miklcct
On Moderation
and to the National Rail network as well, such as SW30 for Waterloo - Hampton CourtHowever, I would introduce numbered lines to the Overground (O1, O2, O3), the DLR (D1, D2, D3), and trams (T1, T2, T3).
and to the National Rail network as well, such as SW30 for Waterloo - Hampton CourtHowever, I would introduce numbered lines to the Overground (O1, O2, O3), the DLR (D1, D2, D3), and trams (T1, T2, T3).
The trams have been numbered on and off ever since they were introduced. The route numbers have never caught on and were never used by regular users. The system is simple enough there's no need for them, and they introduce complexity where it isn't needed - using them makes terminating short of a terminus and similar things less friendly for passengers. The same happens on the Underground, where often the "East/West/North/Southbound" platform signs are far less useful and probably far less used than simply the destination of the line, hence the use of big maps at platform entrances.Adding on to some of the discussions around replacing the Underground names with letters, I would tend to disagree purely based on the fact that these are so well known and and iconic all over the world that replacing these with numbers would be incredibly controversial. However, I would introduce numbered lines to the Overground (O1, O2, O3), the DLR (D1, D2, D3), and trams (T1, T2, T3). This makes sense as services tend to overlap (The different DLR lines still confuse me) and this solution would make the different lines within each system more distinguishable. There also wouldn't be a backlash regarding replacing iconic names in the same way as with the tube.
The trams have been numbered on and off ever since they were introduced. The route numbers have never caught on and were never used by regular users. The system is simple enough there's no need for them, and they introduce complexity where it isn't needed - using them makes terminating short of a terminus and similar things less friendly for passengers.
I would agree. At this point you could get back into the discussion around whether suburban rail should be run by tfl (i.e. Overground) anyway but for the sake of everyone's sanity I won't open that can of worms . I just think that apart from the tube, London's suburban rail system is frustratingly complicated and maybe numbering services could help.and to the National Rail network as well, such as SW30 for Waterloo - Hampton Court
I think Thameslink routes are internally numbered TL1 - TL12, aren't them?FCC introduced coloured lines and route numbers for different stopping patterns at the end of their franchise, they were initially kept by GTR but have since been dropped.
And the Southern route map does nothing to suggest that even a journey as simple as Balham - East Croydon along the main line will require a change. If the routes are numbered it will be clear that I must change trains at Streatham Common.I just think that apart from the tube, London's suburban rail system is frustratingly complicated and maybe numbering services could help.
O1, O2 etc, on the German model, of course.
But if they want names, perhaps:
- Watford Junction: Harlequin Line (this was its name under NSE, though does anyone actually know if the shopping centre name or the line name came first?) Allegedly this comes from Harlesden and Queen's Park but could be a backronym.
- Richmond: West Thames Line
- Barking-Gospel Oak: GOBLIN Line (because everyone knows it as that, why reinvent the wheel ) - yes I know it's a bit like "PIN number" but it sounds odd without "line"
- East London Line to get its old name back even as extended
- NLL: this one is quite difficult as it's so long. Perhaps a "Bakerloo" style name - "Stratham Line" rolls quite well off the tongue but maybe possible to confuse with Streatham? "Clapford Line" sort of does but sounds like a nasty disease so maybe not.
- Liverpool St lines: Chingford Line, Enfield Line and Cheshunt Line, why confuse people?
Is there any update on this project or do we think it’s been shelved to save budget post-pandemic?
Keep the existing named Underground lines as they are.
Overground lines could be lettered A-G.
Line A - Watford Junction
Line B - Richmond-Stratford
Line C - Clapham Junction to Willesden/Stratford
Line D - Barking-Gospel Oak
Line E1 - East London Line to West Croydon
Line E2 - East London Line to Crystal Palace
Line E3 - East London Line to Clapham Junction via Denmark Hill
Line F1 - Liverpool St-Enfield
Line F2 - Liverpool St-Chingford
Line F3 - Liverpool St-Cheshunt
Line G - Romford-Upminster
Other London suburban lines could be numbered.
