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

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?


You mean like North, West, & East London Lines, which everyone already
knows, The DC lines - which may not be so well known. Ken has previously
referred to them as being collectively the 'North London Railway'.

Anyway, TfL have already announced that they aren't going to use individual
line names on the 'tube map'. Because it works ok with the DLR
apparently...

Paul S

On Nov 21, 11:03 am, "Paul Scott"
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?

You mean like North, West, & East London Lines, which everyone already
knows, The DC lines - which may not be so well known. Ken has previously
referred to them as being collectively the 'North London Railway'.


As the routes evolve, though, and direct trains run from Barking to
Clapham Junction, that might become a little out of date.

Anyway, TfL have already announced that they aren't going to use individual
line names on the 'tube map'. Because it works ok with the DLR
apparently...


It's fine while it's just the Silverlink lines. It's when Southern
comes into the fold as well things might start getting complicated.

Jonn

wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 11:03 am, "Paul Scott"
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?

You mean like North, West, & East London Lines, which everyone already
knows, The DC lines - which may not be so well known. Ken has previously
referred to them as being collectively the 'North London Railway'.


As the routes evolve, though, and direct trains run from Barking to
Clapham Junction, that might become a little out of date.

Anyway, TfL have already announced that they aren't going to use
individual
line names on the 'tube map'. Because it works ok with the DLR
apparently...


It's fine while it's just the Silverlink lines. It's when Southern
comes into the fold as well things might start getting complicated.


You reckon that will happen? Is that all of Southern, including the bits
that run from say Brighton - Southampton? Can't see it myself, although I've
no doubt Ken will use his ideas for electioneering purposes. Perhaps if he
clarified matters by defining the routes he really means, in terms of the
DfT's list published in July perhaps?

Just because it was straightforward to divide 'Silverlink' into two discreet
parts, given that the operations were totally separate, I reckon Southern is
on a different scale of problems entirely...

Paul

On Nov 21, 11:42 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Nov 21, 11:03 am, "Paul Scott"
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?

You mean like North, West, & East London Lines, which everyone already
knows, The DC lines - which may not be so well known. Ken has previously
referred to them as being collectively the 'North London Railway'.

As the routes evolve, though, and direct trains run from Barking to
Clapham Junction, that might become a little out of date.

Anyway, TfL have already announced that they aren't going to use
individual
line names on the 'tube map'. Because it works ok with the DLR
apparently...

It's fine while it's just the Silverlink lines. It's when Southern
comes into the fold as well things might start getting complicated.

You reckon that will happen? Is that all of Southern, including the bits
that run from say Brighton - Southampton? Can't see it myself, although I've
no doubt Ken will use his ideas for electioneering purposes. Perhaps if he
clarified matters by defining the routes he really means, in terms of the
DfT's list published in July perhaps?

Just because it was straightforward to divide 'Silverlink' into two discreet
parts, given that the operations were totally separate, I reckon Southern is
on a different scale of problems entirely...


I'm not sure it is, actually. Isn't there a fairly clean split between
the metro services and the south coast ones? It does mean that a
couple of Greater London stations would fall outside TfL control -
Coulsdon South, for example - but it otherwise looks comparatively
straightforward. Something like C2C, which doesn't have a metro
service to speak of, looks far more vexing.

This is of course entirely theoretical at this point.

Jonn

wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 11:42 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Just because it was straightforward to divide 'Silverlink' into two
discreet
parts, given that the operations were totally separate, I reckon Southern
is
on a different scale of problems entirely...


I'm not sure it is, actually. Isn't there a fairly clean split between
the metro services and the south coast ones? It does mean that a
couple of Greater London stations would fall outside TfL control -
Coulsdon South, for example - but it otherwise looks comparatively
straightforward. Something like C2C, which doesn't have a metro
service to speak of, looks far more vexing.

This is of course entirely theoretical at this point.

Sure - but it doesn't make any sense for Ken to state publicly that he's
going to put in a bid for the entire Southern Franchise next year either...

Paul

On Nov 21, 12:06 pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
wrote in message

Sure - but it doesn't make any sense for Ken to state publicly that he's
going to put in a bid for the entire Southern Franchise next year either...


Hmmm.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2903879.ece

What the article says includes...

"Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, is preparing to submit a bid
next year to take over most of Southern, one of the biggest train
franchises, from 2009.

....

"Speaking to The Times, Mr Livingstone said: "I am optimistic that TfL
will end up controlling all the franchises in Greater London. We want
to get the same standards we are introducing on London Overground on
all services and I am confident of getting a sympathetic hearing from
the Government.""

....which to me suggests a similar split to Silverlink. I've been
assuming he's after the lines to Epsom, Caterham etc rather than the
ones to Brighton.

Jonn

On 21 Nov, 11:52, wrote:
but it otherwise looks comparatively
straightforward. Something like C2C, which doesn't have a metro
service to speak of, looks far more vexing.

The c2c metro service is the District Line, surely?

U

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

On Nov 21, 12:49 pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 21 Nov, 11:52, wrote:

but it otherwise looks comparatively
straightforward. Something like C2C, which doesn't have a metro
service to speak of, looks far more vexing.

The c2c metro service is the District Line, surely?


Well, yes.

Although I think they do also run some trains Fenchurch Street -
Barking - Rainham - Grays, which TfL would presumably have their eye
on.

Jonn

wrote:

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.

Any different from lines that show interchange with the "Northern Line"? Or
with "National Rail"?