The Only Living Boy in New Cross wrote:

The ON Network project's been going for a while now; has there been
any feedback or reports about it?

How 4tph can be classified as a metro service is beyond me.

I'm thinking double that before I start to take these attempts to
"rebrand" the shoddy suburban rail service seriously.

Dan

The Only Living Boy in New Cross wrote:

The ON Network project's been going for a while now; has there been
any feedback or reports about it?

How 4tph can be classified as a metro service is beyond me.

I'm thinking double that before I start to take these attempts to
"rebrand" the shoddy suburban rail service seriously.

Dan




Whilst I agree, Dan, that 4 t.p.h. is hardly anything to boast of, just what
purpose is served by expensive rebranding anyway? Why not spend the money on
actual service improvements rather than window-dressing?

Marc.

Mait001 wrote:

Whilst I agree, Dan, that 4 t.p.h. is hardly anything to boast of, just what
purpose is served by expensive rebranding anyway? Why not spend the money on
actual service improvements rather than window-dressing?

Marc.

I meant the "brand" of the suburban railways relating to how they are
perceived etc, not the "branding" on the side of stations etc. Apologies
for my ambiguity!

A proper "rebranding" exercise in this case would be a massive
restructuring and building exercise, which I think you generally agree with!

Dan (a long suffering South London "train" traveller)

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:32:17 +0100, Dan Gravell
wrote:



How 4tph can be classified as a metro service is beyond me.


I can only dream of 4tph ! 2tph peak and up to 2 tph offpeak!

Mait001 wrote:

Whilst I agree, Dan, that 4 t.p.h. is hardly anything to boast of, just
what
purpose is served by expensive rebranding anyway? Why not spend the money
on
actual service improvements rather than window-dressing?

Marc.

I meant the "brand" of the suburban railways relating to how they are
perceived etc, not the "branding" on the side of stations etc. Apologies
for my ambiguity!

A proper "rebranding" exercise in this case would be a massive
restructuring and building exercise, which I think you generally agree with!

Dan (a long suffering South London "train" traveller)



Indeed! But simply providing more trains and open ticket offices would be a
start. Posh stations (and posh trains) come far lower down my list of
priorities.

Marc.

(Mait001) wrote the following in:


Whilst I agree, Dan, that 4 t.p.h. is hardly anything to boast of,
just what purpose is served by expensive rebranding anyway? Why
not spend the money on actual service improvements rather than
window-dressing?

I believe the idea behind it is to make the south London National Rail
lines seem more tube like and easier to understand. I think it's a good
idea to make the system better advertised and easier to understand
because I find those lines a confusing nightmare. 4 TPH is pretty crap
but I think it's the bare minimum for me personally to consider using a
service as a "turn up and go" metro type thing, and I can understand
why they'd choose it.

So, if the Overground Network succeeds in creating an easily understood
tube like network of lines with (just) enough trains for you to turn up
and go, then I think it is a good idea, even if it is at heart just
window dressing.

--
message by Robin May, enforcer of sod's law.
This sig was out of date.

"You MUST NOT drive dangerously" - the Highway Code
There are 20,000,000 women wearing kinky boots.

Robin May wrote:
I believe the idea behind it is to make the south London National Rail
lines seem more tube like and easier to understand. I think it's a good
idea to make the system better advertised and easier to understand
because I find those lines a confusing nightmare. 4 TPH is pretty crap
but I think it's the bare minimum for me personally to consider using a
service as a "turn up and go" metro type thing, and I can understand
why they'd choose it.

So, if the Overground Network succeeds in creating an easily understood
tube like network of lines with (just) enough trains for you to turn up
and go, then I think it is a good idea, even if it is at heart just
window dressing.

I think you're right, but the other side of the argument is why dress it
up as something it isn't? Isn't that even more confusing to the "customer"?

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 at 22:59:51, Mait001 wrote:


Indeed! But simply providing more trains and open ticket offices would be a
start. Posh stations (and posh trains) come far lower down my list of
priorities.

Why not have trains that RUN ON TIME! 2 mornings a week I have to
travel from Streatham to Blackfriars, and the 10.04 has been late ever
since I started doing it! The 09.50 seems to be punctual, as does the
10.19, but the 10.04???? But then, when I decided one morning to catch
the 09.46 to London Bridge - guess what? It was 10 minutes late, so I
caught the 09.50 to Blackfriars instead.....
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 8 March 2004

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Dan Gravell wrote:

The Only Living Boy in New Cross wrote:

The ON Network project's been going for a while now; has there been
any feedback or reports about it?

How 4tph can be classified as a metro service is beyond me.

I understand that LUL has to provide a train every 10 minutes (ie 6 tph)
to qualify as metro; why isn't it the same for ON?

tom

--
Memes don't exist. Tell your friends.

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...

I understand that LUL has to provide a train
every 10 minutes (ie 6 tph) to qualify as metro

From where do you understand this? Certainly not from Rickmansworth,
Chigwell, New Cross, New Cross Gate, Mill Hill East or Olympia.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes