London Liverpool Street
 

London Liverpool Street is still closed due to overrun of engineering
works - and looks like it will remain closed for some time:

"Sorry! Some problems have arisen with the complex engineering work
being carried out over the 10 day Christmas and New Year period.

As a result all services will be severly disrupted this morning -
Wednesday 2nd January 2008.

We and Network Rail are doing everything possible to ensure that
services return to normal as soon as possible, but at the moment it is
not possible to be precise about the effect on individual services.

We do advise not to travel into London if your journey is not
important."

From:
http://www.onerailway.com/rtti

Let me blaming game start!

London Liverpool Street
 

(a bit) more from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7167413.stm

London Liverpool Street
 

This from the TfL site....

+++++++++++++
Current Overground network status
A good service is operating on all London Overground lines.

Other London rail operators
ONE RAILWAY: Due to a late finish to engineering works One services are not
serving Liverpool Street station.
++++++++++++++

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.

London Liverpool Street
 

"alex_t" wrote in message
...
(a bit) more from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7167413.stm

That article talks about the bridge removal works allowing the inference
that these works are the cause of the problems. However according to the
'one' website that all went smoothly and the problem is the OHLE replacement
works in the station.

G.

London Liverpool Street
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
This from the TfL site....

+++++++++++++
Current Overground network status
A good service is operating on all London Overground lines.

Other London rail operators
ONE RAILWAY: Due to a late finish to engineering works One services are
not serving Liverpool Street station.
++++++++++++++

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.


You're definitely not the first to have come to that conclusion - and don't
forget all over South London stations still have the remains of the previous
'overground network' signage which is now meaningless.

Paul S

London Liverpool Street
 

On 2 Jan, 12:02, "Graham J" wrote:
That article talks about the bridge removal works allowing the inference
that these works are the cause of the problems. *However according to the
'one' website that all went smoothly and the problem is the OHLE replacement
works in the station.

That sounds about right to me. I had another look at the bridge site
on Monday and the wires were back up and everything looked finished,
but further west there were lots of men in orange jackets milling
around (though no sign of any tools or equipment), and the OHLE looked
untouched.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

London Liverpool Street
 

On 2 Jan, 10:40, "John Rowland"
wrote:
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.

Indeed. Try working in a LU ticket office and asking a passenger "will
you be travelling on National Rail today?", and getting the inevitable
response "Yes, I will use the overground trains.", and then having to
spend several minutes trying to establish whether they mean Overground
or overground.

This is what happens when the decisions are made by people who know
f*ck all about transport - i.e. Transport For London being chaired by
the Mayor.

London Liverpool Street
 

On 2 Jan, 15:25, BRB Class 465 wrote:
On 2 Jan, 10:40, "John Rowland"

wrote:
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.

Indeed. Try working in a LU ticket office and asking a passenger "will
you be travelling on National Rail today?", and getting the inevitable
response "Yes, I will use the overground trains.", and then having to
spend several minutes trying to establish whether they mean Overground
or overground.

This is what happens when the decisions are made by people who know
f*ck all about transport - i.e. Transport For London being chaired by
the Mayor.

That's balls. The Mayor knows a ton about transport, he's been a keen
advocate of public transport in London for years.

London Liverpool Street
 

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
On 2 Jan, 15:25, BRB Class 465 wrote:
On 2 Jan, 10:40, "John Rowland"

wrote:
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.

Indeed. Try working in a LU ticket office and asking a passenger "will
you be travelling on National Rail today?", and getting the inevitable
response "Yes, I will use the overground trains.", and then having to
spend several minutes trying to establish whether they mean Overground
or overground.

This is what happens when the decisions are made by people who know
f*ck all about transport - i.e. Transport For London being chaired by
the Mayor.

That's balls. The Mayor knows a ton about transport, he's been a keen
advocate of public transport in London for years.

Undoubtedly - and the resulting confusion of 'London Overground' the
colloquial 'overground' and the earlier 'overground network' is probably
intentional, because it allows Ken to push TfL control of heavy rail as a
simplification of the status quo...

