Other manifestations
of this are the combined service status info on the TfL real time page
and on display boards. Our internal info feed now covers DLR and
Overground as well as the Tube.

That is all very useful. But I do also wonder about the treatment of
the Overground as a single entity. I don't quibble with that in the
short term as a means to establish the brand. But I can already see
that it causes difficulty when eg a problem on one line may lead to
reports of a "problem on the Overground" which has zero impact on users
of the others lines but causes them to worry and/or ask staff for more
information. Is there any plan for the medium to long term to brand and
report the status of the separate Overground "lines" on the real time
page and the screens at stations?

And if not why not ? - asked in the best traditions of Select Committee
questioning of course
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

Does anyone know why all of the Temporary Signs on London Overground
stations have been replaced with permanent signs which appear to be
identical to the temporary ones in every way, except that they don't
have "Temporary Sign' written on them?

(This reminds me of the bit in Grimble where the fridge contains nothing
but a biscuit bearing the message in green ink "Do not eat this biscuit,
as green ink is poisonous".)

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 06:15:44 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Does anyone know why all of the Temporary Signs on London Overground
stations have been replaced with permanent signs which appear to be
identical to the temporary ones in every way, except that they don't
have "Temporary Sign' written on them?

I can only guess that a decision has been taken not to replace the
signs at this time. I think it is a bit of a shame because those
places that have been fully re-signed and refurbished look more
"complete" in terms of their presentation and design.

You mean they are the temporary signs with the "Temporary Sign" bit painted
out?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

I thought that official TfL policy was to describe the lines as
"Richmond to Stratford" etc rather than NLL, ELL etc. I would guess
that the expectation is that the official naming policy should be used
on any announcements about disruptions or planned closures. Still this
weekend there are no planned works at all on the Overground network!

Thanks; you are of course right. So, apart from all the other issues,
it's a complete non-starter unless and until generally accepted
abbreviations emerge for "Richmond/Clapham Junction to Stratford" et al.

And thanks for all the other points too.


--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

In message , Paul Corfield
wrote:
That is all very useful. But I do also wonder about the treatment of
the Overground as a single entity.

I thought that official TfL policy was to describe the lines as
"Richmond to Stratford" etc rather than NLL, ELL etc.

I've seen material that refers to "Overground Route 1", "Overground
Route 2", etc.

1: Richmond to Stratford
2: Euston to Watford Junction
3: GOBLIN
4: ELL

There's a shortage of easily-distinguished colours, but it would be nice
for each of these to have an official name of its own.

[Perhaps they could be coloured orange with a contrasting stripe in the
middle; District green for 1, Bakerloo brown for 2, black for 3, and
Met. mauve for 4.]

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: