Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

Roy Badami wrote:
Subject says it all. Is London Overground part of the National Rail,
network, or not?

The observation that triggered the question was seeing, on one of the
maps on board a tube train, a station showing an interchange
opportunity with London Overground, but *not* showing the National
Rail symbol against the station name. Which would seem to imply not.

Long before LO was invented, it was already the tradition that tube network
maps only used the NR symbol at stations where all of the NR lines were not
shown in both directions. So tube maps which showed the Thameslink line from
Kentish Town to Elephant had a BR symbol at Kentish Town and Elephant (to
symbolise the Thameslink lines to the suburbs) but not at Farringdon or
Blackfriars. See http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/1995.htm . Line
maps which omit the NR symbol where they already show the Overground flag
are in keeping with that philiosophy, and so imply nothing about the
relationship or lack thereof between LO and NR.

--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

Peter Smyth wrote:
"Paul Scott" wrote in message

Where Network Rail is the freeholder of the station, the National
Rail symbol still has primacy, even if only LO trains call there. LU
or LO symbol position then depends on who manages the station, eg it
is LU first on many of the DC line stations.

No it doesn't. The Overground symbol is shown before the NR symbol.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...rd-issue02.pdf

There's an issue 3 of that now, same link with '03' at the end. I was going
by section 2.3.1 there, note 3, but agree it could be interpreted
differently.

Depends on what is meant by 'interchanges with the rest of the national rail
network'. Do we assume that means trains calling?

Paul S

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

On Feb 20, 1:43*pm, Roy Badami wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
No - I said it "won't appear". At least that's what the TfL design
guidelines state. None of the stations are open yet, so I couldn't say
for sure, but there was no-sign of it at Surrey Quays or Rotherhithe
stations when I passed by recently, whilst orange LO roundels were
visible.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. *You seemed to be contrasting the situation
between Dalston and New Cross with the rest of the LO network, which you
say *is* part of National Rail.

I understand you are saying this section of line will not have any NR
branding, but I was curious as to whether the stations on the NLL, WLL
and DC line have retained the NR logo, or whether it has been removed as
part of the LO rebranding.

Yes, the other stations on the NLL, WLL and DC line retain, and will
continue to retain, the NR logo on the totem signs (i.e. the flag
things, whatever you want to call them), regardless of how much of an
LO makeover they're having / have had.

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

Willms wrote:

Not quite correct. TfL have been given the powers to let and manage the
concession for the Overground network. LOROL are the concessionaire who
operate the service for TfL and have to meet the requirements and
standards set by TfL.

which is a wrong use of the English language...

Answering questions on a UK newsgroup would seem to be a perfectly
appropriate use of the English language, but I assume that's not what
you actually meant to say.

Assuming you think that the quoted text is in some way poor English,
though, I can't immediately see anything wrong with it. Are you perhaps
confused by the use of the plural here when the organisations mentioned
are syntactically singular? That's a perfectly valid British English
construction - the organisations can be taken to be semantically plural
(think of them as collective nouns for the people at the organisation).
Singular would be correct here too, and is often used, but IME use of
the plural is more common than the singular in cases like this.
(American English would require the singular here, however.)

Or is there some other usage error that I'm missing?

-roy

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

On Feb 20, 7:24*pm, "Willms" wrote:
Am Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:47:24 UTC, *schrieb Andy *
auf uk.railway :

In some ways this is similar to the situation with Merseyrail, where
DfT has devolved the awarding of the concession/franchise to
Merseyside.

* i.e. Merseyside (or the Merseyside PTE) is the concessionaire. DfT
has awarded a concession to Merseyside, but not Merseyside to
Serco-Nedrail. *


No they havn't. Merseyside PTE (now using the public name of
Merseytravel) now award the franchise as DfT have devolved the
responsibily to them. LO and Merseyrail are the only Train Operating
Companies where DfT doesn't award the contract. London Overground is a
concession with TfL taking the revenue risk and specifying the
service, whereas in Merseyside, the revenue remains with the Train
Operating Company (Serco-Nedrail for 25 years from 2003)

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

On Feb 20, 7:24*pm, "Willms" wrote:
Am Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:41:01 UTC, *schrieb Paul Corfield
*auf uk.railway :

It is part of National Rail, but TfL has the franchise for whatever
number of years.

Not quite correct. *TfL have been given the powers to let and manage the
concession for the Overground network. LOROL are the concessionaire who
operate the service for TfL and have to meet the requirements and
standards set by TfL.

* which is a wrong use of the English language...

I suggest you check again:


con·ces·sion·aire (kn-ssh-nâr):

The holder or operator of a concession.

LOROL are the concessionaire of the concession awarded by TfL. DfT
have handed over their role to TfL, LO is a concession rather than a
franchise due to the differing arrangements regarding service levels
and revenue.


TfL also take almost all of the risk on revenue
(i.e. they set and control fares rather than it being a TOC decision)
although LOROL are incentivised to keep fraud levels under control.

* Which says that DfT has given the network used by TfL for London
Overground as a concession, and TfL has made an operation contract
with LOROL for operating it.

Check again, see above. TfL are taking the role of DfT in London
Overground and DfT have ceded all their control and role to TfL.


* The concessionaire, which is the party taking all the commercial
risk of exploiting a given resource conceded to it, is TfL.


There is nothing about revenue risk in the word concessionaire.

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

"Andy" wrote

LO and Merseyrail are the only Train Operating
Companies where DfT doesn't award the contract.

and Scotrail

Peter

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

On Feb 20, 9:22*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Andy" wrote

LO and Merseyrail are the only Train Operating
Companies where DfT doesn't award the contract.

and Scotrail


Of course, I'd forgotten about Scottish devolution, but wasn't the
current franchise awarded before DfT passed the responsibilities to
Transport Scotland? Transport Scotland did award the franchise
extension though.

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

On 20/02/2010 20:31, Roy Badami wrote:
Willms wrote:

Not quite correct. TfL have been given the powers to let and manage the
concession for the Overground network. LOROL are the concessionaire who
operate the service for TfL and have to meet the requirements and
standards set by TfL.

which is a wrong use of the English language...

Answering questions on a UK newsgroup would seem to be a perfectly
appropriate use of the English language, but I assume that's not what
you actually meant to say.

Assuming you think that the quoted text is in some way poor English,
though, I can't immediately see anything wrong with it. Are you perhaps
confused by the use of the plural here when the organisations mentioned
are syntactically singular? That's a perfectly valid British English
construction - the organisations can be taken to be semantically plural
(think of them as collective nouns for the people at the organisation).
Singular would be correct here too, and is often used, but IME use of
the plural is more common than the singular in cases like this.
(American English would require the singular here, however.)

Or is there some other usage error that I'm missing?

I think the issue is the exact meaning and use of
concession/franchise/operating contract/whatever in a particular context.

Presumably it is not the use of "Overground" to mean a limited subset of
the services which the man on the Clapham rail replacement omnibus calls
"overground", while wondering what the "Overground Network" is :-)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Is London Overground part of National Rail
 

In article ,
(Roy Badami) wrote:

I wrote:

I think it was the map of the Victoria line (i.e. the horizontal
ones inside the Victoria line trains). Is that what is meant by
'line diagram'?

I forget which station, I'm afraid.

I'm guessing it was probably Blackhorse Road, as I recall it was
close to the end of the line. Blackhorse Road appears on the
Standard Tube Map without an NR logo, too.

Does it appear with an interchange symbol? It was at one time the only
Victoria Line station to appear without such a symbol (before the Brixton
extension opened, as you ask).

--
Colin Rosenstiel