Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 18/12/2012 21:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:13:44 +0000, Arthur Figgis


Popular use is simple - in London you have the Tube and the Overground.

Is that the Overground or the overground ?

Yes. I've also heard Overland a few times, and The Thames Link seems to
have a bit of an identity of its own amongst some people.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:

Not surprising - liberal left politics as a whole is a very female take on
the world. Everyone is nice really given a chance, encouragement not punishment,
everyone is equal even when clearly they're not, turn the other cheek, we
must atone for the sins of our fathers (note - not mothers), etc etc. All
very laudable but all very naive.

But I wouldn't worry , Guardian readership is in freefall so it won't be
around much longer and one can only hope liberal left politics gets buried
with it in the dustbin of history where it belongs.


If the Guardian folds, the Independent is ready to take over. The
Indy used to be literally that; an independent, impartial newspaper,
or at least the nearest one could ever get to that ideal.

Now, the Indy has taken a sharp left turn and would likely inherit the
Guardian's mantle if that paper were to close. The orange headlines
remind me of the Socialist Worker.

I suspect that neither of their print editions will remain for very much
longer, as they are perennially loss-making. The Guardian relies on the
backing of the Scott Trust (and thus on Auto Trader), and the Indie on the
Lebedevs, who won't keep it going indefinitely as a loss maker. The Times
is also a hefty loss-maker and probably can't survive in its current form,
which is probably why Rupe wants to merge it with the ST to create a
cheaper 7-day operation. All three are trying to develop a purely digital
business model, but are nowhere near doing so (and Rupe has just abandoned
his iPad New York paper, The Daily).

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:30:18 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0800 (PST), e27002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 07:42, allantracy wrote:
The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

Well seeing as how TfL routinely use the term Tube to describe the
London Underground, all over their website (as in Tube map or Tube
engineering works),

That's what happens (not just with railways) when the publicity people
know SFA about what they're promoting.

It's also worth remembering that "The Tube" is now a London icon, but
"Underground" is not. "Subway" or "Metro" may be generic names for such
systems around the world, but "Tube" always means the London Tube. That's
far more important than worrying about tunnel profiles (in any case, by the
pedantic definition, wouldn't Crossrail also be regarded as a "Tube"?).

Tubes 'n Boxes ?

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:42:50 -0600, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Peter Masson:
Yes. The Met was built as mixed gauge from Paddington (Bishop's Road) at
least to Farringdon and AFAIK to Moorgate, and was initially (Jan - Aug
1863) worked between Bishop's Road and Farringdon by the GWR using broad
gauge stock. The Met fell out with the GWR, who gave 9 days notice that they
would cease to work the line after 10 August 1863, but by then the
connection with the GNR at Kings Cross had been completed, so the Met began
operating the service themselves, using standard gauge stock obtained from
the GNR. It's not clear how much the broad gauge was used after this (GWR
meat trains to Smithfield, perhaps)...

After the Met outfoxed the GWR as Peter describes, the two companies
came to terms. Broad-gauge suburban passenger trains began running
through from the GWR onto the Met to Farringdon and then Moorgate.
They last operated in 1869. Here's a famous painting of one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_Junction.jpg

This is Praed St. Junction, between Edgware Road and Paddington,
where today's District and Circle Lines tracks (foreground) diverge
from today's Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines tracks. The former
tracks were the Met's original route, so this train cannot be a Met
train from before the Met/GWR dispute unless it's going out of service,
and then there wouldn't be passengers on board. Unless the artist
goofed, it must be a GWR train.

Bearing in mind that it is almost certainly a product of a few quick
sketches (possibly when no trains were actually running when he was in
the tunnel ?) and a fair bit of memory, total accuracy might be a bit
optimistic.

The through services continued with standard-gauge trains until 1939.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Mark Brader:
Unless the artist goofed, it must be a GWR train.

Charles Ellson:
Bearing in mind that it is almost certainly a product of a few quick
sketches... total accuracy might be a bit optimistic.

Well, maybe he took a snapshot with his cellphone camera -- I don't
imagine they had regulations against using those in the tunnels back
then -- and did the painting based on that, *hmmmm*???

:-)
--
Mark Brader | "Red lights are not my concern.
Toronto | I am a driver, not a policeman."
| --statement made after collision, 1853

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

Anthony Polson wrote:
Jeremy Double wrote:

IIRC, the GNR had to make a big effort to have enough condensing locos
available to take over the running when the GWR pulled out at short notice.
--


IIRC = If I recall correctly.

You must be a very old man to recall any of this! :-)

I seem to remember reading about it, possibly in a book about Sturrock's
period as locomotive engineer of the GNR, but I can't remember the
reference or details, hence the "IIRC". "Recall" can refer to something
you read about...

--
Jeremy Double

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:59:51 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 18/12/2012 21:19, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:13:44 +0000, Arthur Figgis


Popular use is simple - in London you have the Tube and the Overground.

Is that the Overground or the overground ?

Yes. I've also heard Overland a few times, and The Thames Link seems to
have a bit of an identity of its own amongst some people.

Also not forgetting the (other) Overground :-
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/2780/mapover.gif
as found in
http://www.busandcoachforum.net/view...=5409&start=20

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

In uk.railway e27002 wrote:
There's another great photo in the Standard's report athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

Anyone know if the condensing apparatus has survived and is operational?
This pictu
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/g...em=&mtv=&pnum=
suggests wide condensing pipes, while this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-diesels/5663523369/
has narrow pipes like number 1. Do those still function?

Theo

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

In article
,
(77002) wrote:

On 18 Dec, 13:40, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:47:20 -0800 (PST), e27002

wrote:
On 17 Dec, 13:46, "Richard J." wrote:
Recliner wrote on 17 December 2012
11:08:58 ...

Steam train back on tube track for 150-year anniversary
celebrations

Test run for London Underground's anniversary sees restored
locomotive pull Victorian carriage from Earl's Court to Moorgate

Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent
The Guardian, Sunday 16 December 2012 19.00 GMT
[snip]
From:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/de...ndon-undergrou
...

There's another great photo in the Standard's report at

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...0yearold-steam...

Which section was tube track? *AFIK Earls Court to Moorgate is all sub-
surface. *Moreover, one cannot bring back something which never
existed. *The tube lines were electric from their beginning.

Existing ones might have been, The Tower subway was cable operated.

Accepted. And, the cable may have been run thru a stationary steam
engine. The power for the electric lines may have been steam
generated. But, NO tube lines ever had a steam motive power unit
within its consist whilst running in the deep level tunnels.

Not quite true. The LER had a tube-gauge steam service locomotive.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Not-very dry run for 150-year anniversary Met steam
 

On 19 Dec 2012 00:21:00 +0000 (GMT), Theo Markettos
wrote:

In uk.railway e27002 wrote:
There's another great photo in the Standard's report athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

Anyone know if the condensing apparatus has survived and is operational?
This pictu
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/g...em=&mtv=&pnum=
suggests wide condensing pipes, while this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-diesels/5663523369/
has narrow pipes like number 1. Do those still function?

L44 has never had any condensing apparatus fitted while the LRPS/QRS
has owned it and AFAIAA not for many years with Met/LT (if at all?).