Thread: "LUL in a Day"
View Single Post
  #14   Report Post  
Old June 4th 06, 10:07 AM posted to uk.transport.london
Roland Perry Roland Perry is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,125
Default "LUL in a Day"

In message , at 09:25:39 on
Sun, 4 Jun 2006, AstraVanMan
remarked:

W.R. Lynch's
basic theory was that they'd use the 2 1/4 hours "spare" to traverse every
section of network. But we're not compring like with like here. If they'd
used a bike on the regular Tube Challenge it would have *easily* been
possible to knock a fair bit of time off the current world record - probably
a good hour or so at least. This is why previous reecord holders have done
it in apparently much better times (see www.tubechallenge.com for more
info). So really there should be nearer 3 hours, possibly as much as 4
hours "spare" to cover unvisited sections of track.


This simply demonstrates the issues of making up a new rule set, when
there's a well (and independently) established rule set already.

Still, it's just got me examining my best (so far) "all stations" route
(theoretical though, haven't yet tested it) and working out what sections of
line I haven't done. Should be quite easy to do most of them just by means
of slight alterations and the occasional double-back, without affecting the
route in too big a way. Mind you - in connection with that - here's a
question - do the Jubilee and Metropolitan Lines share tracks between Baker
Street and Finchley Road?


No, the Jubilee is in a tube tunnel, and the Metropolitan is in
traditional surface/cut-and-cover.

Another route that's "even more not the same" is Paddington to Baker St,
where the Bakerloo takes a different path to the Metropolitan/Circle.
(Bakerloo Edgware Rd and Marylebone are a bit like Mornington Crescent,
would anyone argue that the latter wasn't on a separate route?).

Barons Court to South Ken on the Piccadilly is like the Baker
St/Finchley Rd section; whether it's one route or two will depend on the
small print in the definition.

--
Roland Perry