wrote:

Just because it was straightforward to divide 'Silverlink' into two
discreet
parts, given that the operations were totally separate, I reckon Southern
is
on a different scale of problems entirely...

I'm not sure it is, actually. Isn't there a fairly clean split between
the metro services and the south coast ones?

So where do the commuter belt services in Surrey go? The Epsom branch runs
as far as Horsham for starters and can't be easily cut in two south of at
least Sutton.

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


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

Some TOCs are more equal than others...

On Nov 21, 5:38 pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
wrote:
Just because it was straightforward to divide 'Silverlink' into two
discreet
parts, given that the operations were totally separate, I reckon Southern
is
on a different scale of problems entirely...
I'm not sure it is, actually. Isn't there a fairly clean split between
the metro services and the south coast ones?

So where do the commuter belt services in Surrey go? The Epsom branch runs
as far as Horsham for starters and can't be easily cut in two south of at
least Sutton.

I can't remember, not my part of town. But one of Southern's
predecessors used to draw the distinction themselves between metro and
regional services. I suspect Horsham counted as metro, even though
Coulsdon south didn't.

Jonn

wrote:

So where do the commuter belt services in Surrey go? The Epsom branch
runs
as far as Horsham for starters and can't be easily cut in two south of at
least Sutton.

I can't remember, not my part of town. But one of Southern's
predecessors used to draw the distinction themselves between metro and
regional services. I suspect Horsham counted as metro, even though
Coulsdon south didn't.

My recollection is that the metro/non-metro distinction was almost
exclusively within the Greater London area and was really just a way to
brand services on the lines, regardless of where they had come from. So a
Horsham to Victoria via Epsom & West Croydon service would only be a "metro"
service from about Sutton onwards. This is fine for one company but not
useful for splitting up lines.

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).

As Innes Ferguson, TFL design director said at the LT Museum on
24/9/7, the "Overground" brand made since as "you wouldn't expect to
see 'Underground' on a roundel outside a station in Brighton".

Of course apart from LUL, Southern is really only the other rail
operator in Greater London that provides attractive enamel signage
using high-quality materials.

On Nov 22, 6:45 pm, wrote:
As Innes Ferguson, TFL design director said at the LT Museum on
24/9/7, the "Overground" brand made *sense* since as "you wouldn't expect to
see 'Underground' on a roundel outside a station in Brighton".

Of course apart from LUL, Southern is really only the other rail
operator in Greater London that provides attractive enamel signage
using high-quality materials.

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

Bizzarely Gospel Oak has retained its BR symbol.

wrote:
As Innes Ferguson, TFL design director said at the LT Museum on
24/9/7, the "Overground" brand made [sense] since as "you
wouldn't expect to see 'Underground' on a roundel outside a
station in Brighton".

Nor would you at Amersham, 147 m (490 ft) above sea level, but people seem
to have accepted it for many years. Anyway, where does Brighton come into
London Overground's plans?
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
.uk...
wrote:
As Innes Ferguson, TFL design director said at the LT Museum on
24/9/7, the "Overground" brand made [sense] since as "you
wouldn't expect to see 'Underground' on a roundel outside a
station in Brighton".

Nor would you at Amersham, 147 m (490 ft) above sea level, but people seem
to have accepted it for many years. Anyway, where does Brighton come into
London Overground's plans?

Have you missed the various threads over the last couple of days following
the Times article, where Ken is quoted as bidding for "most of Southern"
when the franchise comes up for renewal in 2009?

Paul