R.C. Payne wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc.

Virgin west coast/Virgin cross country sounds good and I think it was
used until recently (when they started using Pendolino/Voyager without
realising Voyagers were used on some WC routes!)
Did one do something similar when they took over their franchise? (One
Anglia...?)

First Thameslink sounds fine, as does First Capital Thameslink. Should
keep both parties happy.

peter

asdf wrote:

On 4 Jul 2006 06:44:09 -0700, Paul Oter wrote:

I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

At Highbury & Islington, the signs still direct passengers towards
"British Rail (Eastern)".

Both Moorgate and High & I are LU-managed stations. LU obviously
doesn't feel the need to do the TOC's branding for them by replacing
the signs each time there's a new franchise holder.

Likewise the whiteboard messages at Moorgate are probably written by LU
staff who use the old names to differentiate between the routes.

The perpetual circus of rebranding is IMO pretty ridiculous, an opinion
I'm sure is widely shared. And every time I hear or see 'First' in
front of a train companies name I'm reminded that First Group PLC is
somehow managing to funnel loadsa wonga to their shareholders at the
same time that plenty of public cash get's pumped in to the transport
system.

R.C. Payne wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
This is a bit like the distinction between "ECML" and "GNER", "WCML" and
"Virgin". Are we being boring by assuming that people can't discriminate
between the route and the operator? Are the operators making things
worse when they alter the signs?

In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc, so there has been no need to differentiate
between route and toc. Now we have the situation where two quite
independent routes running in very close proximity are run by the same
toc.

I guess this is the point about FCC - that under the Thameslink 2000
plans [1] their two independent routes - Thameslink and Great Northern
- would become linked. I don't know the details but when implemented
trains from the Great Northern route (or even from the ECML) wouldn't
terminate at Kings Cross but would continue southwards through the
Thameslink route.

Thus one could say their franchise name is a long-sighted decision, as
their two routes will in future become one - or at least become linked.


[1] Network Rail has renamed the Thameslink 2000 project to the
'Thameslink Programme', which I guess makes it slightly less of a
laughing stock, and is also suitably ambiguous with regards to any
timeframe.

You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
Network Rail website:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 14:14:20 on
Tue, 4 Jul 2006, Peter Masson remarked:
There has been much redevelopment in the area, including the
railway line going "underground" much earlier (as it emerges from
Blackfriars) and the construction of City Thameslink, whose
northern exit is pretty much where Holborn Viaduct used to be.

I haven't been there for some time, but when St Pauls/City Thameslink
opened, the northern exit went through the concourse of the former
Holborn Viaduct station.

Today, it emerges under an office block and a short alleyway to the
main road.

So did the concourse of Holborn Viaduct station after the office block
was built in the 1960s! Is it the same one?


The entry for Holborn Viaduct at the Disused Stations website [1]
appears to agree with you. I quote directly from the

"The platforms have been demolished and the site redeveloped as Fleet
Place. The office block incorporating the entrance has been refaced and
now includes the entrance to City Thameslink Station sited below the
offices in Fleet Place."


The Disused Stations website [2], whilst not yet comprehensive (could
it ever be?), is a fantastic trove of information and old photograph's
concerning closed stations. It's an offshoot from the Subterranea
Britannica website.

[1] Holborn Viaduct page
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/s...ct/index.shtml

[2] Disused Stations In The UK
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/

Paul Oter wrote:

I suppose signs which said "First Capital Connect trains to King's
Cross, St Albans, Luton and Bedford" and "First Capital Connect trains
to Highbury and Islington, Finsbury Park, Welwyn Garden City and
Hertford North" would be adequate if laborious, but these would need to
be changed every few years whenever the TOC changed. Much better to
have standard route names which don't keep changing.

Or keep it completely factual and use the above without the "First
Capital Connect" part. Branding is completely unnecessary on these
signs, and example destinations will likely be more useful to the
people who actually need the signs in the first place.

Neil

In article .com,
(Mizter T) wrote:

And every time I hear or see 'First' in
front of a train companies name I'm reminded that First Group PLC is
somehow managing to funnel loadsa wonga to their shareholders at the
same time that plenty of public cash get's pumped in to the transport
system.

Having a choice of franchises at Cambridge of "First" and 'one' suggests
we can't count above 1!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Theo Markettos wrote:
In uk.railway Joe Patrick wrote:
I don't know why so, the lack of a distinguished brand and plastering
of "National Express" all over their bus & rail operations, along with
the same for Stagecoach's rail operations & certain bus operations
(MagicBus/MegaBus/et al.) hasn't really harmed the companies' share
prices, has it?

Stagecoach seem to be a bit confused about this one. They used to heavily
brand 'Stagecoach SWT' but have dropped the 'Stagecoach' bit, but it's very
definitely 'Stagecoach Island Line'. Any ideas why?

Theo


Virgin is much into branding though. The London and the South East
diagram goes along with this to the extent of having only one colour
for Virgin, even though there are two different franchises covered. I
think the others are all one colour per franchise.

In article om,
(Mizter T) wrote:

[1] Network Rail has renamed the Thameslink 2000 project to the
'Thameslink Programme', which I guess makes it slightly less of a
laughing stock, and is also suitably ambiguous with regards to any
timeframe.

You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
Network Rail website:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

Not now you can't: "This page is currently being updated".

--
Colin Rosenstiel

MIG wrote:

Virgin is much into branding though.

Not as much as FirstGroup, perhaps surprisingly. The relative lack of
branding on the Voyagers (only on the outer ends) and Pendolinos (outer
ends and frosted on the doors) is noticeable and pleasant compared with
the F-in-circle appearing everywhere on anything to do with First.

IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.
They'd do better to go lower-key.

Neil

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 21:55 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article om,
(Mizter T) wrote:

[1] Network Rail has renamed the Thameslink 2000 project to the
'Thameslink Programme', which I guess makes it slightly less of a
laughing stock, and is also suitably ambiguous with regards to any
timeframe.

You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
Network Rail website:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

Not now you can't: "This page is currently being updated".

I think that was the reason for the pointed comment about "incredibly
helpful".
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!