On 29/05/2010 18:13, Tim Fenton wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote in message
...

Or do what was done with the DLR, the ever-expanding railway, and
design it so that it can be expanded. Easier to do with a surface
railway than underground, though at least they built Bank long enough
for 3-unit trains, and even then they're now having to use SDO (at the
2nd Island Gardens station and Elverson Road)

Cutty Sark as well, I think ...

But yes, thank goodness Bank was built to take three unit trains.

SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:37:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:
SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

It would if it left a whole unit (no corridor connection) off the
platform.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
.net...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:37:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:
SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

It would if it left a whole unit (no corridor connection) off the
platform.

or if the headshunt at Bank hadn't been long enough for a 3-unit train.

Peter

On 30/05/2010 12:23, Peter Masson wrote:


"Neil Williams" wrote in message
.net...
On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:37:29 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

SDO would not really be a problem at a terminus.

It would if it left a whole unit (no corridor connection) off the
platform.

But it wouldn't, it would leave half the front unit and half the rear one.

or if the headshunt at Bank hadn't been long enough for a 3-unit train.

If the coupling is computer-controlled, even that might not be a big
problem, although it might limit frequency.

On 29 May, 17:22, Paul Corfield wrote:
In a choice between having the Victoria line, and not having it, which
would you prefer?

That's not really a sensible proposition though. I live on the Victoria
Line route so I am very pleased it exists.
Yet in the event of budget cuts, instead of a cheaply built line, you
want to have an expensively built line that doesn't go to half the
places the cheap line would, and doesn't have half the stations on the
route it does take.

The bit it seems to forget is that those same entrepreneurs and private sector employees do need an
effective and efficient transport system to support their endeavours.
For London that means big schemes like Thameslink, tube upgrades and
Crossrail need to happen. *
Most entrepreneurial work in london does not take place in zone 1. It
is improvement to travel outside zone 1, that benefits entrepreneurial
work. Yet you prefer to prioritise things that primarily benefit zone
1.

On 29 May, 18:44, Paul Corfield wrote:
The problem with Victoria is that the peak is spreading again (it shrank
during the recession) as my train at about 0700 (from Seven Sisters) can
now be fully seated whereas before there was space. Not back to the
levels prior to the recession but headed in that direction. *Victoria is
busier at 0730 than it used to be and it only takes a gap of a few
minutes in the service and you're 2 or 3 people deep on platforms. *It's
like that all the time closer to the height of the peak.

I have seen people being held at the ticket gates at Victoria at off
peak times.
But that's an argument for prioritising the building of the Chelsea -
Hackney line, which acts as a relief line for the Victoria line,
within zone 1.

I don’t know why we bother with Europe, the whole thing is flawed, we
would be much better off with the dollar and become the 51st state and
we could go back to Imperial measurements far better than all this
foreign muck that no one wants.
You realise that the states and the dollar are also foreign muck?

carry on with those. *It would be good for us to proceed with detailed
planning for Chelsea Hackney but, of course, the Mayor would rather drag
£5bn out of TfL than actually bequeath himself or a successor schemes
that can be taken forward to implementation.

Have all the staff who were developing new schemes been let go?

Any idea what else has been chopped with Boris's £5bn cuts? I've never
come across a breakdown of the figure. I know he claimed a lot of it
was due to the Metronet work being taken back in house. Also,
presumably part of the figure is the planned cut to the bus subsidy?

In article ,
(Andrew Price) wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:58:50 -0700, Nobody wrote:

Ah, the US liquid measurement isn't the same as Imperial.

I think it probably was, until the UK standardised the gallon in the
19th century as being that volume of water which weighs ten pounds.
Before that, I suspect that the gallon was identical on both sides of
the pond.

Only in the sense that it was even less consistent, I expect!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 28 May 2010 23:08:39 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear"
wrote:


E27002 wrote


You really want to live under our Constitution? What will you do
with
your Head of State? Will your fellow Commonwealth countries agree to
Her Majesty’s dismissal?

You mean "Republican form of government" ?

Easy, we just elect Liz for life (like William, William and William &
Mary). She can carry on being Queen of Canada, New Zealand etc.

Can you handle our First and Second Amendments? Will the Church of
England be disestablished in England? Will the Presbyterians be
disestablished in Scotland?

Not unless you have them established first. The Church of Scotland is
not an established church; this was eventually accepted by Westminster
in the Church of Scotland Act 1921.

The Welsh solution works fine.

Will we see gun store selling semi-automatic weapons on High Streets
around the UK? I don't think so.

You mean "self-loading" ?

We just need to revert to 1990 laws. These would also allow our Olympic
pistol team to practice at home.