Talk:Watford DC line

DC?

What does the "DC" stand for? --Jfruh (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct current (MrJRT 14:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

Map

Like the map, but I have a couple of observations. Firstly, what does the green circle with an 's' in it mean ... I cannot find it on the Legend. Also, there is a connection at Willesden Jn to the rear of Willesden Traction Maintenance Depot (where some of the Silverlink Metro stock is serviced).ALECTRIC451 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Chiltern Line crosses the route at South Hampstead. ALECTRIC451 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It took me a while with google maps and a few sheets of a4 to work it out, and i made some compromises. I'll investigate these points ;) Originally i left out the "s" option (The template is an import from the German Wikipedia, presumably it meant s-bhan), but other editors have started adding it to represent the tube (really could do with a tube like symbol), but with the Watford DC line sharing a significant length with the Bakerloo line IMHO it gives the wrong impression. There also exists several icons in blue (for the u-bhan, or as i interpreted it the tube), hence the layout south of Queens Park. Pickle 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the combined s-bahn/regular symbol is not ideal for these shared Bakerloo line sections, but I think LUL connections are worth representing on the maps. Although a tube-like symbol would be a nice idea, it would not be any more appropriate to (for example) the Tyne metro than the current one. I also definitely think we should expand the 'legend' page [to show more of the symbols we're all using. AlexTiefling 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was more referring to the conflict of mixing s-bhan with u-bhan (tube), since we don't have s-bhan in the UK (well maybe Tyne and Wear is the only one). The talk page at WP:TRAIL has the guy from the Netherlands who (i think) has designed all the templates. Pickle 13:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pickle thanks for the explanation of the 's' symbol. Dare I raise a few more observations! The Chiltern line at South Hampstead should run above the WCML/DC Lines. At Willesden, there is only a single connection to the back of Willesden TMD. If you change the trailing crossover (top one) for a facing one, and delete the other trailing crossover (lower one), then it will be correct. Also, the connection to the Dudding Hill line is only from the North. You cannot get to the Dudding Hill line from the south (via the Freightliner depot, so if you remove the left-side of the traingle, then this will be correct. If you want some further references, the try Clives Underground Line Guides (CULG), they have some maps similar that that which you have very kindly produced. You can "compare and contrast" as they say. Cheers mate. ALECTRIC451 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of the S symbol for the LUL stations is slightly misleading - in German railway terms, the entire DC line is an S-Bahn (indeed all of Silverlink Metro is). The Tyne and Wear Metro is more comparable to a Stadtbahn. The stations need an underground-specific symbol, either with the German U, or with a blue line through the middle like the Underground roundel. Also, perhaps a distinction needs to be made between Queen's Park to Harrow - which share tracks and platforms with the underground, and Euston, which merely connects to it. I believe the symbol was designed for the former, which is why there is only an S symbol currently - U-Bahns don't tend to run alongside main lines more often, while S-Bahns are more integrated with the railway system, indeed they are usually part of the railway system. ArtVandelay13 15:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of incurring your wrath, I have another item for the map. The DC line joins the WCML at Camden Junction just south of Hampstead Tunnels (where the line to Camden Road via Primrose Hill leaves). The junction arrangement is very complex and would require a map in its own right! Suffice it to say that the interconnection between the WCML happens here rather than outside of Euston Station. Between Camden junction and Euston the up and down slow lines are dual-electrified with overhead and third rail electrification into Platforms 9 and 10 (10 is normal platform, 9 is emergency use). On rare occasions, the service runs into platforms other than 9/10, and trains change traction from overhead to third rail in the Camden area (just north of the canal). ALECTRIC451 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Just call me "Victor Meldrew"! There are no regular timetabled services on the WCML (by Silverlink County) to either Wembley Central or Queens Park. They are used when the DC lines are having operational problems (or an event at Wembley), but thats all. Someday, someone will hopefully re-build the platforms at Willesden Junction that were on the WCML (slow lines will suffice). ALECTRIC451 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wembley Central does get some Southern services, during the peaks. ArtVandelay13 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I'm busy with Uni work at the moment and will try and work on all the comments at some point. I only did what i did from aerial photos and what I've seen going north on the (fast) WCML. Pickle 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently it's near impossible to discern which part is actually the DC Line unless you already know. I'm thinking of making the DC Line run straight down the middle with the WCML weaving around it (which I know is the opposite of the geographical layout, but this isn't a geographical map). --Dtcdthingy 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for me to leave this page. All the best folks. I simply cannot have my time wasted any longer by a person that is not part of the Project, and who tried to get a project page (Class 378) deleted.ALECTRIC451 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa there! That was Dtcdthingy's only contribution to this talk page. I think the change he proposes is in principle desirable, but the topology won't allow it in three columns, so it won't happen. AlexTiefling 12:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Now we've got the BS5 template, I've been able to follow this suggestion - now the DC line runs dead straight up the middle, and the WCML has only two kinks in it. AlexTiefling 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work ;) Pickle 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's exactly it. This map format isn't designed to cram in this much information. The LT&S is a good example of how it should be done. It could show the DLR, District, CTRL, freight branches and eveything else, but doesn't, and is much better for it. We're never going to put Quail out of business. --Dtcdthingy 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a limit to what the BS3 template can show. on one level I'm tempted to create two table - one the very simple list of stations north to south and the second the full '9 years' worth of detail (which i think is encyclopedic especially if you were a regular traveller along the route wanting to know intricate details). While i agree showing the WCML throughout rather than having it drop on and off was a design compromise. Ideally i would like to use the dual line icon but i feel there aren't enough of them to render the line detail properly. Work for the future ;) Pickle 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am revised the map. I hope everyone a little more happy then before. Sheepcot 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Fail — simply linking to sources is not sufficient - specific details are required. The use of inline citations is highly recommended. Specific details refers to, for example, stating the page number(s) of a referenced book, rather than the title; the ISBN number is also preferred - see WP:ISBN.
7. Images: Very Good — excellent network overview/map is provided, which is useful for the at-a-glance information Wikipedia readers are often looking for.

