Letter from TfL to FCC

[Paul G]

That I happen to have come across and I believe, (although not
guarantee!) is ok for general distribution. The copy I have is a PDF on
TfL paper, so here is the text from the letter (retyped, so the typos
will be mine!):


Ms Elaine Holt
Managing Director
First Capital Connect
Hertford House
1 Cranwood Street
London EC1V 9QS


7th June 2006

Dear Elaine

Announcement on Fares - 6th June

I refer to your recent announcement that you will be unilaterally
imposing restrictions on cheap-day tickets on Thameslink and Great
Northern without effective prior consultation with stakeholders.

I would remind you that the purpose of railways in London is for the
benefit of Londers and London's economy by attracting people to visit
London. The management of overcrowding is not simply achieved by
dramatic fare increases.

I note also in your press release that the wording regarding travelcards
is not clear unless you read it very carefully. If you are considering
withdrawals here, TfL will resist them.

I would also ask you to cease attempts to obliterate references to the
name Thameslink in official station signage.

If you are not prepared to be responsive to the needs of London and
London's economy, I am not prepared to support continuance as holder of
the new Thameslink and Great Northern franchise (which I understand you
have unilaterally renamed First Capital Connect, again without any
consultation whatsoever).

I look forward to your confirmation that you have reconsidered your
position and will be advising the public to this effect.

Yours sincerely,
Ian Brown
Managing Director, London Rail
['Mayor of London' logo]
['A division of Transport for London' etc wording]

[Peter Masson]

Post by Paul G
That I happen to have come across and I believe, (although not
guarantee!) is ok for general distribution. The copy I have is a PDF on
TfL paper, so here is the text from the letter (retyped, so the typos

TfL's press release is at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=831

Peter

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by Peter Masson

Post by Paul G
That I happen to have come across and I believe, (although not
guarantee!) is ok for general distribution. The copy I have is a PDF on
TfL paper, so here is the text from the letter (retyped, so the typos

TfL's press release is at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=831
Peter

They end that stating we believe this will deter rail passengers...

Well thats the whole point of it I'm afraid... DfT told them to do it, so
they've done it... DfT said they'd look at improving capacities, etc. rather
than that they've done everything to reduce passengers to "increase
capacity" what a load *carp*...

**Yes I did spell carp as carp before anyone says anything :)

[naked_draughtsman]

Post by Paul G
I would remind you that the purpose of railways in London is for the
benefit of Londers and London's economy

Local railways for local people!

Post by Paul G
I would also ask you to cease attempts to obliterate references to the
name Thameslink in official station signage.

Station names like Kings Cross Thameslink or the Thameslink branding of
signs?

peter

[Dave Arquati]

Post by naked_draughtsman

Post by Paul G
I would remind you that the purpose of railways in London is for the
benefit of Londers and London's economy

Local railways for local people!

Post by Paul G
I would also ask you to cease attempts to obliterate references to the
name Thameslink in official station signage.

Station names like Kings Cross Thameslink or the Thameslink branding of
signs?

At the Pentonville Road entrance to KX Thameslink, they've stickered
over the "Thameslink" part of the sign on the road with First Capital
Connect.

I do find it irritating to hear vague announcements about delays on FCC
and wonder which routes they are talking about...

[Russell Wykes]

Post by Paul G
That I happen to have come across and I believe, (although not
guarantee!) is ok for general distribution. The copy I have is a PDF on
TfL paper, so here is the text from the letter (retyped, so the typos
Ms Elaine Holt
Managing Director
First Capital Connect
Hertford House
1 Cranwood Street
London EC1V 9QS
7th June 2006
Dear Elaine
Announcement on Fares - 6th June

SNIP

Post by Paul G

Post by Paul G
I look forward to your confirmation that you have reconsidered your

position and will be advising the public to this effect.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Brown
Managing Director, London Rail
['Mayor of London' logo]
['A division of Transport for London' etc wording]

Has a reply from Ms Holt been forthcoming yet do you know?

Russ Wykes

[Paul G]

Post by Russell Wykes

Post by Paul G
That I happen to have come across and I believe, (although not
guarantee!) is ok for general distribution. The copy I have is a PDF on
TfL paper, so here is the text from the letter (retyped, so the typos
Ms Elaine Holt
Managing Director
First Capital Connect
Hertford House
1 Cranwood Street
London EC1V 9QS
7th June 2006
Dear Elaine
Announcement on Fares - 6th June

SNIP

Post by Paul G

Post by Paul G
I look forward to your confirmation that you have reconsidered your

position and will be advising the public to this effect.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Brown
Managing Director, London Rail
['Mayor of London' logo]
['A division of Transport for London' etc wording]

Has a reply from Ms Holt been forthcoming yet do you know?
Russ Wykes

No idea, but I'll check it out...

[Mark B]

Post by Paul G
That I happen to have come across and I believe, (although not
guarantee!) is ok for general distribution. The copy I have is a PDF on
TfL paper, so here is the text from the letter (retyped, so the typos
Ms Elaine Holt
Managing Director
First Capital Connect
Hertford House
1 Cranwood Street
London EC1V 9QS
7th June 2006
Dear Elaine
Announcement on Fares - 6th June
I refer to your recent announcement that you will be unilaterally
imposing restrictions on cheap-day tickets on Thameslink and Great
Northern without effective prior consultation with stakeholders.
I would remind you that the purpose of railways in London is for the
benefit of Londers and London's economy by attracting people to visit
London. The management of overcrowding is not simply achieved by
dramatic fare increases.
I note also in your press release that the wording regarding travelcards
is not clear unless you read it very carefully. If you are considering
withdrawals here, TfL will resist them.
I would also ask you to cease attempts to obliterate references to the
name Thameslink in official station signage.
If you are not prepared to be responsive to the needs of London and
London's economy, I am not prepared to support continuance as holder of
the new Thameslink and Great Northern franchise (which I understand you
have unilaterally renamed First Capital Connect, again without any
consultation whatsoever).
I look forward to your confirmation that you have reconsidered your
position and will be advising the public to this effect.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Brown
Managing Director, London Rail
['Mayor of London' logo]
['A division of Transport for London' etc wording]

I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like - without
having to seek approval from Ken...

Do wonder if he'd rather have the trains painted in London Rail
Brown/Orange with roundels... First Neon City or London Turd?*

*which would probably spread to all trains serving the capital, like all
buses operating services classed as London must be red...

[Richard J.]

Post by Mark B
I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like -
without having to seek approval from Ken...

He (and it was Ian Brown, not Ken) wasn't seeking approval, merely
consultation, which is reasonable if the TOC's name appears on the
signage of other operators such as LU.

There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.

[Duncan]

Post by Richard J.
There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.

I don't think they are trying to remove the word Thameslink from the
station names. I believe that old franchise holder's staff were rather
over-keen when removing references to Thameslink from signage.

Duncan

[Paul Corfield]

Post by Richard J.
There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.

The other simple point to make here is that there will be a huge bill
for resigning an awful lot of stations and street furniture not to
mention maps and ticket machine changes.

This will easily cost a six or seven digit number - are FCC proposing
to cover all of those costs? No, didn't think so.

[Paul Oter]

Post by Richard J.
There is a clear need to distinguish the Thameslink *service* from other
routes that FCC operate, and if FCC are in fact removing the Thameslink
name or even seeking to change station names that include "Thameslink",
then I think that Ian Brown is absolutely right to try to stop it.

At Moorgate, the signs still direct national rail passengers to the
"Thameslink" or "WAGN" platforms (depending on whether you want to go
to KX Thameslink or to Finsbury Park). Staff also use these names on
the handwritten whiteboard that announces temporary disruptions,
sometimes with First Capital Connect in brackets after it.

I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

PaulO

[asdf]

Post by Paul Oter
I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

At Highbury & Islington, the signs still direct passengers towards
"British Rail (Eastern)".

[Mizter T]

Post by asdf

Post by Paul Oter
I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

At Highbury & Islington, the signs still direct passengers towards
"British Rail (Eastern)".

Both Moorgate and High & I are LU-managed stations. LU obviously
doesn't feel the need to do the TOC's branding for them by replacing
the signs each time there's a new franchise holder.

Likewise the whiteboard messages at Moorgate are probably written by LU
staff who use the old names to differentiate between the routes.

The perpetual circus of rebranding is IMO pretty ridiculous, an opinion
I'm sure is widely shared. And every time I hear or see 'First' in
front of a train companies name I'm reminded that First Group PLC is
somehow managing to funnel loadsa wonga to their shareholders at the
same time that plenty of public cash get's pumped in to the transport
system.

[Rupert Candy]

Post by Mizter T

Post by asdf

Post by Paul Oter
I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

At Highbury & Islington, the signs still direct passengers towards
"British Rail (Eastern)".

Both Moorgate and High & I are LU-managed stations. LU obviously
doesn't feel the need to do the TOC's branding for them by replacing
the signs each time there's a new franchise holder.

ICBW, but I wonder whether LUL tried keeping up with franchise names
for a while then (sensibly) gave up. I say this because the rebuilt
West Ham station opened with signs pointing to "LTS Rail" and
"Silverlink Metro", but more recent (re-)signings seem to just refer to
"National Rail". Frankly, I don't imagine TOC names are much help to
your average passenger anyway - the double arrow symbol and some
indication of destinations is probably much more useful.

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by Rupert Candy

Post by Mizter T

Post by asdf

Post by Paul Oter
I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

At Highbury & Islington, the signs still direct passengers towards
"British Rail (Eastern)".

Both Moorgate and High & I are LU-managed stations. LU obviously
doesn't feel the need to do the TOC's branding for them by replacing
the signs each time there's a new franchise holder.

ICBW, but I wonder whether LUL tried keeping up with franchise names
for a while then (sensibly) gave up. I say this because the rebuilt
West Ham station opened with signs pointing to "LTS Rail" and
"Silverlink Metro", but more recent (re-)signings seem to just refer to
"National Rail". Frankly, I don't imagine TOC names are much help to
your average passenger anyway - the double arrow symbol and some
indication of destinations is probably much more useful.

Yes it is a pity they don't use (British) National Rail to its full
advantage by calling the whole lot the same thing, and allowing operators to
just be the subline... operated by NorthEastSouthWestRail... then there
could be some kind of real definition of
Intercity/regional/local/international standard to the type of trains and
services... but OH no, Britain can not have anything so wonderfully
simple...

Paul

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by Mizter T
And every time I hear or see 'First' in
front of a train companies name I'm reminded that First Group PLC is
somehow managing to funnel loadsa wonga to their shareholders at the
same time that plenty of public cash get's pumped in to the transport
system.

Having a choice of franchises at Cambridge of "First" and 'one' suggests
we can't count above 1!

[Richard J.]

Post by Colin Rosenstiel

And every time I hear or see 'First' in front of a train
companies name I'm reminded that First Group PLC is somehow
managing to funnel loadsa wonga to their shareholders at the
same time that plenty of public cash get's pumped in to the
transport system.

Having a choice of franchises at Cambridge of "First" and 'one'
suggests we can't count above 1!

This is of course true for a single binary bit, and very appropriate for
Cambridge which built the first general service computer in the world in
1949*.

In theory, one of the TOCs there should be called Zero or Nought, but
perhaps the marketing people wouldn't have liked that.

* To be more precise, I mean the first fully operational and practical
stored-program digital computer, EDSAC 1, which was *the* computer for
Cambridge University 1949-1958.

[John Salmon]

Post by Richard J.
* To be more precise, I mean the first fully operational and practical
stored-program digital computer, EDSAC 1, which was *the* computer for
Cambridge University 1949-1958.

The computer programming lectures for mathematics undergraduates were still
based on EDSAC when I attended them in the mid-60's, but I think that
changed shortly afterwards.

[Richard J.]

Post by John Salmon

Post by Richard J.
* To be more precise, I mean the first fully operational and
practical stored-program digital computer, EDSAC 1, which was
*the* computer for Cambridge University 1949-1958.

The computer programming lectures for mathematics undergraduates
were still based on EDSAC when I attended them in the mid-60's, but
I think that changed shortly afterwards.

That would have been EDSAC 2 which replaced EDSAC 1 in 1958. It was in
turn replaced by Titan (prototype Ferranti Atlas 2) in 1965.

[Tom Anderson]

Post by Richard J.
This is of course true for a single binary bit, and very appropriate for
Cambridge which built the first general service computer in the world in
1949*.
* To be more precise, I mean the first fully operational and practical
stored-program digital computer, EDSAC 1, which was *the* computer for
Cambridge University 1949-1958.

Hmph. If you add enough qualifications, you can claim pretty much anything
as the First Computer. I'm sticking with Baby for now - after all, if it's
not the Mancunians, it's Herr Zuse, and that would never do :).

tom

[James Farrar]

Post by Mizter T
The perpetual circus of rebranding is IMO pretty ridiculous, an opinion
I'm sure is widely shared. And every time I hear or see 'First' in
front of a train companies name I'm reminded that First Group PLC is
somehow managing to funnel loadsa wonga to their shareholders at the
same time that plenty of public cash get's pumped in to the transport
system.

I just think "Worst".

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by asdf
At Highbury & Islington, the signs still direct passengers towards
"British Rail (Eastern)".

Hmm. I'm sure I saw "National Rail" somewhere round here recently.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Paul Oter
I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

This is a bit like the distinction between "ECML" and "GNER", "WCML" and
"Virgin". Are we being boring by assuming that people can't discriminate
between the route and the operator? Are the operators making things
worse when they alter the signs?

[R.C. Payne]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Oter
I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

This is a bit like the distinction between "ECML" and "GNER", "WCML" and
"Virgin". Are we being boring by assuming that people can't discriminate
between the route and the operator? Are the operators making things
worse when they alter the signs?

In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc, so there has been no need to differentiate
between rote and toc. Now we have the situation where two quite
independent routes running in very close proximity are run by the same
toc. In this case it is essential to differentiate rote from toc. The
closest example I can think of is WAGN at Cambridge, but in that case,
it was quite clear whether a train was to/from Kings Cross or Liverpool
Street, and no need to give signs to different routes because they use
the same set of platforms. It is for exactly these reasons that London
Underground came up with such a robust system of line branding, with
names and colours so clearly used for separate lines*. Imagine if all
London Underground lines lost their identities, and you arrive at Kings
Cross - St.P. to hear an announcement that "there are severe delays to
London Underground services".

* I think this is why so many people ignore the platform numbers at LU
stations. You talk about the Bakerloo northbound platform rather than
platform x.

Robin

[Paul Oter]

Post by R.C. Payne

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Paul Oter
I think that not only should the name "Thameslink" be retained, but the
name "Great Northern" (or something better) be resurrected to refer to
the Moorgate-Finsbury Park (and beyond) line. You can still make out
the painted-over words "Great Northern Electrics" on some (not very)
old signs.

This is a bit like the distinction between "ECML" and "GNER", "WCML" and
"Virgin". Are we being boring by assuming that people can't discriminate
between the route and the operator? Are the operators making things
worse when they alter the signs?

In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc, so there has been no need to differentiate
between rote and toc. Now we have the situation where two quite
independent routes running in very close proximity are run by the same
toc. In this case it is essential to differentiate rote from toc. (snip)

The issue at Moorgate (unlike Cambridge) is that there are two
completely different services which run from dedicated platforms in
completely different parts of the station. Furthermore (and unlike
Cambridge), there isn't a screen showing all departures from the
station in a single list, with platform numbers for each departure.
There therefore needs to be some signs which contain enough information
to tell people which platform to go to catch their train.

I suppose signs which said "First Capital Connect trains to King's
Cross, St Albans, Luton and Bedford" and "First Capital Connect trains
to Highbury and Islington, Finsbury Park, Welwyn Garden City and
Hertford North" would be adequate if laborious, but these would need to
be changed every few years whenever the TOC changed. Much better to
have standard route names which don't keep changing.

PaulO

[Neil Williams]

Post by Paul Oter
I suppose signs which said "First Capital Connect trains to King's
Cross, St Albans, Luton and Bedford" and "First Capital Connect trains
to Highbury and Islington, Finsbury Park, Welwyn Garden City and
Hertford North" would be adequate if laborious, but these would need to
be changed every few years whenever the TOC changed. Much better to
have standard route names which don't keep changing.

Or keep it completely factual and use the above without the "First
Capital Connect" part. Branding is completely unnecessary on these
signs, and example destinations will likely be more useful to the
people who actually need the signs in the first place.

Neil

[naked_draughtsman]

Post by R.C. Payne
In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc.

Virgin west coast/Virgin cross country sounds good and I think it was
used until recently (when they started using Pendolino/Voyager without
realising Voyagers were used on some WC routes!)
Did one do something similar when they took over their franchise? (One
Anglia...?)

First Thameslink sounds fine, as does First Capital Thameslink. Should
keep both parties happy.

peter

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by naked_draughtsman

Post by R.C. Payne
In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc.

Virgin west coast/Virgin cross country sounds good and I think it was
used until recently (when they started using Pendolino/Voyager without
realising Voyagers were used on some WC routes!)

But usually the VWC VCC turns into just Virgin far as Virgin is concerned...
no telling which routes are sometimes on engineering when its involving VT
sometimes... (For the ordinary traveller that is)

Post by naked_draughtsman
Did one do something similar when they took over their franchise? (One
Anglia...?)

one Anglia, one Great Eastern, one West Anglia and one Stansted Express
(although did the last one ever catch on -- but then again, they soon
removed them didn't they :( so new travellers have no flipping idea what
they mean by West Anglia route or whatever....

Post by naked_draughtsman
First Thameslink sounds fine, as does First Capital Thameslink. Should
keep both parties happy.
peter

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by Paul Ebbens

Post by naked_draughtsman
Did one do something similar when they took over their franchise?
(One Anglia...?)

one Anglia, one Great Eastern, one West Anglia and one Stansted
Express (although did the last one ever catch on -- but then again,
they soon removed them didn't they :( so new travellers have no
flipping idea what they mean by West Anglia route or whatever....

I'm sure I saw a one Stansted Express train at Liverpool Street when I
had to come home that way on Monday last week.

[Mizter T]

Post by R.C. Payne

Post by Roland Perry
This is a bit like the distinction between "ECML" and "GNER", "WCML" and
"Virgin". Are we being boring by assuming that people can't discriminate
between the route and the operator? Are the operators making things
worse when they alter the signs?

In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc, so there has been no need to differentiate
between route and toc. Now we have the situation where two quite
independent routes running in very close proximity are run by the same
toc.

I guess this is the point about FCC - that under the Thameslink 2000
plans [1] their two independent routes - Thameslink and Great Northern
- would become linked. I don't know the details but when implemented
trains from the Great Northern route (or even from the ECML) wouldn't
terminate at Kings Cross but would continue southwards through the
Thameslink route.

Thus one could say their franchise name is a long-sighted decision, as
their two routes will in future become one - or at least become linked.


[1] Network Rail has renamed the Thameslink 2000 project to the
'Thameslink Programme', which I guess makes it slightly less of a
laughing stock, and is also suitably ambiguous with regards to any
timeframe.

You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
Network Rail website:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by Mizter T
[1] Network Rail has renamed the Thameslink 2000 project to the
'Thameslink Programme', which I guess makes it slightly less of a
laughing stock, and is also suitably ambiguous with regards to any
timeframe.
You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

Not now you can't: "This page is currently being updated".

[Paul Corfield]

Post by Colin Rosenstiel

Post by Mizter T
[1] Network Rail has renamed the Thameslink 2000 project to the
'Thameslink Programme', which I guess makes it slightly less of a
laughing stock, and is also suitably ambiguous with regards to any
timeframe.
You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

Not now you can't: "This page is currently being updated".

I think that was the reason for the pointed comment about "incredibly
helpful".

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by Colin Rosenstiel

Post by Mizter T
[1] Network Rail has renamed the Thameslink 2000 project to the
'Thameslink Programme', which I guess makes it slightly less of a
laughing stock, and is also suitably ambiguous with regards to
any timeframe.
You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

Not now you can't: "This page is currently being updated".

I think that was the reason for the pointed comment about
"incredibly helpful".

Ah! I missed the irony.

[Mizter T]

Post by Paul Corfield

Post by Colin Rosenstiel

Post by Mizter T
You can read all about it on this incredibly helpful page on the
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1326.aspx

Not now you can't: "This page is currently being updated".

I think that was the reason for the pointed comment about "incredibly
helpful".

You've duly decoded my comments Paul!

I've never been one for using emoticons but perhaps I should start - I
think communicating clearly is a priority over being sarcastic, at
least in a forum such as this.

And anyone reading this in the future (coutesy of the Google Groups
archive) when the URL shown above is terminally rather than temporarily
dead would take my comments to mean quite the opposite than the meaning
I wished to convey.

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by Mizter T

Post by R.C. Payne

Post by Roland Perry
This is a bit like the distinction between "ECML" and "GNER", "WCML" and
"Virgin". Are we being boring by assuming that people can't
discriminate
between the route and the operator? Are the operators making things
worse when they alter the signs?

In the past, sets of routes (like ECML, WCML &c.) have generally been
unique to a particular toc, so there has been no need to differentiate
between route and toc. Now we have the situation where two quite
independent routes running in very close proximity are run by the same
toc.

I guess this is the point about FCC - that under the Thameslink 2000
plans [1] their two independent routes - Thameslink and Great Northern
- would become linked. I don't know the details but when implemented
trains from the Great Northern route (or even from the ECML) wouldn't
terminate at Kings Cross but would continue southwards through the
Thameslink route.
Thus one could say their franchise name is a long-sighted decision, as
their two routes will in future become one - or at least become linked.

Thinking about this... it wouldve been just as bad if the services all the
way up to Peterborough and King's Lynn were called Thameslink...

[Roland Perry]

Post by Paul Ebbens

Post by Mizter T
Thus one could say their franchise name is a long-sighted decision, as
their two routes will in future become one - or at least become linked.

Thinking about this... it wouldve been just as bad if the services all the
way up to Peterborough and King's Lynn were called Thameslink...

When Themeslink2K is finished, they will!

But the new "fully integrated" franchise will *replace* the current FCC
one, so if they are warming the public up to the concept of integration
(ahead of it actually happening) then the options are limited.

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by Mark B
I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like - without
having to seek approval from Ken...
Do wonder if he'd rather have the trains painted in London Rail
Brown/Orange with roundels... First Neon City or London Turd?*
*which would probably spread to all trains serving the capital, like all
buses operating services classed as London must be red...

I thought Thameslink was around before branding? or did the King's Cross TL
station only appear after franchising?

Paul

[Rich Mackin]

Post by Paul Ebbens

Post by Mark B
I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like - without
having to seek approval from Ken...
Do wonder if he'd rather have the trains painted in London Rail
Brown/Orange with roundels... First Neon City or London Turd?*
*which would probably spread to all trains serving the capital, like all
buses operating services classed as London must be red...

I thought Thameslink was around before branding? or did the King's Cross
TL station only appear after franchising?

Nope, the route was branded 'Thameslink', including all the same stations as
they are today, by NSE from opening in May 1987.

[Meld]

Post by Rich Mackin

Post by Paul Ebbens

Post by Mark B
I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like - without
having to seek approval from Ken...
Do wonder if he'd rather have the trains painted in London Rail
Brown/Orange with roundels... First Neon City or London Turd?*
*which would probably spread to all trains serving the capital, like all
buses operating services classed as London must be red...

I thought Thameslink was around before branding? or did the King's Cross
TL station only appear after franchising?

Nope, the route was branded 'Thameslink', including all the same stations as
they are today, by NSE from opening in May 1987.

Very sensitive about the name of the Franchise are First. People
leaving FGW to go work there commonly refer to it as "Going to work for
Barclaycard" (name sounds like a credit card). One person overheard
saying this was taken aside and "advised".
More power to Kens elbow I say.

[Joe Patrick]

Post by Meld
Very sensitive about the name of the Franchise are First.

I don't know why so, the lack of a distinguished brand and plastering
of "National Express" all over their bus & rail operations, along with
the same for Stagecoach's rail operations & certain bus operations
(MagicBus/MegaBus/et al.) hasn't really harmed the companies' share
prices, has it?

[Theo Markettos]

Post by Joe Patrick
I don't know why so, the lack of a distinguished brand and plastering
of "National Express" all over their bus & rail operations, along with
the same for Stagecoach's rail operations & certain bus operations
(MagicBus/MegaBus/et al.) hasn't really harmed the companies' share
prices, has it?

Stagecoach seem to be a bit confused about this one. They used to heavily
brand 'Stagecoach SWT' but have dropped the 'Stagecoach' bit, but it's very
definitely 'Stagecoach Island Line'. Any ideas why?

Theo

[MIG]

Post by Theo Markettos

Post by Joe Patrick
I don't know why so, the lack of a distinguished brand and plastering
of "National Express" all over their bus & rail operations, along with
the same for Stagecoach's rail operations & certain bus operations
(MagicBus/MegaBus/et al.) hasn't really harmed the companies' share
prices, has it?

Stagecoach seem to be a bit confused about this one. They used to heavily
brand 'Stagecoach SWT' but have dropped the 'Stagecoach' bit, but it's very
definitely 'Stagecoach Island Line'. Any ideas why?
Theo

Virgin is much into branding though. The London and the South East
diagram goes along with this to the extent of having only one colour
for Virgin, even though there are two different franchises covered. I
think the others are all one colour per franchise.

[Neil Williams]

Post by MIG
Virgin is much into branding though.

Not as much as FirstGroup, perhaps surprisingly. The relative lack of
branding on the Voyagers (only on the outer ends) and Pendolinos (outer
ends and frosted on the doors) is noticeable and pleasant compared with
the F-in-circle appearing everywhere on anything to do with First.

IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.
They'd do better to go lower-key.

Neil

[David Hansen]

On 4 Jul 2006 13:58:33 -0700 someone who may be "Neil Williams"

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.
They'd do better to go lower-key.

Indeed. In Scotland National Express were very low key, simply
saying in a few places that the company was part of the National
Express Group. Then Last came along and stuck their "F" on
everything they can, as well as painting the trains pink. Given the
state of some of their buses in Edinburgh I doubt if this approach
has done the group any good. It has probably done the railways a
little damage, though not much.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.

I took a party to York at the weekend, and they commented on how
confusing it was to have five different (First-operated) Park-and-ride
routes, all using identical looking buses. In other towns you have buses
which are coloured to go along with the routes (Green, White, Red etc).

The buses use different bus stops (for each colour), and they are not
very easy to find; so being able to spot the relevant bus at a distance
and "chase" it would be very useful.

[MIG]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.

I took a party to York at the weekend, and they commented on how
confusing it was to have five different (First-operated) Park-and-ride
routes, all using identical looking buses. In other towns you have buses
which are coloured to go along with the routes (Green, White, Red etc).
The buses use different bus stops (for each colour), and they are not
very easy to find; so being able to spot the relevant bus at a distance
and "chase" it would be very useful.
--
Roland Perry

I wonder if that's a branding issue though? More likely they've got a
bus garage with one fleet of buses in it which they put on the routes
that they operate. It would be very restrictive to paint them
according to a specific route, and very confusing when they inevitably
had to use them on the wrong route.

London famously always got by with one colour of bus (and each bus from
a particular garage likely to turn up on any route operated by that
garage).

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by MIG

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.

I took a party to York at the weekend, and they commented on how
confusing it was to have five different (First-operated) Park-and-ride
routes, all using identical looking buses. In other towns you have buses
which are coloured to go along with the routes (Green, White, Red etc).
The buses use different bus stops (for each colour), and they are not
very easy to find; so being able to spot the relevant bus at a distance
and "chase" it would be very useful.
--
Roland Perry

I wonder if that's a branding issue though? More likely they've got a
bus garage with one fleet of buses in it which they put on the routes
that they operate. It would be very restrictive to paint them
according to a specific route, and very confusing when they inevitably
had to use them on the wrong route.
London famously always got by with one colour of bus (and each bus from
a particular garage likely to turn up on any route operated by that
garage).

