Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 23:34:02 GMT
Definitely I would say for the entire extended East London Line, it should keep that name despite the fact it goes to Croydon.
Much better than the Brunel Line and much much better than the current "Highbury and Islington to West Croydon, Crystal Palace and New Cross Route "
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Dec 24, 2015 21:21:53 GMT
Could I suppose adopt the European system of a diagonal line through the route number to advertise a short working.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by orienteer on Dec 26, 2015 17:22:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2015 20:17:16 GMT
Just a suggestion.
A. Euston-Watford Junction
B. Richmond-Stratford
C1. Clapham Junction-Stratford
C2. Clapham Junction-Willesden Junction
C3. Clapham Junction-Dalston Junction/Highbury & Islington
D1. Highbury & Islington-Crystal Palace
D2. Highbury & Islington-West Croydon
D3. Highbury & Islington/Dalston Junction-New Cross
E1. Liverpool Street-Enfield
E2. Liverpool Street-Cheshunt
E3. Liverpool Street-Chingford
F. Romford-Upminster
G. Gospel Oak-Barking
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 27, 2015 21:20:39 GMT
B. Richmond-Stratford C1. Clapham Junction-Stratford C2. Clapham Junction-Willesden Junction C3. Clapham Junction-Dalston Junction/Highbury & Islington D1. Highbury & Islington-Crystal Palace D2. Highbury & Islington-West Croydon D3. Highbury & Islington/Dalston Junction-New Cross I don't see the logic behind this grouping. Your routes C1 and C3 have more in common with route B, and with routes D1-3, respectively than they do with each other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2015 0:58:57 GMT
It has been rumoured that those routes originating from Liverpool St will become the East London Lines and the present ELL will become the South London Line (even though in part it does of course extend north of the Thames) - and yes I know the SLL already exists as a line name (I sign it), but then the ELL also covers several other 'true' line names. There is however some logic in the rumour as if we were to put aside our familiarity with the ELL, going back as it does some 80 years or so, the recently acquired Anglia lines surely reflect better that part of the Overground network that is geographically in East London?
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Dec 28, 2015 1:37:38 GMT
Yikes, confusion all round for historians...
ELL does serve east London, even Crystal Palace is east (albeit south-east). Ditto most stations down to Croydon. How can a 'south' London Line serve Highbury & Islington - Shadwell? This would be far more inaccurate!
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by trumperscrossing on Dec 28, 2015 16:01:02 GMT
Just a suggestion. A. Euston-Watford Junction B. Richmond-Stratford C1. Clapham Junction-Stratford C2. Clapham Junction-Willesden Junction C3. Clapham Junction-Dalston Junction/Highbury & Islington D1. Highbury & Islington-Crystal Palace D2. Highbury & Islington-West Croydon D3. Highbury & Islington/Dalston Junction-New Cross E1. Liverpool Street-Enfield E2. Liverpool Street-Cheshunt E3. Liverpool Street-Chingford F. Romford-Upminster G. Gospel Oak-Barking That's even more confusing than the current approach. How do you differentiate, for example, on a map between B and C1 when they run along the same track? Surely, all that is needed are a few distinct lines, with brahnhes but a shared trunk and distinct line colours. It works well enough on the Underground. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Dec 28, 2015 17:30:01 GMT
When I was at Junior School (that's KS2 according to Mrs.Whistlekiller) at around 9 years of age, a mate and I used to mess about on trains in London using the "London Connections" fold out map for directions. Of course, there was no London Overground in those days but all the National Rail lines were shown as white with black borders, no differentiation at all between the various different routes. On the occasions we could afford a "big train" ticket we often ventured out from the tunnels.
We never got lost.