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review if you believe I have been misguided; you might also opt to discuss my decision at my talk page.

Sincerest regards,
anthony^[cfc] 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination - Failed

A number of serious questions arise.

(1) Who are the "lead editors" for this page?
(2) Why have the "lead editors" failed to ensure that this article is properly referenced?
(3) I note that the "lead editors" work has been "informally recognised" ... how can this be, the article failed to reach the next level as it was supposed to have been?
(4) Why was the article submitted for review to reach the "next level" when it did not have the necessary references/citations?

This has damaged the wiki trains project reputation very badly ... and some hard questions need to be answered and the "lead editors" need to come forward and accept the blame for this travesty. This is a very bad day. Sheepcot 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please will the "lead editors" of this article be coming forward and accepting their guilt for this disaster. I doubt that they will. They will hide. They will accept that they have been "informally recognised" for their "hard work" ... even though their failure stands for all to see.Sheepcot 21:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know I am spreading of bad news, but there is a lining of silver. I am prepared to revise this article to obtain the higher status of the next time of asking. All I ask is that the "lead editors" make themselves known to me, such that I can acquire from them the data required to provide the necessary references and citations. It cannot be right that the "lead editors" remain unknown at this time, when their "hard work" has been "informally recognised" (read as "acknowledged"). The work of the "lead editors" has been done, let others turn this into a "world class" article, and let us be recognised too.Sheepcot 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its not the end of the world by any means. Its a basic thing to cite articles, and we're all meant to be doing it properly with inline citations, etc, et al. Don't know who nominated it for GA status (sorry its late and I'm knackered) but normally people read up on the criteria, and fulfil the basic stuff like that, i mean someone, probably me had TWP tagged the page and noted the lack on citation *and/or* inline citation - that means with all the funky templates explaining it all, etc. "lead editors" is a standard phrase for those who have done big bits of editing (as opposed to typo correction say) and normally are the ones who nominated the article for GA status. Pickle 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DC line signalboxes

Can anyone recall what signalboxes existed north of Harrow so that the list can be completed ? ISTR there was one at Watford High Street and I assume there was one at Watford Junction (but possibly not serving only the DC line?). This seems to leave a gap between Harrow and WHS where at least one other ought to have been.--MBRZ48 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates

The article seems remarkably date-free in contrast to its multitude of details given for, for example, signalling.--SilasW (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit of 19 Oct 2008

The article had much repetition in different styles as though different editors had put in similar information without considering what was already written. I've tried to organise it somewhat. There are still few dates except vague (=??as I recall??) decades.--SilasW (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminating at South Hampstead

Query about this statement - "At Watford Junction, Watford - Euston services are advertised as terminating at South Hampstead, in order to persuade passengers for Euston to take the frequent faster services." I could be wrong, but I don't think this is true any longer - last time I was there, LO services were advertised as "Local service all stations" or something, to make the distinction from the LM express. If someone could confirm and update this, it would be useful. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I live in Watford and use the train everyday. The DC service is shown as being to South Hampstead. The reason is not to "persuade", but to avoid passengers using a service to London that takes 45 minutes rather than 20. It's called being helpful. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate voltages on the system

The article has a section that the voltage on the line is in 200-300 metre sections of alternating 750 volts and 630 volts. This has to be a complete nonsense. Firstly, this would require twice as many substations feeding the line, doubling the capital cost. Second, it is completely unnecessary. It flies in the face of the claims made elsewhere in Wikipedia and available elsewhere.

