London Banter - Queenstown Road

London Banter (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- London Transport (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/)

- - Queenstown Road (https://www.londonbanter.co.uk/london-transport/1395-queenstown-road.html)

"Overground Network" - just how stupid do the operators (whoever
they happen to be this week, as opposed to last week and next
week) think we are. And, are spening MONEY on this idiocy!

Except that ON is actually a TfL initiative that has been foisted upon
the train operators in some parts of the capital.

In which case, even more idiotic, and another legacy of the fools that
vote for having a Mayor of London and all the munificence that this
has brought.

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

As you almost certainly know, the point of ON is not to distinguish it
from the London Underground, but to show that the station has at
least 4 trains per hour to / from central London (i.e. that it has a
'metro' service, much like the Underground - hence the name). This
is very useful to me because when I'm at a station and I can see the
ON logo I know that I won't be standing at the station for 30 minutes
waiting for a train. If I don't see the logo I will check the timetables
and if necessary take a bus to a different station.

I for one think it's a very good idea from the Greater London Authority,
and it is one of the many reasons that I will be voting for Ken in the
upcoming elections.

Matt Ashby

Well, Matt, unlike Ken's normal quest for personal publicity (I expect to see
his mugshot on the new hackney carriage plates ....), this "ON" thing must have
been the best-kept secret of the decade: until this thread started, and I
mentioned my dislike of the logo, whose purpose I had no idea whatsoever, I had
not heard of this "metro" idea. I travel fairly often from Waterloo to Clapham
Junction, and as a railway enthusiast I am always on the look-out for new
leaflets etc., and NOWHERE have I seen a single mention of this new idea!

Despite everything that has been said, I still strongly dispute that there are
4 trains per hour from Waterloo to Wandsworth Town in the evening peak period.

Although I despise Ken and everything he stands for (except his failed attempt
to prevent privatisation of the Underground), credit where credit is due: his
sheer stickability and tenacity has to be admired. He will probably win the
next elections by sheer stealth - even a dyed-in-the-wool Tory like me wouldn't
touch Steven Norris with a barge pole!

Marc.

For a start, the issue has been blown out of all proportion:

Yes, that's exactly what Gilligan did.

the whole
thing seems to rest on one allegation that was a report of what one
source said and wasn't even phrased particularly definitely (the word
"probably" was used).

"Probably" was used most inaccurately by Gilligan, to suggest that the
Government knew that the threat did not exist. In other words, accusing the
Prime Minister of lying.

The government went for the throat on this issue

So would I if I were accused of lying

and because it had the connections and power to do so, it ensured the
BBC came off very much the worse.

Nonsense: before the Inquiry, everyone praised the former Lord Chief Justice of
Northern Ireland for his skill and integrity. Just because the media don't like
his conclusions (which surprised no-one who actually attended the Inquiry daily
or has read the evidence), he is now accused, most scandalously, and
libellously so, of doing the Government's dirty work. This is preposterous.

the government always got the benefit of
the doubt, the BBC never did.

Governments are elected, and will pay an electoral price if they are
disbelieved. That's their problem - good luck to them. I hold no brief for this
or any other government. The B.B.C., however, MUST be beyond reproach in the
accuracy of its reporting. Moreover, when someone makes a complaint, as the
Government did, it is incumbent of the B.B.C. Governors to take that complaint
seriously, and not dismiss it out of hand and blindly accept the veracity of
their untrustworthy or negligent reporters. THAT was the worst part of the
B.B.C.'s failings and for that the Chairman and Director-General (who was even
more blind in his unquestioning dismissal of the complaint made) had to go.

The implication of this report is that
the media can never report any alllegation unless they are absolutely
certain it is true,

They, like the rest of us, are subject to libel laws which, of proved to have
been breached, will exact a penalty against them.

which effectively stifles almost any kind of
attempt to reveal hidden errors or mistakes on the part of the
government.

Nonsense: they have a legal and moral duty to check the accuracy of what they
report and, where dubious, either state "this is just one man's opinion" but
not put it forward as a verified and credible fact.

Maybe the BBC did deserve a bit of criticism, but the amount of
criticism it has recevied is beyond belief. It really is ridiculous
that because of this event the positions of the Director General and
Chairman were made untenable.

