On 21/01/2016 16:35, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:


What you'd need is trains continuing along tunnels through London
stopping at appropriate interchange points before ending up in some
giant stabling yard on the opposite side of London from where they
started and then reverse the process in the evening.

Sort of like Thameslink, Crossrail and CR2...

Indeed - but you'd need it for many more of the suburban lines.

It would be a hugely expensive solution, but it would work (but never
happen)

On 21/01/2016 16:25, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\21 16:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g.
the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the
Mersey, so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the
boundaries stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in
what is now modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Any arbitrary man-made lines on a map are artificial.

sort of by definition.

Of course, but with history and purpose.

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.


Middlesex and Surrey are many counties?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Is there any reason to assume that TfL/London Overground
can do a better job than the current franchise holders?

I know the present service is far better and passenger numbers
far greater than was the case during the Silverlink period; but
have those improvements been the result of unusual aptitudes
and skills? Is it not the case that heavy investment - and access
to funds - is the main reason things have improved? Is there any
evidence to suggest that TfL/London Overground have more
management skill, knowledge and understanding than their
counterparts among the current TOCs?

Why should we believe that handing all these services over to
London Overground will make things better?

On 2016\01\21 17:32, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 21/01/2016 16:25, Basil Jet wrote:

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.


Middlesex and Surrey are many counties?

Havering etc are from Essex
Hendon etc are from Middlesex
Barnet (the town, not the borough) is from Herts
Greenwich etc are from the County Of London
Bromley etc are from Kent
Sutton etc are from Surrey
Ely Place in Holborn was an exclave of Cambridgeshire until 1965.

I'm not sure if any of Bucks or Berks made it in.. certainly not much.

Someone Somewhere wrote:

And I'd like a unicorn. One that craps rainbows. But we can't always get what we'd like.


http://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q


Anna Noyd-Dryver.

On 2016\01\21 16:41, Recliner wrote:

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London,

Not quite... Potters Bar was handed over to Hertfordshire.

but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

There is also a Middlesex Football Association and presumably countless
other societies. There are also new Middlesex signs that have been put
up at the border within the last few years. Here's one..



It's also odd that places like Bromley still pretend to be in Kent, though
at least Kent still exists, unlike Middlesex.

Middlesex still exists, it just doesn't have a council. It existed for
hundreds of years before it had a council.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:12:00 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 21/01/2016 11:15, aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:40:50 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...nd-of-londons-
entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.htm

Sounds very ambitious.

What I don't really understand is the concept of "running services"
within London vs further afield when many of the trains will cross the
boundary. For example they mention GN and Welwyn Garden City, but does
this mean they'll only be transferring the terminators (which serve
Moorgate), rather than the Peterborough/Letchworth/Cambridge trains?

URL corrected, tiny URL added:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tfl-to-take-command-of-londons-entire-suburban-rail-network-a3161586.html

http://tinyurl.com/gwzwmch

Xposted for wider audience.

This plan will not end well. It is a bureaucratic nightmare in the
making. Moreover, as TfL's budget is stretched quality will fall.

Better, IMHO, to add the county of Oxford and Hampshire to the list of
Home Counties, and have a Home Counties PTE.

We need the "London Passenger Transport Area" back.

No - we need a set of stations on the periphery of the London area where
the trains from the home counties terminate and then there is some
radical method of transportation in to the centre of London

We abolished transportation in the 19th century.

On 2016\01\21 18:52, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote:

And I'd like a unicorn. One that craps rainbows. But we can't always get what we'd like.


http://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q

Why not just lean forward?

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:41:13 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\21 16:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g.
the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the Mersey,
so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the boundaries
stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in what is now
modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Kent, specifically two parts of Woolwich (i.e. North Woolwich and
another nearby bit whose name I can't recall ATM).

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Any arbitrary man-made lines on a map are artificial.

sort of by definition.

Of course, but with history and purpose.

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.

The strange anomaly is Middlesex, which has been entirely absorbed into
Greater London, but whose name persists in postal addresses in some
boroughs, but not others.

It's also odd that places like Bromley still pretend to be in Kent, though
at least Kent still exists, unlike Middlesex.

Only the county authority was abolished, the geographical area
remained and is still recognised except by those who wish to describe
everything in SE England as some kind of oblast/arrondissement of
London.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 17:32:56 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 21/01/2016 16:25, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\21 16:02, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 07:55:18 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 14:07:23 UTC, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:38:01 +0000, e27002 aurora
wrote:

SNIP

What the Home Counties' commuters do not need is some superfluous
mayor
of an artificial county disrupting their travel arrangements.

In what sense is Greater London any more of an 'artificial county'
than any other local authority border from any time in history?

County boundaries in history tended to follow natural boundaries e.g.
the boundary between Cheshire and Lancashire used to follow the
Mersey, so closely in fact that when the meanders changed course the
boundaries stayed where they were. AFAIR no ceremonial county in
what is now modern Greater London spanned the Thames.

Very well stated. Clearly the conurbation extended south of the
Thames, but under different authorities.

Any arbitrary man-made lines on a map are artificial.

sort of by definition.

Of course, but with history and purpose.

Not really, but there are grudges between counties, and if you
arbitrarily reassign part of Lancashire to be part of Yorkshire the
people in that area are likely to find themselves host to the county
incinerator and such. Herefordshire definitely felt that they were a
conquered people in Hereford & Worcestershire. I'm not aware of this
happening with Greater London, perhaps because so much of so many
historic counties came together that no group dominated.


Middlesex and Surrey are many counties?

and Kent, Essex, London and Hertfordshire