"RPM" wrote in message
...
Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know
what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the
Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very
sub-Standard.

A follow up tonight from Dick Murray in the "Evening Standard", regarding a
broken power shoe that disabled a Jubilee line train just short of Stanmore.
Actually, a much better written article than last week's - although he still
managed to refer back to the incident mentioned in the earlier article and
repeated the assertion that "a signal box" fell off the train!

On Apr 27, 10:48*pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

"RPM" *wrote:

Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know
what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the
Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very
sub-Standard.

A follow up tonight from Dick Murray in the "Evening Standard", regarding a
broken power shoe that disabled a Jubilee line train just short of Stanmore.
Actually, a much better written article than last week's - although he still
managed to refer back to the incident mentioned in the earlier article and
repeated the assertion that "a signal box" fell off the train!

I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit. "Signalling boxes" in the conventional sense, such as they
exist on the Underground, aren't on the whole very visible to the
travelling public on the network.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:59:15 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:


On Apr 27, 10:48*pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:

"RPM" *wrote:

Yes, it was indeed truly execrable. It would be fascinating to know
what actually happened, but no danger of that from reading the
Standard, which yet again gas been found to be journalistically very
sub-Standard.

A follow up tonight from Dick Murray in the "Evening Standard", regarding a
broken power shoe that disabled a Jubilee line train just short of Stanmore.
Actually, a much better written article than last week's - although he still
managed to refer back to the incident mentioned in the earlier article and
repeated the assertion that "a signal box" fell off the train!

I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit. "Signalling boxes" in the conventional sense, such as they
exist on the Underground, aren't on the whole very visible to the
travelling public on the network.

(Ignoring what might actually now be inside them)
Wembley Park ?
Edgware Road ?

On Apr 27, 11:15*pm, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:59:15 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit. "Signalling boxes" in the conventional sense, such as they
exist on the Underground, aren't on the whole very visible to the
travelling public on the network.

(Ignoring what might actually now be inside them)
Wembley Park ?
Edgware Road ?

"on the whole"

Edgware Rd isn't terribly obvious I'd suggest - Wembley Park is
though, yes.

Anyway I like the one at Barbican:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/crashcalloway/3320694222/

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit.

Most people, educated or otherwise, with or without railway experience,
would expect a signal box to be a (relatively) large building containing
aforementioned signalling kit (and human beings), from which signalling
operations are directed.

On Apr 27, 11:33*pm, Mizter T wrote:

Wembley Park ?
Edgware Road ?


Edgware Rd isn't terribly obvious I'd suggest - Wembley Park is
though, yes.

On LU they are called signals cabins not signal boxes.

And Wembley Park isn't obvious because it isn't one now and has not
been one for years.

--
Nick

On 28/04/2011 01:37, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit.

Most people, educated or otherwise, with or without railway experience,
would expect a signal box to be a (relatively) large building containing
aforementioned signalling kit (and human beings), from which signalling
operations are directed.

Like the Hornby Dublo model they had as kids...

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 28/04/2011 01:37, Jack Taylor wrote:


"Mizter T" wrote in message
...
I don't think most lay people would remotely have a problem with the
"signal box" description - it's a box that contains signalling kit,
innit.

Most people, educated or otherwise, with or without railway experience,
would expect a signal box to be a (relatively) large building containing
aforementioned signalling kit (and human beings), from which signalling
operations are directed.


Given, say, the number of people who think the third rail network is
diesel powered because there are no wires, I'm not convinced they would.
How often do people see easily identifiable signal boxes these days,
outside TtTE books? Modern commuter lines don't tend to be controlled
from buildings with a a brick base, wooden top and lots of levers behind
big windows.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK