|
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 25, 6:17*am, "Recliner" wrote:
"Yokel" wrote in message "D7666" wrote in message ... On Jan 23, 10:39 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: It is already at capacity. Thats why it is getting re-signalled - The idea is to run all Morden trains via Bank, with the Charing Cross branch extended from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea. This is said to enable an increased frequency through Central London on both branches. They already do that north of Kennington anyway, except for a few trains in the peaks. The line is at capacity already, *and TBTC will do nothing more than provide a little growth for the line as it is. If they already run all the Morden trains via Bank and all the Charing Cross route terminate at Kennington, then how will extending the Kennington service onward require any extra train paths? *Extra trains, perhaps, as the end-to-end journey on the Charing Cross route will take longer. *But the same number of trains would run between Camden Town and Kennington - they would just run along the extension and back instead of going round the reversing loop. Or have I missed something? Yes, the extra demand that will be stimulated by the extension will funnel more passengers into the already crowded central sections of the line. As the trains won't be longer, more will need to run, hence the need for extra paths (and trains). A complete split at Camden Town would help even more, but that's not practical without a hugely expensive redevelopment of the station. IMHO The Waterloo and City may be a better candidate for extension to Battersea, and perhaps on to Wimbledon. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On 25 Jan, 16:07, E27002 wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:17*am, "Recliner" wrote: "Yokel" wrote in message "D7666" wrote in message .... On Jan 23, 10:39 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: It is already at capacity. Thats why it is getting re-signalled - The idea is to run all Morden trains via Bank, with the Charing Cross branch extended from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea. This is said to enable an increased frequency through Central London on both branches. They already do that north of Kennington anyway, except for a few trains in the peaks. The line is at capacity already, *and TBTC will do nothing more than provide a little growth for the line as it is. If they already run all the Morden trains via Bank and all the Charing Cross route terminate at Kennington, then how will extending the Kennington service onward require any extra train paths? *Extra trains, perhaps, as the end-to-end journey on the Charing Cross route will take longer. *But the same number of trains would run between Camden Town and Kennington - they would just run along the extension and back instead of going round the reversing loop. Or have I missed something? Yes, the extra demand that will be stimulated by the extension will funnel more passengers into the already crowded central sections of the line. As the trains won't be longer, more will need to run, hence the need for extra paths (and trains). A complete split at Camden Town would help even more, but that's not practical without a hugely expensive redevelopment of the station. IMHO The Waterloo and City may be a better candidate for extension to Battersea, and perhaps on to Wimbledon. Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at Waterloo facing southeast. The Northern Line idea probably came out of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off from the Kennington loop. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
|
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On 25 Jan, 16:26, MIG wrote:
On 25 Jan, 16:07, E27002 wrote: On Jan 25, 6:17*am, "Recliner" wrote: "Yokel" wrote in message "D7666" wrote in message ... On Jan 23, 10:39 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: It is already at capacity. Thats why it is getting re-signalled - The idea is to run all Morden trains via Bank, with the Charing Cross branch extended from Kennington to Nine Elms and Battersea. This is said to enable an increased frequency through Central London on both branches. They already do that north of Kennington anyway, except for a few trains in the peaks. The line is at capacity already, *and TBTC will do nothing more than provide a little growth for the line as it is.. If they already run all the Morden trains via Bank and all the Charing Cross route terminate at Kennington, then how will extending the Kennington service onward require any extra train paths? *Extra trains, perhaps, as the end-to-end journey on the Charing Cross route will take longer. *But the same number of trains would run between Camden Town and Kennington - they would just run along the extension and back instead of going round the reversing loop. Or have I missed something? Yes, the extra demand that will be stimulated by the extension will funnel more passengers into the already crowded central sections of the line. As the trains won't be longer, more will need to run, hence the need for extra paths (and trains). A complete split at Camden Town would help even more, but that's not practical without a hugely expensive redevelopment of the station. IMHO The Waterloo and City may be a better candidate for extension to Battersea, and perhaps on to Wimbledon. Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at Waterloo facing southeast. *The Northern Line idea probably came out of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off from the Kennington loop. But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On 26 Jan, 00:40, wrote:
Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at Waterloo facing southeast. *The Northern Line idea probably came out of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off from the Kennington loop. Having seen some details from the promoters at a transport conference last year I appreciate that is exactly the reason for preferring the Northern Line, as well as the ability to fit within line capacity by diverting the West End service there. -- Colin Rosenstiel Diverting implies that its being diverted from somewhere else. But it isn't. Kennington is the terminus. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On 26 Jan, 00:40, wrote:
Maybe operationally, but physically it comes to the surface at Waterloo facing southeast. *The Northern Line idea probably came out of the fact that it would be relatively straightforward to branch off from the Kennington loop. Having seen some details from the promoters at a transport conference last year I appreciate that is exactly the reason for preferring the Northern Line, as well as the ability to fit within line capacity by diverting the West End service there. -- Colin Rosenstiel If you look at a map of S london, you'll realise the Northern Line has to head south east, not south west. The recent bakerloo extension survey (as well as the original plans) has it headed East SouthEast, to New Cross and Lewisham. The Victoria line is headed SE from brixton, and extension plans have it heading to Herne Hill as a minimum. That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into town. The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to camberwell. Which means extending the west end branch that way. Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
lonelytraveller wrote:
That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into town. The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to camberwell. The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road" shows the flaw in that argument. Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring. No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably matches supply with demand better than a single extension. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 26, 6:00*pm, "Basil Jet" wrote: lonelytraveller wrote: That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into town. The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to camberwell. The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road" shows the flaw in that argument. Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring. No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably matches supply with demand better than a single extension. Two new branches of the Northern line you mean? I kinda think a straightforward separate extension of the Bakerloo to Camberwell would be preferable, though doing that would inevitably exclude the option of a direct route for a Bakerloo extension from E&C to Lewisham via New Cross, more or less along the course of the Old Kent Road. However my basic take on it is that extending the Bakerloo to Camberwell should take precedence - and from there it could go on to Peckham, Herne Hill, East Dulwich etc. Can't see anything of the sort happening any time soon though! |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
"Tim Fenton" wrote in message
"lonelytraveller" wrote in message ... But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall. Mind you, the new development around Battersea has lots of housing, doesn't it? Extending the Drain would connect that to the City, but the Northern Line extension would connect it to the West End, with a cross platform change at Kennington for the City. Northern Line might be better there? Northern Line trains are also longer and more frequent, and of course it's a seven days a week railway. There wouldn't be much point running the Drain's line to Bank on Sundays. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "Tim Fenton" wrote in message "lonelytraveller" wrote in message ... But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall. Mind you, the new development around Battersea has lots of housing, doesn't it? Extending the Drain would connect that to the City, but the Northern Line extension would connect it to the West End, with a cross platform change at Kennington for the City. Northern Line might be better there? Northern Line trains are also longer and more frequent, and of course it's a seven days a week railway. There wouldn't be much point running the Drain's line to Bank on Sundays. But if the drain *was* extended the reason why it doesn't run on a Sunday would no longer apply because there would be traffic from the southern extension. Not saying I agree with extending the drain simply that if it happened it would make sense to run the drain at all times. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
"Basil Jet" wrote in message ... lonelytraveller wrote: That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into town. The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to camberwell. The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road" shows the flaw in that argument. Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring. No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably matches supply with demand better than a single extension. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. I'm missing something. Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke. That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. So they did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again? How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End? How much will be transferring at Kennington? Probably an imponderable at the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small amount. Like I say, I must be missing something. The Northern Line feels like it's been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison"
wrote: "Basil Jet" wrote in message ... lonelytraveller wrote: That leaves a huge area - around camberwell - utterly without any rail connection, and certainly without one that's useful for getting into town. The only way to plug the gap is for the northern line to go to camberwell. The fact that Camberwell contains a road called "Camberwell Station Road" shows the flaw in that argument. Taking the northern line to battersea really messes that possibility up, and essentially precludes it ever occurring. No - sending half the trains to Battersea and half to Camberwell probably matches supply with demand better than a single extension. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke. That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again? How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End? How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small amount. Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution. A solution looking for a problem. What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc) that is so desperately underserved by railways? |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote: On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison" [snip] I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke. That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again? How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End? How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small amount. Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution. A solution looking for a problem. What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc) that is so desperately underserved by railways? The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it. At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal. *If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is - forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y then collapsed.) |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 27, 12:19*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... "Tim Fenton" wrote in message "lonelytraveller" wrote in message .... But at Waterloo, there's a large expanse of open ground in front of it, so there's ample room to turn south. And there are conveniently long southward roads adjacent to the railway, suitable for cut and cover, that connect that open ground to vauxhall. Mind you, the new development around Battersea has lots of housing, doesn't it? Extending the Drain would connect that to the City, but the Northern Line extension would connect it to the West End, with a cross platform change at Kennington for the City. Northern Line might be better there? Northern Line trains are also longer and more frequent, and of course it's a seven days a week railway. There wouldn't be much point running the Drain's line to Bank on Sundays. But if the drain *was* extended the reason why it doesn't run on a Sunday would no longer apply because there would be traffic from the southern extension. * Not saying I agree with extending the drain simply that if it happened it would make sense to run the drain at all times. Any extension to the W&C would dictate some reconstruction. It would need to be realigned as it surfaces at Waterloo. It would also need longer platforms. If this leads to a useful mass transit line thru Southwest London, is it a bad thing? |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 27, 12:49*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote: On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison" [snip] I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke. That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again? How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End? How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small amount. Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution. A solution looking for a problem. What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc) that is so desperately underserved by railways? The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it. At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal. *If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is - forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y then collapsed.) Maybe the taxpayer should demand advance "phased payments". OTOH, there should be some public input with regard to this extension. The approaches to Waterloo and Victoria are some of the most intensely operated sections of Railway in the world. This extension has the potential to offer some relief. It needs to be planned as strategically as was the Victoria line in its day. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 27, 9:58*pm, E27002 wrote: On Jan 27, 12:49*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote: On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison" [snip] I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke. That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again? How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End? How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small amount. Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution. A solution looking for a problem. What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc) that is so desperately underserved by railways? The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it. At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal. *If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is - forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y then collapsed.) Maybe the taxpayer should demand advance "phased payments". *OTOH, there should be some public input with regard to this extension. *The approaches to Waterloo and Victoria are some of the most intensely operated sections of Railway in the world. *This extension has the potential to offer some relief. *It needs to be planned as strategically as was the Victoria line in its day. Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria needs relieving, at least not by an extension of the Northern line (anyway an extension of said tube line wouldn't provide a direct alternative to CJ to Vic journeys). The mainline trains offer a very frequent service and hence lots of capacity between CJ and Waterloo/ Vic, and would continue to run on to these terminal stations regardless, so a tube line extension wouldn't mean the approaches were any less intensively operated. Unless you're proposing terminating some mainline trains at Clapham Junction instead of Waterloo (and even Victoria), which I don't think would go down very well! Nine Elms is of course to be the location of the new American Embassy, so maybe we can get them to pay for it somehow - perhaps the line could be built as a byproduct of the excavations for the secret subterranean lair? |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 27, 4:31*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:58*pm, E27002 wrote: On Jan 27, 12:49*pm, Mizter T wrote: On Jan 27, 8:34*pm, MIG wrote: On 27 Jan, 20:24, "Graham Harrison" [snip] I'm missing something. * Not so many years ago the Northern Line was a joke. That was partly about the state of the physical plant but also about the amount of traffic on offer that couldn't fit through the system. * So they did something about the plant and now the situation is better but by no means perfect and we're talking about increasing the load again? How much of the traffic from Battersea will want to go to the West End? How much will be transferring at Kennington? * Probably an imponderable at the moment but there has to be some and I suspect a bit more than a small amount. Like I say, I must be missing something. * The Northern Line feels like it's been chosen simply because it's the cheapest solution. A solution looking for a problem. What is this vast area between the route from Waterloo to Clapham Junction and the parallel route from Waterloo to Clapham North (etc) that is so desperately underserved by railways? The Nine Elms area is one that developers have big plans for. The idea of a Battersea extension is on the agenda because they've put in there. Apparently the idea is that they could essentially pay for it. At least, that was the idea - I recall something recently about various doubts over whether this was a realistic proposal. *If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is - forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y then collapsed.) Maybe the taxpayer should demand advance "phased payments". *OTOH, there should be some public input with regard to this extension. *The approaches to Waterloo and Victoria are some of the most intensely operated sections of Railway in the world. *This extension has the potential to offer some relief. *It needs to be planned as strategically as was the Victoria line in its day. Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria needs relieving, at least not by an extension of the Northern line (anyway an extension of said tube line wouldn't provide a direct alternative to CJ to Vic journeys). The mainline trains offer a very frequent service and hence lots of capacity between CJ and Waterloo/ Vic, and would continue to run on to these terminal stations regardless, so a tube line extension wouldn't mean the approaches were any less intensively operated. Unless you're proposing terminating some mainline trains at Clapham Junction instead of Waterloo (and even Victoria), which I don't think would go down very well! Nine Elms is of course to be the location of the new American Embassy, so maybe we can get them to pay for it somehow - perhaps the line could be built as a byproduct of the excavations for the secret subterranean lair? Allow me to share a couple of presumptions and then explain why I think this extension may be useful: 1. On longer distance lines local stations were/are placed at point convenient for the route not the locality. So, a line does not curve into and out of a settlement. It simple has a station nearby. 2. Calls at local stations close to termini, typically, are inconvenient delays for commuters from further afield. I bet not many Maidenhead commuters complained about the closure of Westbourne Park (WR). So, in the unlikely event that this line is constructed it could call at: Vauxhall, for interchange with the Victoria Line possibly replacing the underused SW station above. Nine Elms, at a convenient centrally located station. Battersea, at a convenient station possibly replacing the two existing Battersea Stations Clapham Junction, for obvious interchange convenience Earlsfield, better located than, and replacing the surface station. The line then surfacing to terminate at Wimbledon in the underused terminal platforms This means that locals would have a convenient line linking the "downtown" areas of their communities. And, longer distance commuters (Hampton Court, Kingston loop, Shepperton, etc.) have accelerated journeys into Waterloo. Having written the foregoing, I am not entirely sure that it would be cost effective. Your thoughts Mr. T? |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
"Mizter T" wrote
Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria needs relieving, I'm not sure that the passengers on platform 10 at Clapham Junction during the morning peak, who often can't squeeze onto the train, would agree with that. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Jan 28, 12:59*am, "John Salmon" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote Erm, I don't really think Clapham Junction to Waterloo or Victoria needs relieving, I'm not sure that the passengers on platform 10 at Clapham Junction during the morning peak, who often can't squeeze onto the train, would agree with that. True. The (or at least a) question is whether that factor would add enough to the various other factors in justifying continuing any prospective extension on from Battersea to CJ (well, CJ is already in Battersea really, but you know wot I mean!). (Questions would also need to be asked about whether the Northern line's CX branch could handle the injection of extra pax that running to/from CJ would bring.) Essentially I kinda find this whole proposal a bit difficult to take seriously though - i.e. enough for me to give it anything other than a cursory flight of fantasy analysis. A developer is going to pay for a tube line extension... ok, I'll believe it when I see it. It was difficult enough getting the developer funded Imperial Wharf station built - and that's a 4-car above ground station on an pre-existing embankment with a pre-existing line! |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:49:16 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: *If* a private developer basically pays for it, fair enough. But I'm sceptical. How much of the originally promised dosh did/has LU managed to extract from the Canary Wharf developers/owners for the Jubilee Line Extension? (I know that money was - and poss. still is - forthcoming in that regards, but I don't think the early promises from Olympia & York came close to being fulfilled, not least because O&Y then collapsed.) Let's not forget that one of the reasons Olympia and York collapsed was the failure of UK PLC to deliver the Jubilee Line Extension by the date promised. JLE was years late, and the fact that Canary Wharf was served only by light rail put an enormous brake on its development. Nevertheless, my recollection is that Canary Wharf's contribution to the cost of the JLE was made in full. |
MR piece - Northern Line extension?
In message , Bruce
writes Let's not forget that one of the reasons Olympia and York collapsed was the failure of UK PLC to deliver the Jubilee Line Extension by the date promised. JLE was years late, and the fact that Canary Wharf was served only by light rail put an enormous brake on its development. As I recall, there were problems and recriminations on both sides. London Underground certainly dragged their feet in the early stages, but once the project was approved O&Y were already getting into financial difficulties, and it took the best part of two years to get the money out of them. I think there was a decision that nothing could go ahead until the funding was in place. Nevertheless, my recollection is that Canary Wharf's contribution to the cost of the JLE was made in full. The original plan was for O&Y to pay in instalments, ending in 2020. Thankfully, and I've no idea how it happened, they were persuaded to pay the entire £300m as a lump sum, and I think the courts lifted the administration order on the company (who had by then got bank guarantees) to allow the money to be handed over. So yes, I think you're right - it was all paid in full in the end, although it was a narrow squeak! -- Paul Terry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk