Jonathan Morris wrote:

Yes but "King's Cross FCC" sounds naff. And as for "City FCC" it sounds
more
like a football club than anything else!

Oh god no. I didn't mean rename the stations!

I know - but as you've noticed, some of the signs have been rebranded,
probably either due to overkeeness or bringing in staff who don't know the
difference between Thameslink the TOC, Thameslink the route and Thameslink
the name. (And a lot of people still use Thameslink as a simple term for
through services across London. If Crossrail ever happens it could do worse
than guarentee that the name will always be used for the route, similar to
"West Coast Main Line".)

Kings Cross is a mainline station and, with regards to your comment
about TfL not saying other tube lines - they do say 'Underground'
initially, then the individual lines. I think most people, including
tourists, will be looking for a mainline railway station before
worrying (if they even know) about individual TOCs.

Maybe not the TOCs but some sense of just which destinations are served
would be handy. Moorgate and Liverpool Street are almost on top of each
other but serve very different parts of London - labelling them both as
"interchange with National Rail" is frankly a waste of time.

Bob wrote:
Fig wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:58:00 +0100, Richard J.
wrote:

One current example of indicating airport services is distinctly
unhelpful. The District Line diagrams in the D-stock trains show Ealing
Broadway as an interchange for "trains to Heathrow", thus encouraging LU
customers to go there and wait for the half-hourly Heathrow Connect
service, paying (not to LU) either an extra £6 for the privilege, or £6
+ penalty fare if they try to use a Z1-6 Travelcard on HC. The
interchange with the Piccadilly at Acton Town, where they should not
need to wait more than 5 minutes for a Heathrow train, is not shown as a
route to Heathrow.
That's ridiculous, and downright mean!
Is there any way of lobbying LUL to change it? Should be fairly cheap and
easy with those little sticker thingies they use to amend the line
diagrams.

Little sticky thingies would be treating the symptoms rather than the
cause of the Ealing Broadway problem which is that Heathrow should be
included in the Z1-6 area using HC connect. Ken Livingstone and TfL
should institute congestion charging around Heathrow
and integrate the Heatrow rail link into the London rail system. I am
only surprised that as a quid pro quo for future development at
Heathrow that the Government has not insisted on the handover of the
railway from Airport Junction to Network Rail, with appropriate
compensation of course for the unamortised construction costs. After
all Heathrow creates masive congestion and environmental impact in its
own right. I don't have a problem with a premium service for passengers
who wish to pay for the convenience. Incidently will Z1-6 cards be
valid on Crossrail and where will the validity run to. Has the House of
Commons comittee or TfL said anything about this yet?

The intention has always been for Crossrail to be fully integrated into
the travelcard system. Although premium pricing was assessed, it would
significantly erode the congestion relief benefits Crossrail would
bestow upon other rail services (including the Underground).

In theory this extends to Heathrow, although I'm not sure the issue has
been entirely resolved with BAA. Saying that, BAA are probably a lot
happier now that Crossrail is an all-stations service rather than the
express service originally envisaged - but they're still not
particularly happy about Crossrail in general.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

I disagree - a lot of people find the "National Rail services"
meaningless.

These are presumably the people who after more than 10 years still think
it's "British Rail". I bet most of them don't know the TOC names either.

Maybe but on the old style route maps on the suburban services interchange
stations carry a list of other major destinations served by them. As a
result a person can look at the onboard individual maps and get a good idea
of just what "National Rail" is served there.

And some routes like the North London Line and the GOBLIN have a proper
identity and defined route yet are just labelled as "National Rail" leaving
the traveller none the wiser.

I think this will change when TfL take over in November 2007 - I would
expect to see North London Railway branding appearing using TfL's rail
roundel.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Jonathan Morris wrote:

Once people are used to the new name, I hope First will copy FCC to the
signs at Kings Cross (instead of First Cap Connect, which is still too
long for anything but 'on time' messages).

Yes but "King's Cross FCC" sounds naff. And as for "City FCC" it sounds more
like a football club than anything else!

TfL should be saying 'National Rail' services on all stations with an
interchange. It would certainly make more sense to irregular
travellers/tourists who don't really want or need to know station X is
for Virgin, Y for GNER and Z for First Great Western etc. Anyone who
does care will know anyway.

I disagree - a lot of people find the "National Rail services" meaningless.
And TfL don't just say "other tube lines" for their own services do they?

I'd agree with that. It might be a bit difficult at termini with a very
wide range of services like Victoria, but it would certainly help to
highlight particular services like airport trains (e.g. "change here for
National Rail services, including trains to Gatwick").



Within the national rail station, there are indications of which
platform to get particular trains, and there is indeed a standard sign
simply pointing to the Undergound station, with no listing of different
lines.

Within the Underground station there conversely need to be signs to
specific lines and a standard sign to where the separate national rail
station is.

And in any case, the names of the Underground lines haven't changed for
decades. If they changed as often as franchises, maybe some kind of
"other lines" would be appropriate.

MIG wrote:

And in any case, the names of the Underground lines haven't changed
for decades. If they changed as often as franchises, maybe some kind
of "other lines" would be appropriate.

Not that LUL have ever been particularly competent at maintaining their
signage, in any case. There are still plenty of signs around the system
referring to British Rail (defunct 1996), although AFAIK the last of the
Network SouthEast (defunct 1994) signs have now disappeared.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Jonathan Morris wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

These are presumably the people who after more than 10 years still
think it's "British Rail". I bet most of them don't know the TOC names
either.

I think "National Rail" is better than "British Rail". Let's ignore the
argument for the renationalisation of the train network for now!

It's a national railway network, rather than a service that's usually
for a town/city (i.e. the tube or another metro system)

Oh yes? And where, pray tell, do the National Rail trains at Walthamstow
Central go? Or Greenford? Or any of the NLL stations?

My point is that there are a substantial number of NR lines that *are*
specifically for London, and for London's rail network to be fully
integrated, these should be signed individually, just like underground
lines. I'd certainly agree that giving details of the national services at
Euston or King's Cross St Pancras would be silly, but indicating that you
can change for Watford, Thameslink, the Great Northern or whatever would
be appropriate.

tom

--
Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...
MIG wrote:

And in any case, the names of the Underground lines haven't changed
for decades. If they changed as often as franchises, maybe some kind
of "other lines" would be appropriate.

Not that LUL have ever been particularly competent at maintaining their
signage, in any case. There are still plenty of signs around the system
referring to British Rail (defunct 1996), although AFAIK the last of the
Network SouthEast (defunct 1994) signs have now disappeared.

There is at least one left at Highbury & Islington. In fact there are signs
there for "Network Southeast", "British Rail (Eastern)", "Great Northern"
and "WAGN", although not a single sign for First Capital Connect.

Peter Smyth

Peter Smyth wrote:

There is at least one left at Highbury & Islington. In fact there are
signs there for "Network Southeast", "British Rail (Eastern)", "Great
Northern" and "WAGN", although not a single sign for First Capital
Connect.

Ah, yes! I'd forgotten about the Northern City line.

Tom Anderson wrote:
Oh yes? And where, pray tell, do the National Rail trains at Walthamstow
Central go? Or Greenford? Or any of the NLL stations?

I don't know about all lines, but we were talking about GN and
Thameslink, which aren't just London based services. The NLL is a bit
odd, having always shown up on tube maps and been considered, pretty
much, like a tube service (except without the frequency of service,
station staffing etc).

I can't comment on the other lines as I've never used them. For me,
just showing the name of a line wouldn't ever help encourage me to use
them as I still don't know where they go from/to.

Jonathan

MIG wrote:

And in any case, the names of the Underground lines haven't changed for
decades.

Fancy coming to Bow Road and trying to find the Metropolitan Line the
building's facade claims is there?