On 18/12/2012 22:26, Charles Ellson wrote:
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

And the late Overground Network:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...hmond_sign.jpg


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 18 Dec, 21:42, (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...opolitan_Railw...

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.

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

Was not the Hammersmith Branch a joint operations from the start?

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:18:26 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
Indeed, I will look at a copy left on a train, or read it online. I
would never buy the rag. It is truly appalling to read how much these
people want to control other's lives. Even worse they think it is OK.

Not only control their lives - control how they think since they're only
"liberal" and believe in free speech as long as they agree with what you're
saying. Anyone who goes against their ideals is shouted down with cliched
rants containing lots of "ism" or "ist" words (see Plowman as a good example
of a practitioner of this) as they're generally unable to argue a point and
so resort to childish strops.

The liberal left truly are Orwells Thought Police though most of them are
either too brainwashed or just too plain stupid to realise it. "Useful idiots"
as Stalin put it.

Though I will say that the Guardian does have a good science section. Its
just a pity it has to be joined to the tripe that is the rest of the paper.

B2003

"77002" wrote

Was not the Hammersmith Branch a joint operations from the start?

The Hammersmith branch was built by the GWR and initially provided with
mixed gauge. It was opened on 13 June 1864 (i.e the year after the Met had
taken over operation of its own line). The GWR ran through, initially broad
gauge) trains to the City. Improved relations with the Met led to the
Hammersmith branch being vested jointly in the Met and GWR from 15 July
1867, after which the Met provided the basic service. When the line was
electrified in 1906 the stock was jointly owned.

Peter

On 19/12/2012 08:28, Recliner wrote:

Going
free seems to have worked for the Evening Standard and the Metro, but they
have low cost journalism,

I don't think I've seen any in the copies of Metro I've picked up
lately... ;-)



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:42:11 -0800 (PST), 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), I think we can excuse all the bourgeois communists
this time.

I happened to be standing opposite one of those engineering works
posters yesterday and took this pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/recline...ream/lightbox/

I must admit that, even though I don't want to be pedantic on this,
the first, bald sentence does seem to go out of its way to rewrite
history:
"Built in 1863, the Tube was the first underground railway in the
world."
After all:
- Only a very tiny part of the current network was built by 1863.
Most of the system dates from much later than that.
- It may be normal to call the whole system "the Tube" today, but that
name wasn't coined until decades after the Met first opened, and the
name wasn't applied to the whole system, including the 1863 line,
until relatively recently.

But it's clear that TfL and the Mayor do definitively call the whole
system the Tube now, so let's not have any more pedantic debates about
which bits should be called what.

For example, on the journey where I took this pic, I started out from
an open air station but happened to be boarding what we here know to
be a true "tube" train. Most of the ride on that journey was in the
open, much of it on viaduct. After changing to a subsurface train, I
exited from a cut-and-cover station. Which of those would seem more
like a "tube train" to a normal?

Perhaps it is time to change the Guardian's name back to "The Manchester
Guardian".

Does the Guardian know where Manchester is? Though to be fair to them,
it isn't on the Underground map.


Aren't they based in a tax haven nowadays?

Indeed, I will look at a copy left on a train, or read it online. *I
would never buy the rag. It is truly appalling to read how much these
people want to control other's lives. *Even worse they think it is OK


I might not read it but I end up bloody well paying for it, at least
two or three times a week.

I can't tell you how much helping to keep Polly Toynbee in gainful
employment goes against the grain.

Still, it helps to hide the railway mags and save any embarrassment.

allantracy wrote:

Perhaps it is time to change the Guardian's name back to "The Manchester
Guardian".

Does the Guardian know where Manchester is? Though to be fair to them,
it isn't on the Underground map.


Aren't they based in a tax haven nowadays?

Not the Guardian, which being heavily loss-making (for real), has no
corporation tax to avoid. But its parent company and Apax have created
quite a complex structure that appears to be constructed to avoid tax on
the Auto Trader deal:
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...save-millions/

On 19/12/2012 07:25, Charles Ellson wrote:
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?).


#1 lost her condensing gear early (probably by the id 1920's) though the
blanking plates are still in place on the tanks.

G