Exactly...

wrote in message
...

And stations at which LO is the only NR service have lost their
double-headed arrow.

Bizzarely Gospel Oak has retained its BR symbol.

Are youreferring to the actual station, or the line maps in the underground
carriages?

According to that Overground 'branding guide' someone found and linked to a
while back, all the actual stations except those on the existing ELL keep
their 'National Rail' (BR) symbol, as they are still on the national
network.

But there are separate rules for line maps on platforms etc, and the NR
symbol only occurs at the 'end stations' where there is parallel running, or
at an interchange with the rest of the NR network.

Paul

Paul Scott wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk...
wrote:
As Innes Ferguson, TFL design director said at the LT Museum on
24/9/7, the "Overground" brand made [sense] since as "you
wouldn't expect to see 'Underground' on a roundel outside a
station in Brighton".

Nor would you at Amersham, 147 m (490 ft) above sea level, but
people seem to have accepted it for many years. Anyway, where does
Brighton come into London Overground's plans?

Have you missed the various threads over the last couple of days
following the Times article, where Ken is quoted as bidding for "most
of Southern" when the franchise comes up for renewal in 2009?

I wasn't aware that the proposed vast expansion of TfL's rail network would
still be branded as "London Overground", though on re-reading the Times
article, I see that Ben Webster did float that idea.

You could coin a new name such as "Network South-East", or perhaps "London,
Brighton & South Coast Overground".
:-)

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:53:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Line maps and announcements are beginning to mention interchange with
London Overground services.

And stations at which LO is the only NR service have lost their
double-headed arrow.

Pet peeve: Moorgate and Old Street get a "(NR no weekend service)" note;
Highbury & Islington doesn't, despite being on exactly the same line - the
NLL is no longer NR, so that doesn't count!

tom

--
Vegetables, rice and peas.

On 22 Nov, 22:01, Tom Anderson wrote:
Pet peeve: Moorgate and Old Street get a "(NR no weekend service)" note;
Highbury & Islington doesn't, despite being on exactly the same line - the
NLL is no longer NR, so that doesn't count!

The Overground as it stands is totally NR, hence why the "no service
at weekends" thing was confusing (it did appear on the earlier version
of the new map).

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk...
Paul Scott wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk...

Have you missed the various threads over the last couple of days
following the Times article, where Ken is quoted as bidding for "most
of Southern" when the franchise comes up for renewal in 2009?

I wasn't aware that the proposed vast expansion of TfL's rail network
would still be branded as "London Overground", though on re-reading the
Times article, I see that Ben Webster did float that idea.

You could coin a new name such as "Network South-East", or perhaps
"London, Brighton & South Coast Overground".

The worry when people start talking about 'a new Network Southeast', under
TfL control, is that they don't seem to appreciate it went as far as Exeter,
Worcester, Banbury, Northampton, Bedford, Kings Lynn and Harwich...

Paul

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:53:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Line maps and announcements are beginning to mention interchange with
London Overground services.

And stations at which LO is the only NR service have lost their
double-headed arrow.

Pet peeve: Moorgate and Old Street get a "(NR no weekend service)" note;
Highbury & Islington doesn't, despite being on exactly the same line - the
NLL is no longer NR, so that doesn't count!


You are mistaken - the NLL is still part of NR, as stated in:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...avel-guide.pdf

"London Overground is part of the National Rail network and the National
Rail Conditions of Carriage apply for journeys made on it unless we say
otherwise in this ticketing and travel guide."

Mind you'll have difficulty finding the above on the TfL website, links seem
to come and go depending on the latest news...

Paul S

On Nov 21, 6:55 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



Line maps and announcements are beginning to mention interchange with
London Overground services. This is already a little confusing -
Euston, Highbury and Blackhorse Road all interchange with entirely
different lines, though you wouldn't know it from the linear map of
the Victoria line.

And if Ken is serious about bringing more and more lines into the LO
branding, the situation's going to get worse.

So... would it make more sense to give individual routes names? Or
even numbers, continental style? If so, what could they be?

Jonn

At what point (if at all) would route names become unweildy? Some NR lines
sort of have route names already (Hounslow Loop, Kingston Loop) but as with
my two examples they can overlap. Then again, if route numbers were used
to what extent would the existing underground routes be rename/numbered and
would non Tfl controlled routes be given route numbers?


I don't think it's too confusing as it is, in some ways. As others
have noted, people cope with the myriad of branches on the Northern
Line or with the national rail symbol meaning any one of dozens of
routes.

But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. I think there's a case
for keeping the North London lines (all the routes through Gospel Oak)
and East London lines (all routes through Wapping) separate. Perhaps
they could hang on to their different shades of orange.

And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

Didn't someone around here start putting together a map that did this
to see what it looked like?

Jonn


My own, off the cuff reaction would be to either leave things as they are
(after all, for years none of the NR services on the London Connections map
have been named) or wholesale number everything on London Connections
(including the underground).

Bizzarely Gospel Oak has retained its BR symbol.

Are youreferring to the actual station, or the line maps in the underground
carriages?

The square map of LO routes in the carriages and on the TFL website.
All the other stations with an NR double arrow symbol have another TOC
service, albeit somewhat sparsely in some cases (Queen's Park).

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, wrote:

But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. I think there's a case for
keeping the North London lines (all the routes through Gospel Oak) and
East London lines (all routes through Wapping) separate. Perhaps they
could hang on to their different shades of orange.

And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

Didn't someone around here start putting together a map that did this to
see what it looked like?

I threatened to, but haven't got very far with it yet. Must start again
with that!

tom

--
Operate all mechanisms!