On 30/04/2010 16:09, E27002 wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:22 am, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:15:44 -0700 (PDT)

Mizter wrote:
But does it matter if the service is Tube-esque?

Well in the scheme of things its not that important , but you might as
well say why not just colour all the tube lines the same if they all
offer the same service, why differentiate? Anyway , obviously TfL were of
the opinion that the DLR required its own colours so why not Overground?

To this day I question if DLR was an apprpriate system for London.

That makes no sense. There is no "appropriate for London". What's
appropriate for High Barnet to Morden would not be appropriate for
Golders Green to Hampstead Garden Suburb. The DLR does its intended job
brilliantly, and Canary Wharf would not exist without it.

On Apr 30, 4:09*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 2:22*am, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:15:44 -0700 (PDT)

Mizter T wrote:
But does it matter if the service is Tube-esque?

Well in the scheme of things its not that important , but you might as
well say why not just colour all the tube lines the same if they all
offer the same service, why differentiate? Anyway , obviously TfL were of
the opinion that the DLR required its own colours so why not Overground?

To this day I question if DLR was an appropriate system for London.

Oh, I'm in no doubt at all, the DLR is great news. The initial system
was of course designed to service a rather different future vision of
the Docklands - a sort of large business park - then Olympia & York
came along and decided to do something a bit different...

On Apr 30, 4:08*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 2:15*am, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 30, 9:44*am, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:27 +0100
"Kipling" wrote:

And the colours or rings are too similar.

Yeah , I'm of the same opinion. I said in another post the other week that
there are plenty of 2 colour combinations they could have chosen - choosing
something so similar to the Underground colours was just daft and will lead
to confusion.

But does it matter if the service is Tube-esque?

With their Victoria Line style seating, the 378s are more
"Underground" in feel than the subsurface fleet. *At least that is how
it appears from the pictures I have seen.

Considerably roomier though, of course!

"E27002" wrote in message

On Apr 30, 2:15 am, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:44 am, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:27 +0100
"Kipling" wrote:

And the colours or rings are too simmilar.

Yeah , I'm of the same opinion. I said in another post the other
week that there are plenty of 2 colour combinations they could have
chosen - choosing something so similar to the Underground colours
was just daft and will lead to confusion.

But does it matter if the service is Tube-esque?

With their Victoria Line style seating, the 378s are more
"Underground" in feel than the subsurface fleet. At least that is how
it appears from the pictures I have seen.

Pretty similar to the new C and D stock replacement trains, though.

On Apr 30, 10:14*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:09*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 2:22*am, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:15:44 -0700 (PDT)

Mizter T wrote:
But does it matter if the service is Tube-esque?

Well in the scheme of things its not that important , but you might as
well say why not just colour all the tube lines the same if they all
offer the same service, why differentiate? Anyway , obviously TfL were of
the opinion that the DLR required its own colours so why not Overground?

To this day I question if DLR was an appropriate system for London.

Oh, I'm in no doubt at all, the DLR is great news. The initial system
was of course designed to service a rather different future vision of
the Docklands - a sort of large business park - then Olympia & York
came along and decided to do something a bit different...

Given Dockland's proximity to the City, and the need for a modern
"functional" London alongside the existing jewel that, IMHO, should
not be spoiled, I would say the original vision for Docklands was
pitiful.

HMG's job was to lay out a grid system of streets, and about three
heavy rail routes. These could have been the original Fleet Line, the
Jubilee but thru to North Woolwich, and the NLL extended under the
Thames the Angerstein Wharf and Southern Region. Add to that Water,
Power, Gas and Lots of Fiber Optics. The forces of Capitalism would
take care of the rest (as they have).

On Apr 30, 4:05*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 1:44*am, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:27 +0100
"Kipling" wrote:
And the colours or rings are too similar.

Yeah , I'm of the same opinion. I said in another post the other week that
there are plenty of 2 colour combinations they could have chosen - choosing
something so similar to the Underground colours was just daft and will lead
to confusion.

Since they are both rail systems I don't think it matters a whole
lot. *I still have mixed feelings about a separate "Overground"
Identity. *Much of the Metropolitan Line is on the surface. *There are
parts of the Overground that run in tunnel.

In a sense the similarities of the Underground and Overground
identities just emphasises their togetherness, as opposed to their
separation. But I will say your previous comments on this did give me
pause for thought.

"E27002" wrote in message

On Apr 30, 10:14 am, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:09 pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 2:22 am, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 02:15:44 -0700 (PDT)

Mizter T wrote:
But does it matter if the service is Tube-esque?

Well in the scheme of things its not that important , but you
might as well say why not just colour all the tube lines the same
if they all offer the same service, why differentiate? Anyway ,
obviously TfL were of the opinion that the DLR required its own
colours so why not Overground?

To this day I question if DLR was an appropriate system for London.

Oh, I'm in no doubt at all, the DLR is great news. The initial system
was of course designed to service a rather different future vision of
the Docklands - a sort of large business park - then Olympia & York
came along and decided to do something a bit different...

Given Dockland's proximity to the City, and the need for a modern
"functional" London alongside the existing jewel that, IMHO, should
not be spoiled, I would say the original vision for Docklands was
pitiful.

I'm not sure just how much of a 'jewel' today's City is? There's plenty
of mediocre, ageing office buildings, and even the newer ones are often
nothing special (apart from the excellent Gherkin). The main objective
seems to be to preserve some specific viewing corridors of St Pauls.

On Apr 30, 10:29*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:05*pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 1:44*am, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:27 +0100
"Kipling" wrote:
And the colours or rings are too similar.

Yeah , I'm of the same opinion. I said in another post the other week that
there are plenty of 2 colour combinations they could have chosen - choosing
something so similar to the Underground colours was just daft and will lead
to confusion.

Since they are both rail systems I don't think it matters a whole
lot. *I still have mixed feelings about a separate "Overground"
Identity. *Much of the Metropolitan Line is on the surface. *There are
parts of the Overground that run in tunnel.

In a sense the similarities of the Underground and Overground
identities just emphasises their togetherness, as opposed to their
separation. But I will say your previous comments on this did give me
pause for thought.

Overall I am happy to see these developments. Today's system is a far
cry the one that I first commuted on in 1969. My daily journey was
from Surbiton to Regent Street and back. That journey was fine, and
very reasonable. But as I explored London and found gems like the
North London Line, I found the system to be uncoordinated. Thru
ticketing was not always available. Some routes were only known to
their regular users. It was almost as if BR wanted to keep them
hidden!

Trains from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction, and the like, were
something about which enthusiasts dreamed. On the other hand,
Waterloo to Piccadilly Circus only cost three old pence. That would
be a little more than a penny!

"E27002" wrote in message

On Apr 30, 10:29 am, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 4:05 pm, E27002 wrote:

On Apr 30, 1:44 am, wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:16:27 +0100
"Kipling" wrote:
And the colours or rings are too similar.

Yeah , I'm of the same opinion. I said in another post the other
week that there are plenty of 2 colour combinations they could
have chosen - choosing something so similar to the Underground
colours was just daft and will lead to confusion.

Since they are both rail systems I don't think it matters a whole
lot. I still have mixed feelings about a separate "Overground"
Identity. Much of the Metropolitan Line is on the surface. There are
parts of the Overground that run in tunnel.

In a sense the similarities of the Underground and Overground
identities just emphasises their togetherness, as opposed to their
separation. But I will say your previous comments on this did give me
pause for thought.

Overall I am happy to see these developments. Today's system is a far
cry the one that I first commuted on in 1969. My daily journey was
from Surbiton to Regent Street and back. That journey was fine, and
very reasonable. But as I explored London and found gems like the
North London Line, I found the system to be uncoordinated. Thru
ticketing was not always available. Some routes were only known to
their regular users. It was almost as if BR wanted to keep them
hidden!

I think that's prettty much the case where the NLL was concerned.

Having visited all the new stations by car at about 11pm, I think all
four of them could benefit from Maida-Vale style signs up on Kingsland
Road. Hoxton and Haggerston seem unsafe late at night too.