Geographical compass names for the lines are technically correct but the problem is always the current NLL which not only turns southwards at the western end but also splits to two separate terminals. Looking at the map shows that the NLL broadly follows the route of the Regents Canal from Hackney Wick to Willesden Junction, never being more than about 2000m from it. The split at Willesden Junction could mean that the two branches could be called Regent (Clapham branch) and Regent (Richmond branch), - in a similar way to the Northern line having an Edgware and a Barnet branch, or the Piccadilly an Uxbridge and a Heathrow branch.I hate to be cynical but I think the promise to name the Overground lines was a ploy to remain in power.
Though common sense should dictate that they should be called the East London, North London, South London Watford, Lea Valley lines
Also taps into the royal theme...Geographical compass names for the lines are technically correct but the problem is always the current NLL which not only turns southwards at the western end but also splits to two separate terminals. Looking at the map shows that the NLL broadly follows the route of the Regents Canal from Hackney Wick to Willesden Junction, never being more than about 2000m from it. The split at Wilelsden Junction could mean that the two branches could be called Regent (Clapham branch) and Regent (Richmond branch), - in a similar way to the Northern line having an Edgware and a Barnet branch, or the Piccadilly an Uxbridge and a Heathrow branch.
??? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the line from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction is the West London Line (WLL). It's an anomaly that south of Willesden Junction, the NLL is west of WLL!Geographical compass names for the lines are technically correct but the problem is always the current NLL which not only turns southwards at the western end but also splits to two separate terminals. Looking at the map shows that the NLL broadly follows the route of the Regents Canal from Hackney Wick to Willesden Junction, never being more than about 2000m from it. The split at Willesden Junction could mean that the two branches could be called Regent (Clapham branch) and Regent (Richmond branch), - in a similar way to the Northern line having an Edgware and a Barnet branch, or the Piccadilly an Uxbridge and a Heathrow branch.
!I hate to be cynical but I think the promise to name the Overground lines was a ploy to remain in power.
Though common sense should dictate that they should be called the East London, North London, South London Watford, Lea Valley lines
Exactly. I voted in that election. What the lines which serve Canonbury were called played zero part in my decision making.!
How many people would have changed their vote on the basis of that policy? I would bet they would fit in a minicab, if not a phone box
I'd certainly favour numbering over naming. The thing with naming them in current year is that rather than meaningful or helpful names, they'll end up with names that are a virtue signal (though "progressive" ones as opposed to being named after royals as per Crossrail). Then a Conservative mayor gets elected with a promise to rename them to something more traditional-sounding... rinse and repeat, ad nauseum.Keep the existing named Underground lines as they are.
Overground lines could be lettered A-G.
Line A - Watford Junction
Line B - Richmond-Stratford
Line C - Clapham Junction to Willesden/Stratford
Line D - Barking-Gospel Oak
Line E1 - East London Line to West Croydon
Line E2 - East London Line to Crystal Palace
Line E3 - East London Line to Clapham Junction via Denmark Hill
Line F1 - Liverpool St-Enfield
Line F2 - Liverpool St-Chingford
Line F3 - Liverpool St-Cheshunt
Line G - Romford-Upminster
Other London suburban lines could be numbered.
They should be called LO1 LO2 LO3 etc or similar as LO is the operator code of London Overground. There are also a few other operators which have these route numbers internally, but unfortunately they aren't currently shown to the public prominently, including Thameslink (TL1 - TL12) and SWR (shown at the front of class 455s and listed in the timetable data)I'd certainly favour numbering over naming. The thing with naming them in current year is that rather than meaningful or helpful names, they'll end up with names that are a virtue signal (though "progressive" ones as opposed to being named after royals as per Crossrail). Then a Conservative mayor gets elected with a promise to rename them to something more traditional-sounding... rinse and repeat, ad nauseum.
