of the same colour (indicating a long-term intention to build a rail link, or maybe have a special connecting bus route). That would halve to number of colours you'd need.
Look forward to your next offering...
The only issue I'd have is if they just replace all the older stock with boring aventra stock. Like.the 710s and the 345s, they make no sound amd look rather dull, I mean their body shells are nice, but the front ends are ...MEH.. Sure this is purely from an enthusiats point of view, but even so it's an opinion I'm willing to stick by , but your right with regards to the frequency of the service's , I guess I'm making assumptions with regards to what will happen, the frequency of the service's will 100% be a win.
A major problem with Southeastern on my local line at least isn’t necessarily the frequency, although it has yet again been reduced, making the trains even less attractive, it’s the fact that they’re not evenly spaced. Gaps between services might range from 30 minutes to 5 minutes, there’s no consistency. There’s also the added complexity of Thameslink running half hourly/hourly which of course are integrated with the rest of the Thameslink timetable which goes all over the place, from Medway in Kent, to Luton via Central London, which in rewriting timetables adds even more complexity when you want to add consistently spaced metro style services in addition. I’m sure it could be done, but it makes me worry about the reliability of these potential lines given Southeastern and Thameslink don’t exactly have the best track records as is.
Regardless, I think Thameslink should really remain it’s own thing given how sprawling outside of London it is, but it should be taken into nationalised hands and run in close partnership with TfL.
When it comes to branding, I think your idea of a ‘London SouthEast(LSE)’, and ‘London South(LS)’ is a good idea, especially to avoid confusion at the major termini at London Bridge, and Victoria where different services all stop together.
The Luton-Medway is unpopular so they should return that to South eastern with the old semi fast patter via Woolwich and Blackheath, leaving the Dartford/Gravesend stoppers via the Greenwich, Bexleyheath and Sidcup lines
Extend the Overground down from New Cross to Grove Park or even Bromley North, it wouldn't need much infrastructure change.
That would be difficult because then the Overground would have to cross over to the main line at New Cross and then cross again just before Grove Park which would slow down fast trains going towards Kent. That line is busy enough as it is.
@@nathanw9770 hence why it would need much infrastructure change
@@SenorSupreme176 it's gonna need alot of change. you're going to have to fix the bottleneck at lewisham, you will need dedicated overground tracks for the high frequency, and terminating platforms at grove park. you cannot go to bromley north because the line is 1 track and links to the up fast at grove park.
@@Super_Trainspotter again, hence why it would need a lot of infrastructure change!
Yes, take over the smaller branch lines, e.g Grove Park to Bromley North....
The problem with the "overground all the things" mentality is that you just won't get the same improvements on most services that we saw with the initial wave of overgrounding (e.g. the north london line) - those original services ran on underutilised routes, so there was plenty of scope to increase the frequencies. Services in the south are very much NOT underutilised, with the vast majority of track being at, or very close to, capacity.
You might be able to gain some additional capacity by simplifying the service pattern - i.e. instead of each station trying to serve all the terminuses that it can, just serve one and rely on interchange instead - but as a percentage this will be quite underwhelming.
The _only_ way to solve it properly is by building additional infrastructure, whether thats additional junctions, flyovers/unders or entirely new routes.
And then, to a large extent, it doesn't really matter which operator runs services over the new infrastructure.
Regarding branding. I think if TfL took on a lot more routes then a bit of rebranding could be in order. I'd be in favour of separating out orbital routes (i.e. the original phase 1 network), radial routes (including the services out of liverpool st and the Euston-Watford line) and through routes into separate brands - perhaps they could be called TfL orbitals (in Overground orange), TfL Metro (in TfL Rail blue?) and TfL link (in Elizabeth purple?)
I agree with most of that, but not sure about 'the vast majority of track [in S London] being at...capacity'. I think that if TfL treated most of the lines like the tube (i.e. with all trains every station) they could get at least 8 trains/hr on most of them; at present an awful lot of services are every half-hour (combining on stretches to give some stations 4 trains/hr.
Again at present, the services are all aimed at getting passengers to central London. But people in the suburbs mainly travel outside the centre (even sometimes for work) - that's why so many of them have cars. The additional infrastructure you mention definitely needs more and better interchange stations - Brockley and Streatham Common (as mentioned by Nathan) for example; and - maybe the big one - platforms on the SE main line at 'New Bermondsey' connecting with the O/G circle - and maybe also on the nearby O/G line to Forest Hill. Brixton is another O/G 'missing link' - how come Boris didn't even have a plan for that?
The current mayor intends to give each overground line its own sub branding with names and colours on the tube map no?
Any TfL expansion into south London can be put into the Overground network with the same distinction. Provided there are enough colours for all the lines.
Ashley Rabot has done a couple of videos going into more detail (search TfL Takeover).
These include infrastructural work, including grade separation and digital signalling, which would provide more capacity on the lines involved.
Interestingly, several of these would provide significant housing opportunity.
@@WMD4929 To be honest, the tube manages frequencies of up to 20 trains/hr with 'as is' signalling, by having standard calling patterns for all trains. If TfL instituted this service pattern on the Southern 'metro' lines, it could save the infrastructure upgrade money for more and better interchange-stations, and still increase journeys made. You are right that better transport links are a big boost to house-building programmes. Ashley Rabot's analysis make me think that the TfL plans he showed (2 yrs ago) were result of a designer playing with computer maps; people I've talked to in south London would prefer a simple frequent service from their station (all trains of the same pattern) to a dog's-breakfast of 2/hr to Victoria, 2/hr to Charing X, 2/hr to Cannon St (etc., etc.) - AS LONG AS there were plenty of easy interchanges, with good way-finding signs.
Nice video Nathan. I agree with most of what you say in that TFL has improved services where they have taken over rail.
Other points to consider: 1) they have had to deal with freight intrusion into passenger timetables and this is still a problem, 2) The short trains on the North London Line and the Gospel Oak to Barking Riverside line mean heavy overcrowding. It is fine stimulating demand if you have capacity. 3) Trains are often cancelled without notice 4) Accessibility and connectability have not been improved with stations they have now run for years. 5) Where accessibility has been improved by providing level access, it has been by providing huge walking distances (see the Elizabeth Line) 6) Mapping has been awful, with misleading connections which are sometimes a kilometre apart. The journey planner also takes no account of disability, prams, luggage, etc. 7) The Southern is not the same as the rest of London. The interconnections are many and train usage and destinations going through junctions are vast. Many duplicating and overlapping routes came about through the competition of the pre-1923 companies.
If you want to see how poor the Underground service alone is for the physically impaired, those with prams those with luggage, see the "avoiding stairs" tube map on TFLs site and see how many stations are actually useful out of the whole network. It is all only lip service from TFL. That map , as well as the "step free tube map" have been poorly created, inconsistent are difficult to understand, lack walking distances between interchanges and are not comprehensive. To cap it all, signage is often misleading and absent at stations. It is sometimes very difficult to find the lift and sometimes, one has to use two lifts without knowing where the second one is located.
Some parts of London are an accessibility wilderness, with few stations giving any access. No one at TFL seems to have noticed. Hackney is full of Overground ststions, but few are accessible.
The whole scheme is empire building and creeping nationalisation, though I do admit that privatisation has been a failure. Let them make a success of what they have so far before taking on more
Makes perfect sense to move all these services to the Overground. On the map, lines could be double coloured, i.e. orange and blue, orange and green etc. Opens up the possibility of new service patterns and routes.
Yes! At this point, there should just be a secondary map for overground services though, maybe mark them on the tube map in grey/some other unintrusive colour and mark underground services in grey on the overground map. Yes, you would need two maps to plot routes through both systems, but honestly why not just use an app?
Smart idea!
@@notenoughpaper The NYC subway map does that for all passager lines outside of NYC subway services.
So the other Rapid Transit system(Path) intercity lines(Amtrack), and the regional/commuter/suburban lines(Metro North and Lirr) are all given the same color.
The biggest issue is how the Metro services would intermingle with mainline and/or intercity services. If you've got two separate operators or authorities sharing timetabling and pathing on one shared line, then... how would TfL be able to adjust or improve service frequency without impacting on access for mainline services? This isn't such an issue for 4-track lines, but for 2-track lines, which are quite common in Kent, this could be quite hard to manage.
There isn't many lines where this issue would present itself barring the Chatham Main Line. There's proposed interventions such as extending the passing loops at Kent House, effectively creating a few miles of 4 track main line near Penge, and introducing in cab signalling on the route. The aim is to run a morning peak service of 18tph between Herne Hill and Beckenham Junction. 10 fast, 6 stopping and 2 Thameslink.
Would love to see this happen, especially if fares are brought in line with the overground. A single within zone 2 is 50% higher on national rail services!
All fares for all modes should be integrated and all the same! Other cities have it sussed out, Paris has just 5 zones for the whole Île de France region London has too many zones and the fares are too complicated
TfL's brand power is so strong, they could take over a miniature railway and people will use it to commute.
Much like the school service on the RHDR
I mean I would pay 100 quid a day to ride a mini steam train across the beach to school and back though
The thing is the TFLisation or whatever lol comes with tfl-styled longtitudinal seating which is the real bummer. It would also (except for thameslink and intercity services) basically eliminate all national rail services in London. Anyway considering the amount of smart moves TfL has made recently, I think it will be FANTASTIC to ruin all of London’s last remaining rail lines. What’s annoying is that people see TfL, they see oyster cards and don’t see any further. As you said, anything TfL is good enough for people as they are more familiar to it. TfL are gonna do a TERRIBLE job with it and go over the budget on crappy new trains and stations, ruin all the seating for everyone with social anxiety and all together ruin the nice peaceful atmosphere on London metro trains.
The Waterloo and City line is that miniature railway. 🤪
Happy New year 2024 to you network Nathan.