The Class 378 trains are fully capable of operating of 660 volts, as indeed they have to do on the Richmond to South Acton line (shared with the District line). The underground stock is also able to operate at 660 volts (as 660 volts is within the upper permanent voltage specification of 750 volts). Every reference on the subject has the line electrified at 'a compromise voltage' of 660 volts. It was not originally a compromise, because 660 volts became the standard third rail voltage before the change to 750 volts, but underground stock was able to operate at that voltage without problems because the voltage was within the 'permanent' voltage limits of 420-750 volts. A 750 volt electrification at any point would not be acceptable because other equipment on the underground stock operates even when the train is not motoring (lights, heating etc. etc.). The maximum permanent voltage of the 750 volt system (900 volts) is well outside the maximum permanent voltage for the underground stock. The maximum non permanent voltage (i.e. can be tolerated occasionally) of 1000 volts is also unacceptably outside of the underground stocks max. non permanent voltage of 840 volts.

Unless good sources can be found to support this dubious material it will be deleted. I do not believe such sources will be found. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense section still not referenced after three months therefore deleted. –LiveRail < Talk > 09:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm bringing this topic back up because the article says the line has been converted up to 750v 'because of the class 710s'. Is this correct? There's no source cited and also this would require the Bakerloo line's 1972 stock to be also upgraded to 750v operation and I know of no evidence or even rumour of this and is generally unlikely. Contrapunctus.mammalia (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Layout at Watford Junction

The map is incorrect at Watford Junction. It implies there is a route from the DC line to the St Albans branch but the connection to the WCML is a trailing connection onto the Down Fast line north of the other junctions which would allow trains from the Euston direction to reach St Albans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBRZ48 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 28 March 2015

@MBRZ48: True, fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed fiction

I've removed a map and words that refer to the London Overground service being removed and Bakerloo extended.

Both referred to a document

[[1]]

and map

[[2]]

That both actually propose the extension of London Overground and the maintainace of the current Bakerloo.

 BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Harlequin Line Name- Was this ever official?

The article states that during the Network Southeast era, the line was officially named the Harlequin Line, and I am unsure if this was actually official. The line certainly had a harlequin pattern branding, but the name given seems to be “North London Lines”, as seen [3] And [4]

Are there any photos of locomotives, station signage or ephemera with the name “Harlequin Line” on it? If not, the article should say it was renamed the “North London Lines” and had a Harlequin pattern branding ThatBritishPleb (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ref 2 - Watford Observer ref: https://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/11881998.br-launches-operation-sparkle/ - --David Biddulph (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The article seems contradictory, with several people suggesting different things. Colin Knight suggests “The name was soon dropped by British Rail and forgotten about…”, and “the small group of lines which included the Euston-Watford line, became known as the North  London lines”. But M.R.Day suggests ““The new name was officially launched on June 18, 1988 at a ceremony attended by top British Rail people.”. But no concrete evidence from either person.

The links I provided showed images of the line with Harlequin Route Branding as being named the “North London Lines”. Surely this should get at least a mention seeing as there is photographic evidence of the name existing? ThatBritishPleb (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThatBritishPleb: If you look at the source, it does have a paragraph reading The name was soon dropped by British Rail and forgotten about, but if you raad on a bit more (those adverts get in the way somewhat), you will find: For a while there was a harlequin motif on the trains and stations, but these were dropped presumably because they did not fit in with the corporate colours of British Rail. also The new name was officially launched on June 18, 1988 at a ceremony attended by top British Rail people. It was definitely covered in Railway Magazine at the time, I need to see if I still have my copies from that period (lots went missing in a Summer 2022 house move). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The Night Watch (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

---

• Watford DC line → Lioness line
• Gospel Oak to Barking line → Suffragette line
• Lea Valley lines → Weaver line
• Romford–Upminster line → Liberty line
• East London line → Windrush line
• North London line → Mildmay line

– New names have now been announced and are going into effect, so new titles are needed. Note that the articles will also need to be updated as the Windrush line also incorporates much of the South London line and the Mildmay line incorporates much of the West London line. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if the moves should be made immediately, as these changes won't be fully rolled out until the autumn. Certainly make sure the article headers include the new names and that transition will be straightforward when things are made official. Radagast (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this too soon - and its already being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Furthermore, the London Overground services use more "lines" than the ones you indicate - e.g. the Mildmay line will use the North London line and the West London line. Turini2 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I expect an RM will be more widely viewed including by those not necessarily active in that wikiproject; the new tube map involving the new names is out already so even if the names are not fully in action until the autumn, I think it's still worth moving them now as there's widespread media coverage of the new names.

As for your point about using "more lines", my initial assumption would be that it would make the most sense to rename North London line to Mildmay line, and then expand the Mildmay line article to cover information about the West London line too. Unless you think there a good reason the history behind the new Overground lines should remain in separate articles? For the Underground lines, history tends to remain in the same article rather than being contained in different articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I too think it's too soon for a rename. For now we should redirect from the new name to the current name, and putting the new name in the lead paragraph. The BBC news article[5] says "Work to rebrand the lines will start immediately, with the main rollout of the new names and colours planned to take place across a week in the autumn"; we should wait until this "main rollout" week before renaming the articles. 91.125.241.32 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the current article titles seem to be mainly used internally and not signed, rather than actually widely used. The BBC article on the renaming, for instance, contains no mention of the term "Watford DC line". So I would argue that the new names would already count as the common names. It would be more useful for a reader of this article between now and autumn to be able to see "oh, that's the new Lioness line" rather than the title remaining as an internal unsigned designation that few people are aware of. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Checked some news articles from today and they all back up "Watford DC line" not being a common name. Watford Observer uses "the London Euston to Watford Junction Overground line"; the Evening Standard uses "The Euston to Watford Junction part of the Overground", the Independent uses "The route between Euston and Watford Junction". I haven't checked for the other Overground lines but I expect the situation would be much the same. It's not a case of a well-used name being replaced by another well-used name in the autumn– it's a case of a line that previously had no commonly used name gaining such a name. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd draw the distinction between the lines (most of which predate London Overground, Silverlink and even Network SouthEast) and the names London Overground gives to its services (e.g. Dalston Junction to Clapham Junction) which run on one or more of the lines. And until today, the branding has always been that there's just one "London Overground", hence the need to for the newspapers to explain which segments of the singular brand is being split into multiple brands in accordance with the brand owner, without reference to other off-brand names.

While they did issue these new line names today, the full branding will take quite a while, and most people, if they're referring to a line, are probably still going to call it the North London Line, East London Line or South London Line, etc., until the new branding has taken hold in the public consciousness. 91.125.241.32 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of these lines are not direct replacements:

• Mildmay line, is a combination of North London line and West London line
• Windrush line is a combination of East London line and South London line
• Weaver line, is only part of the routes on the Lea Valley lines with Greater Anglia providing services to Hertford and Stratford

In these three cases, when the time is right, there should be new articles. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#New London Overground lines MRSC (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@MRSC: I'll also point out here, in case it changes your mind, as detailed in my reply below that the Bakerloo line uses part of the Watford DC line. So I don't know if you think that that article should be renamed Lioness Line when the time comes because of that. --TedEdwards 01:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose moves for now, I agree with MRSC that several of the names merge parts of different routes (e.g. North London line and West London line). Also, the current names have been used for a very long time and are very well-known (the West London line name goes back to the 1840s, the North London line goes back to the 1850s), so we can wait to see if these names bed down and become popular. For now I would keep the current articles under WP:COMMONNAME. Blythwood (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose at least for now. It's far too soon for the WP:COMMONNAME to have changed, and there also needs to be some discussion about how best to organise the content - it might be better to cover the physical line and the service on separate articles rather than merge/split. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, too soon to analyse WP:NAMECHANGES for a new WP:COMMONNAME, otherwise the argument is WP:OFFICIALNAMES not to be used. As well that the names have merely been announced with rebranding to slowly be applied. However, as a formal line name, replacing a not-as-known name, if sources very quickly drop the old names, then any RM then can quickly follow soon, with evidence for NAMECHANGES. It is too soon rn. DankJae 23:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose What some people are failing to notice is the distinction between lines (the physical track) and services. It's confused because LO are using the term "line" to mean a service. One service may run over more than one physical line; and one physical line may be used by more than one service. Our six articles listed at the top are, generally speaking, about physical lines. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose similarly to Redrose64: routes≠lines. Bazza (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Hold it – right now, I think WP:COMMONNAME applies but sooner than later the newer names will become the common name. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now - We should wait until the new names are official and brought into effect. However, a slight chamne i would recommend would be adding brackets to the opening sentences mentioning the new name (e.g. 'East London Line (to be renamed windrush line in Autumn 2024) is a london overground line...'), because readers should be clearly informed of it. Leave the article name moves for now though. Lawrence 979 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose A change would be jumping the gun. Re-brands of services on this line (distinct from the operator description or the line description) have all been widely ignored in the past and quietly dropped.MBRZ48 (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