I know I bang on about this all the time but isn't it pertinent that a couple of 9 year olds in 1974, without the benefit of the Internet or parents present to tell us what to do, were more than capable of working out from our tatty route planner, the announcements at stations and what was indicated on the front of the trains our correct destination and where to change? Surely it's not beyond the ability of today's traveller to work it out the same way? It's hardly rocket science after all. In the end, where do we draw the line (pardon the pun)? To take the suggestions to their logical conclusions, any London railway that has more than one branch would then need splitting into seperate entities, renamed and coloured accordingly. The journey planner would end up looking like an explosion in a paint factory. All the different colours would make it more unreadable than retaining the Overground as it is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 28, 2015 18:49:16 GMT
When I was at Junior School (that's KS2 according to Mrs.Whistlekiller) at around 9 years of age, a mate and I used to mess about on trains in London using the "London Connections" fold out map for directions. Of course, there was no London Overground in those days but all the National Rail lines were shown as white with black borders, no differentiation at all between the various different routes. On the occasions we could afford a "big train" ticket we often ventured out from the tunnels. We never got lost. I know I bang on about this all the time but isn't it pertinent that a couple of 9 year olds in 1974, without the benefit of the Internet or parents present to tell us what to do, were more than capable of working out from our tatty route planner, the announcements at stations and what was indicated on the front of the trains our correct destination and where to change? Surely it's not beyond the ability of today's traveller to work it out the same way? It's hardly rocket science after all. In the end, where do we draw the line (pardon the pun)? To take the suggestions to their logical conclusions, any London railway that has more than one branch would then need splitting into seperate entities, renamed and coloured accordingly. The journey planner would end up looking like an explosion in a paint factory. All the different colours would make it more unreadable than retaining the Overground as it is now. I think the map & the train-destination indication are two separate problems. Adding more colours to the LO Map, or the Tube map, is going to make it too busy for sure & will cause confusion. All you need to do with a map is find your starting & finishing stations & go from there. You are quite right re leaving LO per se as an organic whole entity colour wise. Even since TfL has had all the Tube lines as separately-managed entities, no one has seen the need to, say, mark the Uxbridge branch of the Met, or the Central's Hainault Loop in a different colour, have they? All you need is a few indicator boards, chalk boards to supplement if needed, to reinforce what should be on the timetables as well as on the front of trains with regard to the codes used. And if that code is as simple as A1,B1 as appropriate, everyone knows what they're doing; because you can use a different number for branches off a particular mainline, or a different code for short workings. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 28, 2015 22:12:46 GMT
You are quite right re leaving LO per se as an organic whole entity colour wise. Even since TfL has had all the Tube lines as separately-managed entities, no one has seen the need to, say, mark the Uxbridge branch of the Met, or the Central's Hainault Loop in a different colour, have they? There is a balance to be struck - no-one would seriously advocate showing the Piccadilly Line as three separate line colours, or the District or Central as four. But showing all the Overground routes in the same colour makes no more sense than showing all the Underground routes in one colour would. It is not so long ago that the ELL and H&C were shown in the same colour as the Met, and back in the 40s the Circle and District as well - do you want to go back to that?. Converesely, there are people who advocate showing the Edgware Road branch in a different colour from the rest of the District, and doubtless if the Northern Line is ever split a new colour will be found for one. Conversely,it was never suggested that Baker Street - Elephant be shown in two colours prior to the Jubilee split - nearly half the line simply changed colour overnight. Adding more colours to the LO Map, or the Tube map, is going to make it too busy for sure & will cause confusion. All you need to do with a map is find your starting & finishing stations & go from there. Try navigating the spaghetti-in-tomato-sauce effect in East London, with undifferentiated lines criss-crossing each other with only the rarest of interchanges. How can a 'south' London Line serve Highbury & Islington - Shadwell? To most people, "East London" means the area north of the Thames. Bromley by Bow is in East London - the London Borough of Bromley is not! and the "south" London line would be no more of a misnomer than a "west" chord that gets to Stratford, or a "Northern" Line in Morden. Could I suppose adopt the European system of a diagonal line through the route number to advertise a short working.[Simon Although I've often seen that, I never knew what it meant! yes it is possible to navigate using a monochrome map - but if multiple colours are used, they should be used consistently. |
|
|
|
Post by rail2210 on Dec 28, 2015 22:18:35 GMT
I think that the Overground could use a system similar system to Tramlink, on the London Rail and Tube services map all services are shown as one colour but on the Tramlink
maps the services are identified by numbers and slightly different colours.
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Dec 28, 2015 23:13:14 GMT
Adding more colours to the LO Map, or the Tube map, is going to make it too busy for sure & will cause confusion. All you need to do with a map is find your starting & finishing stations & go from there. Try navigating the spaghetti-in-tomato-sauce effect in East London, with undifferentiated lines criss-crossing each other with only the rarest of interchanges. To reiterate what I was saying in my earlier post NF, it isn't a problem. Nine year old kids, as we were in 1974, had no difficulty navigating when all we had was a mass of black outlined white national Rail lines on our planner. It really wasn't an issue. Even the London bus maps of the 70's were simple if you took the trouble and, apart from the Country stuff, all those routes were marked in red. Ferret is right, select a start and finish point on the planner and where you need to change (if necessary) and you're there. As a last resort, there are umpteen apps capable of working it all out and directing you should you still feel challenged. (Not you personally BTW!  ) My youngest daughter has been living in NE London since August and despite having an appalling sense of direction reports no significant difficulty negotiating the Overground in that area. Mind you, she refers to it simply, and with no granularity, as "catching the train". It bothers me that as a nation, we're in danger of dumbing everything down to the point that the human mind gets next to no exercise at all. If we're not careful we'll end up standing around like bewildered rabbits in our own headlight beams. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Dec 30, 2015 1:41:58 GMT
I would group the services into 4 lines
DC line
Jazz line
Emerson Park line
Orbital line*
*Maybe separated to:
Goblin line
Middlesex line
Surrey line
Alternatives:
DC > Washington, Harlequin
Middlesex > Northwestern
Surrey > Southeastern
I have previously thought about the ELL becoming the Brunel line but the ELL is part of a larger service. The services out of Liverpool St to Enfield/Chingford were known as the Jazz services at one time.
|
|
|
|
Post by linus on Dec 31, 2015 13:55:46 GMT
The Overground is not a single network, it is a brand. Showing it all in one colour as a mish-mash of disconnected routes is disingenuous. On the execrable carriage maps it really is almost impossible to work out where your particular bit goes. The designer, and the perpetrators, should hang their heads in shame.
North and West London Line
East and South London Line
Gospel Oak-Barking Line
Watford Line
Romford-Upminster Line
West Anglia Line
And so on.
Precede each with "Overground" if you wish. Shade and/or pattern each individually, perhaps with a family identity such as orange borders with different colours or shapes (blobs, diamonds, hatching etc) within. This is simple, logical, comprehensible and scalable when new routes come on board. It will obviate the unintelligible garbage that appears on the TfL website whenever there's "Overground" delay or closure irrelevant to 90% of its users. It will relate BBC Breakfast local news travel items to the intended audience, whereas "delays on the Overground" is simply meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 31, 2015 14:43:16 GMT
I would group the services into 4 lines DC line Jazz line Emerson Park line Orbital line* *Maybe separated to: Goblin line Middlesex line Surrey line Alternatives: DC > Washington, Harlequin Middlesex > Northwestern Surrey > Southeastern I have previously thought about the ELL becoming the Brunel line but the ELL is part of a larger service. The services out of Liverpool St to Enfield/Chingford were known as the Jazz services at one time. Middlesex line? Seems a bit silly to name something after a county that hasn't existed since 1965 . . . |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 31, 2015 15:49:18 GMT
Middlesex line? Seems a bit silly to name something after a county that hasn't existed since 1965 . . . It still has a cricket club, a university and several hospitals. Is it any more silly than naming a line after someone who died sixty-seven years before the relevant line opened, or an anniversary that happened two years before the relevant line opened, or an extension project that never happened at all, or a fashion fad of the late Tudor era? For that matter, most of the "Surrey Line" hasn't been in Surrey since 1888 and, since Surrey does still exist as a county, it is arguably a more confusing name. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 31, 2015 16:38:54 GMT
Middlesex line? Seems a bit silly to name something after a county that hasn't existed since 1965 . . . It still has a cricket club, a university and several hospitals. Is it any more silly than naming a line after someone who died sixty-seven years before the relevant line opened, or an anniversary that happened two years before the relevant line opened, or an extension project that never happened at all, or a fashion fad of the late Tudor era? For that matter, most of the "Surrey Line" hasn't been in Surrey since 1888 and, since Surrey does still exist as a county, it is arguably a more confusing name. At least the Victoria line (assuming that's what you were referring to amidst the heavy sarcasm) is named after a location on the said line. Going back to Middlesex, there will be some things which have a historic connection with the old county, for example the cricket club, and it would be a waste of time to change the name of some of those things. But to rename something now and attach it to a defunct place would be totally pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 31, 2015 17:42:29 GMT
Think the 'battle' over the Middlesex bit is indicative of which is more important:
whether the suits see this as an opportunity to market the lines to a new passenger-base (sorry, I'm NOT using the c-word on this board  )
or whether existing passengers will derive any benefit from a name rebranding.