Have a chameleon bus that change colours ;-)

[Neil Williams]

Post by Paul Ebbens
Have a chameleon bus that change colours ;-)

Or just have electronic blinds on front, side and rear, with each
showing full destination details. If the stop layout is confusing,
change that.

IMO, because of the operational limits it causes, route branding
doesn't really work.

Neil

[Roland Perry]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Paul Ebbens
Have a chameleon bus that change colours ;-)

Or just have electronic blinds on front, side and rear, with each
showing full destination details.

That's great if you are a stop and wanting to see whether it's the right
bus to get on.

Post by Neil Williams
If the stop layout is confusing, change that.

Something needs changing! We followed fingerposts in York Centre that
purported to say where to catch the bus back. We followed them for
nearly three quarters of a mile, and then when we eventually found the
bus, it passed a stop 300yds from where we had started (but in a
different direction from the way we'd been told to walk)!

If the buses had been branded by route, it's possible we'd have been
able to see them in the distance and avoided wasting 20 minutes (as well
as cursing the inefficiency of the system in having the pickup so far
from the centre).

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, because of the operational limits it causes, route branding
doesn't really work.

It "really works" round here. And not just simple branding like "Brown
route" versus "White route". The http://www.skylink.co.uk/ buses are
entirely dedicated to the "airport run", and that seems to work well.

[Chris Johns]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, because of the operational limits it causes, route branding
doesn't really work.

It "really works" round here. And not just simple branding like "Brown
route" versus "White route". The http://www.skylink.co.uk/ buses are
entirely dedicated to the "airport run", and that seems to work well.

A lot of First York's busses do have some route branding. The old no.4
buses had a light blue stripe along the top (over the windows) that I
think said something like "Univerity - City - Acomb", and a similar thing
exists for at least routes 1, 5 and 6 (possibly others too, but they're
the ones I've seen).

Cheers

Chris

[Roland Perry]

Post by Chris Johns
A lot of First York's busses do have some route branding. The old no.4
buses had a light blue stripe along the top (over the windows) that I
think said something like "Univerity - City - Acomb",

Those are the now purple bendybuses.

Post by Chris Johns
and a similar thing exists for at least routes 1, 5 and 6 (possibly
others too, but they're the ones I've seen).

Good, so now they just need to extend this to the P&R :)

[tim (back at home)]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Paul Ebbens
Have a chameleon bus that change colours ;-)

Or just have electronic blinds on front, side and rear, with each
showing full destination details. If the stop layout is confusing,
change that.
IMO, because of the operational limits it causes, route branding
doesn't really work.

I was in Reading at the weekend (for the first time in at least
a decade).

The Buses there were all different colours indicating the
route(s). I spent ages trying to find (and read) the
operators name and address and eventually discovered
that they are all operating by Reading Buses.

So it can be done. (As for that matter is the possibility
of a municipal operator not being taken over and rebranded
by one of the majors, how did they manage it?)

tim

[Roland Perry]

Post by tim (back at home)
So it can be done. (As for that matter is the possibility
of a municipal operator not being taken over and rebranded
by one of the majors, how did they manage it?)

Like Nottingham City Transport by "being big enough" I think. It still
seems to be run as a genuine public service.

[Rupert Candy]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by tim (back at home)
So it can be done. (As for that matter is the possibility
of a municipal operator not being taken over and rebranded
by one of the majors, how did they manage it?)

Like Nottingham City Transport by "being big enough" I think. It still
seems to be run as a genuine public service.

Actually part-owned by Transdev IIRC. Though you are right - NCT is
something of a shining example amongst provincial bus operators...

[Neil Williams]

Post by Roland Perry
Like Nottingham City Transport by "being big enough" I think. It still
seems to be run as a genuine public service.

So does MK Metro, give or take an element of Julian Peddle playing
buses. It remains to be seen what Arriva will do to it long-term.

Metro, notably, is not and never has been a municipal operator; MK has
never had such a thing, it being served by United Counties (NBC) in the
nationalised days. It does, however, act like one at times.

Neil

[Mark B]

Post by tim (back at home)

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Paul Ebbens
Have a chameleon bus that change colours ;-)

Or just have electronic blinds on front, side and rear, with each
showing full destination details. If the stop layout is confusing,
change that.
IMO, because of the operational limits it causes, route branding
doesn't really work.

I was in Reading at the weekend (for the first time in at least
a decade).
The Buses there were all different colours indicating the
route(s). I spent ages trying to find (and read) the
operators name and address and eventually discovered
that they are all operating by Reading Buses.
So it can be done. (As for that matter is the possibility
of a municipal operator not being taken over and rebranded
by one of the majors, how did they manage it?)
tim

A bit like TrentBarton - they tend to Brand both the routes and buses
with colours and the name (numbers are rare) of the route.

eg the Xprss is Green, the Rainbow 5s are Purple, The Black Cat is white
and red, etc

Only thing is where they do keep numbering it tends to be in the 6.1,
6.2 (yes those are decimals)

Oh and they are still semi independent, being part of a group of other
local operators

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by Neil Williams

Post by Paul Ebbens
Have a chameleon bus that change colours ;-)

Or just have electronic blinds on front, side and rear, with each
showing full destination details. If the stop layout is confusing,
change that.
IMO, because of the operational limits it causes, route branding
doesn't really work.

York park and ride services used to have blinds which gave their route
colours. That was when they were all single deck, including some bendies.

[Mark B]

Post by MIG

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.

I took a party to York at the weekend, and they commented on how
confusing it was to have five different (First-operated) Park-and-ride
routes, all using identical looking buses. In other towns you have buses
which are coloured to go along with the routes (Green, White, Red etc).
The buses use different bus stops (for each colour), and they are not
very easy to find; so being able to spot the relevant bus at a distance
and "chase" it would be very useful.
--
Roland Perry

I wonder if that's a branding issue though? More likely they've got a
bus garage with one fleet of buses in it which they put on the routes
that they operate. It would be very restrictive to paint them
according to a specific route, and very confusing when they inevitably
had to use them on the wrong route.

The newly painted Darts for 'CoastHopper 157' are usually found either
on the '95' or '57' - with either a Merc Minibus or '57' branded Dart on
the 157. Confusingly the 357 is now operated by the '56 Airport' Dart
rather then the Yellow Devon County Slimbus

[Mark B]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Neil Williams
IMO, the way First overbrand makes them look shoddy and unprofessional.

I took a party to York at the weekend, and they commented on how
confusing it was to have five different (First-operated) Park-and-ride
routes, all using identical looking buses. In other towns you have buses
which are coloured to go along with the routes (Green, White, Red etc).
The buses use different bus stops (for each colour), and they are not
very easy to find; so being able to spot the relevant bus at a distance
and "chase" it would be very useful.

The Exeter ones are all yellow and blue.. - though each carries a
largeish Sowton/Honiton Road/Matford name

[Geoff]

In uk.railway Roland Perry <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:

: I took a party to York at the weekend, and they commented on how
: confusing it was to have five different (First-operated) Park-and-ride
: routes, all using identical looking buses. In other towns you have buses
: which are coloured to go along with the routes (Green, White, Red etc).

Most P&R schemes seem to be paid for by local authorities; York's is
run without any real subsidy which is why the livery is so First-like.

It would be almost impossible to keep 5 small fleets of different buses
in service anyway, without lots of spare vehicles. The generic P&R
livery gives some advertising advantage without confusing people if a
non-P&R bus turns up.

Geoff

[Roland Perry]

Post by Geoff
: I took a party to York at the weekend, and they commented on how
: confusing it was to have five different (First-operated) Park-and-ride
: routes, all using identical looking buses. In other towns you have buses
: which are coloured to go along with the routes (Green, White, Red etc).
Most P&R schemes seem to be paid for by local authorities; York's is
run without any real subsidy which is why the livery is so First-like.

iirc, the Cambridge P&R runs on the basis that the car parking is
provided by the council (and not charged for), and the bus company keeps
all the fares. York's scheme felt much the same. Nottingham is slanted
more towards paying per car, to park, and getting a free bus ride
(although you pay the "parking" fee to the bus driver).

Post by Geoff
It would be almost impossible to keep 5 small fleets of different buses
in service anyway, without lots of spare vehicles.

There seem to be many counter-examples around.

Post by Geoff
The generic P&R livery gives some advertising advantage without
confusing people if a non-P&R bus turns up.

What part of the livery says "P&R", I don't recall seeing any
distinguishing feature. I can look closer next time I go!

[Rupert Candy]

Post by Roland Perry
iirc, the Cambridge P&R runs on the basis that the car parking is
provided by the council (and not charged for), and the bus company keeps
all the fares. York's scheme felt much the same. Nottingham is slanted
more towards paying per car, to park, and getting a free bus ride
(although you pay the "parking" fee to the bus driver).

and the latter, IMHO, is much more sensible since the cost doesn't rise
based on the number of passengers in your car. (In Canterbury, for
example, parking costs L2, paid at the site, and you and your
passengers ride for free - making it better value if you are a large
group. In Cambridge, Maidstone and many others, you park for free and
each of you pays around L1.50, making it quite an expensive medium stay
cost for a group of 4.)

Oxford, meanwhile, seems to combine both systems, making you pay a
token fee (50p last time I was there) for parking *and* a bus fare. But
I think it's otherwise the best example on the country - the buses
don't stop at the end of shopping hours!

[Roland Perry]

Post by Rupert Candy

Post by Roland Perry
iirc, the Cambridge P&R runs on the basis that the car parking is
provided by the council (and not charged for), and the bus company keeps
all the fares. York's scheme felt much the same. Nottingham is slanted
more towards paying per car, to park, and getting a free bus ride
(although you pay the "parking" fee to the bus driver).

and the latter, IMHO, is much more sensible since the cost doesn't rise
based on the number of passengers in your car.

From the driver's point of view, yes. But if the "deal" is that the
Council does the subsidising by building and maintaining the car park
(without cost to the bus company), and the bus company keeps the fares;
an input cost to the bus company is the number of passengers, not the
number of cars. Interestingly, the Nottingham buses are run by the City
Transport company.

Post by Rupert Candy
(In Canterbury, for example, parking costs L2, paid at the site, and
you and your passengers ride for free - making it better value if you
are a large group. In Cambridge, Maidstone and many others, you park
for free and each of you pays around L1.50,

£2 now in Cambridge.

Post by Rupert Candy
making it quite an expensive medium stay cost for a group of 4.)

York was also £2 a person (return). In both of these kids are free.

Post by Rupert Candy
Oxford, meanwhile, seems to combine both systems, making you pay a
token fee (50p last time I was there) for parking *and* a bus fare. But
I think it's otherwise the best example on the country - the buses
don't stop at the end of shopping hours!

The closing time has always been a bone of contention at Cambridge. They
did try opening later, but it's back to 8pm now. York claimed to run
till midnight. Nottingham only manages 7pm :(

[Chris Johns]

Post by Rupert Candy
and the latter, IMHO, is much more sensible since the cost doesn't rise
based on the number of passengers in your car. (In Canterbury, for
example, parking costs L2, paid at the site, and you and your
passengers ride for free - making it better value if you are a large
group. In Cambridge, Maidstone and many others, you park for free and

It also makes boarding the bus quicker, as people don't need to get a
ticket (since they got one when the parked the car). Considering cars
enter the car park one or two at a time, you are spreading out the ticket
buying over the waiting time, rather than everyone getting one at the same
time (when they board the bus).

Cheers

Chris

[Matt Wheeler]

Post by Rupert Candy

Post by Roland Perry
iirc, the Cambridge P&R runs on the basis that the car parking is
provided by the council (and not charged for), and the bus company keeps
all the fares. York's scheme felt much the same. Nottingham is slanted
more towards paying per car, to park, and getting a free bus ride
(although you pay the "parking" fee to the bus driver).

and the latter, IMHO, is much more sensible since the cost doesn't rise
based on the number of passengers in your car. (In Canterbury, for
example, parking costs L2, paid at the site, and you and your
passengers ride for free - making it better value if you are a large
group.

Of all the Park & Ride systems i've used (Oxford, Canterbury,
Maidstone), I much prefer the Canterbury system. Paying before or
after the bus journey is easier and you don't have to worry about
paying the driver... .although interestingly the canterbury Park &
Ride buses do now accept normal paying passengers, costing 2 pounds
for the ability to travel on any of the citiy's 3 P&R services all
day.

Post by Rupert Candy
Oxford, meanwhile, seems to combine both systems, making you pay a
token fee (50p last time I was there) for parking *and* a bus fare. But
I think it's otherwise the best example on the country - the buses
don't stop at the end of shopping hours!

That depends on the car park you use. For instance, Thornhill (on the
A40 into Oxford from London), and, I think Water Eaton, car parks are
free, and its just the others that charge.
Also, for Oxford, some of the operating hours on some of the services
has been cut back recently, so although they go beyond "shopping
hours" its not by much.
For instance, the Thornhill site has its last Oxford bound service at
8pm and the last bus to the site is at 8pm, after that passengers can
return to the site on certain specified "Oxford espress" coaches that
operate through on the way to London. In fact, of Oxford;s 5 sites,
the "pear tree" site is the only one with a reasonable evening service
in both directions. Water Eaton finishes at 7, and the other two
finish the same time as Thornhill and then require you to catch a
local bus to get back to the site later on (but again, no city bound
buses listed).

