London Liverpool Street is still closed due to overrun of engineering
works - and looks like it will remain closed for some time:

"Sorry! Some problems have arisen with the complex engineering work
being carried out over the 10 day Christmas and New Year period.

As a result all services will be severly disrupted this morning -
Wednesday 2nd January 2008.

We and Network Rail are doing everything possible to ensure that
services return to normal as soon as possible, but at the moment it is
not possible to be precise about the effect on individual services.

We do advise not to travel into London if your journey is not
important."

From:
http://www.onerailway.com/rtti

Let me blaming game start!

(a bit) more from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7167413.stm

This from the TfL site....

+++++++++++++
Current Overground network status
A good service is operating on all London Overground lines.

Other London rail operators
ONE RAILWAY: Due to a late finish to engineering works One services are not
serving Liverpool Street station.
++++++++++++++

To me this seems like a contradiction. The problem is that the Liverpool
Street line is a London overground line, but it isn't a London Overground
line. TfL should not have used "London Overground" to mean a small subset of
what the words have meant for the last hundred years.

"alex_t" wrote in message
...
(a bit) more from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7167413.stm

That article talks about the bridge removal works allowing the inference
that these works are the cause of the problems. However according to the
'one' website that all went smoothly and the problem is the OHLE replacement
works in the station.

G.

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
This from the TfL site....

+++++++++++++
Current Overground network status
A good service is operating on all London Overground lines.

Other London rail operators
ONE RAILWAY: Due to a late finish to engineering works One services are
not serving Liverpool Street station.
++++++++++++++

To me this seems like a contradiction. The problem is that the Liverpool
Street line is a London overground line, but it isn't a London Overground
line. TfL should not have used "London Overground" to mean a small subset
of what the words have meant for the last hundred years.


You're definitely not the first to have come to that conclusion - and don't
forget all over South London stations still have the remains of the previous
'overground network' signage which is now meaningless.

Paul S

On 2 Jan, 12:02, "Graham J" wrote:
That article talks about the bridge removal works allowing the inference
that these works are the cause of the problems. *However according to the
'one' website that all went smoothly and the problem is the OHLE replacement
works in the station.

That sounds about right to me. I had another look at the bridge site
on Monday and the wires were back up and everything looked finished,
but further west there were lots of men in orange jackets milling
around (though no sign of any tools or equipment), and the OHLE looked
untouched.

U

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

On 2 Jan, 10:40, "John Rowland"
wrote:
To me this seems like a contradiction. The problem is that the Liverpool
Street line is a London overground line, but it isn't a London Overground
line. TfL should not have used "London Overground" to mean a small subset of
what the words have meant for the last hundred years.

Indeed. Try working in a LU ticket office and asking a passenger "will
you be travelling on National Rail today?", and getting the inevitable
response "Yes, I will use the overground trains.", and then having to
spend several minutes trying to establish whether they mean Overground
or overground.

This is what happens when the decisions are made by people who know
f*ck all about transport - i.e. Transport For London being chaired by
the Mayor.

On 2 Jan, 15:25, BRB Class 465 wrote:
On 2 Jan, 10:40, "John Rowland"

wrote:
To me this seems like a contradiction. The problem is that the Liverpool
Street line is a London overground line, but it isn't a London Overground
line. TfL should not have used "London Overground" to mean a small subset of
what the words have meant for the last hundred years.

Indeed. Try working in a LU ticket office and asking a passenger "will
you be travelling on National Rail today?", and getting the inevitable
response "Yes, I will use the overground trains.", and then having to
spend several minutes trying to establish whether they mean Overground
or overground.

This is what happens when the decisions are made by people who know
f*ck all about transport - i.e. Transport For London being chaired by
the Mayor.

That's balls. The Mayor knows a ton about transport, he's been a keen
advocate of public transport in London for years.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 2 Jan, 15:25, BRB Class 465 wrote:
On 2 Jan, 10:40, "John Rowland"

wrote:
To me this seems like a contradiction. The problem is that the
Liverpool
Street line is a London overground line, but it isn't a London
Overground
line. TfL should not have used "London Overground" to mean a small
subset of
what the words have meant for the last hundred years.

Indeed. Try working in a LU ticket office and asking a passenger "will
you be travelling on National Rail today?", and getting the inevitable
response "Yes, I will use the overground trains.", and then having to
spend several minutes trying to establish whether they mean Overground
or overground.

This is what happens when the decisions are made by people who know
f*ck all about transport - i.e. Transport For London being chaired by
the Mayor.

That's balls. The Mayor knows a ton about transport, he's been a keen
advocate of public transport in London for years.

Undoubtedly - and the resulting confusion of 'London Overground' the
colloquial 'overground' and the earlier 'overground network' is probably
intentional, because it allows Ken to push TfL control of heavy rail as a
simplification of the status quo...

Paul

On 2 Jan, 16:02, Mizter T wrote:
That's balls. The Mayor knows a ton about transport, he's been a keen
advocate of public transport in London for years.

Oh really? Since when does being a "keen advocate" of something give
an individual sufficient knowledge to be able to devise schemes which
work well? The East London Line may turn out to be an interesting case-
study.