On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 03:36:26PM +0000, Richard J. wrote:
David Cantrell wrote on 06 January 2010 13:16:23 ...
Perhaps that can be solved by asking whether we still need to allow
tall boats into the Pool of London. It's not like there's any actual
working dock there any more that takes large vessels! Yes, HMS Belfast
would have to be moved. But I hardly think that the IWM's convenience
is that important.
It's not just the IWM. Tower Bridge is raised about 1000 times a year
to let tall boats through.

Yes, I know. But is there actually any need to do that which is worth
more than providing decent connections between northeast and southeast
London? The overwhelming majority of those openings are for pleasure
boats which go no more than a few hundred yards further upstream past
Tower Bridge because they then can't get under London Bridge.

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

I'm in retox

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 05:35:00PM -0000, Basil Jet wrote:

Speaking of tunnels, apparently the Faroes contains 14 tunnels between 760
metres and 6300 metres long, some of which link islands beneath the sea.
More are proposed, to link up all the main villages in the archipelago.
Considering that the Faroes only contain 49000 people, it shines a new light
on the ongoing failure to link east and southeast London.

There's a coupla fairly significant differences.

In London, getting from northeast to southeast is merely slightly
inconvenient. In the Faroes, getting around without tunnels would be
*very* inconvenient or, in bad weather, impossible.

The Faroes also has far less underground infrastructure to work around,
and better geology for tunnelling.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

I don't do .INI, .BAT, or .SYS files. I don't assign apps to files.
I don't configure peripherals or networks before using them. I have
a computer to do all that. I have a Macintosh, not a hobby.
-- Fritz Anderson

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:03:23 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
In London, getting from northeast to southeast is merely slightly
inconvenient. In the Faroes, getting around without tunnels would be
*very* inconvenient or, in bad weather, impossible.

The Faroes also has far less underground infrastructure to work around,
and better geology for tunnelling.

Theres no way they could have afforded it though. I doubt their economy could
stretch to buying more than a few JCBs. They're a prime example of some
**** pot island wanting autonomy with all the raa raa and flag waving that
goes with it - until they need large wads of cash then suddenly the palms
are outstretched to the former rulers without a hint of humility.

B2003

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:23:48 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:03:23 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
In London, getting from northeast to southeast is merely slightly
inconvenient. In the Faroes, getting around without tunnels would be
*very* inconvenient or, in bad weather, impossible.

The Faroes also has far less underground infrastructure to work around,
and better geology for tunnelling.

Theres no way they could have afforded it though. I doubt their economy could
stretch to buying more than a few JCBs. They're a prime example of some
**** pot island wanting autonomy with all the raa raa and flag waving that
goes with it - until they need large wads of cash then suddenly the palms
are outstretched to the former rulers without a hint of humility.


Sounds just like Scotland, except that Scotland isn't an island.