In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:18:09 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:
Even so, there's still no excuse for the **** poor service speeds. I've
been in a 378 when the driver was obviously running late and they can
get up and go when they need to. The trains arn't at fault - the
drivers are. Also quite why the drivers feel they need to creep into
every station at 10mph beats me quite frankly. The ELL needs ATO and
fast.

Are you suggesting the drivers set the timetables? That's what they have
to drive the trains to. So perhaps you are pointing the finger in the
wrong direction?

I imagine there's a certain amount of leaway built into the timetable
to allow for the idiotic decision to link it into the southern network
with all the vaguaries of the trains there. And I get the feeling the
drivers use that leaway to the max. They really do drive dog slow a lot of
the time. It really should have been kept as a self contained tube line
with a once every 2 min service from highbury to new cross(gate) with
better interchange facilities at the 2 southern stations.

An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle of
getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as well
start somewhere and that is where we are.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:44:38 -0600
wrote:
An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle of
getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as well
start somewhere and that is where we are.

I can't see how thats possible. The network is just too complex. LU can't
even manage to make the northern line reliable with 2 junctions! What hope for
the south london 3rd rail system.

--
Spud

On 18.11.15 21:32, wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 November 2015 09:36:16 UTC, wrote:
I took the ELL from Highbury this morning for the first time in about 6 months.
Even after the obligatory 7 minute wait for the train to leave it was still
only a 3rd full in the middle of the morning rush hour. Compared to last time
I used it this is virtually empty. I can only assume the poor service
frequency and slow journey times (25 mins to do the 4 miles to canada water
this morning) have put people off as they did me. What a waste of an asset.

--
Spud

I never use it in the morning peak, but do occasionally in the evening one, usually from Stratford to West Croydon. It's not terribly convenient having to change twice, but at least it's cross platform both times. Trains from West Croydon seem to arrive at platform 2 at Dalston Junction, but ones going there seem to depart from platform 3, so trains from Croydon presumably then go to New cross. It could do with speeding up a bit, but it's worth it to avoid central London. I don't know why, but I tend to go out via Canada Water and the Jubilee, and return all the way by Overground.

In my experience trains from Dalston in the evening peak become very heavily loaded by the time they leave Whitechapel; the few times I have boarded there I tend to have to wait a long time, sometimes over an hour, for a train where I can get a seat. I cannot stand for more than a few stops now due to bad legs. From Dalston to Shoreditch High Street it's not so crowded, but there's usually a net gain of passengers at each station.

I wonder if that is because a place like Dalston is ceasing to be the
"Centre of Cool" as before.

On 19.11.15 1:09, Basil Jet wrote:

Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and
she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to
the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a
bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with
little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey
Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be
called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she
would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no
up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent
thoughts of mine.

Why doesn't she just call them by their proper names, East London Line
and North London Line, rather than desperately trying to look "cool"?

On 19.11.15 10:34, Offramp wrote:
On Thursday, 19 November 2015 07:19:44 UTC, Recliner wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and
she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to
the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a
bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with
little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey
Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be
called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she
would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no
up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent
thoughts of mine.

My own recent foray around East London presented me with confusing signs
to multiple DLR platforms at Stratford, and confusing new signs in
Hackney Central / Downs pointing from one half of the station to the
other. As I arrived at Hackney from Chingford, robobint said "Change
here for trains to Enfield Town" but didn't mention Cheshunt. And the
part of the tube map between Seven Sisters and Mile End looks like an
explosion in a spaghetti factory, utterly defeating the eyes' ability to
plan routes without having to think too hard.

I believe that the Overground brand, and to a lesser extent the DLR
brand, are obfuscating rather than enlightening.

I don't even know what promise the Overground brand is supposed to make.

"Underground" means that wherever I may have ended up, I go in here and
I can get frequent trains through Central London where I can make one
change to another frequent line that will take me home. There are a few
exceptions, like Roding Valley, but the Underground largely lives up to
that promise.

"Overground" - what is that promising? It used to mean orbital travel,
for the most part, but that doesn't hold any more. If someone stumbles
out of a party at 7am on a Sunday morning and finds himself at Turkey
Street station, what does that Overground roundel represent? 2tph to the
edge of Zone 1, and probably two changes before he gets home? That's
hardly anything for a station to brag about - there are very few
stations in Greater London that offer less (Emerson Park is ironically one).

Overground is actually a negative concept. Just as the Volkswagen brand
means "This is made by the same people who make Audi's, but it would
harm the Audi image if we wrote Audi on a car like this", Overground
means "This is run by the same people who run the Underground, but it
would harm the Underground brand if we wrote Underground on stations
that have infrequent service which only touches Zone 1 or avoids it
completely. So the Overground brand exists purely to avoid tarnishing
the reputation of the Underground.

And yet, the Overground management act as if they have an inferiority
complex, writing Overground everywhere and doing their best to
obliterate the historic line identities as if writing Overground on
something is the finest praise imaginable.

We need different colours and line names. We need the trains to
Chingford to have a different colour on the map from the trains that
call at London Fields and Cambridge Heath.

And the DLR needs to get line names too, so that the signs at Stratford
and on the District Line line guides can start making sense.
http://www.metrolondres.es/wp-conten...-mapa-tube.jpg
has four different DLR interchanges, and no clue as to which you're
supposed to use to get to which part of the DLR.


I agree. We need line numbers on the Underground, Overground and DLR, just
as bus routes have numbers. Maybe they could have an alpha prefix, but it
would be much clearer if every route had a unique number.

It's particularly confusing to non-locals on the subsurface Underground
lines where similar looking trains serve many different routes from the
same Circle line stations.

I'd prefer letters: DLRA DLRB etc.

London Overground was always a terrible name. It should have been given a monicker in the same way that the Jubilee Line was - how about the Dickens Line? And that abbrev.: LOROL! Faites-moi une faveur, mec!

LOROL also should have letters to differentiate its several parts.

RER, perhaps?

On 2015\11\19 16:19, wrote:
On 19.11.15 1:09, Basil Jet wrote:

Incidentally, someone was describing a journey to me this morning and
she said "I get the... vertical bit of the Overground and change to
the... horizontal bit of the Overground". She sounded like she felt a
bit foolish describing it in such terms, but TfL have left people with
little choice. On querying it turned out that she has lived in Surrey
Quays for decades and is well aware that the vertical line used to be
called the East London Line, but as a young woman working in fashion she
would be particularly keen to avoid looking out of date, and she has no
up-to-date term to describe the line. The experience gelled with recent
thoughts of mine.

Why doesn't she just call them by their proper names, East London Line
and North London Line, rather than desperately trying to look "cool"?

She might not know the proper name of the North London Line - I don't
think it's been used by anyone but enthusiasts since she was a child.
The cool factor is just my own assessment of the motives of a stranger.
Certainly, TfL can not deliberately deprecate the name of its Overground
Lines and then mock fashionistas for being too cool to use them. TfL
should not have stripped the lines of their name in the first place!

On 2015\11\19 14:55, d wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:44:38 -0600
wrote:
An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle of
getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as well
start somewhere and that is where we are.

I can't see how thats possible. The network is just too complex. LU can't
even manage to make the northern line reliable with 2 junctions! What hope for
the south london 3rd rail system.

I wonder if you can do the South London 3rd rail network in a day, and
if anyone's ever done it? Or even in 2 days?

On 2015\11\18 22:58, wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 November 2015 22:44:47 UTC, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\11\18 21:32, wrote:

I don't know why, but I tend to go out via Canada Water and the Jubilee, and return all the way by Overground.

Can you try and work out why... it might be important. And exactly which
journey are you describing?

60 or 405 Bus from Coulsdon to West Croydon, Overground to Canada Water, Jubilee Line to Stratford. Return from Stratford to West Croydon Overground all the way, changing at Canonbury and Dalston Kingsland. Bus from Croydon to Coulsdon.

I presume you mean changing at Canonbury and Dalston Junction. I'm not
sure why you don't just walk from DK to DJ.

Sometimes do other things, Croydon to Stratford by 75 and 108 bus for example, but that's even slower.

I can think of other journeys where I tend to go out and return by different routes, but for no obvious reason.

looks at bus map

Can I just say that the 455 is the oddest bus route shape I've ever
seen. I think there are three separate places where you could get off
and walk and be waiting for the same bus further on. But I digress.

You never get the train to East Croydon, tram to Elmers End, train to
Lewisham, DLR?
Would you go that way if Elmers to Lewisham had Bakerloo frequencies?
Would you go that way if the DLR was extended to Elmers End?
Would you go that way if the tram was extended to Lewisham?
Although, I suspect the questions will be redundant as soon as Crossrail
runs between Whitechapel and Stratford.

In article , d () wrote:

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:44:38 -0600
wrote:
An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle
of getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as
well start somewhere and that is where we are.

I can't see how thats possible. The network is just too complex. LU can't
even manage to make the northern line reliable with 2 junctions! What
hope for the south london 3rd rail system.

I didn't say it wasn't a challenge! But then Crossrail 2 is addressing some
of the issues.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Basil Jet)
wrote:

On 2015\11\19 14:55, d wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 06:44:38 -0600
wrote:
An alternative view is that eventually we will have to grasp the nettle
of getting the Southern brought up to metro standards. So we might as
well start somewhere and that is where we are.

I can't see how thats possible. The network is just too complex. LU
can't even manage to make the northern line reliable with 2 junctions!
What hope for the south london 3rd rail system.

I wonder if you can do the South London 3rd rail network in a day,
and if anyone's ever done it? Or even in 2 days?

I seem to remember doing an awful lot of it on a railtour once!

--
Colin Rosenstiel