"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