Paul G wrote:

That I happen to have come across and I believe, (although not
guarantee!) is ok for general distribution. The copy I have is a PDF on
TfL paper, so here is the text from the letter (retyped, so the typos
will be mine!):


Ms Elaine Holt
Managing Director
First Capital Connect
Hertford House
1 Cranwood Street
London EC1V 9QS


7th June 2006

Dear Elaine

Announcement on Fares - 6th June

I refer to your recent announcement that you will be unilaterally
imposing restrictions on cheap-day tickets on Thameslink and Great
Northern without effective prior consultation with stakeholders.

I would remind you that the purpose of railways in London is for the
benefit of Londers and London's economy by attracting people to visit
London. The management of overcrowding is not simply achieved by
dramatic fare increases.

I note also in your press release that the wording regarding travelcards
is not clear unless you read it very carefully. If you are considering
withdrawals here, TfL will resist them.

I would also ask you to cease attempts to obliterate references to the
name Thameslink in official station signage.

If you are not prepared to be responsive to the needs of London and
London's economy, I am not prepared to support continuance as holder of
the new Thameslink and Great Northern franchise (which I understand you
have unilaterally renamed First Capital Connect, again without any
consultation whatsoever).

I look forward to your confirmation that you have reconsidered your
position and will be advising the public to this effect.

Yours sincerely,
Ian Brown
Managing Director, London Rail
['Mayor of London' logo]
['A division of Transport for London' etc wording]

I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like - without
having to seek approval from Ken...

Do wonder if he'd rather have the trains painted in London Rail
Brown/Orange with roundels... First Neon City or London Turd?*

*which would probably spread to all trains serving the capital, like all
buses operating services classed as London must be red...

Mark B wrote:

I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like -
without having to seek approval from Ken...

He (and it was Ian Brown, not Ken) wasn't seeking approval, merely
consultation, which is reasonable if the TOC's name appears on the
signage of other operators such as LU.

There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In article ,
says...
There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.

I don't think they are trying to remove the word Thameslink from the
station names. I believe that old franchise holder's staff were rather
over-keen when removing references to Thameslink from signage.

Duncan

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:17:26 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.

The other simple point to make here is that there will be a huge bill
for resigning an awful lot of stations and street furniture not to
mention maps and ticket machine changes.

This will easily cost a six or seven digit number - are FCC proposing
to cover all of those costs? No, didn't think so.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Richard J. wrote:

There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.

At Moorgate, the signs still direct national rail passengers to the
"Thameslink" or "WAGN" platforms (depending on whether you want to go
to KX Thameslink or to Finsbury Park). Staff also use these names on
the handwritten whiteboard that announces temporary disruptions,
sometimes with First Capital Connect in brackets after it.

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.

PaulO

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)".

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.

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

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
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!

This is of course true for a single binary bit, and very appropriate for
Cambridge which built the first general service computer in the world in
1949*.

In theory, one of the TOCs there should be called Zero or Nought, but
perhaps the marketing people wouldn't have liked that.

* To be more precise, I mean the first fully operational and practical
stored-program digital computer, EDSAC 1, which was *the* computer for
Cambridge University 1949-1958.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On 4 Jul 2006 10:00:17 -0700, "Mizter T" wrote:

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.

I just think "Worst".

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com