[Martin Underwood]

Rupert Candy wrote in message

Post by Rupert Candy

Post by Roland Perry
iirc, the Cambridge P&R runs on the basis that the car parking is
provided by the council (and not charged for), and the bus company
keeps all the fares. York's scheme felt much the same. Nottingham is
slanted more towards paying per car, to park, and getting a free bus
ride (although you pay the "parking" fee to the bus driver).

and the latter, IMHO, is much more sensible since the cost doesn't
rise based on the number of passengers in your car. (In Canterbury,
for example, parking costs L2, paid at the site, and you and your
passengers ride for free - making it better value if you are a large
group. In Cambridge, Maidstone and many others, you park for free and
each of you pays around L1.50, making it quite an expensive medium
stay cost for a group of 4.)
Oxford, meanwhile, seems to combine both systems, making you pay a
token fee (50p last time I was there) for parking *and* a bus fare.
But I think it's otherwise the best example on the country - the buses
don't stop at the end of shopping hours!

There's also Reading's P&R which used to (maybe still does) stop running
buses on a Saturday as early as 4PM in order to discourage people parking
any later and occupying spaces that belong to the cinema at Winnersh
Triangle which only permits P&R use outside the cinema's evening rush. A P&R
that stops at 4PM is about as much use as a chocolate teapot :-(

Oxford's scheme is interesting because they have recently stopped charging
for parking, but only at certain car parks. Sadly the closest one to me (and
which avoids the queues around Botley Road or the dreaded Green Road
Roundabout) is one of those where you still need to pay.

York's is good: the journey time is fairly quick, the buses seem to run more
frequently than Oxford's, and the total fare is cheaper (ie one return fare
in York versus one return fare plus one car parking in Oxford). Oxford's
buses wait for *ages* at the car park instead of departing as soon as they
have filled up with the waiting passengers and running a more intensive
service.

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by Roland Perry
iirc, the Cambridge P&R runs on the basis that the car parking is
provided by the council (and not charged for), and the bus company
keeps all the fares.

You don't recall correctly, Roland.

The current £2 return fare on Cambridge Park and Ride buses includes 20p
paid to the Council towards the costs of the car parks.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Rich Mackin
Nope, the route was branded 'Thameslink', including all the same stations as
they are today, by NSE from opening in May 1987.

Although City Thameslink was originally called St Pauls Thameslink
(renamed in '91).

[Peter Masson]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Rich Mackin
Nope, the route was branded 'Thameslink', including all the same stations as
they are today, by NSE from opening in May 1987.

Although City Thameslink was originally called St Pauls Thameslink
(renamed in '91).

and didn't exist at all when Thameslink opened, as it originally used the
old route over Ludgate Hill, with no station between Blackfriars and
Farringdon.

Peter

[Ian F.]

Post by Roland Perry
Although City Thameslink was originally called St Pauls Thameslink
(renamed in '91).

Wasn't it called Holborn Viaduct, or was that elsewhere?

Ian

[Roland Perry]

Post by Ian F.

Post by Roland Perry
Although City Thameslink was originally called St Pauls Thameslink
(renamed in '91).

Wasn't it called Holborn Viaduct, or was that elsewhere?

Holborn Viaduct was an "overground" terminus station a little to the
north of the current KX Thameslink. Trains travelled to it from
Blackfriars using a bridge over Ludgate Hill (which also had a station
on the line at one time).

Between Ludgate Hill and Holborn Viaduct there used to be a line which
dived down and into Snow Hill tunnel, just before the throat of Holborn
Viaduct.

There has been much redevelopment in the area, including the railway
line going "underground" much earlier (as it emerges from Blackfriars)
and the construction of City Thameslink, whose northern exit is pretty
much where Holborn Viaduct used to be.

City Thameslink was opened after the Thameslink line was re-opened, and
was briefly called St Pauls Thameslink (an obvious landmark from the
main southern exit). It's quite likely that the name was changed to
avoid confusion with the somewhat distant St Pauls tube station.

[Peter Masson]

Post by Roland Perry
There has been much redevelopment in the area, including the railway
line going "underground" much earlier (as it emerges from Blackfriars)
and the construction of City Thameslink, whose northern exit is pretty
much where Holborn Viaduct used to be.

I haven't been there for some time, but when St Pauls/City Thameslink
opened, the northern exit went through the concourse of the former Holborn
Viaduct station.

Peter

[Roland Perry]

Post by Peter Masson

Post by Roland Perry
There has been much redevelopment in the area, including the railway
line going "underground" much earlier (as it emerges from Blackfriars)
and the construction of City Thameslink, whose northern exit is pretty
much where Holborn Viaduct used to be.

I haven't been there for some time, but when St Pauls/City Thameslink
opened, the northern exit went through the concourse of the former Holborn
Viaduct station.

Today, it emerges under an office block and a short alleyway to the main
road.

[Colin Rosenstiel]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Masson

Post by Roland Perry
There has been much redevelopment in the area, including the
railway line going "underground" much earlier (as it emerges from
Blackfriars) and the construction of City Thameslink, whose
northern exit is pretty much where Holborn Viaduct used to be.

I haven't been there for some time, but when St Pauls/City Thameslink
opened, the northern exit went through the concourse of the former
Holborn Viaduct station.

Today, it emerges under an office block and a short alleyway to the
main road.

So did the concourse of Holborn Viaduct station after the office block
was built in the 1960s! Is it the same one?

[Mizter T]

Post by Colin Rosenstiel

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Masson

Post by Roland Perry
There has been much redevelopment in the area, including the
railway line going "underground" much earlier (as it emerges from
Blackfriars) and the construction of City Thameslink, whose
northern exit is pretty much where Holborn Viaduct used to be.

I haven't been there for some time, but when St Pauls/City Thameslink
opened, the northern exit went through the concourse of the former
Holborn Viaduct station.

Today, it emerges under an office block and a short alleyway to the
main road.

So did the concourse of Holborn Viaduct station after the office block
was built in the 1960s! Is it the same one?

The entry for Holborn Viaduct at the Disused Stations website [1]
appears to agree with you. I quote directly from there:

"The platforms have been demolished and the site redeveloped as Fleet
Place. The office block incorporating the entrance has been refaced and
now includes the entrance to City Thameslink Station sited below the
offices in Fleet Place."


The Disused Stations website [2], whilst not yet comprehensive (could
it ever be?), is a fantastic trove of information and old photograph's
concerning closed stations. It's an offshoot from the Subterranea
Britannica website.

[1] Holborn Viaduct page
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/h/holborn_viaduct/index.shtml

[2] Disused Stations In The UK
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/

[Rupert Candy]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Masson
I haven't been there for some time, but when St Pauls/City Thameslink
opened, the northern exit went through the concourse of the former Holborn
Viaduct station.

Today, it emerges under an office block and a short alleyway to the main
road.

Allegedly there are parts of the original Holborn Viaduct incorporated
into the northern ticket hall, but I've never been able to work out
what. (Strangely, although I remember the opening of St Paul's
Thameslink and the fact that it was briefly open to the sky before it
was capped with a building, I seem to be too young to remember Holborn
Viaduct at all.)

This was discussed a while back in some detail, and this fantastic site
was mentioned:

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Holborn_Viaduct_station.html

which may help clear up some of the mysteries.

[Rupert Candy]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Peter Masson
I haven't been there for some time, but when St Pauls/City Thameslink
opened, the northern exit went through the concourse of the former Holborn
Viaduct station.