I don't really give a shit but TfL have this bizarre love for sideways seating. Fuck that.
its to allow more people to stand, because face it, these trains will be standing capacity even off-peak
Going back to 2004 when I was a H&S rep at Liverpool Street Station, I attended a divisional meeting with Bob Crowe and the management of One Railways (National Express). Towards the end of the meeting, as an aside, management put forward plans that were being drawn up then. The main bulk of the plan was for TfL to take over all suburban lines within the M25 area, on all routes, into/out of London, with a plan to build a circular line connecting all lines. The fare structure to be the same as on the underground.
I would say this is probably still going to happen, but it could be a few years till this is completed, unless the government help pay for it.
And just as an aside, back in 1973/74, a plan was drawn up to extend the Bakerloo Line from Elephant & Castle to Bromley via Bricklayers Arms, Peckham, New Cross, Lewisham, Catford and Downham. This was to ease the overcrowding on the Orpington/Hayes to Charing Cross routes, and also to help take traffic off the busy A21 which was always very heavy with traffic. It was a shame it was never acted upon.
Network Nathan loved this video. Liked and subscribed.
This sounds like the reinvention of Network SouthEast minus the express services. Nathan, surely you will still get your liveries on the express services, leaving TfL to create a single Metro livery (good for the interchangeability of train units). I don't think it should come under the branding "Overground" though. That has such a strong identity of its own.
The youtube algorithm sent me here, no regrets. Very informative, subbing.
It's taking over all of the suburban commuter lines that depart from the city terminus. Except for chiltern railway
Yay! Good news! 🎊🎉
Yes! I agree that TFL needs to takeover! Especially Southeastern, Southern and Southwestern!
And Thameslink
Why?
@@pj100565 Because Southeastern is not good. London Overground is better. You can clearly see that.
London overground will just cap the trains to 45mph and make the services metro only. Idk about seeing class 710s on my Route either .
@@bb-3653 I think TFL will make the speed higher since the stations have long distance gaps, especially at the edges of London.
Nice channel Nathan. Worth subscribing to.
i've always been absolutely desperate for the overground to run on the track between richmond and clapham junction just to create a loop, it would open up a lot of journeys for an area that is really unlikely to ever see any new lines and could also relieve some of the congestion caused by the closure of hammersmith bridge
I think those plans are a bit too ambitious for Tfl right now. In my opinion they should take over the Greenford branch as that is currently a GWR service than runs between two stations that are only served by Tfl services. Tfl would also probably electrify the line like they did with the GOBLIN. The Greenford branch to me is the Romford to Upminster route of West London. It just makes logical sense for Tfl to take that route over.
I think the Greenford Branch should be served by some of the Elizabeth line Line trains that are currently planned to terminate at Paddington.
@@katbryce Same but the issue with that is just how long the trains are on the lizz
I doubt that line will get electrified anytime soon knowing the 165s currently used are due to get replaced with battery powered class 230s. I must admit though if it did become part of london overground, it would be pretty funny seeing london underground rolling stock in london overground livery
@@GenericLifts I know about the 230s but I'm saying that if TFL took it over they'd probably electrify it and introduce new rolling stock like they did with the GOBLIN
They would do what SWR did and replace the brand new trains with crap Tesco 30p reusable plastic bags which have AWKWARD LONGITUDINAL SEATING!!! Tbh I can tell they want all the metro rail services (and might even get them :/). Apart from C2C, Thameslink and all Intercity/Refional services they could take over the whole London rail network. And because TfL have such a strong brand with the Oyster card everyone recognises, people will be supportive of it. Oh and obviously they will go over budget being TfL, so all the taxpayers will be pleased. Knowing what they did with the 14/74/414 bus routes as well as the Overground 710s and 378s god knows what they will do next. Ah well let’s just watch the actually nice rail lines turn into tube lines with fancy inreliable trains!
Congrats for 3K. Good vid
amazin video nathan, as someone in south london, our transport systems are ridiculously bad on the south east side of town, i live near the Greenwich line, and the connectivity in the south east, is a joke, i'm just near canada water, so we have LO and the tube, but i feel for people in other boroughs like lewisham,, bexley, greenwich etc
really great video mate, keep it up!
In term of naming the services I would create a separate mode. I would co-brand the Overground with a new Metro brand. Most of the current Overground would stay orange, but services that are Zone1 terminating (Liverpool Street and Euston routes) would be Metro. Overground=Orbital, Metro=Radial.
The biggest issue I see if TfL got all these services though would be mapping and journey planning. NR north of the Thames is relatively simple, but south it’s a tangled spaghetti mess of lines and services and operators.
That brings us to two solutions, keep the existing service patterns, or re-engineer it to make it more simple and efficient. Ashley Rabot did a good series on his channel about TfL’s proposed plans. Keeping it as is would be be simpler to implement and for existing commuters, but increasing frequency may be hard given how interconnected the current network is.
Also Southern, SWR, and SER would be easier to give service to TfL, but ThamesLink might be harder. With almost all TL service running though the core tunnels at a high frequency introducing another operator to the mix could be problematic, so either GTR give up some southern TL routes and increase frequencies to other destinations or give the entire TL franchise to TfL. So that pretty much rules out the metroisation plans on ThamesLink.
Any other leftover London service (eg Greenford shuttle, Bromley North shuttle, Stratford-Meridian Water) could also be eventually put on the Overground.
At least you mentioned Southeastern being easy for TFL to takeover.
This would completely change the dynamic of south London, I welcome this!
New to channel. You have excellent communication skills Nathan. Good luck.
I live in North London and I use the Victoria line every day. I think that connections are good on that line as all stations on it have connections to another train/tube service apart from Pimlico) but TFL Thameslink to Sutton is kinda weird. Anyway you got a new subscriber.
Hi Nathan youtube just suggested your channel. Looking good
Since the benefits of unifying all happen because of the changed management, I don't think the pros you've listed actually negate the possibility of carving up the branding. Having only one term to refer to so many services would actually be kinda confusing in my eyes. I see this as a great opportunity to have sub-branding. Subdivided colour/naming schemes for the different networks but all conferring to one style to show they're related, you'd be able to organise things visually much nicer than they currently are. Anyway, your southeastern/southcentral idea got me thinking that maybe the cross-london routes like clapham jnc/richmond to the east london line and stratford along with thameslink and crossrail retain some kind distinctness to the networks that run into a terminus - perhaps the former is Overground and the latter is TfL Rail - with names like Tfl Lea Valley and Tfl SouthCentral.
Holy Moly, similar to Silverlink services from.back in the day, your right . I guess they'd also operate semi fasts too because they are still important imo.
…or (and hear my out on this one)… London could just join the rest of the civilised world and introduce route numbering. I mean, if Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Zurich, Brussels, Vienna and Copenhagen, just to name a few, all have route numbering (either numbers or letters, or both), how come London can’t figure out such a system? Having travelled extensively on these commuter rail networks as well as on many serviced in and around London, I can also confidently say that they're much more intuitive to use.
So what have you heard on the interchange at Brockley? Would love for the Brockley station to connect to the line two lines together.
Love you're video and content. I've work for a few TOCs and I hope this doesn't come to pass as we operate differently.
It's like the empire taking over and removing all the colours from clone trooper armour and replacing it with stormtroopers. That's dead.
One of the problems we have in London is that the old Victorian railway companies, who built most of the railways into London were run by knob-heads who were all trying to put each other out of business. They tried to grab territory by making lots of different branches. But every time you split of a branch, you have to send some of the trains up that branch. And when the branches all come together on the mainline, you get a bottleneck. Plus the Victorian government really did not like the idea of railways coming into London. So we got a lot of terminal stations that could not do high frequency services to every commuter line.
Eventually the British government was forced to merge all the railways into British Rail, to try to make the railways work together more effectively. And in London they handed over a bunch of railways to the London Passenger Transport Board instead. What happened with Crossrail taking over National Rail tracks and London Overground taking over National Rail tracks has previously happened with the Northern Line, Central Line and District Line taking over tracks that were originally owned by private railway companies or British Rail. (If you go exploring the London Underground stations in Outer London and check out the architecture, some of the stations are radically different from how London Underground stations look in Central London. There is even a website that shows historic railway lines and you can do stuff like see what the Hammersmith & City Line used to be called.)
Anyhoo, we had some modernisation in London going on in the 20th Century and then World War I happened and it got paused. Then it got restarted and World War II happened and London Underground actually built bomb shelters instead of Underground lines. The bomb shelters were hoped to become new full-size deep level lines (similar to Crossrail) but that never happened. The "Northern Heights Program" in North West London got cut back.
Central government kicked the can down the road again and again and again, on rail investment, both in London and elsewhere in the UK. Crossrail finally got the green light about 100 years after being first proposed. More stuff needs to be done. Giving the commuter lines over to Transport for London is just the first step.
Crossrail 2 needs to happen. It is going to take some of the commuter lines that currently go to Waterloo and throw them into a tunnel near to Wimbledon Station. That will free up all the train slots those trains normally use at Waterloo and allow other trains to go into Waterloo instead.
The same approach needs to eventually be done with the trains from South East London that terminate at Charring Cross. If they are dropped into a "Crossrail-like" tunnel on the approach to London Bridge, they can go to a line that does underground stations at Waterloo East and Charring Cross before passing through London and onto an underground station at Marylebone. The line could pop up north of Marylebone station and take over that line.
So we could eventually have a bunch of "purple trains" that do the same thing as Crossrail and Thamelink, as well as a number of different coloured London Overground lines, that go in circular routes around London, so that people can go to other communities, without needing to go in and out.
Check out the deep level National Rail line to Moorgate sometime. It's just begging to be extended into somewhere in South London. It's a fairly unused railway right now, but given some love it would be massively useful to Londoners.
So giving all those railway lines to Transport for London means that the Mayor gets to listen to the people and put forward plans that help Londoners. And people can vote to change the Mayor of they are not happy. They can't vote to change the management of an operator like South Eastern. We have zero control of private operators and they try to push up ticket prices, so they can give more money to shareholders.
Going for a unified livery would be basically going back to the Network Southeast days.
