Paul Cummins wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

20. The London Underground trains were originally steam powered.

No, only Met and District trains were ever Steam. Steam was withdrawn
from the Circle line in 1905, and was only used for Metro-land long
distance services from then on.

True, but that doesn't invalidate the statement.


24. The Underground name first appeared on stations in 1908.

By which time no "UndergrounD" services were steam powered. Steam was
introduced to "Underground" services when LPTB subsumed the independent
Metropolitan line in 1933.

They don't claim it was steam Operated in 1908.


74. The first Tube tunnel was opened in 1880, running from the
Tower of London to Bermondsey.

But has nothing to do with the London Underground

Yup.

We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

True, but that doesn't invalidate the statement.

It does. No "London Underground" service, past or present, was originally
steam operated.

The MR and MDR services were, but they were not LU trains.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Paul Cummins wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

True, but that doesn't invalidate the statement.

It does. No "London Underground" service, past or present, was originally
steam operated.

The MR and MDR services were, but they were not LU trains.

Yes, but the London Underground (and the "Tube") is understood to include
the predecessor companies. Note the title of this thread. After all, no
deep level "Tube" line was ever steam operated, but the whole modern LU
system is branded the "Tube", and hence those pre-1890 services are now all
regarded as part of what we now call the Tube, even if the term was unknown
in 1863.

Otherwise, which entity is celebrating its 150th anniversary? If you only
include the Met, then even the original 1863 route isn't all part of the
current Met line, an so you presumably regard the upcoming steam runs as
bogus?

We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

Yes, but the London Underground (and the "Tube") is understood
to include the predecessor companies.

The entity known as London Underground now, the forerunner of which was
London Electric Railways (clue in the name) did not run steam services.

The Metropolitan Railway was always an independent line until 1933, when
it was finally subsumed. LER (London Underground, or "the Tube") never
ran underground steam services.

And anyway, technically, the first underground service was run not by LUL
or it's forerunners, but by FGW and it's forerunners.

If you only include the Met, then even the original 1863 route
isn't all part of the current Met line,

No, but it is part of the Hammersmith and City, so that is the "line"
that is celebrating it's 150th.

and so you presumably regard the upcoming steam runs as
bogus?

To a certain extent, ALL steam runs on commercial lines are now "bogus" -
doesn't stop them being either newsworthy or fun.


--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Paul Cummins wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

Yes, but the London Underground (and the "Tube") is understood
to include the predecessor companies.

The entity known as London Underground now, the forerunner of which was
London Electric Railways (clue in the name) did not run steam services.

The Metropolitan Railway was always an independent line until 1933, when
it was finally subsumed. LER (London Underground, or "the Tube") never
ran underground steam services.

And anyway, technically, the first underground service was run not by LUL
or it's forerunners, but by FGW and it's forerunners.

If you only include the Met, then even the original 1863 route
isn't all part of the current Met line,

No, but it is part of the Hammersmith and City, so that is the "line"
that is celebrating it's 150th.

and so you presumably regard the upcoming steam runs as
bogus?

To a certain extent, ALL steam runs on commercial lines are now "bogus" -
doesn't stop them being either newsworthy or fun.

If you're going to be super pedantic, perhaps you'd also like to get your
apostrophes right? I count several errors. And, yes, the original Met
counts as one of the parents of today's Underground.

We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

And, yes, the original Met
counts as one of the parents of today's Underground.

They they are seven years late.

The first trains ran on what is now the Central Line in 1856.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Paul Cummins wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

And, yes, the original Met
counts as one of the parents of today's Underground.

They they are seven years late.

The first trains ran on what is now the Central Line in 1856.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Are you seriously suggesting
they should have celebrated the 150th anniversary of a bit of unimportant
Essex railway seven years ago?

In article ,
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

Yes, but the London Underground (and the "Tube") is understood
to include the predecessor companies.

The entity known as London Underground now, the forerunner of which was
London Electric Railways (clue in the name) did not run steam services.

The Metropolitan Railway was always an independent line until 1933, when
it was finally subsumed. LER (London Underground, or "the Tube") never
ran underground steam services.

And anyway, technically, the first underground service was run not by LUL
or it's forerunners, but by FGW and it's forerunners.

If you only include the Met, then even the original 1863 route
isn't all part of the current Met line,

No, but it is part of the Hammersmith and City, so that is the "line"
that is celebrating it's 150th.

and so you presumably regard the upcoming steam runs as
bogus?

To a certain extent, ALL steam runs on commercial lines are now "bogus" -
doesn't stop them being either newsworthy or fun.

You are wrong saying the Metropolitan Railway was always an independent line
until 1933. Although the ownership was separate, it always ran the Inner
Circle jointly with the MDR.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

We were about to embark at Dover, when
(Recliner) came up to me and whispered:

Otherwise, which entity is celebrating its 150th anniversary?
If you only include the Met, then even the original 1863 route
isn't all part of the current Met line

On that basis, surely the "Tube" is 157 years old, as parts of the
Central Line were first operated in 1856.

Or perhaps you would prefer it to be 1858, the start date of service over
part of the Hammersmith and City?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

In message , Paul
Cummins wrote:
On that basis, surely the "Tube" is 157 years old, as parts of the
Central Line were first operated in 1856.

Or perhaps you would prefer it to be 1858, the start date of service over
part of the Hammersmith and City?

How about 1837, when at least one station on the Bakerloo Line was
opened?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: