Bye North London Line
 

I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL, and the constant overcrowding and sharing my
travel space with bikes, kitchen units and other assorted haulage :-)

It could be a great line and lets hope the new people taking over from
DrossLink spend a few bob on it.

Personally I hope never to set foot on the 8:08 out of Highbury to
Richmond again.


--
Edward Cowling "Must Go - The Wild Geese Are Calling"

Bye North London Line
 

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:07:40 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:


I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL, and the constant overcrowding and sharing my
travel space with bikes, kitchen units and other assorted haulage :-)

It could be a great line and lets hope the new people taking over from
DrossLink spend a few bob on it.

Personally I hope never to set foot on the 8:08 out of Highbury to
Richmond again.


More traditional tube routes?

Same service but nothing to look at out of the windows!




Dave

Bye North London Line
 

In message , Dave
writes
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:07:40 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:


I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL, and the constant overcrowding and sharing my
travel space with bikes, kitchen units and other assorted haulage :-)

It could be a great line and lets hope the new people taking over from
DrossLink spend a few bob on it.

Personally I hope never to set foot on the 8:08 out of Highbury to
Richmond again.


More traditional tube routes?

Same service but nothing to look at out of the windows!

There is an Angelina Jolie look alike I will miss a bit :-)

The funny thing is that when you travel on lines that are used at less
than the 175% capacity the NLL is used at you think it's strange. Why
aren't people scrunching into every gap ? The hesitancy with which
Victoria line passengers play sardines is positively anti social ;-)


--
Edward Cowling "Must Go - The Wild Geese Are Calling"

Bye North London Line
 

On Jun 22, 6:07 pm, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:
I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL,

I haven't used it much... But I would have done if it was a Tube line
and ran, like the Hammersmith & City Line, about every 10 minutes.

I always thought it weird that it ran from the arsehole of East London
to Kew.

Bye North London Line
 

In message .com,
Offramp writes
On Jun 22, 6:07 pm, Edward Cowling London UK
wrote:
I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL,

I haven't used it much... But I would have done if it was a Tube line
and ran, like the Hammersmith & City Line, about every 10 minutes.

I always thought it weird that it ran from the arsehole of East London
to Kew.

In the 80's it was affectionately known as the hair lip and club foot
line. It seemed to have it's own constant waist high brown fog and
rather disturbing stains on the seats.

Now it's a far better service, but unbelievably packed out. Cern don't
need to fiddle about with Higgs Boson, pretty soon a coach on the NLL
will get so packed it will attain singularity :-)


--
Edward Cowling "Must Go - The Wild Geese Are Calling"

Bye North London Line
 

Offramp wrote:

I always thought it weird that it ran from the arsehole of East London
to Kew.

I still think it's weird that it heads in a straight line towards Heathrow,
but then veers away to some forgotten Surrey suburb without providing any
interchange with any lines that actually go to Heathrow.

Bye North London Line
 

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Offramp wrote:

I always thought it weird that it ran from the arsehole of East London
to Kew.

I still think it's weird that it heads in a straight line towards
Heathrow, but then veers away to some forgotten Surrey suburb without
providing any interchange with any lines that actually go to Heathrow.

Given that the line predates the airport, it's surely not strictly weird.
Annoying, yes.

So what could be done? The idea of a NLL - GWML - Central interchange
where the lines cross near Gypsy Corner has been mentioned here before. I
can't see it getting built except as part of a huge redevelopment of the
industrial estates into flats, though.

The Poplar curve links the NLL to the GWML just east of Acton Main Line;
with about a mile of electrification, it would be possible to actually
send trains from Willesden (from the NLL, but not Watford, sadly) to
Heathrow, although it would involve rather a lot of conflicting movements
with existing traffic on the line. Alternatively, some tracks and land
from the Acton goods yard could quite easily be used to provide a
segregated connection from the NLL to the Central line tracks that go to
Ealing Broadway, where people could change to Heathrow Connect. There's
room to build more roads for the goods trains; the Central's 12 peak tph
to Ealing Broadway should leave room for some NLL trains too. The only
losers would be all the people wanting to go towards Richmond rather than
Ealing.

Simplest of all, how about getting off at South Acton and walking less
than half a mile to Acton Town to get the Piccadilly? Again, there's a
great crossing of lines round here that would enable a useful interchange
to be built, and there's even some industrial land you could build it on
without knocking anyone's house down.

tom

--
All we need now is Jesus the Lord, fine corn liquor and the courage to
think the unthinkable.

Bye North London Line
 

How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line crosses
the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding platforms for all
three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive, but that way a
single line could be kept, and interchange between the three lines
could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit of space on the
sout-western side of the tracks for a station building according to
Google Earth.

Bye North London Line
 

"sweek" wrote in message
ups.com...
How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line crosses
the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding platforms for all
three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive, but that way a
single line could be kept, and interchange between the three lines
could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit of space on the
sout-western side of the tracks for a station building according to
Google Earth.


I haven't lloked at GE but I suspect the land you're referring to is the old
Chiswick Works. Oh, and close Gunnersbury?

Bye North London Line
 

"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in message
...

I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL, and the constant overcrowding and sharing my travel
space with bikes, kitchen units and other assorted haulage :-)

It could be a great line and lets hope the new people taking over from
DrossLink spend a few bob on it.

Personally I hope never to set foot on the 8:08 out of Highbury to
Richmond again.


--
Edward Cowling "Must Go - The Wild Geese Are Calling"



Sounds like how a railway should be used. The (rhetorical) question is why
don't the *powers that be* don't provide stock better suited to the task.

Bye North London Line
 

On 23 Jun, 22:13, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...

How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line crosses
the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding platforms for all
three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive, but that way a
single line could be kept, and interchange between the three lines
could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit of space on the
sout-western side of the tracks for a station building according to
Google Earth.

I haven't lloked at GE but I suspect the land you're referring to is the old
Chiswick Works. Oh, and close Gunnersbury?

It's this location, if you think you can recognise it. I don't know
the actual area, so I'm not really sure if this is a suitable
location. It just seems theoretically possible.
I wouldn't close Gunnersbury, because the situation stays pretty much
the same as it is now. The distance between Chiswick Park and
Gunnersbury now is the same as it would be in the new situation. And
they serve different branches of the District line, so I guess they
both have their use.

http://www.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8...&t=h&z=18&om=1

Bye North London Line
 

sweek wrote:
On 23 Jun, 22:13, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...

How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line
crosses the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding
platforms for all three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive,
but that way a single line could be kept, and interchange between
the three lines could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit
of space on the sout-western side of the tracks for a station
building according to Google Earth.

I haven't lloked at GE but I suspect the land you're referring to is
the old Chiswick Works. Oh, and close Gunnersbury?

It's this location, if you think you can recognise it. I don't know
the actual area, so I'm not really sure if this is a suitable
location. It just seems theoretically possible.
I wouldn't close Gunnersbury, because the situation stays pretty much
the same as it is now. The distance between Chiswick Park and
Gunnersbury now is the same as it would be in the new situation. And
they serve different branches of the District line, so I guess they
both have their use.

http://www.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF8...&t=h&z=18&om=1


It is the old Chiswick works, now one of the nicer business parks in London.
The NLL is curvy in this area, possibly ruling out new platforms.

Bye North London Line
 

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:14:59 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Sounds like how a railway should be used. The (rhetorical) question is why
don't the *powers that be* don't provide stock better suited to the task.

I believe that, now TfL are taking over, that is exactly what they
intend to do.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Bye North London Line
 

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, sweek wrote:

On 23 Jun, 22:13, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
"sweek" wrote in message

ups.com...

How about moving Chiswick Park to where the North London Line crosses
the Piccadilly and District platforms, and biulding platforms for all
three of them? I suppose it'd be quite expensive, but that way a
single line could be kept, and interchange between the three lines
could be provided quite easily. there's quite a bit of space on the
sout-western side of the tracks for a station building according to
Google Earth.

That's more or less what i was suggesting.

I haven't lloked at GE but I suspect the land you're referring to is
the old Chiswick Works. Oh, and close Gunnersbury?

I wouldn't close Gunnersbury, because the situation stays pretty much
the same as it is now. The distance between Chiswick Park and
Gunnersbury now is the same as it would be in the new situation. And
they serve different branches of the District line, so I guess they both
have their use.

Indeed. A trianglur situation like this is actually quite annoying from a
station point of view, because there's nowhere you can put a single
station that will allow all interchanges, except in the middle - and in
this case, it's a nature reserve!

I would close South Acton, though.

Now, while we've got out A-Zs on the same page, i should mention the
shameful lack of interchange between any of these lines and the Brentford
Loop. Two curves and some platforms, and you could route the NLL and
District via Kew Bridge, plus you'd create an opportunity for the
three-way interchange discussed above - in fact, you could get both
branches of the District. Bit in the middle of nowhere, though. Although
if some future mayor decided to turn that cluster of industrial estates
into a high-density housing project ...

tom

--
Once you notice that something doesn't seem to have all the necessary
parts to enable its functions, it is going to mildly bug you until you
figure it out. -- John Rowland

Bye North London Line
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:14:59 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Sounds like how a railway should be used. The (rhetorical) question is
why
don't the *powers that be* don't provide stock better suited to the task.

I believe that, now TfL are taking over, that is exactly what they
intend to do.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

Bye North London Line
 

On 25 Jun, 14:44, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

....which has the happy knock-on effect of providing more space for
bikes, prams and kitchen sinks off-peak.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Bye North London Line
 

Graham Harrison wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks
(otherwise known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was
Electrostars optimised for passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of
standing room).

The class 378s are supposed to be class 376-derivatives. Those suburban
Electrostars have limited 2+2 seating bays, with enlarged standing areas
around the doors, with extensive use of grab-rails and perch seats.

Bye North London Line
 

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
Graham Harrison wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks
(otherwise known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was
Electrostars optimised for passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of
standing room).

The class 378s are supposed to be class 376-derivatives. Those suburban
Electrostars have limited 2+2 seating bays, with enlarged standing areas
around the doors, with extensive use of grab-rails and perch seats.

TfL's Overground brochure shows longitudinal seating - althought how the
wide end gangway works in the Electrostar carriage ends is another matter
entirely...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...d_brochure.pdf page
3 of 4 refers.

Paul

Bye North London Line
 

"John B" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 25 Jun, 14:44, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised
for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

...which has the happy knock-on effect of providing more space for
bikes, prams and kitchen sinks off-peak.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org


Off peak maybe but the OP referred to the 0808 train (hardly off peak) and
sharing with all shorts of baggage including (now I check) kitchen units
(not sinks as I said). If we're going to be able to use public transport
instead of cars they need to be capable of carrying not just the passengers.

I accept that guards vans may not be the answer but take a look at
http://www.cycling-in-switzerland.ch...velo_bahn.html .
That's just an example of what can be achieved (in this case with bikes).

Bye North London Line
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:44:07 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

And thus lots of multipurpose space for bikes, prams and kitchen
sinks. The guard's van is not a solution to every problem, especially
where it leaves wheelchair users travelling in unpleasant conditions,
bicycles away from their owners (I wouldn't like to leave mine
unattended on the NLL) and fewer seats than could otherwise be
provided for the peaks, when said bicycles aren't allowed and kitchen
sinks may be frowned upon.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Bye North London Line
 

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:44:07 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks (otherwise
known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was Electrostars optimised
for
passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of standing room).

And thus lots of multipurpose space for bikes, prams and kitchen
sinks. The guard's van is not a solution to every problem, especially
where it leaves wheelchair users travelling in unpleasant conditions,
bicycles away from their owners (I wouldn't like to leave mine
unattended on the NLL) and fewer seats than could otherwise be
provided for the peaks, when said bicycles aren't allowed and kitchen
sinks may be frowned upon.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

I'm sorry, but you've swallowed propaganda and/or the situation as it is.
There is no good reason to stop people bringing bicycles, prams, kitchen
sinks etc. on to trains at any time except the fact that successve
governments of all persuasions have restricted the investment in rolling
stock so that there is only space for passengers. I'll say it again, if
we're going to encourage people to use public transport (and I accept not
everyone believes in that idea) then we need to make it practical for people
to use. That means they have to be able to bring their baggage (in the
widest sense of that word) and find somewhere to stow it. Whether that
space is a guards van is not the point - I was simply trying to make the
point, not suggest it as the only solution. The real issue is two fold (1)
there has to be enough stock to make it feasible and (2) that stock has to
be designed in such a way as to accommodate bulky and unusually sized items.
In my view a simple train with any form of seating (logitudinal or
transverse) and a wheelchair space that might be availabel for other items
doesn't cut the mustard.

I will admit to a particular prediliction regarding bikes and trains. I
regard the two together as a very potent travel tool and the current
situation where (1) the rules vary by TOC (2) in many cases you cannot
simply turn up and go (3) there may be a ludicrously low (two) limit on the
number of bikes per train (4) you have to pay sometimes (5) there may be
time restrictions on when a bike can be take on a train all mitigate against
one of the quickest and most efficient combinations of transport I know.

Bye North London Line/London "Overground"
 

On Jun 25, 10:25 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Jack Taylor" wrote in message

...

Graham Harrison wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks
(otherwise known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was
Electrostars optimised for passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of
standing room).

The class 378s are supposed to be class 376-derivatives. Those suburban
Electrostars have limited 2+2 seating bays, with enlarged standing areas
around the doors, with extensive use of grab-rails and perch seats.

TfL's Overground brochure shows longitudinal seating - althought how the
wide end gangway works in the Electrostar carriage ends is another matter
entirely...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...d_brochure.pdf page
3 of 4 refers.

Paul

Looking at the brochure, I am surprised to not see the Camden Road to
Chalk Farm/Primrose Hill link. Somehow, I had cottoned on to the
notion that this would be part of the "new" network.

Adrian

Bye North London Line
 

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, Graham Harrison wrote:

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:44:07 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

What, with sufficient space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks
(otherwise known as a *guards van*)? My understanding was
Electrostars optimised for passengers (longitudinal seats - lots of
standing room).

And thus lots of multipurpose space for bikes, prams and kitchen sinks.
The guard's van is not a solution to every problem,

Roof rack?

On the third rail sections, anyway.

especially where it leaves wheelchair users travelling in unpleasant
conditions, bicycles away from their owners (I wouldn't like to leave
mine unattended on the NLL) and fewer seats than could otherwise be
provided for the peaks, when said bicycles aren't allowed and kitchen
sinks may be frowned upon.

I'll say it again, if we're going to encourage people to use public
transport (and I accept not everyone believes in that idea) then we need
to make it practical for people to use. That means they have to be able
to bring their baggage (in the widest sense of that word) and find
somewhere to stow it. Whether that space is a guards van is not the
point - I was simply trying to make the point, not suggest it as the
only solution. The real issue is two fold (1) there has to be enough
stock to make it feasible and (2) that stock has to be designed in such
a way as to accommodate bulky and unusually sized items. In my view a
simple train with any form of seating (logitudinal or transverse) and a
wheelchair space that might be availabel for other items doesn't cut the
mustard.

May i suggest that there's a question of degree here? There's a difference
between a train that can carry bikes, kitchen units, washing machines,
seaman's chests, etc, and one that can carry beds, grand pianos,
motorcycles with sidecars, etc. Loads of the former size could be
accomodated in the vestibules of a C-stock-like train (provided there
weren't poles in the way), as Neil says. Loads of the latter size could
not, as you, i think, say. Really, i think you're in vigorously agreement.

There's obviously a tradeoff between the goods-carrying ability of a train
and its passenger-carrying ability. We may currently be too far towards
the latter, but to go much beyond the C stock case is to sacrifice too
much passenger capacity.

Personally, i think the acid test should be whether a train can handle an
ISO-sized pallet, with cart, and still let people get on and off. People
rarely move things bigger than pallet-sized by hand, and a pallet is a
nice standard size.

I will admit to a particular prediliction regarding bikes and trains.
I regard the two together as a very potent travel tool and the current
situation where (1) the rules vary by TOC (2) in many cases you cannot
simply turn up and go (3) there may be a ludicrously low (two) limit on
the number of bikes per train (4) you have to pay sometimes (5) there
may be time restrictions on when a bike can be take on a train all
mitigate against one of the quickest and most efficient combinations of
transport I know.

Yes, i'm very unhappy about this too. Train + bike is, as you say, the
winning combination for essentially any trip anywhere in the UK, and it's
not sufficiently well supported at present.

That said, it's provision on inter-urban service that's the problem; any
time you take your bike on the NLL for, you could probably cycle!

tom

--
.... and the children still cry "Make mine a 99"

Bye North London Line/London "Overground"
 

On 25 Jun, 23:38, Adrian wrote:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...d_brochure.pdf page
3 of 4 refers.

Looking at the brochure, I am surprised to not see the Camden Road to
Chalk Farm/Primrose Hill link. Somehow, I had cottoned on to the
notion that this would be part of the "new" network.

In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

Longer term plans are dependent on the interface between Network Rail,
TfL and central government. TfL's ideal outcome would be to transfer
the DC Lines service to the Bakerloo and to run Overground trains via
Primrose Hill to Queen's Park, but this has not yet been agreed with
all relevant parties.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Bye North London Line/London "Overground"
 

On Jun 26, 10:48 am, John B wrote:
In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

I'm not aware of any short term plans for improved frequency. I can
imagine longer operating hours and a few extra peak trains maybe, but
otherwise it looks like the standard service level will be no
different to Silverlink's for the first year or two.

U

Bye North London Line/London "Overground"
 

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 26, 10:48 am, John B wrote:
In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

I'm not aware of any short term plans for improved frequency. I can
imagine longer operating hours and a few extra peak trains maybe, but
otherwise it looks like the standard service level will be no
different to Silverlink's for the first year or two.


Agree - many of the TfL announcements describe improvements that cannot
happen until 2010 or 2011. Major service frequency improvement on the North
London Railway (today's NLL & WLL) are planned for 2011, although the
closure beyond Stratford does allow for a small number (3?) of extra units
to be diagrammed for a slightly improved service, there are many platforms
to be lengthened and signalling changes to be done as well...

Paul

Bye North London Line/London "Overground"
 

Paul Scott wrote:

Agree - many of the TfL announcements describe improvements that cannot
happen until 2010 or 2011. Major service frequency improvement on the
North
London Railway (today's NLL & WLL)

Erm isn't the GOBLIN in there as well?

Bye North London Line/London "Overground"
 

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Paul Scott wrote:

Agree - many of the TfL announcements describe improvements that cannot
happen until 2010 or 2011. Major service frequency improvement on the
North
London Railway (today's NLL & WLL)

Erm isn't the GOBLIN in there as well?

Certainly - and it needs even more improvements, starting with
electrification - not likely in the next few years I suspect, hence the
thread about the mysterious new stock orders...

Paul

Bye North London Line/London "Overground"
 

On 26 Jun, 11:37, Mr Thant
wrote:
On Jun 26, 10:48 am, John B wrote:

In the short term, TfL will operate the existing North London Railways
routes (ie NLL, WLL, Goblin, DC Lines) with an enhanced service &
frequency. From 2010 this will also include the ELL.

I'm not aware of any short term plans for improved frequency. I can
imagine longer operating hours and a few extra peak trains maybe, but
otherwise it looks like the standard service level will be no
different to Silverlink's for the first year or two.

U
Enhanced frequency should be coming in January 2011 according to that
brochure, which I think consists of 4 tph Clapham - Gospel Oak -
Barking, and the East London upgrades.

Bye North London Line
 

The trains and the Underground are such a wonderful part of London life.
Living in Vegas where we have more people than you can think of, with
everything above ground, can be a real pain.

Two cheers to the London Underground.

--
www.mysecretvegas.com, email from the contact button
Don Strevel, Box-777, Las Vegas, NV. 89125 USA

"Edward Cowling London UK" wrote in message
...

I've had four months on the North London Line and now happily I'm moving
to an office on more traditional tube routes.

I won't miss the NLL, and the constant overcrowding and sharing my travel
space with bikes, kitchen units and other assorted haulage :-)

It could be a great line and lets hope the new people taking over from
DrossLink spend a few bob on it.

Personally I hope never to set foot on the 8:08 out of Highbury to
Richmond again.


--
Edward Cowling "Must Go - The Wild Geese Are Calling"