On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:30:00 +0100, Nicholas
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:12:22 GMT, "Jack Taylor"
wrote:

MIG wrote:

And in any case, the names of the Underground lines haven't changed
for decades. If they changed as often as franchises, maybe some kind
of "other lines" would be appropriate.

Not that LUL have ever been particularly competent at maintaining their
signage, in any case. There are still plenty of signs around the system
referring to British Rail (defunct 1996), although AFAIK the last of the
Network SouthEast (defunct 1994) signs have now disappeared.

There is rather a lot of inconsistency in the LU directional signage
to National Rail stations. E.g. I've seen:

"National Rail"
"Trains"
"Rail"
"Mainline Trains"
"British Rail" (!)

There was a time when LU put up directional signs naming the station,
eg "Paddington =", too...

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

In article . com,
(Jonathan Morris) wrote:

The NLL is a bit odd, having always shown up on tube maps and been
considered, pretty much, like a tube service (except without the
frequency of service, station staffing etc).

You must be young! It was a battle fought when Ken ran the GLC. Before
the 1980s the NLL didn't appear on tube maps.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
(Jonathan Morris) wrote:

The NLL is a bit odd, having always shown up on tube maps and been
considered, pretty much, like a tube service (except without the
frequency of service, station staffing etc).

You must be young! It was a battle fought when Ken ran the GLC. Before
the 1980s the NLL didn't appear on tube maps.



What is the logic to why it does? It has very little in common with
LU, and a lot in common with the rest of Silverlink (which isn't
shown). I remember it starting to appear, but I never understood why
it did (or the rest of BR suburban services didn't).

MIG wrote:
What is the logic to why it does? It has very little in common with
LU, and a lot in common with the rest of Silverlink (which isn't
shown). I remember it starting to appear, but I never understood why
it did (or the rest of BR suburban services didn't).

Well, I am 32 so that might explain why I didn't know it wasn't always
on the map; but perhaps Ken always had a plan to take over the line?

It is a horrid line; horrid trains (even though I quite like
refurbished 313s), horrid passengers (I've only ever felt unsafe on
this line - even during the day), horrid stations etc but it is quite a
useful service that a lot of people probably still don't know exists,
or consider when route planning.

I have to say that with some money spent on the stations, staffing,
security and new rolling stock, it could well be a plausible
'overground' service. But are they REALLY going to brand it
'OVERGROUND'??!

Jonathan

In article .com,
(MIG) wrote:

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
(Jonathan Morris) wrote:

The NLL is a bit odd, having always shown up on tube maps and
been considered, pretty much, like a tube service (except without
the frequency of service, station staffing etc).

You must be young! It was a battle fought when Ken ran the GLC.
Before the 1980s the NLL didn't appear on tube maps.

What is the logic to why it does? It has very little in common with
LU, and a lot in common with the rest of Silverlink (which isn't
shown). I remember it starting to appear, but I never understood
why it did (or the rest of BR suburban services didn't).

It's all part of a campaign for more orbital rail links that goes back
to the 1970s and is still going on, fortunately.

I have some pictures from a railtour run by a Young Liberal activist
group that started from Broad Street and was supported by a Labour MP
for Newham somewhere which departed with balloons tied to the external
door handles.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

MIG wrote:
Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article . com,
(Jonathan Morris) wrote:

The NLL is a bit odd, having always shown up on tube maps and been
considered, pretty much, like a tube service (except without the
frequency of service, station staffing etc).
You must be young! It was a battle fought when Ken ran the GLC. Before
the 1980s the NLL didn't appear on tube maps.

What is the logic to why it does? It has very little in common with
LU, and a lot in common with the rest of Silverlink (which isn't
shown). I remember it starting to appear, but I never understood why
it did (or the rest of BR suburban services didn't).

I think it was first officially shown on the map in 1977 (and I'm sure
someone will correct me if I'm wrong) -- but it hasn't even been
consistently shown since then. At some point in the 80's, it vanished.
And then in the late 80's or early 90's, it returned; around the same
time, the Northern City line (aka Great Northern Electrics) vanished.

Here's an example of the initial unofficial appearance on the map, as
displayed at the Museum Depot:
http://greenberger.no-ip.com/gallery...2_itemId=35525

As an occasional visitor to London in the 80's, I always avoided the
Northern City and the Waterloo & City lines, since I assumed they
charged higher fares.
--
David of Broadway
New York, NY, USA

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:08:29 GMT, David of Broadway
wrote:

Here's an example of the initial unofficial appearance on the map, as
displayed at the Museum Depot:
http://greenberger.no-ip.com/gallery...2_itemId=35525

Goodness - I've never seen that map before. How very odd it looks -
complete with NL line into Broad Street!
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On 10 Sep 2006 16:02:54 -0700, "Jonathan Morris"
wrote:

MIG wrote:
What is the logic to why it does? It has very little in common with
LU, and a lot in common with the rest of Silverlink (which isn't
shown). I remember it starting to appear, but I never understood why
it did (or the rest of BR suburban services didn't).

Well, I am 32 so that might explain why I didn't know it wasn't always
on the map; but perhaps Ken always had a plan to take over the line?

It is a horrid line; horrid trains (even though I quite like
refurbished 313s), horrid passengers (I've only ever felt unsafe on
this line - even during the day), horrid stations etc but it is quite a
useful service that a lot of people probably still don't know exists,
or consider when route planning.

I don't quite understand your comments. Why is it horrid? "Unpleasant"
passengers (for want of a better term) and poor quality stations can be
found all over London - why does the NLL stand out?

I think an awful lot of people know it does exist - that's why the
trains are packed out both peak and off peak. I don't use it a huge
amount but have used it a few times this year and was genuinely
surprised at the decent amounts of people using most of the stations as
well as changing to and from services like the GOBLIN and at Willesden
Junction. I think there will be a massive surge in usage when new
trains, better trains and a more frequent service arrive. I would expect
the service to be oversubscribed pretty quickly - particularly when the
ELL link opens as well.

I have to say that with some money spent on the stations, staffing,
security and new rolling stock, it could well be a plausible
'overground' service. But are they REALLY going to brand it
'OVERGROUND'??!

As Overground is a colloquial term for most main line suburban services
in London I think it is a pretty decent brand to use. I look forward to
the advert from TfL using the Wombles

"Underground, Overground, travelling free, the Wombles of Wimbledon
Common are we. Making good use of the time that we have from using TfL's
train lines across London Town."

or something like that ;-)
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
As Overground is a colloquial term for most main line suburban services
in London I think it is a pretty decent brand to use. I look forward
to the advert from TfL using the Wombles

"Underground, Overground, travelling free, the Wombles of Wimbledon
Common are we. Making good use of the time that we have from using
TfL's train lines across London Town."

Do you remember when I suggested that your position within LUL involved
booking buskers?.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:45:16 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes
As Overground is a colloquial term for most main line suburban services
in London I think it is a pretty decent brand to use. I look forward
to the advert from TfL using the Wombles

"Underground, Overground, travelling free, the Wombles of Wimbledon
Common are we. Making good use of the time that we have from using
TfL's train lines across London Town."

Do you remember when I suggested that your position within LUL involved
booking buskers?.......

Yes but I don't really "do" lyrics do I? I'm tone deaf too so I think
I've assembled enough reasons to not be deemed competent.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!