Could be a close call, Ralph. |
|
|
|
Post by mikebuzz on Dec 31, 2015 17:57:36 GMT
I would group the services into 4 lines DC line Jazz line Emerson Park line Orbital line* *Maybe separated to: Goblin line Middlesex line Surrey line Alternatives: DC > Washington, Harlequin Middlesex > Northwestern Surrey > Southeastern I have previously thought about the ELL becoming the Brunel line but the ELL is part of a larger service. The services out of Liverpool St to Enfield/Chingford were known as the Jazz services at one time. Middlesex line? Seems a bit silly to name something after a county that hasn't existed since 1965 . . . All the better to not get confused over, though the postcodes THAT ARE STILL RELEVANT are not near that part of LOROL which would count against it. As it is it was just an exercise in trying out some simple but distinctive names. In truth pretty much every suggestion is going to have some minus points. Maybe a 'north west' line could be called the Kanye line or the Rupert line (NW Territory)... |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 31, 2015 18:22:03 GMT
Middlesex line? Seems a bit silly to name something after a county that hasn't existed since 1965 . . . All the better to not get confused over, though the postcodes THAT ARE STILL RELEVANT are not near that part of LOROL which would count against it. As it is it was just an exercise in trying out some simple but distinctive names. In truth pretty much every suggestion is going to have some minus points. Maybe a 'north west' line could be called the Kanye line or the Rupert line (NW Territory)... True. The postcodes are still relevant, but pretty much all of Middlesex has been in London since 1965. Quite why people still write it on their addresses is beyond me. "I come from Harrow in Middlesex." Err, no you don't, you come from Harrow in North West London! Anyway, mustn't let this drift off topic! |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Dec 31, 2015 19:20:39 GMT
Quite why people still write it on their addresses is beyond me. "I come from Harrow in Middlesex." Err, no you don't, you come from Harrow in North West London! Middlesex is useful when distinguishing Ashfords or St Margarets's Going back to Middlesex, there will be some things which have a historic connection with the old county, . But to rename something now and attach it to a defunct place would be totally pointless. Like Middlesex University? Opened (as Middlesex Polytechnic) in 1973. Or Surrey Quays for that matter. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Dec 31, 2015 19:34:52 GMT
Quite why people still write it on their addresses is beyond me. "I come from Harrow in Middlesex." Err, no you don't, you come from Harrow in North West London! Middlesex is useful when distinguishing Ashfords or St Margarets's Going back to Middlesex, there will be some things which have a historic connection with the old county, . But to rename something now and attach it to a defunct place would be totally pointless. Like Middlesex University? Opened (as Middlesex Polytechnic) in 1973. Or Surrey Quays for that matter. You could extend this argument as far as you like. It was silly to name the polytechnic after Middlesex. Surrey Quays was simply an amendment of Surrey Docks, which was what the area was known as. Without getting further drawn into this pedantry, I will reiterate that naming a line after a non existent place, and furthermore a place which nine of the line actually passes through, is pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by trumperscrossing on Dec 31, 2015 22:51:19 GMT
I would group the services into 4 lines DC line Jazz line Emerson Park line Orbital line* *Maybe separated to: Goblin line Middlesex line Surrey line Alternatives: DC > Washington, Harlequin Middlesex > Northwestern Surrey > Southeastern I have previously thought about the ELL becoming the Brunel line but the ELL is part of a larger service. The services out of Liverpool St to Enfield/Chingford were known as the Jazz services at one time. Middlesex line? Seems a bit silly to name something after a county that hasn't existed since 1965 . . . And insulting to those of us from glorious West Middlesex: Hounslow, Ealing, Ashford, Chiswick, Uxbridge, Staines, Twickenham, Hampton, Sunbury, Brentford, Harrow, Ruislip etc; which whilst well served by rail are not touched by this particular line |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Jan 1, 2016 10:32:27 GMT
Hounslow, Ealing, ........ Chiswick, ......, are not touched by this particular line The line passes through both boroughs, and Gunnersbury station is in Chiswick. But if you are going to object on those grounds, we can't have the East London, North London etc lines, nor the Metropolitan, nor South West Trains (doesn't get further than Exeter), nor Chiltern (nowhere near Goring or Tring), and the East Coast and West Coast main lines don't get a sniff of the coast until well into Northumberland and northern Lancashire respectively. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 19:06:47 GMT
I would do the lines like this:
North London Line (Green)
East London Line (Orange)
Gospel Oak - Barking (Blue)
Watford (Brown)
Lea Valley Lines (Red)
Romford - Upminster (Yellow)
I would also remove these lines off the tube map, to not cram the map.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Jan 25, 2016 19:38:24 GMT
I think removing them from the Tube map would be a great pity, since their presence does point up alternative routes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 20:56:56 GMT
I think removing them from the Tube map would be a great pity, since their presence does point up alternative routes! True, but there is a map which shows every single line in London, including the Tramlink and down to Gatwick Airport. Maybe just roll out more of those? |
|
|
|
Post by patrickb on Jan 25, 2016 21:22:15 GMT
Seeing as most stations have two map display boards paired up, you could have a London Underground 'Tube' only map retaining the Harry Beck design and a second 'TfL' Map with a more suitable design such as the one created with 30 and 60 degree angle lines.
The TfL map would have Tube, DLR, Overground, Crossrail, Emirates Cable and Tramlink. Stations served by National Rail could have a third map of same design including all other non LO or XR London railway services.
|
|
|
|
Post by jukes on Jan 25, 2016 21:41:54 GMT
Given that the London Overground's success is in part due to its addition to the 'tube' map there is NO WAY TfL will change that! Trust me - I've asked the folks there!
|
|
)
)