Today, it emerges under an office block and a short alleyway to the main
road.

Allegedly there are parts of the original Holborn Viaduct incorporated
into the northern ticket hall, but I've never been able to work out
what. (Strangely, although I remember the opening of St Paul's
Thameslink and the fact that it was briefly open to the sky before it
was capped with a building, I seem to be too young to remember Holborn
Viaduct at all.)

This was discussed a while back in some detail, and this fantastic site
was mentioned:

http://www.loveplums.co.uk/Tube/Holborn_Viaduct_station.html

which may help clear up some of the mysteries.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Rich Mackin
Nope, the route was branded 'Thameslink', including all the same stations as
they are today, by NSE from opening in May 1987.

Although City Thameslink was originally called St Pauls Thameslink
(renamed in '91).

Although there were still some signs and maps up calling it "St Paul's
Thameslink" as late as 1994/5. It could be quite confusing for passengers at
times.

Equally some of the "one" (or is it First Great Eastern - Forest Gate
station and the commuter services are a hideous mix of names and colour
schemes from the past decade) trains still display mid 1999 London
connections maps - it must be confusing for people to not realise what
connections are now available from Stratford.

[Peter Masson]

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Rich Mackin
Nope, the route was branded 'Thameslink', including all the same

stations

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Rich Mackin
as
they are today, by NSE from opening in May 1987.

Although City Thameslink was originally called St Pauls Thameslink
(renamed in '91).

Although there were still some signs and maps up calling it "St Paul's
Thameslink" as late as 1994/5. It could be quite confusing for passengers at
times.

The tiling on the Bakerloo Line platform at Marylebone still proclaims the
name of the station to be 'Great Central'. The name of the Bakerloo station
was changed to Marylebone on 15 April 1917.

Peter

[James Farrar]

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 16:10:22 +0100, "Peter Masson"

Post by Peter Masson
The tiling on the Bakerloo Line platform at Marylebone still proclaims the
name of the station to be 'Great Central'. The name of the Bakerloo station
was changed to Marylebone on 15 April 1917.

Yeah, LUL seems to be convinced that original names should stay in the
tiling.

I must say, I like it.

[Tim Roll-Pickering]

Post by Peter Masson

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering

Post by Roland Perry
Although City Thameslink was originally called St Pauls Thameslink
(renamed in '91).

Although there were still some signs and maps up calling it "St Paul's
Thameslink" as late as 1994/5. It could be quite confusing for passengers
at times.

The tiling on the Bakerloo Line platform at Marylebone still proclaims the
name of the station to be 'Great Central'. The name of the Bakerloo station
was changed to Marylebone on 15 April 1917.

True but a) this is at the station itself, by which time most have worked
out where they're heading; and b) there's plenty of other signs and
announcements that over come this.

By contrast having "St Paul's Thameslink" listed on a map that doesn't
contain any reference to "City Thameslink" (and where the Thameslink name is
also used for another station as well as a line route) can be utterly
confusing. Why wasn't the name problem spotted when it was first proposed?
For that matter why didn't they just retain the Holborn Viaduct name - it
can't have been because they thought passengers might confuse the station
with a Central Line tube could it?!

[Rupert Candy]

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
For that matter why didn't they just retain the Holborn Viaduct name - it
can't have been because they thought passengers might confuse the station
with a Central Line tube could it?!

Possibly because the Ludgate Hill end opened some time *before* the
Holborn Viaduct end - and anyone who's walked the length of those
platforms in a hurry knows how far apart the two are...

[Mizter T]

Post by Rupert Candy

Post by Tim Roll-Pickering
For that matter why didn't they just retain the Holborn Viaduct name - it
can't have been because they thought passengers might confuse the station
with a Central Line tube could it?!

Possibly because the Ludgate Hill end opened some time *before* the
Holborn Viaduct end - and anyone who's walked the length of those
platforms in a hurry knows how far apart the two are...

And Holborn Viaduct was a name from the past - this was a new station
and thus needed a brand-new name.

Perhaps one of the reasons the even newer name "City Thamelink" won the
day, after "St. Pauls Thameslink" was found to be confusing and
ditched, was to flatter the Corporation of London (i.e. the City of
London local government) who had in part funded it.

Also this flattery might have served Network South-East's purposes even
further - the Corporation of London was also part funding the new 1992
rolling stock for the Waterloo & City line (which was under BR/NSE
ownership until 1994).

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by Rich Mackin

Post by Paul Ebbens

Post by Mark B
I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like - without
having to seek approval from Ken...
Do wonder if he'd rather have the trains painted in London Rail
Brown/Orange with roundels... First Neon City or London Turd?*
*which would probably spread to all trains serving the capital, like all
buses operating services classed as London must be red...

I thought Thameslink was around before branding? or did the King's Cross
TL station only appear after franchising?

Nope, the route was branded 'Thameslink', including all the same stations
as they are today, by NSE from opening in May 1987.

So really it is not a privatised brandname at all, so that means First has
no true reason to get rid of it just because previous company was named so?

[Rupert Candy]

Post by Paul Ebbens
So really it is not a privatised brandname at all, so that means First has
no true reason to get rid of it just because previous company was named so?

Quite so. And when I did a bit of detective work the last time this
question came up, I discovered that the trade mark "Thameslink" was
owned by the SRA (presumably now DfT Rail):

http://tinyurl.com/re2jr

so it has nothing whatsoever to do with past or present franchisees.

[Mizter T]

Post by Rupert Candy

Post by Paul Ebbens
So really it is not a privatised brandname at all, so that means First has
no true reason to get rid of it just because previous company was named so?

Quite so. And when I did a bit of detective work the last time this
question came up, I discovered that the trade mark "Thameslink" was
http://tinyurl.com/re2jr
so it has nothing whatsoever to do with past or present franchisees.

Following the link in your past post (so this is no great detective
work on my part) reveals that 'Thameslink' is registered with the
patent Office as a Trade Mark as belonging to the Secretary of State
for Transport (in effect DfT Rail)

AIUI the BR double-arrow device is similarly registered.

Anyway I've been travelling on Thameslink for years, and I'm not about
to stop, no matter what absurd mouthful the franchisee is called.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:40:25 +0100 someone who may be Mark B

Post by Mark B
I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like

Try taking up a franchise for a McDonald's "restaurant" and see how
far you get calling it what you like.

It is true though that government is a piss poor franchisor and has
failed to be as sensible in this respect.

[Paul Ebbens]

Post by David Hansen
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:40:25 +0100 someone who may be Mark B

Post by Mark B
I thought TOC's were free to call themselves what they like

Try taking up a franchise for a McDonald's "restaurant" and see how
far you get calling it what you like.
It is true though that government is a piss poor franchisor and has
failed to be as sensible in this respect.

Well they certainly wouldn't let u go off the path of well established
red-white-blues for the network south east for a start...

[Neil Williams]

Post by Mark B
Do wonder if he'd rather have the trains painted in London Rail
Brown/Orange with roundels... First Neon City or London Turd?*

I'd think LUL red, blue and white to be more likely.

Neil