Of course their positions were untenable: loyalty to one's staff is admirable,
but not to the extent that they refuse point blank even to consider the
possibility of error on the part of their reporter, refuse point blank to
investigate and refuse point blank to accept their error - even post-Hutton
Dyke was blubbering about "not kwowing why they had to apologise". Not only
negligent, foolhardy but also lacking grace in defeat.

The resignation of the Chairman was at least salvaging a modicum of honour, but
the reluctant and "staged" resignation of Dyke, not for a moment believing it
would be accepted, just shows how out of touch he is, and his departure came
not a moment too soon.

The REAL inquiry that should be held is how a publicly-funded broadcaster, like
the B.B.C., could ever have come to such a rabidly anti-war stance in the first
place. It was their duty to remain neutral, which they so patently failed to
do: when Gilligan came up with a half-baked story about the Government lying
about the 45-minute claim, the B.B.C. must have thought Christmas had come
early. IT was a story so good, and in tune with their own prejudices, they just
HAD to run it, without even attempting to check the veracity of the source.

Marc.

Marc.

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
Although I despise Ken and everything he stands for (except his failed
attempt
to prevent privatisation of the Underground), credit where credit is due:
his
sheer stickability and tenacity has to be admired. He will probably win
the
next elections by sheer stealth - even a dyed-in-the-wool Tory like me
wouldn't
touch Steven Norris with a barge pole!

I'm intrigued. Livingstone stands for improving public transport. You claim
to be a railway enthusiast so by extension more pro public transport in
general than anti. Why are you against Livingstone's efforts to improve
public transport?

"Mait001" wrote in message
...
No doubt it's what our European masters have in store for us at
some future date.....

Well, who would have believed, in 1973 that the following would be in
store for
us within a few decades:

Not all of these are EU-initiated or even true currently, but I'll limit
my comment to the one that is more or less on-topic for this NG:

- railway infrastructure separate from operations (a Directive
requirement that
ensures even if we wanted it, the railways can never again be united
in
ownership)

No, that's not true. The operations and infrastructure have to be
separately accounted, but AFAIK there is no requirement actually to
force them to be in separate organisations. It was John Major's
government that decided to carve BR up in the crass way that they did.
Other countries have done it differently, within EU rules.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Matt Ashby" wrote in message
om...

This is very useful to me because when I'm at
a station and I can see the ON logo I know that
I won't be standing at the station for 30 minutes
waiting for a train.

You haven't read the small print! I don't know whether this is still the
case, but about 5 years ago, certain South London stations [1] had 4 trains
an hour to London, with alternating 25 minute and 5 minute gaps (or worse).
Sadly, these qualify for the ON logo. The ON concept should revolve around
maximum separation of trains, rather than trains per hour, if it is to
inspire any confidence.

[1] I think it was the Mottingham line, but there are probably several
different lines with this problem. ISTR Sutton had 4 trains to London per
hour, but the slow ones got overtaken by the fast ones, making an effective
2 tph frequency to London, but this would also qualify to be an ON station.

--
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 message , Mait001
writes

Despite everything that has been said, I still strongly dispute that there are
4 trains per hour from Waterloo to Wandsworth Town in the evening peak period.

There aren't four - there are six per hour!

17.02 18.02 (Kingston via Richmond)
17.17 18.17 (Shepperton via Richmond)
17.24 18.24 (Weybridge via Hounslow loop)
17.33 18.34 (Kingston via Richmond)
17.47 18.47 (Shepperton via Richmond)
17.54 18.54 (Weybridge via Hounslow loop)

Are you sure you aren't limiting yourself to just one of these three
routes between Waterloo and Wandsworth Town?

--
Paul Terry

"Robin May" wrote in message
. 17...
"John Rowland" wrote the
following in:

"The Swift"...

I *like* that.

It's making a promise.

It's making a promise they won't use 313s.

Are 313s particularly bad for reasons other than the fact that
their interior decoration promotes feelings of deep despair?

S L O W.

Haven't you noticed that on the lines where 313s are used, they don't bother
posting speed limits? ;-)

--
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