These new names refer to routes, not infrastructure. These pages refer to the infrastructure. The routes should either be subheadings under the London Overground page, or new pages in their own right 51.155.116.191 (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

exactly 189.222.202.233 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Generally oppose renaming As editors have pointed out there is a difference between lines and services. In the case of the Romford-Upminster line and Gospel Oak to Barking line, they are used in there entirety by the services-soon-to-be-called Liberty and Suffragette Line, and those services used the whole of the those lines, so on a future date, when Liberty/Suffragette are the common names, it would probably be best to rename those articles to Liberty/Suffragette, and have the articles talk about the lines and the services. But that's not for today.

In a similar vein, the Lioness Line service will use the entirety of the Watford DC line, so it may be good to have one article about the line and the service. However, the stretch of the line between Harrow and Wealdstone and Queen's Park is used by the underground Bakerloo Line service.

Also the Mildmay Line service uses the entirety of the North London line. However a small stretch of that line (between Richmond and Gunnersbury) is used by the District Line as well. And of course the Mildmay Line service uses the West London line (also used by Southern Rail (when they get round to operating trains that is)) as a branch between Willesden Junction and Clapham Junction, so there should be seperate articles there come what may.

For the Windrush Line service uses the entirety of the East London line and South London line, and it would be best not to merge those articles and call them "Windrush Line"

As for the Weaver Line service, while it only uses Lea Valley lines, there are huge amounts of track on that line not used by the Overground (but instead by Greater Anglia). So separate articles for the service and the line it uses forever please.

But in any case don't move any of them now, although for ones where the articles about the lines should definitely not be renamed e.g. Lea Valley lines, it may be worth creating articles about the service e.g. Weaver Line now so we have an article about the service on its own. --TedEdwards 01:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Opppose, too soon. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 13:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. This is IMHO a political move which can be undone very easily (e.g. by having a Conservative elected mayor). -- Patrickov (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The proposed "line" names (which are in fact services) do not correspond to actual lines in the case of ELL, WLL, NLL and SLL. If there are to be articles on, for example, the Windrush line, these should be separate from the existing articles. Elshad (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. The newly announced names refer to routes, some of which cover a number of different individual lines (example - the Highbury to New Cross / Clapham Jct / West Croydon / Crystal Palace route covers the East London, the South London and parts of the Brighton Main Line), in the same fashion as the Elizabeth Line runs across different lines. Additionally, there will be other operators running services over part or all of these routes. By all means create new pages for the new routes, but do not rename the existing pages. Hammersfan (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
• Postpone. I expect the pages to be renamed around the time that the new names are actually enacted, but until then, they are not the WP:COMMONNAME for the lines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The articles highlighted refer primarily to the railway infrastructure lines and not the TfL Overground Line branding for their services along Network Rail-owned infrastructure. The Overground is an operator that shares the significant parts of these lines with other operators, the main three being pointed out already above by MRSC. I would also add the Gospel Oak to Barking line to that category too given the heavy freight traffic it carries.

It would be best to keep the new branding names on the main Overground page until the usage of the names becomes actively commonplace (which might take some time), at which point they should receive separate articles. It is already the case for constituent parts of the Underground lines have their own articles primarily about the infrastructure & historical background. Major Midget (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose As the old names are still officially used by the owner of the track Network Rail and Rail for London (part of Transport for London). The names haven't changed on the official documents used by the public.I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 November 2024

• Watford DC line → Lioness line
• Gospel Oak to Barking line → Suffragette line
• Lea Valley lines → Weaver line

– Following the discussion in the above RM and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport/Archive_12#New_London_Overground_lines. The six Overground lines' names are now in use, and there was broad consensus after the discussion in February that the Mildmay line and Windrush line needed new articles whereas the Liberty line did not. As far as I can tell there was no consensus about the other three, hence the opening of this RM to determine whether the articles on the Lioness, Suffragette, and Weaver lines should be newly-created or created via a move from the three existing articles on overlapping topics. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that each of the three may have a different result- I have grouped the three together for consolidation of discussion. My opinion that the first two should definitely be moved, but uncertain about the third thanks to the broader scope of the topic so it may be best to create a new article for the Weaver line. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all, see previous section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)