Separate Route Identities

The DLR often changes service patterns though, whereas the Overground has very clear lines that are independently operated.

The trouble with the word Harlequin is that one of its usages is to refer to 'a comedian' - in the past this meaning became too apt as the service itself was seen as a joke.

Does the DLR often change its service patterns? What about the LU Subsurface network when weekend engineering works sees Circle line trains going to Barking (etc) or Upminster - Edgware Road District line trains travelling direct between High Street Kensington and Gloucester Road. These too must confuse some passengers!

Brunel Line sounds great to me. A new name is also needed for the North London line, as that way it mitigates the loss of the West and South London Lines and the fact that part of the (nowadays) East London line was originally part of the North London line!

As for the maps, rather than use a different colour per line the Overground should remain orange but with different shapes in the lines. This tweet of mine (actually a reply to other people) shows what I mean...

Which was the original inspiration for the name, back in 1988.

I did have a suggestion for the North London Line - Regency Line, as much of it runs parallel to the Regents Canal (indeed, both the canal and the railway were originally intended for the same purpose - to connect Birmingham (via the L&B Railway or the Grand Union Canal) to London Docks.

"Regency" and "Premier" were both once suggested for the H&C -the former because it passes Regents Park, the latter as it was the first Underground line (the "Metropolitan" name having been usurped by the later St John's Wood branch and its extensions into the Home Counties)

ChrisM highlights the challenges posed by core and occasional routes on the Overground, which like the DLR is a network—not a single line. To that extent we could also refer to Underground lines with more than one branch as networks, but they grew more or less out of one core route-stem. Some had branches truncated to form new lines, others gave up running from one LER subsidiary to another. And it still is the Northern Line which penetrates most deeply to the South. Maybe in even years it should be called the Southern Line instead. NO!

The Overground is an amalgam of many pre-grouping companies’ routes: Not exhaustive: LNWR, N&SWJR, LSWR, WLR, WLER, NLR, GER, ECR, ELR, LB&SCR and co-working over lines previously owned by the LC&DR, SE&CR. Finding a single meaningful name for this ever expanding network of incorporations is invidious and not necessarily helpful to the users, particularly, as it has been the intent for several years to add many lines, which are in the GLA area into an Overground Network; a name used by the SRA for three years from 2003? for services mainly in the south of London.

Going back to ChrisM’s point, perhaps it’s important to separate in our minds the concept of lines from that of core and subsidiary routes. The former owes more to historical ownership, precedent or at a stretch location, while the latter, in South London at least, like the DLR has always been susceptible to route modifications. Look at the evolution of London Terminals for the Caterham line or for services from Sevenoaks or Orpington. Weekend routes have often been quite different from weekday routes. I really don’t think there is much to be gained by trying to bend these routes to a quasi-Yerkes or a sentimental naming mindset. Wherever possible the names should convey useful information. Also, I don’t think Londoners are ready yet for the RER style of route description (over 30 years old) where the first letter of the four-character name borne by trains shows the train’s ultimate destination, the second letter the calling pattern and the remaining two letters are used to build intelligible words.

But let’s try a few. Ultimate destinations W = Watford Jn. S = Stratford. E = East Croydon. C = Clapham Jn.. B = Battersea Park, D = Dalston Jn. H = Highbury & Isllington. P = Crystal Palace R = Richmond. V = Victoria. Calling pattern A = all stations, E = Express stops only.

Waiting at Sydenham for a train to get to Canada Water, those bearing DAKS and HATS would always work (The KS and TS would simply make up memorable names). In the other direction wanting to get to Crystal Palace a PACK or VACK train would do. Waiting at Imperial Wharf for a train to Shepherd’s Bush, those bearing WELK and SALT would always get you there. Waiting at Elephant for Sutton, SAWS would get you there via Wimbledon and SAMS via Mitcham Jn. The system can be played out as it is on the RER. In our case we might have to use the first two characters for destinations and then add three more for stopping pattern and to make meaningful, recognizable but always inoffensive words.

