"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

To some extent yes, it is a marketing exercise, but the ON also includes
better passenger information, station security and upgraded station
facilities - all welcome improvements.

Having seen some of the improvements taking place at Clapham Junction in the
past few weeks, plus the enhanced security presence, I must agree. However,
whatever public information is provided I fear that many of the imbeciles
that pass for passengers will still completely ignore them (Platform 1 at
East Croydon on Wednesday, PIS showing "16:04 London Victoria, calling at
Clapham Junction" approximately six feet away, passenger to passing member
of staff: "Is this the platform for Clapham Junction?")! I just wonder how
some of these people would have coped fifteen years ago, when there was
little more than a paper timetable at most stations (and often not that!).

Mait001 wrote:

Are we, passengers (sorry, customers) so stupid as to be unable to
distinguish between the Underground and overground?!


Regrettably, in many cases, yes.

There are people who still think that BR is running the national railway
network.


Just how does a sign stating "Overground Network" which does not, as far as I
can see exist as an entity, help that situation then?

Marc.

Having seen some of the improvements taking place at Clapham Junction in the
past few weeks,

What improvements would those be?

Like having more than one ticket window open at the Grant Road entrance on a
Monday morning, so that the queue doesn't go over 25 or 30 people?

Like ensuring that the dripping water does not damage one's clothes and head
when entering the station or using the tunnel?

Like having display boards in places that actaully have some use, such as that
excellent invisible board at the South end of the tunnel that shows that the
next Waterloon train will be on one of the Windsor platforms, thus saving one
having to walk the whole way along to platform 10?

Oh yes, I have noticed all of these wonderful improvements and applaud
Railtrack (or whoever now runs that apology for a station) for their genuince
concern for what really matters to passengers.

Marc.

Mait001
writes

Are we, passengers (sorry, customers) so stupid as to be unable to
distinguish
between the Underground and overground?!

ON (the Overground Network) doesn't refer to the whole of the train
system that is above ground.

It is a specific network of high-frequency, metro-style services with an
off-peak frequency of at least four trains an hour. Currently it is
being piloted on four South-London routes (including our local Richmond
line).

To some extent yes, it is a marketing exercise, but the ON also includes
better passenger information, station security and upgraded station
facilities - all welcome improvements.

--
Paul Terry






Well, as someone who travels between Waterloo and Clapham Junction or
Wandsworth Town several times a week, this is the first time I have heard of
this "exercise". All I had previously noticed were the signs - yesterday at
Wandsworth Town for the first time.

I have not, however, noticed a jot of extra better information or station
security at Wandsworth Town, and as for upgraded station facilities - there are
4 benches at Wandsworth Town - which is several less than there were 20 years
ago. That is ALL that passes for "station facilities".

So, not only is it merely a facile "marketing exercise", it is actually a
deception.

Marc.

Mait001 wrote:
Mait001 wrote:

Are we, passengers (sorry, customers) so stupid as to be unable to
distinguish between the Underground and overground?!


Regrettably, in many cases, yes.

There are people who still think that BR is running the national
railway network.


Just how does a sign stating "Overground Network" which does not, as
far as I can see exist as an entity, help that situation then?


Dunno, but obviously someone does.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

There are people who still think that BR
is running the national railway network.


Just how does a sign stating "Overground Network"
which does not, as far as I can see exist as an entity,
help that situation then?

It is normal for any elected body which funds anything to erect a sign
bearing its logo. ON has been used by the Mayor as a sort of logo, so the
purpose of the sign is to let people know that their gratitude for
improvements should not go to the SRA or SWT but to the Mayor. This is
important when people are deciding whether to re-elect him.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Just how does a sign stating "Overground Network"
which does not, as far as I can see exist as an entity,
help that situation then?

It is normal for any elected body which funds anything to erect a sign
bearing its logo. ON has been used by the Mayor as a sort of logo, so the
purpose of the sign is to let people know that their gratitude for
improvements should not go to the SRA or SWT but to the Mayor. This is
important when people are deciding whether to re-elect him.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped

1. I thought that Ken was using (or abusing, I should say) the Roundel for all
of his transport ventures - including on London taxis. This new logo is a
waste of space, money and effort and is completely meaningless.

2. There is nothing that I can see on the logo (on those places I have seen it
- admittedly not that many yet) which connects it with the Mayor of London or
anyone else.

3. What improvements? The presence of a meaningless sign - oh, yes, of course.
Eternally grateful - thanks Ken.

4. I will CERTAINLY be using Ken's waste of MY money as one of (many) criteria
when I vote against him.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

3. What improvements? The presence of a meaningless
sign - oh, yes, of course. Eternally grateful - thanks Ken.

4. I will CERTAINLY be using Ken's waste of MY money
as one of (many) criteria when I vote against him.

As with most or all of Ken's innovations, the idea of branding certain
routes as the "South London Overground" has been around for a few years and
precedes his stint in office. The full idea involved cutting certain
branches off, a la Bromley North, and running frequent (4-6tph) shuttles on
the branches and frequent repetitive services on the lines into London.

I don't know how much of the plan still stands, and how much has been
shelved. I know that some of the people of Wallington reacted furiously when
they were told that instead of having 2tph to London Bridge and 2 tph to
Victoria, they were going to get 4tph to one or the other, so maybe the plan
to tube-ise the network has been cut down, perhaps to the point where the
signage is advertising a product that doesn't exist... or maybe we are still
in the early stages. Either way, Ken is acting on the advice of the
transport professionals rather than just coming up with money-wasting
schemes off his own head. There are reasons to vote against Ken, but these
particular ON signs aren't one of them.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article , Mait001
writes
Or, even worse, replaced with an ugly new facile logo I have seen defacing
stations around London: "Overground Network". I have to confess, the first few
times I saw this ugly"ON" logo I thought it was an advert for a new mobile
'phone company (e.g. "Orange Network")!

Wouldn't it be better to call it the S-bahn? It's a term understood
over large parts of continental Europe; a short term, easy to read on
signs.

--
Clive Page

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

3. What improvements? The presence of a meaningless
sign - oh, yes, of course. Eternally grateful - thanks Ken.

4. I will CERTAINLY be using Ken's waste of MY money
as one of (many) criteria when I vote against him.

As with most or all of Ken's innovations, the idea of branding certain
routes as the "South London Overground" has been around for a few years and
precedes his stint in office. The full idea involved cutting certain
branches off, a la Bromley North, and running frequent (4-6tph) shuttles on
the branches and frequent repetitive services on the lines into London.

I don't know how much of the plan still stands, and how much has been
shelved. I know that some of the people of Wallington reacted furiously when
they were told that instead of having 2tph to London Bridge and 2 tph to
Victoria, they were going to get 4tph to one or the other, so maybe the plan
to tube-ise the network has been cut down, perhaps to the point where the
signage is advertising a product that doesn't exist... or maybe we are still
in the early stages. Either way, Ken is acting on the advice of the
transport professionals rather than just coming up with money-wasting
schemes off his own head. There are reasons to vote against Ken, but these
particular ON signs aren't one of them.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped

John, I always bow to your undoubtedly superior knowledge of plans for London's
transport. This is certainly the first I have heard of this scheme and, as I
have said, the only manifestation of it has been the signs and nothing else!

However, in the case of the service (or lack of it to Wandsworth Town), it is
not only a joke but a fraud if the idea is to have 4 trains per hour! Off-peak,
the service may be 4 per-hour, but in evening peaks so often have I arrived at
Waterloo in recent years, to find either no trains listed to stop at Wandsworth
Town, or a 30 or 40 minute wait till the next one, that I now usually take the
first train to Clapham Junction, and then get a bus.

Personally, I believe that actions speak louder than window-dressing, and I'd
prefer a decent service to some expensive publicity merchant's idea of a new
snazzy logo that represents nothing.

Marc.