On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:

So is the NLR not going to count as National Rail?

Yes and no. My interpretation is the NLR half will be 100% National Rail
service, but the ELR half will work like a tube service that runs onto
National Rail tracks at the ends (which was what it was going to be
before the recent invention of Overground). Thus, as I understand it:

- All NLR stations are National Rail stations and have the arrows;
- ELR stations currently on the National Rail network retain their arrows,
because other TOCs may still stop;
- But: ELR stations not on the National Rail network (Surrey Quays to Dalston
Junction) won't have arrows.

Oh christ.

More he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/...ardIssue03.pdf

That certainly seems to say what you're saying.

The highway sign on page 7.1 is rather surprising!

If TfL are going to be so keen on signs, perhaps they could send someone
to sort out the signing of the exits at Old Street? They're numbered, and
there are plenty of signs pointing to each numbered exit, but the only
signs indicating where each number leads to *are at the exits themselves*,
so unless you know them, you're reduced to wandering round until you find
the right exit. Makes me insane with rage every time i go there!

tom

--
Wikipedia topics: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time
villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools,
garage bands, cats, webcomics, Digimon, Bionicle characters, webforums,
characters from English soap operas, and Mortal Kombat characters that
don't exist -- Uncyclopedia

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paul Scott wrote:


That should be ok, isn't the convention TfL have decided upon that the NR
and 'Overground' logos will both be used outside the station if NR
services
(Southern) also stop there?

So is the NLR not going to count as National Rail? I had this vague idea
that it was essentially franchised to TfL, which is then conceeding it to
Laing MTR, so although it would be part of the London Overground, it would
also be part of National Rail. Bit like the futile system of old, where
the king grants fiefs to dukes, dukes sub-grant bits of them to barons,
etc. It's going to be run along NR lines in technical, operational, etc
terms, no?


The NLL has to remain under NR control for the current freight services and
empty passenger stock moves. There are also possible future passenger
connections from the WCML into St Pancras and direct connection for freight
trains into HS1(CTRL) at the London tunnel portal.

They don't seem to be saying that it is necessary to have a National Rail
passenger service to keep the 'NR' logo, as I suggested earlier, but only to
be part of the NR network, or ownership. However I reckon this could be
quite misleading as presumably people will expect to see main line passenger
services wherever the NR logo is found...

If the NLR had been the only user of the route, it would probably have
suited Network Rail to transfer the infrastructure to LU. But even then
things can move exceedingly slowly - didn't it take about 35 years for the
East Putney to Wimbledon section to be transferred to LU?

Paul S

On Sep 25, 6:14 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:


If TfL are going to be so keen on signs, perhaps they could send someone
to sort out the signing of the exits at Old Street? They're numbered, and
there are plenty of signs pointing to each numbered exit, but the only
signs indicating where each number leads to *are at the exits themselves*,
so unless you know them, you're reduced to wandering round until you find
the right exit. Makes me insane with rage every time i go there!


So don't go there!

Jonn

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:36:43 +0100, Paul Scott wrote:

I saw yet another post in a forum sugesting that November 11 is intended
for the opening date, asserting that it would be branded Overground from
the off because it had no existing signage. Which is odd because I
distinctly remember the Silverlink style signs. Did you get the chance
for another look at the site?

I went for a look a couple of weeks ago. The platforms signs have
Silverlink swooshes on them. I couldn't get that close to the main
building, but it has a giant set of rail double arrows in the window above
the door (possibly etched on the glass).

That should be ok, isn't the convention TfL have decided upon that the NR
and 'Overground' logos will both be used outside the station if NR services
(Southern) also stop there?

Seems a lot of effort for the 3 Southern trains a day that will stop
there (2 northbound, 1 southbound).

On 25 Sep, 18:14, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

(snip)

More he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/...ds/assets/down...

(snip)

The highway sign on page 7.1 is rather surprising!


I presume your comment relates to the "Morden station" wording on the
sign - which is sloppy. There is of course a "Morden Road tram stop" -
and it's a 'tram stop' not a 'station'!

Indeed pretty much everywhere that the tram calls at are referred to
as 'tram stops', though I guess the former NR platforms used by
Tramlink at Wimbledon and Elmers End are a moot point - indeed one
could also argue about all the tram stops on the route that used to be
NR stations (though apart from the aforementioned two none of them
still use the original platforms).

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Mizter T wrote:

On 25 Sep, 18:14, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Mr Thant wrote:

More he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/...ds/assets/down...

The highway sign on page 7.1 is rather surprising!

I presume your comment relates to the "Morden station" wording on the
sign - which is sloppy. There is of course a "Morden Road tram stop" -
and it's a 'tram stop' not a 'station'!

Schemes to run the trams to Morden tube station itself pop up from time to
tie; i assumed the example was a sneaky tip of the hat to those.

tom

--
The future will accost us with boob-slapping ferocity. -- H. G. Wells

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

If the NLR had been the only user of the route, it would probably
have suited Network Rail to transfer the infrastructure to LU. But
even then things can move exceedingly slowly - didn't it take about
35 years for the East Putney to Wimbledon section to be transferred
to LU?

Only 35 years? Where do you get that from? It was far more than that,
surely? When did the first District trains run to East Putney?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

If the NLR had been the only user of the route, it would probably
have suited Network Rail to transfer the infrastructure to LU. But
even then things can move exceedingly slowly - didn't it take about
35 years for the East Putney to Wimbledon section to be transferred
to LU?

Only 35 years? Where do you get that from? It was far more than that,
surely? When did the first District trains run to East Putney?


I was meaning the gap between the last main line services stopping in
the1960s?, and the line being transferred to LU, which I believe was during
the 90s. It wouldn't have been necessary to transfer the line to LU as soon
as the first District line trains used the line, the LSWR would have simply
billed them for the use. IIRC a similar length of time passed between the
line to Upminster ceasing to have main line trains and its eventual transfer
to LU, and there must be many other areas where this happened...

But it seems the Wimbledon branch still has Network Rail doing the
signalling (another thread running in uk.t.l), so maybe LU were only sold
the stations?

Paul

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

If the NLR had been the only user of the route, it would probably
have suited Network Rail to transfer the infrastructure to LU. But
even then things can move exceedingly slowly - didn't it take about
35 years for the East Putney to Wimbledon section to be transferred
to LU?

Only 35 years? Where do you get that from? It was far more than that,
surely? When did the first District trains run to East Putney?

I was meaning the gap between the last main line services stopping
in the1960s?, and the line being transferred to LU, which I
believe was during the 90s. It wouldn't have been necessary to
transfer the line to LU as soon as the first District line trains
used the line, the LSWR would have simply billed them for the use.
IIRC a similar length of time passed between the line to Upminster
ceasing to have main line trains and its eventual transfer to LU,
and there must be many other areas where this happened...

I don't remember BR trains ever stopping at East Putney as a kid over 50
years ago when both BR platforms were still intact.

But it seems the Wimbledon branch still has Network Rail doing the
signalling (another thread running in uk.t.l), so maybe LU were
only sold the stations?

LU got the route (along with others) so it wasn't privatised in 1994 I
think. LU had run the signalling on the Putney Bridge-East Putney section
for years before then despite it still being BR owned.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , Paul Scott
writes

I was meaning the gap between the last main line services stopping in
the1960s?, and the line being transferred to LU, which I believe was during
the 90s.

The last stopping service was in May 1941, although it is certainly true
that until the 1960s the line was used much more than it is today by
non-stopping services (and, I believe, by freight).

--
Paul Terry