No doubt accommodating diversionary or the late night routes ChrisM mentions would demand imagination—rather like the old London director exchange names! (we can all guess where TATe Gallery – 7828 or HARrow -- 8427 were/are, but IVYdale – 489 now 8394?? – of course, Ewell).

If a name for the network is to be chosen then it might be best to go for a borough-independent, uncontroversial homonym e.g. Nightingale or the name of London flora or fauna. How about Sparrow!

Looks like it could possibly be on the cards after all!

www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/london-overground-renamed-sadiq-khan-diversity-b930046.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1618568147

Map and destination are indeed different subjects.


IMHO I'd use the system per Paris RER - that extends the A1 B1 use into [mostly] pronouncable 4 letter words.


For those who are unware, each Paris RER service pattern _ including those in opposite directions between the same stations pairs _ has a unique 4 letter string. Short workings have different strings to long workings.

They are known as "les codes missions des trains"; I can't find a reliable authoritative single source for every code _ but there are a lot (a lot!) of web sites that list some of them often on a line by line basis.

There is some decoding that can be done with them, the letters are not all random. I don't necessarily agree the four letters do need to be decodable _ "trainspotter" OCD may require this, the general public does not _ but what they do need to be is unique, distinct, pronouncable, and memorable.

Not even related to any destination, just memorable. That is the key, 4 letters writ large _ large for those with restricted vision and audibly clearly distinct for those with none. Even the Braille code of just four letters is short and simple (_ foot sensitive platform Braille markings maybe ?)

It would be nice if when pronounced backwards it means the opposite service direction, so long as it does not impair it's clarity.







I'm sure we could have a whole raft of 4 letter word (!) suggestions, and I can see the scope for comedians here, but maybe some with more spare time than I have could come up with an appropriate list _ but remember _ unique, clear, distinct, pronouncable, memorable.

No, the code for each service is different even if the terminal point is the same. The service depends on the calling pattern, not the end point, because the codes have to cater for intermediate journeys before any route converges with another one. The 3 Chenfords - from Chingford Cheshunt Enfield - would have each a seperate code.

I understand certain combinations have had to be removed from the RER for that reason.

Personally I prefer the German approach S1, S2, etc, with S11, S21 for variations on the main route.

I would go for the two character approach - it worked well in the former Southern region, and north of London on the Broad Street services as mentioned above. Rather than four character codes, keeping things simple e.g.:
Highbury - Clapham Junction via South London could be J1 (J for Junction), Highbury to Battersea Park = J2 as this is a variant of J1, Stratford to Clapham Junction = J3
Other destinations may include N for eNfield, C for Cheshunt, W for Watford, E for Euston, S for Stratford, B for Barking, G for Gospel Oak, X for New Cross, R for Richmond, U for Upminster, L for Liverpool Street
Other name clashes for W are Willesden Junction, West Croydon, C for Crystal Palace (P for Palace?), Chingford, R for Romford need resolving

I question that a series of Exx Exy Ezz etc are memorable to the public especially non-regulars. Memorability, does that word exist ?, is key here.


Remember the contributors within this forum are generally very conversant with the London rail network. Most (all?) of us have advanced layman knowledge _ indeed we could not be having this discussion unless we did. But that does not mean we need to produce an OCD driven set of route codes that have to lie in a nice neat classifed sequence that technically rivals the library Dewey Decimal system - but does not assist the public further to identify a train.


While the list of E number Chris has suggested is neat and complete for services, they are one direction only. The Paris RER codes are different for each direction. They need to be for the 'normals'. Willesden JUnction is baffling if you are unfamiliar with it - which one goes what way - and you can get disorientated in that zig zagging between levels. I might not, you might not, but lesser mortals outwith this forum can.


