Wapping Changes to London's Metro
When I first found myself in Wapping London Underground Station around forty years ago it was dark and dank. It even had water running down its walls. The train serving the station was so old a member of the station staff had to kick more than one door to make them close. If the doors didn’t close the train wouldn’t move. And it took awhile to get moving.
As I took this decrepit train under the Thames I could not help thinking that the river could fall in at any moment. After all, this tunnel was probably the oldest tunnel in the world that had a train going through it. It was built in 1843 – the first ever tunnel under a navigable river.
So imagine my excitement when I recently used the new service. The old East London Line has been completely replaced – track, trains and stations – and been made part of the London Overground .
I travelled the entire length – I rarely do things by halves – from West Croydon to Dalton Junction. The trains themselves were really strange – there are no ends to the coaches. And like tube trains these trains had all the seats along their sides facing inwards. But unlike tube trains these coaches are wide so the floor space in the middle is huge. My son said the train was like a very long sausage. We have travelled on similar ones abroad but they had more seats.
Naturally I have a few complaints. The directional signage is poor – TfL has obviously left the job to a junior temp. That’s a bad move. The trains wait a very long time in each and every station – I hope that I was just unlucky but I fear it is deliberate.
They should have used the refurbishment as an opportunity to change some of the station names. I am a root and branch station name changer myself.
Finally I think London Overground is silly branding (if there is a sensible reason for its use I would like to hear it). I would give each of the the so-called overground lines their own name. It would make their use much easier. More people would use them too. The East London line could be renamed the Ravensbourne line but the name itself is not so important as its having a name.
I look forward to seeing the usage figures rise but I cannot help thinking that they could have had better results if the signage and station and line naming was more thought through. Naming is important and “London Overground” simply does not cut it.
Previous article: You can be Sure of Shell (Thursday, 22nd July, 2010)
Comments
Wapping Station and its history
Do agree it can be confusing with the different lines (in Wapping many people still refer to it as the East London line!).
Wapping Station definitely had some teething problems (lifts especially) and agree the signs could be better but we're just very thankful here to be re-connected with the rest of London without having to take taxis or numerous buses.
And the station is a piece of history in itself starting back in 1869 http://www.whatsinwapping.co.uk/wapping-overground-station/
Station name changes
You said:
"They should have used the refurbishment as an opportunity to change some of the station names. I am a root and branch station name changer myself."
And then you said:
" ... the name itself is not so important as its having a name."
Make up your mind!
You must also remember that not all the passengers are frequent users, many are strangers who are familiar with the old names. I'm one. It would be VERY confusing to change the names of ANY stations. Might as well change the names of cities themselves.
Mary
Station and line names
I'm not saying change all the stations - in fact most of the station names are okay.
There is always a balance to be struck between keeping an old name because on the one hand it is familiar to people and cheap to keep it as it is and on the other hand when a big change happens the opportunity is given to make other changes. For instance, why change "Shoreditch" to "Shoreditch High Street"? There is no other "Shoreditch" station to confuse it with. On the other hand "West Croydon" could have been changed to "Croydon North". Such a change would bring it into line with the convention that the name "West Croydon" means the station serves a town called West Croydon whereas "Croydon North" means the station is to the north of the town of Croydon.
As to the naming of the line I was suggesting name for it. Ravensbourne seemed fine to me but locals might have ideas of their own.
I see no inconsistency in what I was staying - imagine how confusing it would be if no stations had names? So why not name the lines?
Names
"Finally I think London Overground is silly branding (if there is a sensible reason for its use I would like to hear it)"
OK, when the lines were taken over by TfL and rebranded, you had to rebrand them to something. They're not Underground lines for myriad technical reasons, so 'Overground' is as good as anything. There was a previous abortive attempt to rebrand NR stations in London as 'Overground Network' which may be the origin of it.
The lines themselves do have names, just rather utilitarian one (Richmond-Stratford or Dalston-West Croydon). I suspect if the network spreads much further you might have to subdivide it a bit at some point.
Finally renaming stations - Shoreditch High Street isn't Shoreditch renamed, it's a new station some distance away (think how many datasets are floating around the world containing the old station name and location and you'll soon realise why a new name is a good idea). Renaming stations like West Croydon shared with multiple other transport operations is a waste of time and money.
Technical Reasons
I am puzzled as to why you say the new lines could not be part of the underground. What are these technical reasons? I am intrigued. As you know, two thirds of the underground is above ground and only a sixth is tube. A number of current underground lines share track with other national rail lines.
Assuming that you are currect and we are not able to call them underground lines then let's accept overground and then give each separate line a name. Taking the Bakerloo as our lead what about Richford line (Richmond to Stratford) or Daldon line (Dalston to Croydon)?
Many if not most of London's stations had had their names changed at some point or other. Agree there is a cost to it but there are benefits too. Costs can be reduced, especially if they are done all at once on new year's day. Some station names would have to wait a while to avoid confusion.
Wapping changes to London metro
You didn't like the signage...but you haven't mentioned the high volume and extremely repetitious Digital Voice Announcements(DVA). You get one every 45 secs on the London Overground North London Line. Neil
Noise too
I agree some railway lines have far more aural intrusion than others. For example, reminding us to take our belongings with us - how absurd. I have not used the North London line for a while I'll listen out for it.