Paul

London Liverpool Street
 

On 2 Jan, 16:02, Mizter T wrote:
That's balls. The Mayor knows a ton about transport, he's been a keen
advocate of public transport in London for years.

Oh really? Since when does being a "keen advocate" of something give
an individual sufficient knowledge to be able to devise schemes which
work well? The East London Line may turn out to be an interesting case-
study.

London Liverpool Street
 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, John Rowland wrote:

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?

OED says:

overground, n.
2. a. Brit. An overground railway. Also more generally: public
transport operating above the ground. Cf. UNDERGROUND adj. 3.

And funnily enough, the only citation where it's actually used for non-LU
trains in London is the most recent one:

2001 Evening Standard (Nexis) 21 July 10 Transport links are a bit shoddy,
unless you can get where you need to go from Liverpool Street on the
overground.

I agree that Overground was a very poor choice of name, though.

tom

--
skills to pay the bills!

London Liverpool Street
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, John Rowland wrote:

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) 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".

Liverpool Street National Rail station is of course underground. Well,
just as much as Bayswater or Aldgate are underground.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

London Liverpool Street
 

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 2 Jan, 12:02, "Graham J" wrote:
That article talks about the bridge removal works allowing the
inference that these works are the cause of the problems. *However
according to the 'one' website that all went smoothly and the
problem is the OHLE replacement works in the station.

That sounds about right to me. I had another look at the bridge site
on Monday and the wires were back up and everything looked finished,
but further west there were lots of men in orange jackets milling
around (though no sign of any tools or equipment), and the OHLE
looked untouched.

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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

London Liverpool Street
 

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.

London Liverpool Street
 

On 2 Jan, 17:17, BRB Class 465 wrote:
On 2 Jan, 16:02, Mizter T wrote:

That's balls. The Mayor knows a ton about transport, he's been a keen
advocate of public transport in London for years.

Oh really? Since when does being a "keen advocate" of something give
an individual sufficient knowledge to be able to devise schemes which
work well? The East London Line may turn out to be an interesting case-
study.

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.

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

And I'm a big fan of a directly elected local representative being in
charge of transport matters in the capital than the previous
arrangement where it was handled by central government. How would you
organise things?

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

London Liverpool Street
 

"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

London Liverpool Street
 

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.


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.


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.

(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).


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.

London Liverpool Street
 

Mr Thant wrote:
On 2 Jan, 12:02, "Graham J" wrote:
That article talks about the bridge removal works allowing the
inference that these works are the cause of the problems. However
according to the 'one' website that all went smoothly and the
problem is the OHLE replacement works in the station.

That sounds about right to me. I had another look at the bridge site
on Monday and the wires were back up and everything looked finished,
but further west there were lots of men in orange jackets milling
around (though no sign of any tools or equipment), and the OHLE
looked untouched.

And yet a few minutes ago (Wednesday evening), BBC News 24's reporter
was still blaming the delay in re-opening Liverpool Street on "late
completion of a bridge demolition". Can you believe *anything* that BBC
TV News says these days?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

London Liverpool Street
 

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 2 Jan, 12:02, "Graham J" wrote:
That article talks about the bridge removal works allowing the
inference that these works are the cause of the problems. However
according to the 'one' website that all went smoothly and the
problem is the OHLE replacement works in the station.

That sounds about right to me. I had another look at the bridge site
on Monday and the wires were back up and everything looked finished,
but further west there were lots of men in orange jackets milling
around (though no sign of any tools or equipment), and the OHLE
looked untouched.

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.]

Paul S

London Liverpool Street
 

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

(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).

As a Brockley commuter I will certainly appreciate them. If we actually
got 8tph x 8-cars to London Bridge then I might be bothered, but in the
evening peak we only get 4tph!

London Liverpool Street
 

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?

London Liverpool Street
 

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

London Liverpool Street
 

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

London Liverpool Street
 

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...

London Liverpool Street
 

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)

London Liverpool Street
 

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.

London Liverpool Street
 

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.

London Liverpool Street
 

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

London Liverpool Street
 

"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

London Liverpool Street
 

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.