On 2 Jan, 23:15, BRB Class 465 wrote:
On 2 Jan, 23:03, Mizter T wrote:

Ken Livingstone has taken a keen interest in public transport for a
very long time, and I'm quite sure he has an incredible amount of
knowledge about the issues at play.

No. The man can't even on his own come up with arguments in favour of
Bendy Buses.

? He has.


The idea that Ken personally devises transport schemes such as the
East London Line extension, is absurd - but he does champion various
schemes, and makes them happen (the transfer of the old Silverlink
Metro routes to London Overground being an example).

What Ken and various others frequently do is impose a model on the
transport industry which is at best sub-optimal, or at worst
unworkable.

Please elaborate, I don't know what you're trying to say.


Plus I'm in no
doubt whatsoever that the ELLX will be a great success.

LOL! It may well turn out to be so, but there are a *lot* of issues to
be resolved before that stage is reached, and a lot of money to be
spent (wasted) in doing so.

Really - like what issues?


(And, as an aside, I hope the commuters of Forest Hill appreciate
their nice new 4-car non-express trains to the Kingsland Road, taking
up paths which could be used for 8-car trains to London Bridge).

The plans at present are for there to be a slight reduction in the
number of trains going to London Bridge. I don't think this is
anything like the issue that some have claimed it will be.


In the end of course if you don't like Livingstone then you can vote
him out.

No, I can't. Fortunately, I don't live within Greater London, so don't
have to tolerate his incompetence, along with most of the other
unpleasant things sadly associated with London.

Well that's OK then. You do realise what newsgroup you're posting on?

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Can you believe *anything* that BBC
TV News says these days?

Not just the BBC. Journos seem long ago to have forgotten what facts are.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...

I see that Cambridge was advertising trains to and from Liverpool
St when I got back there at 16:30 tonight. When did Liverpool St
actually re-open?

I think it was being reported mid afternoon on National Rail eng
works page that all platforms except 13-16 would be in use for the
evening peak Colin. [Sorry if numbers wrong, I'm not too familiar
with LPL St.]

13-16 would be those serving the old GE electric lines?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Can you believe *anything* that BBC
TV News says these days?

Not just the BBC. Journos seem long ago to have forgotten what facts are.

Given that all the publicity I saw was along the lines of "Liverpool
Street station would be closed to allow removal of a bridge in order
to enable building of the East London Line extension", it's a natural
thing to report...

James Farrar wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 00:14 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

Can you believe *anything* that BBC
TV News says these days?

Not just the BBC. Journos seem long ago to have forgotten what
facts are.

Given that all the publicity I saw was along the lines of "Liverpool
Street station would be closed to allow removal of a bridge in order
to enable building of the East London Line extension", it's a
natural thing to report...

No, it's a natural thing to *assume* if you don't bother finding out the
facts. Just reading what the TfL spokesman said earlier in the day, as
reported on the BBC's own website, would have sufficed. That's why my
criticism was particularly of BBC TV News. The standards of journalism
and news values there seems far worse than elsewhere in the corporation.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Mizter T wrote:

No, I can't. Fortunately, I don't live within Greater London, so don't
have to tolerate his incompetence, along with most of the other
unpleasant things sadly associated with London.

Well that's OK then. You do realise what newsgroup you're posting on?

Transport in London isn't exclusively used by people who can vote for the
Mayor and Talking Shop. One of the fundamental problems of local government
is that the franchise is based on residency and so people who comute from
outside the formal boundaries do not get a democratic say in how the
services are run despite contributing heavily to the life of an area. The
City (where there is some remedy to this problem) could, of course, threaten
a run on the pound but it's a wee bit drastic a measure.

On 2 Jan, 23:04, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message

...

Richard J. wrote:

No, I don't think it has. In my experience, people used "railway" or
"British Rail" or "main line" (even when talking about purely suburban
railways) or the name of the BR/NR operator. *People certainly didn't
talk about "London overground" even if they might possibly have used the
word "overground".

Maybe, but if you spoke of the "overground" most peple would think you
meant the "railway". Whilst the term wasn't used that much it was clear
what it meant until now.

I'd agree - its only in the last few years it got into the media - possibly
since the ill fated 'overground network'; would that be about 4 or 5 years?
I must admit to skimming past the earlier suggestion that the term had been
in use a hundred years...

Paul

Last time I departed from Euston (couple of weeks ago) there was an
announcement on the lines of "... the London Nnngground service to
Watford Junction ...". I think they are making it indistinct in order
to avoid confusion.

I'd agree - its only in the last few years it got into the media -
possibly
since the ill fated 'overground network'; would that be about 4 or 5
years?
I must admit to skimming past the earlier suggestion that the term had
been
in use a hundred years...

Agreed - A lot of people around Richmond / Staines way use the term
Overground, almost certainly because nearly every South West Trains station
in that area has "Overground Network" in *orange* letters.

London Overground is also using... Orange. I do wonder if anyone will
confuse these signs for being London Overground, especially since Overground
Network seems to refer to nothing at all.

Best Wishes,
LEWIS

"Lew 1" wrote in message
...
I'd agree - its only in the last few years it got into the media -
possibly
since the ill fated 'overground network'; would that be about 4 or 5
years?
I must admit to skimming past the earlier suggestion that the term had
been
in use a hundred years...

Agreed - A lot of people around Richmond / Staines way use the term
Overground, almost certainly because nearly every South West Trains
station
in that area has "Overground Network" in *orange* letters.

London Overground is also using... Orange. I do wonder if anyone will
confuse these signs for being London Overground, especially since
Overground
Network seems to refer to nothing at all.


We discussed it a few weeks ago, it seems TfL have washed their hands of the
original, and I can't see the likes of SWT or Southern paying good money to
get rid of the redundant signage on station totems etc. I don't think the
platform line maps are much of an issue, I guess they could usefully be
overlabelled with something else though.

Perhaps the people of Richmond etc could force the issue by pointing to the
signs and demanding to use PAYG!

Paul

To me this seems like a contradiction. The problem is that the
Liverpool Street line is a London overground line, but it isn't a
London Overground line. TfL should not have used "London
Overground" to mean a small subset of what the words have meant
for the last hundred years.

Has it? I don't recall hearing 'overground' as a word meaning 'all
railway lines in London not operated by London Underground' until
very recently. Possibly i just didn't notice it. Has it really been
widely used in that sense?

No, I don't think it has. In my experience, people used "railway" or
"British Rail" or "main line" (even when talking about purely suburban
railways)

Well I'm forty-four and I've been using and hearing others using the term
'overground' for as long as I can remember, and I've just asked my partner
and she says the same thing, and we are from different sides of London so it
isn't a localised thing. If I was travelling outside London I'd talk about
going by 'train' but within London I'd be as likely say 'overground' to
avoid the ambiguity 'train' or 'rail' causes.

or the name of the BR/NR operator.

I think that depends a lot on your age. Having been brought up with British
Rail I still don't refer to the various operators that often, with the
exception of Thameslink/First Capital Connect.


People certainly didn't talk about "London overground" even if they might
possibly have used the word "overground".

I certainly agree with that.

Choosing London Overground makes 'one' seem like a sensible name.

G.