On May 27, 4:49*pm, allantracy wrote:
Given the expenditure of well over £1.5bn on the Overground network
nothing should be breaking down or requiring extensive replacement on
those sections where the work has been done. Quite what is wrong with
the signalling on the DC lines I don't know. *Failure after failure
and with ridiculously long repair times.

Yeah well London Overground always was just a crap and confusing image
makeover.

Stuck being nether one thing (new underground line) or the other (main
line).

Your remarks surprise me. While the shambles reported here is nothing
of which TfL should be proud. And, the western side of the Overground
need further upgrading (The speed on the Willesden Junction to Clapham
Junction stretch is too low). Overall the Overground is a great
network. It joins together the networks in London proper, and the
parts in annexed Surrey and Kent. It makes journeys possible that
previously required slow bus trips and changes. It makes journeys
between the outlying boroughs doable and enjoyable. The Eastern side
is especially pleasant.

One can nitpick about details. But, overall I am not sure what there
is to dislike about the Overground.

On Jun 2, 12:14*pm, e27002 wrote:
On May 27, 4:49*pm, allantracy wrote:

Given the expenditure of well over £1.5bn on the Overground network
nothing should be breaking down or requiring extensive replacement on
those sections where the work has been done. Quite what is wrong with
the signalling on the DC lines I don't know. *Failure after failure
and with ridiculously long repair times.

Yeah well London Overground always was just a crap and confusing image
makeover.

Stuck being nether one thing (new underground line) or the other (main
line).

Your remarks surprise me. *While the shambles reported here is nothing
of which TfL should be proud. *And, the western side of the Overground
need further upgrading (The speed on the Willesden Junction to Clapham
Junction stretch is too low). *Overall the Overground is a great
network. *It joins together the networks in London proper, and the
parts in annexed Surrey and Kent. *It makes journeys possible that
previously required slow bus trips and changes. *It makes journeys
between the outlying boroughs doable and enjoyable. *The Eastern side
is especially pleasant.

One can nitpick about details. *But, overall I am not sure what there
is to dislike about the Overground.

The overcrowding is probably the worst thing; it's actually been too
successful.

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:44:31 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:14*pm, e27002 wrote:
On May 27, 4:49*pm, allantracy wrote:

Given the expenditure of well over £1.5bn on the Overground network
nothing should be breaking down or requiring extensive replacement on
those sections where the work has been done. Quite what is wrong with
the signalling on the DC lines I don't know. *Failure after failure
and with ridiculously long repair times.

Yeah well London Overground always was just a crap and confusing image
makeover.

Stuck being nether one thing (new underground line) or the other (main
line).

Your remarks surprise me. *While the shambles reported here is nothing
of which TfL should be proud. *And, the western side of the Overground
need further upgrading (The speed on the Willesden Junction to Clapham
Junction stretch is too low). *Overall the Overground is a great
network. *It joins together the networks in London proper, and the
parts in annexed Surrey and Kent. *It makes journeys possible that
previously required slow bus trips and changes. *It makes journeys
between the outlying boroughs doable and enjoyable. *The Eastern side
is especially pleasant.

One can nitpick about details. *But, overall I am not sure what there
is to dislike about the Overground.

The overcrowding is probably the worst thing; it's actually been too
successful.

Yes, the trains urgently need those fifth cars. It's amazing that
three-car 313s were regarded as adequate not so long ago.

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:35:24 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:14:09 +0100, Recliner
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:44:31 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

[overground]

The overcrowding is probably the worst thing; it's actually been too
successful.

Yes, the trains urgently need those fifth cars. It's amazing that
three-car 313s were regarded as adequate not so long ago.

Adequate?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/433771507/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/117224917/

I take the point about the current services being very busy but they
aren't yet quite at the crazy levels in these photos.

Ouch, yes I'd forgotten how crowded the 313s had become towards the
end, probably because I avoided the line.

"e27002" wrote:

Overall the Overground is a great
network. It joins together the networks in London proper, and the
parts in annexed Surrey and Kent.

What's this London proper as opposed to "annexed Surrey and Kent"? And what
about "annexed Essex", "annexed Hertfordshire" and "still Hertfordshire"?!

On Jun 2, 2:37*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
"e27002" wrote:
Overall the Overground is a great
network. It joins together the networks in London proper, and the
parts in annexed Surrey and Kent.

What's this London proper as opposed to "annexed Surrey and Kent"? And what
about "annexed Essex", "annexed Hertfordshire" and "still Hertfordshire"?!

Middlesex was never South of the Thames. The creation of the LCC saw
large chunks of Surrey and Kent Annexed to London. The creation of
the GLC saw more land grabs. Last I knew the postal address
Chessington, Surrey is/was actually in London.

Essex and Herts? I agree, they have lost a chunk of their tax base.

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 06:45:53 -0700 (PDT), e27002
wrote:

On Jun 2, 2:37*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
"e27002" wrote:
Overall the Overground is a great
network. It joins together the networks in London proper, and the
parts in annexed Surrey and Kent.

What's this London proper as opposed to "annexed Surrey and Kent"? And what
about "annexed Essex", "annexed Hertfordshire" and "still Hertfordshire"?!

Middlesex was never South of the Thames. The creation of the LCC saw
large chunks of Surrey and Kent Annexed to London. The creation of
the GLC saw more land grabs. Last I knew the postal address
Chessington, Surrey is/was actually in London.

Essex and Herts? I agree, they have lost a chunk of their tax base.

It's getting on for 50 years since the "annexations" happened -- how
many more decades will it be before you accept them as fact?

So, what else is new?

On 02/06/2012 13:14, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:44:31 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:14 pm, wrote:
On May 27, 4:49 pm, wrote:

Given the expenditure of well over £1.5bn on the Overground network
nothing should be breaking down or requiring extensive replacement on
those sections where the work has been done. Quite what is wrong with
the signalling on the DC lines I don't know. Failure after failure
and with ridiculously long repair times.

Yeah well London Overground always was just a crap and confusing image
makeover.

Stuck being nether one thing (new underground line) or the other (main
line).

Your remarks surprise me. While the shambles reported here is nothing
of which TfL should be proud. And, the western side of the Overground
need further upgrading (The speed on the Willesden Junction to Clapham
Junction stretch is too low). Overall the Overground is a great
network. It joins together the networks in London proper, and the
parts in annexed Surrey and Kent. It makes journeys possible that
previously required slow bus trips and changes. It makes journeys
between the outlying boroughs doable and enjoyable. The Eastern side
is especially pleasant.

One can nitpick about details. But, overall I am not sure what there
is to dislike about the Overground.

The overcrowding is probably the worst thing; it's actually been too
successful.

Yes, the trains urgently need those fifth cars. It's amazing that
three-car 313s were regarded as adequate not so long ago.

When are those fifth cars due to come into service?

On 02/06/2012 14:04, Recliner wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:35:24 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 13:14:09 +0100, Recliner
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 04:44:31 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Furley
wrote:

[overground]

The overcrowding is probably the worst thing; it's actually been too
successful.

Yes, the trains urgently need those fifth cars. It's amazing that
three-car 313s were regarded as adequate not so long ago.

Adequate?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/433771507/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicohogg/117224917/

I take the point about the current services being very busy but they
aren't yet quite at the crazy levels in these photos.

Ouch, yes I'd forgotten how crowded the 313s had become towards the
end, probably because I avoided the line.

I remember that they used to call NLL various names, such as "The Silver
Bullet" and "The Free Line."