"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote in message ...
"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
om...

Also, I went and had a look at the DC lines that used to carry
Bakerloo trains, and I can confirm that the Up Watford (Northbound)
line still has long portions of fourth rail which are correctly
seated. Surprisingly, so does the defunct Croxley Green branch...

It costs money to take them up, if they're not in the way it's cheaper to
leave them alone.

Someone should have mentioned that to the pillocks on the Epping-Ongar railway.

B2003

It costs money to take them up, if they're not in the way it's cheaper to
leave them alone.

On parts of the line where relaying on concrete sleepers are been done the 4th
rail has been put back, so maybe there is some chance of the Bakerloos
returning to Watford Junction.

Burkey

It just seemed to me that the developers who are building these
buildings wouldn't mind a train station right next door...

Nor even a railway station. :-)


OOPS!

/me must remember the distinction next time.

There's a difference?

a railway station has platforms laid next to a railway a train station has
actual trains not underground tubes call at it

Mark Fried wrote:
It just seemed to me that the developers who are building these
buildings wouldn't mind a train station right next door...

Nor even a railway station. :-)


OOPS!

/me must remember the distinction next time.

There's a difference?


a railway station has platforms laid next to a railway a train station has
actual trains not underground tubes call at it



THank you, never knew that

"Mark Fried" wrote in message
...

a railway station has platforms laid next to a railway a train station has
actual trains not underground tubes call at it


What do you mean by actual trains? Is there a reason why tube trains aren't
"actual trains"? More importantly, is there any reason why the subsurface
trains that serve Watford Met. aren't "actual trains"?

"Robinson" wrote in message
...
Mark Fried wrote:

a railway station has platforms laid next to a
railway a train station has actual trains not
underground tubes call at it

THank you, never knew that

A piece of advice - never trust the definition of a word from someone who
can't capitalise or punctuate.

There is no difference between a railway station and a train station, but
some people in Britain prefer the former. The BBC seem to prefer the latter,
because BBC journos can occasionally be heard saying "a railway sta- er, a
train station"

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Solar Penguin" wrote
the following in:


"Mark Fried" wrote in message
...

a railway station has platforms laid next to a railway a train
station has actual trains not underground tubes call at it


What do you mean by actual trains? Is there a reason why tube
trains aren't "actual trains"? More importantly, is there any
reason why the subsurface trains that serve Watford Met. aren't
"actual trains"?

When I was a child it puzzled me greatly that the Newsroom Southeast
travel news always talked about trains and then the tube as if the tube
wasn't a railway with trains running on it.

--
message by Robin May, but I would say that, wouldn't I?
"GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care.

"You MUST NOT drive dangerously" - the Highway Code
Spelling lesson: then and than are different words.