On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...May/article.do

Mayor of London press release:
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...eleaseid=16853

(interestingly nothing heard from TfL)

U

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

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...May/article.do


Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.

Paul S

Paul Scott wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.
Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...May/article.do


Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.

There is an argument that it is TfL et al who are using "overground"
confusingly, by giving Overground a tighter meaning than (the person in
the street's use of-) overground. Maybe it is to compensate for "Tube"
now including things which aren't tubes :-)

Then there is the Overground Network, which came, caused a little
confusion and then died, but its ghost still haunts various bits of signage.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Paul Scott wrote:
Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November.

Moreover, Overground didn't exist as such before November and was Oyster
enabled from the outset. Also it was the OP that confusingly capitalised
the term, not the paper.

ESB

On May 13, 12:16*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November.

Moreover, Overground didn't exist as such before November and was Oyster
enabled from the outset. Also it was the OP that confusingly capitalised
the term, not the paper.

I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

ESB

On May 13, 1:42*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

If punters have to spot a capitalised or non-capitalised version of
the same word to make the distinction between totally different
railway routes, it demonstrates the silliness of the name. From the
version all in capitals it would be anyone's guess anyway.

I was trying to ... efficiently? ... poetically? ... have a go at
political spin and silly franchise names in one hit.

On Tue, 13 May 2008, MIG wrote:

On May 13, 1:42*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

If punters have to spot a capitalised or non-capitalised version of
the same word to make the distinction between totally different
railway routes, it demonstrates the silliness of the name.

Better write to FGW, then. Reading and Slough must be renamed forthwith!

tom

--
When you mentioned INSERT-MIND-INPUT ... did they look at you like this?

On May 13, 1:42*am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
MIG wrote:
I was referring to a headline which happened to be all in capitals,
not the story in the link.

Might have been handy to point that out from the outset! As it happens,
the story as available online does not capitalise overground even in the
headline so there is some hope.

I note that the Google archive claims that I changed the discussion
heading (to include a capital?). I certainly did not. I put a capital
in the original heading only, because it was a heading, and have never
changed it since.

On May 12, 8:49*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Mr Thant" wrote in message

...

On 12 May, 18:49, MIG wrote:
According to the London ****e, there will be Oysters on Overground by
next May.

Evening Standard/London Lite article:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/Boris...

Yet again a London paper uses the term 'overground' confusingly, as the
'Overground' has been Oyster enabled since November. They also refer to the
'overland network' - another new term.


I am sure that the papers (and everyone) were using the term
"overground" long before TfL started using it confusingly.

But it was amusing that those papers today used the word which now
refers to precisely the part of the railway network that already
accepts Pay As You Go. You'd think that for a story like this they'd
choose their words more carefully (no you wouldn't).

The original press release very carefully doesn't actually make any
claims, but makes the announcements in a way that leads readers to
make inferences.

The papers that have been Boris's campaign leaflets till recently have
obligingly spelled out the inferences as facts (ie they have lied).
But they've also published a couple of comments on the story from
readers pointing out how old the plans are.

All very strange. Is it convincing anybody or is it making everyone
look silly? What might be preventing TfL spokespeople from explaining
the true situation about the current state and history of negotiations
with the various TOCs? Because I would be interested to know.