I live in Caterham. We desperately need TfL operation here
hate to break it to you bud but with the new september timetable theres on 2tph instead of 4 now
Well. Back in the 1990s I thought I'd catch a Silverlink train on the Goblin Line from Gospel Oak to Harringay Green Lanes. I was sitting on an ancient diesel waiting for it to go and a helpful lady pointed out that it wasn't going at 14:56 as I thought but the train was waiting until it was due to go at 15:56!
I certainly agreed with her when she commented about how rubbish the service was at the time.
Thank goodness for the Overground.
SWR metro services either start from Guildford or Woking, it's around 25 miles from Waterloo at Guildford
Just discovered your great channel :)
Would be interesting to see the interchange at Brockley you speak of. As far as I am aware there would not be room to insert platforms again at the old Brockley Road Station. The old wooden ones were rather thin I believe.
the SE lines run directly over the BML at brockley station, so it is possible
@@Super_Trainspotter I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just said it would be interesting to see it. The platforms years ago on the se part were never very near to where the line crosses the bml you can still see the old station building just under the bridge next to the road at Brockley cross which is further east towards Lewisham. In the late 1960s you could still see part of the old wood platforms if you buncked onto the embankment.
I think to solve the issue of the map, there should be several different maps. This is cause the map is already too crowded so they should probably have different maps for different modes. That would make it clearer as to what mode you are on, what line you are on (as there are less lines), and how it connects with the rest of the mode. For instance, a London Overground Map with the various stops, and it can include these national rail lines if TFL does take over them. Plus you would not just put these maps in Overground stations but in various places to show its connection to other modes link the Underground.
For James Wetherly - yes very good idea.
Like the former London bus maps.
They're called quadrants.
The only issue confronting this is the continual development of relying on IT.
On line, the South East england area map covers everything, and you just zoom in.
Do you think that one day Station poster maps will become a thing of the past.?
The Connex idea is great…
What tube lines would you extend and why?
the bakerloo line 100%. lots of potential for it in the south east of ldn
I suppose you could say that this would one day have been inevitable because South East London (in particular) has no Underground.
In North East London, a start has already been made, as you know.
And I think the future idea is for tfl to take over all stopping services within greater London, following the example of the first original pioneer example of Euston Harrow Watford.
However, I think it's odd that such services extend to such places as Reading, Epping, or anywhere else outside London, unless those counties are contributing to TFL's budget.
0:57 yeah tell that to an American and they'd be like "what, half-hourly is considered infrequent, here we get 1 train a day. 🤣
Nice Job, this is the first video I've seen from you.
Good, currently I commute outside of London. SWR charges 10.80 for me to go 4 stops unless I book in advance and I can't use contactless despite the fact my journey starts from an overground station. I had to dodge fares because I couldn't afford to pay 21.60 a day to go to work. It's also every half hour so sometimes I have to wait ages and my commute home takes up to 2 hours.
What a super video glad I found you.
just discovered you channel. I don't understand why RUclips didn't recommended your video earlier
I can certainly imagine Class 710s running to places like Hampton Court or Orpington.
I think it’s unlikely that the operators will increase frequency anytime soon, especially as the DfT forced Southern to withdraw its 455s, which means it had to cut services to other destinations to replace those. Also, TfL will take over some SWR services if Crossrail 2 gets built.
The issue is on south western is that stopping services go all the way to Guildford and Woking which are so many stations back that they would look like reading on the tube map
I have to get a southern train to get home, it’s so goddamn annoying being able to get really close to home on the tube, then wait 30 mins sometimes to do the last tiny bit. A TFL takeover would be game changing
Okay, so if you increase the frequency on metro lines as you imply (in some cases turn up and go), how on earth will you find track space to run services to out of London destinations. I reckon there simply isn't the capacity to run more services on existing infrastructure. Interesting discussion point nonetheless. Thanks for this.
Proposals rest on introduction of digital signalling to increase throughput on routes into terminals. There's also a lot of inefficiencies in the current timetables with many trains waiting around at the terminal for longer periods of time than is necessary so if a redesign of the timetable was done, this would be fairly feasible in most locations without the signalling upgrades.
Firstly, a very interesting video with some well discussed points.
I agree with what you say on the map being the main tool for tourists to get around, but I’m not convinced that having everything under TfL is for the better - especially with the strike situations as it would allow the unions to bring London and it’s suburbs to a complete standstill and that’s a huge risk with a larger network.
I’m also not convinced that there will be huge advantages for passengers as those using travelcards or Oyster can already use the existing services. I think the issue is the map - as you say people use that to get around and the advertising - people especially tourists need to know they can use their travel card/ oyster on the existing companies trains as some assume you can only use them on TfL services which I guess is where a single branding might make things easier.
For me though, the big drawback is financial - TfL is basically bankrupt and surviving on government bailouts. The cost of buying out and standardising all the metro services, given the economy as it is I think would be unjustifiable at this time,
Conceptually however it’s a great idea, logistically and practically however I’m less sure, so my vote goes with keeping things unchanged.
TfL are proposing to take over these services in the same way as Overground: run by a private contractor (currently Arriva) but branded and ticketed by TfL. The DfT doesn't want to nationalize, and there isn't money to buy it out, so that is how it would happen.
