"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:53:26 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Line maps and announcements are beginning to mention interchange with
London Overground services.

And stations at which LO is the only NR service have lost their
double-headed arrow.

Pet peeve: Moorgate and Old Street get a "(NR no weekend service)" note;
Highbury & Islington doesn't, despite being on exactly the same line - the
NLL is no longer NR, so that doesn't count!


You are mistaken - the NLL is still part of NR, as stated in:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...avel-guide.pdf

"London Overground is part of the National Rail network and the National
Rail Conditions of Carriage apply for journeys made on it unless we say
otherwise in this ticketing and travel guide."

Mind you'll have difficulty finding the above on the TfL website, links seem
to come and go depending on the latest news...

Paul S

Paul Scott wrote:

You are mistaken - the NLL is still part of NR, as stated in:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...avel-guide.pdf

"London Overground is part of the National Rail network and the National
Rail Conditions of Carriage apply for journeys made on it unless we say
otherwise in this ticketing and travel guide."

True but isn't "National Rail" used in customer interface terminology to
encompass what isn't Overground (or rather what Joe Public calls "the
overground")?

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
Paul Scott wrote:

You are mistaken - the NLL is still part of NR, as stated in:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...avel-guide.pdf

"London Overground is part of the National Rail network and the National
Rail Conditions of Carriage apply for journeys made on it unless we say
otherwise in this ticketing and travel guide."

True but isn't "National Rail" used in customer interface terminology to
encompass what isn't Overground (or rather what Joe Public calls "the
overground")?

Yes - and I think they've painted themselves into a corner with this. Many
of their 'customer' publications refer to LO and 'other National Rail'.
Often the tone of TfL press releases etc is to separate 'new improved London
Overground' from grotty old 'National Rail', whereas the term 'overground'
had a well known meaning of its own already, and that's without bringing the
ill fated 'Overground Network' into the discussion. Its all a bit
inconsistent...

Paul

wrote in message
...

Line maps and announcements are beginning to mention interchange with
London Overground services. This is already a little confusing -
Euston, Highbury and Blackhorse Road all interchange with entirely
different lines, though you wouldn't know it from the linear map of
the Victoria line.

And if Ken is serious about bringing more and more lines into the LO
branding, the situation's going to get worse.

So... would it make more sense to give individual routes names? Or
even numbers, continental style? If so, what could they be?

Jonn


At what point (if at all) would route names become unweildy? Some NR lines
sort of have route names already (Hounslow Loop, Kingston Loop) but as with
my two examples they can overlap. Then again, if route numbers were used
to what extent would the existing underground routes be rename/numbered and
would non Tfl controlled routes be given route numbers?

My own, off the cuff reaction would be to either leave things as they are
(after all, for years none of the NR services on the London Connections map
have been named) or wholesale number everything on London Connections
(including the underground).

On Nov 21, 6:55 pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
wrote in message

...



Line maps and announcements are beginning to mention interchange with
London Overground services. This is already a little confusing -
Euston, Highbury and Blackhorse Road all interchange with entirely
different lines, though you wouldn't know it from the linear map of
the Victoria line.

And if Ken is serious about bringing more and more lines into the LO
branding, the situation's going to get worse.

So... would it make more sense to give individual routes names? Or
even numbers, continental style? If so, what could they be?

Jonn

At what point (if at all) would route names become unweildy? Some NR lines
sort of have route names already (Hounslow Loop, Kingston Loop) but as with
my two examples they can overlap. Then again, if route numbers were used
to what extent would the existing underground routes be rename/numbered and
would non Tfl controlled routes be given route numbers?


I don't think it's too confusing as it is, in some ways. As others
have noted, people cope with the myriad of branches on the Northern
Line or with the national rail symbol meaning any one of dozens of
routes.

But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. I think there's a case
for keeping the North London lines (all the routes through Gospel Oak)
and East London lines (all routes through Wapping) separate. Perhaps
they could hang on to their different shades of orange.

And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

Didn't someone around here start putting together a map that did this
to see what it looked like?

Jonn


My own, off the cuff reaction would be to either leave things as they are
(after all, for years none of the NR services on the London Connections map
have been named) or wholesale number everything on London Connections
(including the underground).

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, wrote:

But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. I think there's a case for
keeping the North London lines (all the routes through Gospel Oak) and
East London lines (all routes through Wapping) separate. Perhaps they
could hang on to their different shades of orange.

And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

Didn't someone around here start putting together a map that did this to
see what it looked like?

I threatened to, but haven't got very far with it yet. Must start again
with that!

tom

--
Operate all mechanisms!

wrote:

And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

How workable is that for lines that potentially serve three or more
different terminals? (e.g. Epsom to Ashtead which Livingstone seems to want
to get his claws into.)

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:

wrote:

And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

How workable is that for lines that potentially serve three or more
different terminals? (e.g. Epsom to Ashtead which Livingstone seems to
want to get his claws into.)

Seems to work for Barking to Aldgate East, Paddington to Baker Street,
etc.

I looked into this when i was planning my map, although i can't lay my
hands on the post now, and i'm pretty sure there are no lines in London
with more than three termini at the end. I think there might even be only
one with three or something. Bear in mind that i count London Bridge,
Charing Cross and Cannon Street as one terminus!

tom

--
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday
thinking. -- Albert Einstein

Tom Anderson wrote:

And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

How workable is that for lines that potentially serve three or more
different terminals? (e.g. Epsom to Ashtead which Livingstone seems to
want to get his claws into.)

Seems to work for Barking to Aldgate East, Paddington to Baker Street,
etc.

Yes but there's multiple routes in both directions with Dorking (or a run on
to Horsham) and Guildford (sometimes stopping short at Effingham Junction)
the country terminals for the various services and very flexible route
combinations - for instance I've only seen a Crystal Palace to Epsom through
service in the late evening.

wrote:
And if Ken gets his way and begins to take on a range of other NR
services, I think colour coding by terminal would keep things clear.
This is what happens on the Parisian map, I think. The thin black
tramlines could be kept for longer distance stopping services.

It's the RATP's Ile-de-France map that's like that, with a different colour
for the lines feeding into Gares du Nord, de l'Est, de Lyon, Montparnasse,
and St-Lazare. It also manages to fit in on one map, with all stations
marked, the RER lines, the Métro and the tram routes, plus the boundaries of
the 8 zones. And a night bus map for Paris. And then there's the back of
the map ...

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)