Non-Anglophone tourists tend to prefer advice to "take the dark blue line" rather than "take the Piccadilly line", as it makes wayfinding easier. If the Overground lines aren't also given unique colours, the line names will not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the system. Numbers (or letters, or a combination such as OG1 to OG6 or whatever) will make things simpler without the accusations of political pandering that will inevitably come with naming them after historical figures.
I'll clarify what I meant to say: the NLL services which run from Stratford to Clapham Junction or Richmond from east to west to Willesdon, then turn south, splitting and head to Clapham Junction or Richmond.??? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the line from Willesden Junction to Clapham Junction is the West London Line (WLL). It's an anomaly that south of Willesden Junction, the NLL is west of WLL!
I'd certainly favour numbering over naming. The thing with naming them in current year is that rather than meaningful or helpful names, they'll end up with names that are a virtue signal (though "progressive" ones as opposed to being named after royals as per Crossrail). Then a Conservative mayor gets elected with a promise to rename them to something more traditional-sounding... rinse and repeat, ad nauseum.
Non-Anglophone tourists tend to prefer advice to "take the dark blue line" rather than "take the Piccadilly line", as it makes wayfinding easier. If the tube lines weren't already named as they are and a mayor suggested naming them, they wouldn't all get the names they have now. If the Overground lines aren't also given unique colours, the line names will not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the system. Numbers (or letters, or a combination such as OG1 to OG6 or whatever) will make things simpler without the accusations of political pandering that will inevitably come with naming them after historical figures.
Exactly. I voted in that election. What the lines which serve Canonbury were called played zero part in my decision making.
I don't see how you have knowledge of why a majority of the London electorate voted the way they have.It’s yet another publicity stunt by Khan, nothing more. Simply attempting to weaponise the railway.
I’m sure he’d love a “Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan” line.
A horrible individual, I wish the London mayor could be chosen based on competence rather than how much of a maverick the person is.
They should be called LO1 LO2 LO3 etc or similar as LO is the operator code of London Overground. There are also a few other operators which have these route numbers internally, but unfortunately they aren't currently shown to the public prominently, including Thameslink (TL1 - TL12) and SWR (shown at the front of class 455s and listed in the timetable data)
I really wish these route codes, including the Southern region codes in the past decades, can be brought back to general use.
I think you are thinking of the wrong mayor. The biggest criticism I would have of Khan is that he has done next to nothing, a lot of which is down to the financial situation.It’s yet another publicity stunt by Khan, nothing more. Simply attempting to weaponise the railway.
I’m sure he’d love a “Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan” line.
A horrible individual, I wish the London mayor could be chosen based on competence rather than how much of a maverick the person is.
Brunel, as a name for the East London line would be irrelevant. The Thames tunnel was primarily built by Marc Brunel, (i.e. not I K Brunel of GWR fame), and it was an unmitigated commercial failure. It became part of a railway route when John Hawkshaw built it for the newly formed East London Railway in the 1860s, so if there is a wish to credit those responsible for establishing a line, the ELL should be the Hawkshaw Line.If we’re going to name lines after people, then the East London line should at least be named the Brunel line, who built the line in the first place, this for me is the only exception to the rule, ...
The previous mayor was the worst ever. Zero of his promises met. What's he up to now?It’s yet another publicity stunt by Khan, nothing more. Simply attempting to weaponise the railway.
I’m sure he’d love a “Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan” line.
A horrible individual, I wish the London mayor could be chosen based on competence rather than how much of a maverick the person is.
Agreed. He has lots of plans but not the wherewithal to make them happen.I think you are thinking of the wrong mayor. The biggest criticism I would have of Khan is that he has done next to nothing, a lot of which is down to the financial situation.
Who gets to decide on competence?
Khanary wharf line?
The previous mayor was the worst ever. Zero of his promises met. What's he up to now?