This means it wouldn't affect unions: the Elizabeth Line and Overground had strikes on different days to the Underground this month, TfL isn't one singular employer. Even with separation multiple rail operators were hit simultaneously, since ASLEF and RMT already manage most workers at Southern/Thameslink, Southeastern, Southwestern, and the rest. The solution is to give them better working conditions, not mitigate their power to strike.
The advantages to passengers would be reliability (TfL isn't running a cost calculation for how much it will be fined if it doesn't maintain its trains appropriately, its sole purpose as a non-profit organization is to make the trains run better) and possibly fares (which could be unified with the tube/overground rates rather than the more expensive NR fares).
@@speedstyle. presumably however TfL would absorb the metro lines into the overground network which would be subcontracted to one company to run the whole London Overground network rather than different companies for different sections which I can’t help but feel makes the strike issue a bigger problem. The reason the strikes have been on different days is to cause maximum inconvenience - they are coordinated as such.
Whilst I don’t think we’ll agree on strikes - I do feel we need to mitigate the risk of strikes and having one company (albeit subcontracted to TfL) taking over all the London metro lines currently run by 3 or so other companies on top of the London Overground network they already have allows for militant unions to hold a much greater proportion of the network to ransom - whereas separate companies spreads the strike risk. The fair pay argument is a double edged sword, naturally inflation has made wages in real terms worth less however TfL is already financially crippled and with travelling numbers down since pre-pandemic levels, money has to come from somewhere and that’s the issue… one could also question whether or not their pay is already ‘fair’ when compared to other sectors, but this would be largely subjective. Sadly however when there’s less money coming in through ticket sales the viability of meeting Union demands is not there and ultimately it will lead to an impasse as spiralling staff costs will be mitigated through redundancies and automaton in the long run, but I digress - I think creating a bigger London Overground network if subcontracted to a single operator could be very dangerous and give unions too much to hold to ransom.
Your points on ticketing and pricing is fair but I believe that could be achieved without the need for TfL to absorb the metro lines, though I’m not sure they are more reliable - I get more cancellations on my journeys with London Overground than I do with SWR/ Southern/ SE metro routes. Thameslink however are pretty hit and miss 😂
But some interesting points you make and a great insight into things - it’s nice to read a well thought out and reasoned response and whilst I think our viewpoints differ, I like hearing other peoples as it provides food for thought 🙂
@@AnthonyFurnival would a solution not be to split up the Overground to give it to multiple operators? Maybe 3 or 4?
@@Alto53 definitely a possibility I’d say but I think if that’s the case, maybe better integrating the metro network we have now might be a better option but I’m not sure how best to achieve that.
@@AnthonyFurnival the success of TfL services is largely down to the brand. Any solution of incorporating the current operators I'd imagine would mean they'd have to renegotiate what services they do, their frequencies, the signalling and that they'll need to give up their own branding on digital, rolling stock and at the stations.
This level of control will require TfL to have control of everything anyway. The DfT could do this on behalf of TfL, but TfL are better placed to do it on their own.
What do you think?
I feel like something like the c2c would be great if it could be replicated around the country, very underrated train system imo.
The enthusiast in me doesn’t want to see it😂 but the commuter me in definitely does
its a bitter sweet aha
Here's how to make sense of it with all the additions of services to the tube map. Just think of them as lines just like the tube with branches. Such as the Thameslink line Sutton branch service to Wimbledon etc... What would also be cool is if tfl kept at least the airport services to gatwick and Luton.
Many of these services go well beyond Greater London. You don't mention Thameslink (already on the tube map) going north as well as south. Would a Thameslink train from Farringdon to Brighton or Cambridge be TfL?
Tfl obviously wouldn't take over the Brighton to Cambridge/Bedford services. If they were to take over some Thameslink services it would likely be Luton-Sutton or Blackfriars-Orpington.
all the metro routes stay within the oyster card fare zones, those services will be upgraded by TfL, not the long distance ones
The Elizabeth Line is its own thing, so surely so can the Thameslink!
Also, should TfL consider taking over the Moorgate to FInsbury Park (mainline) line? As in the line that's not "Underground" or "Tube", but south of Drayton park is very much underground, in tubes!
TFL cannot afford the tube, let alone anything else. Good video though :-)
I guess this is the most practical, cost effective, speediest way tfl can do something to bring better transit line services to south of the Thames, historically the poorer relation in connectivity compared with the rest of London. It's ironic that the first tube line was into south London, but that the far greater part of the network subsequently developed on the north side of the Thames. For this reason, south London always seems to me to have more road traffic than the north (unless it's my imagination).
The proposed Bakerloo extension to Lewisham is the first extensive tube incursion deep into south London since the first historic City & South London line. The Victoria line is not a deep incursion into the south.
So how about a video on what tube extensions into the south you would like to see,? With the Northern line , Waterloo & City line, Victoria line, Bakerloo line (possible branch of it) even the defunct Holborn Aldwych line all pointing southwards, why not try out a bit of brainstorming creativity. Could be a fun interactive vid getting your followers to come up with their ideas?
My first choice would be a long overdue (in my opinion ) Victoria line extension from Brixton to Streatham Hill, Streatham, and possibly Streatham Common stations with possibly a stop also at the South Circular.
Great video. ☺️
I think having subbranding under the Overground or TFL Rail brand could work well, it would just take time to get used too. Like lines on the Underground.
Colours would be a difficult though because there are already so many taken up.
Some lines are difficult to increase frequency like the Windsor lines too many level crossings people in barnes are moaning about the time stuck at the double set west of the station now ,even overground north London line has bollo lane and Acton central
Dose that mean they have overground livery
I thought they might use the Crossrail branding since alot of the routes on South Western Railway routes are on the proposed Crossrail 2 route
On the liveries, it could be like in Japan where each region is in the same livery. In Tokyo the Yamamote Line trains are green, Chuo Line trains are orange, etc. so there is a different coloured version of the same stripes. Southeastern, Southwestern, Southern, GWR, etc. would have their own variant of the Overground livery. What is old is new again... A reunification of BR liveries and London Overground branding.
i like this
The only Thameslink line which would classify for metro is the Sutton/Wimbledon line
Go the Paris RER style where metro lines come under the dedicated RER services with its own route map. Thus at the same time decluttering the tube map leaving something similar to the Paris Metro system with its own dedicated map.
The Overground as we know it rn is completely fine. Maybe the odd extension to existing lines every here and there would be nice and all but national rail as is does an ok enough job by themselves I think (emphasis on I think)
But here’s an issue, where would it go on the tube map ?
I mean he has said this but
Frankly, I find the 'Overground' branding confusing because there are at least four separate routes and all are coloured orange. It is not clear where you need to Change and where a route runs through. It would be easy to say give the routes different names - in fact GOSpel Oak to Barking LINe was informally called the GOBLIN. Colouring can be done by using striped or mutli-coloured lines, say outer is orange, inner white, Green, Blue, Pink whatever.
They would definitely have to increase the size of the "pocket tube map" a little XD
As a Gravesender, I like the idea of using Oyster card on an integrated Rail - Tube - Bus system. The issue I have is political. How long would it be before Gravesham becomes an outer borough of London.
I think it’s a very good idea, let’s look at the Liverpool Street to shenfield and Paddington to reading, obviously these lines are connected by Elizabeth line, however the reintroduction of TFL RAIL with a nicer navy branding on the Elizabeth line style class would work well for the south of London, for example a TFL rail line running from Victoria to Coulsdon for example with stations operated by TFL and therefore leading to a faster timetable, fares could be lowered for example by optimising the user of fare zones 7-9 and as well as that, and so,etching I think could be Implemeted out to reading on the Elizabeth line is what I would call a outside far zone barrier, this barrier would be a new zone that would have a higher charge then the 1-9 zones but still be cheaper then national rail, therefore lowering commuter costs, expanding the unification of Greater London into the TFL network and a major Improvement to the current metro style services offered by the south western eastern and southern operators.
bro predicted the future
I think the Thameslink brand can be kept as is. Thameslink, with its unique City North-to-South underground through route, stands out from just another Overground or rail service.
Moreover, it has to be express service within all Big London boundaries (M25) as this is its key feature but that means that it has to be paired with Overground services which would provide local train connectivity. So Thameslink should be properly named as "Thameslink Express" then
are you the announcer from train sim world 2??
I agree that TfL taking over routes such as Thameslink makes perfect sense. Thameslink, in particular, is the best match as it almost fulfils the role of Crossrail 2.
I think Thameslink is much less likely to be replaced than the others, because of the central core section. Through trains from Brighton to Bedford/Cambridge obviously wouldn't be TfL, and mixing operators every 2.5mins through the automated core wouldn't be as easy as the older underutilized tracks the current Overground was built on. Southern, Southeastern and Southwestern services should totally be TfLified though
I want TfL to take over Thameslink because it'd be funny to see "Transport for London" at Brighton station.
if they want to do that they should probably extend the overground to tring or milton keynes
I'd be suprised if they took over Thameslink since it runs as far as Cambridge and Brighton and isn't really a metro service. Sadiq wants to name (and colour) the different Overground lines so I suspect this would be applied to any other services transferred to London Overground - however the government's plans for Great British Railways might well scupper that.
they're not taking over the companies. they are taking over the services they run. this just means that thameslink wont have to worry about the metro routes and instead focus on improving services such as brighton to cambridge
I wasn’t happy when the Shenfield to Liverpool Street/Romford-Upminster and Lea Valley services were taken over by TfL but if this is ever going to happen they should introduce a “London Metro” branding for TfL run services that terminate at the London terminals (i.e. Waterloo/Victoria/Charing Cross) and keep the London Overground branding for the orbital services.
How about LONDON METRO SOUTH, LONDON METRO SOUTH EAST, SOUTH WEST etc etc ... all as groupings of services but a quality standard - much like 'London Overground'?
It's good tfl is taking over the suburban national rail lines.
Would this make the trains 378s and 710s or would they be existing trains
I don't know what all this means but seeing TfL, I see this as an absolute win. I'd love it if they branded it as TfL Rail, makes perfect sense!
Brand it all Overground, use different colours with the current Overground/Elizabeth Line 2 line pattern and number the lines O1, O2, O3 etc. (Pl, maybe miss out 2 perhaps) as they do in other countries like Germany with the urban trains or S-Bahn S1, S2 etc.
If TfL take over Southern and Southeastern metro routes, that would allow those companies to improve their services on the rest of their network, which is what they badly need right now.
Some ideas what TfL could do:
- Tube map: Provide different tube maps: a small one with just the Tube, and a larger one with all rail services. Also maybe maps of areas of London (such as south london, north london, southwest) that also include key bus routes.
- Branding: They should use overground brand for metro services except thameslink, which they should just continue calling thameslink. Or they could re-introduce the Network SouthEast brand. I would certainly like that.
- Route numbering: TfL should number its rail services. Every route variant of a tube or rail service should get its own route number. It's not necessary to cover every origin-destination pair on complex routes, in that case numbering destinations (plus variations if there's multiple ways to reach a destination) is enough.
- Livery: They could give individual livery variations to every single train, that would be maximum variety and a very cool idea. Would even provide variety within trains of the same fleet. Of course they can have some common elements for branding.
I like this :)
tfl could use the tfl rail branding for all lines but keep the respective livery colours on the map to distinguish each line
damn that would be epic. they should do the whole country next
Yes please. Badly needed in London where we don’t have a tube south of Brixton. We re sardines over here relying on unreliable, infrequent, trains.
That idea about going bk to connex days would be sick, but i just know they wouldn’t revisit that because it would get ppl of a certain age both old and young like us excited for no reason because it would feel like were on our way back to London transport days or British rail 😔
I rather like this idea. However Thameslink, for example, covers Brighton to Bedford which are way outside London. How could that be handled?
TfL are only taking these thameslink routes:
sutton loop lines
blackfriars - sevenoaks/orpington
@@Super_Trainspotter Which ignores all of Thameslink within London north of Blackfriars.
@@PeterGaunt because the takeover is meant to exclusively improve SOUTH london's services
Thameslink should be brought under TfL and put into a category with the Elizabeth Line and that should be the beginning of it's own new network just like the RER in Paris.
The fact it is TfL service or not doesn't really matter. It's all in Oyster zone so technically part of the London integrated transport system. the only potential beneficiaries are new services that would have been outside of the Oyster Zone such as the extremities of Crossrail
the development of routes and interchanges, timetables etc. tends to be part of an integrated transport strategy for the most part.
That said, the current franchising system has pros and draw backs, franchising has brought us a lot of new trains especially in the London area (also some waste as trains have been ordered by on franchise only to be taken out by next franchise).
oyster is a good system, I think that it should be nationwide to tap on and tap off with one
I hate this idea what needs to happen is British rail again which is more likely
It falls down when you look at the services from old street / kings cross to letchworth with 717s now these services are stabled at letchworth and the pool of drivers that operate these services are from peterborough / hitchin /cambridge and kings cross. if you were to operate a metro type service on the GN routes they would terminate at Stevenage and stable at Welwyn garden city
How the heck could they fit more trains into the London Bridge corridor for example.
The idea sounds good (maybe), but has a lot of flaws and caveats. The thing is, the point of the Overground was to provide circumfrencial service around London using underused BR lines. That idea worked really well. The improvement possibility (and reality) was huge. With the metro services south of the river, they're radial, so more akin to Tube lines that don't go all the way in (except Thameslink), so they're a different thing. Also, the services are already pretty frequent (many are already every 15 minutes) and they are very full a lot of the time. The trains are also more comfortable than Overground 710s. I would much rather go to Hampton Court on a 707 with 4 abreast seating than a 710 with longitudinal, fairly hard seats. The main thing that would be good is unified fares and branding and higher frequencies, but I just don't think the track has the capacity. Schemes like Crossrail 2 are much better. They would provide a proper RER style service, like the Elizabeth Line and Thameslink do now. Actually, I'd probably suggest changing Thameslink to TFL branding and make the services perhaps shorter and more frequent. Does anyone actually go all the way from Bedford to Brighton on a class 700? I think you'd get a numb bum!
I have been all the way from Brighton to Bedford
@@rogersanderson1725 Is that because you needed to, or because you like trains and wanted to do it for fun?
@@mdhazeldine I like trains, did it just because I thought it would be interesting. Was pre 700 though did it in the comfort of an electrostar.
@@rogersanderson1725 You just prove my point. Nobody would sit in a 700 for that long unless they really had to and have no other options or unless they're a train geek and really love 700s. Haha
While this is a great concept there are many flaws to this idea such as the confusion with a potential new map, cost (tfl are broke asf), dealing with aging rolling stock, etc. However, this would be a good idea strictly for lines that don't get a good service currently. Eg. The Blackfriars to Sevenoaks route only operates every 30 mins even during rush hour sometimes. Routes similar to that could benefit from a new Overground style service.
I would be Pro as long as it would not all be shown as London Overground. How about TFSEL, TFSWL and TFSCL?