Like I said I can't remember bus route numbers. Bus routes have the same number in each direction - but by that alone you can not tell which bus stop to go to. No end of times I have exited train station X found a bus stop but WHICH side of the road hence WHICH direction is it serving? It is not always clear, if you want to get from X to Y but the text destination on the bus display and bus stop signage are A (one way) or B (the other way). The same applies to trains and platforms, or platforms with multiple services.


Further, the hard of seeing might not be able to distinguish E22 from E23, or E20 from E30. This is a bigger problem than most think - main line Glasgow Central for instance has addressed a problem for those with sight issues who could not easily distinguish between destinations Newton and Neilston on the LED concourse dot matrix - but to both trains go from platforms very close together and part of the same (operational) service group with the same stock types. I forget what the fix is (one is capitalised I think, whatever, it is obviously different when you see it). [[Indeed it is so different it has led to questions on other forums WHY is it different.]]


I think the comment other about the German S bahn S-sequences is also incomplete w.r.t. what I am suggesting. The main sequence S1, S2 etc is no different than Paris RER line A, B etc, and true Germany S21, S22 are route variations but AFAIK the latter neither address stopping pattern differences or short workings nor directions.


My key points are :

memorable codes [not a mass of numbers]

route NOT destination codes

stopping pattern not line codes

opposite directions have different codes

clearly visibly different codes [for the hard of seeing]

pronouncable codes [for the hard of hearing]



If it works in Paris it would work on London. Indeed me going from "expert" (ha ha) London travel to novice Paris travel I know it works. It is sight easier to remember KROL (from ONYX WUZE or whatever) it was near my hotel stop than J23 from J32 or J2, and I didn't have to think about was I going the right direction when a KROL did turn up.


Just to hammer the point home, who here has been on an LU track competance course. Why do they tell you WIND and OUSE ? One reason. Simple aide memoires. That is what I am getting at.

The present-day trains are not designed for route codes, such as B2 (Broad Street - Watford via Primrose Hill) so line names would be the easiest to implement.

The use of compass points (north south east west) would be best excluded from route names - not just to avoid complications (eg: where southbound East London line and eastbound North London line trains serve the same station) but to mask the reality that the South London line as a route name has been euthanised and West London line subsumed in to the North London line.

Brunel line and Hampstead line are perhaps suitable (confusion free) alternatives? As with the Underground it is possible to have a line which has several branches that serve different destinations. (Confusion is unlikely because very few people will know that there was once a different Hampstead line).

Goblin is already well known.

Euston Watford is already often called 'Watford line' so for simplicity this should be used.

Romford Upminster is so short and so far removed (physically) that it does not require renaming, but if one wants to treat all lines equally than it could be named Emerson line!

West Anglia services could perhaps either be named something like Hackney line (all trains serve Hackney Downs station and it would perhaps delight local people to have their area recognised in this way) or named after their remote destinations (Enfield, Chingford, etc). The downside of this latter option is that it would then require differentiation on already crowded maps, although it would make it easier to show that Chingford trains do not serve all stations. That said, Underground maps have never normally shown that Metropolitan line trains often skip certain stations.

Pre-empting future likelihoods, and to avoid confusion with the Northern line, the Northern City service that is likely to become part of the Overground could be named after one of the stations it serves. Palace line (all trains serve Alexandra Palace station) would be a simple, easy to remember name. Ideally that name would have been used by the Stratford - Palace Gates service but as that is now in memorandum it remains 'available'.

ps: DLR needs line names too - a topic for elsewhere.

Neither does the Metropolitan line...  Not sure there's an appetite or need for it?

To expand on this a little... Those familiar with London and its transport routes will know the route they need to use.  Increasingly, those who aren't are relying on digital journey planners which will tell them exactly where to go (some can even provide directions through the station now) and when to change and most track engineering changes and some track unplanned disruption.  There is a real balance between complexity of information given and actual detail communicated in a useful way.

That said I'd be very in favour of renaming the two Northern Line branches in to two distinct lines once the Battersea extension is complete.