In article .com,
Peter Vos writes
I saw a post saying the KX stop is the only stop on the Circle Line
where trains in both directions are separated by an central island
platform.

This is wrong. Gloucester Road and South Kensington also meet this
description. In addition, Edgware Road and Aldgate have two island
platforms and Circle line trains use the outermost faces (usually but
not required at the former, required at the latter).

Outer Rail trains also have platforms on the right at Tower Hill and
Mansion House.

The question I have is how far would you have to travel in either
direction from KX before the doors that open at KX would be used again?

Edgware Road (see above) and Aldgate.

Would you get as far as Edgware and Liverpool?

No. Circle Line trains don't go to either.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article .com,
Peter Vos writes
I saw a post saying the KX stop is the only stop on the Circle Line
where trains in both directions are separated by an central island
platform.

This is wrong. Gloucester Road and South Kensington also meet this
description. In addition, Edgware Road and Aldgate have two island
platforms and Circle line trains use the outermost faces (usually but
not required at the former, required at the latter).

Outer Rail trains also have platforms on the right at Tower Hill and
Mansion House.

The question I have is how far would you have to travel in either
direction from KX before the doors that open at KX would be used again?

Edgware Road (see above) and Aldgate.

Kind of odd coincidence the bombs went off there. But examining your
detailed layout it actually looks like the bombs went off right around
Aldgate Junction and Praed Street Junction. Is that true?

If true, it suggests a significantly higher level of research beyond
merely riding the trains and checking out TfL maps. I would guess 99%
or more of riders who actually transit those junctions never think
about them.

If it was actually intended, then scheduling becomes more relevant
because you have to pick two trains that will simultaneously hit the
junctions. Hard to believe it was simple dumb luck.

If you have that kind of planning and since they are now saying one
bomber per train, I wonder why they didn't hop off at Edgware Road and
Liverpool Street while leaving the packages behind. The Piccadilly
bomber didn't even have to be on the 311. He could have dropped the
bomb in the luggage vestibule at KXSP or simply tossed it in as the
doors closed.

Curiouser and curiouser.


Would you get as far as Edgware and Liverpool?

No. Circle Line trains don't go to either.

Now yer bein' churlish.... Edgware ROAD and Liverpool STREET

I think the proclivity for abbr. is a cultural thing. In the US we
abbr. everything. It's not New York City... it's New York.. or The
City. It's not Washington D.C. ... its DC. It's not the United States
of America .... it's the US. We don't watch television, but we love
our TV. We don't abuse prisoners at Guantanamo Bay... we hold em at
Gitmo. etc etc.



--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

"Peter Vos" wrote in message
oups.com...
If true, it suggests a significantly higher level of research beyond
merely riding the trains and checking out TfL maps. I would guess 99%
or more of riders who actually transit those junctions never think
about them.
If it was actually intended, then scheduling becomes more relevant
because you have to pick two trains that will simultaneously hit the
junctions. Hard to believe it was simple dumb luck.

Even if they had access to the current timetables, the realities of the
Underground (especially the Circle Line) mean that there is still little
chance that the trains will actually get to the junctions at the advertised
time. I just find it implausible that the bombers could choose a specific
time and then be able to be in the chosen spots within a 50-second window.

One other thing strikes me as strange. If we assume the Picc bomber got on
the train at King's Cross, this was only probably a minute or two before the
time of explosion. If the bomb *had* to go off at 0851 he was cutting things
very fine, as all it would have needed was a gap in the service and things
would not have gone according to plan. ISTR that the Picc was disrupted at
the time - perhaps this was a factor.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:40:23 +0100, "David Splett"
wrote:

"Peter Vos" wrote in message
roups.com...
If true, it suggests a significantly higher level of research beyond
merely riding the trains and checking out TfL maps. I would guess 99%
or more of riders who actually transit those junctions never think
about them.
If it was actually intended, then scheduling becomes more relevant
because you have to pick two trains that will simultaneously hit the
junctions. Hard to believe it was simple dumb luck.

Even if they had access to the current timetables, the realities of the
Underground (especially the Circle Line) mean that there is still little
chance that the trains will actually get to the junctions at the advertised
time. I just find it implausible that the bombers could choose a specific
time and then be able to be in the chosen spots within a 50-second window.

Precisely.

One other thing strikes me as strange. If we assume the Picc bomber got on
the train at King's Cross, this was only probably a minute or two before the
time of explosion. If the bomb *had* to go off at 0851 he was cutting things
very fine, as all it would have needed was a gap in the service and things
would not have gone according to plan. ISTR that the Picc was disrupted at
the time - perhaps this was a factor.

Do you think they actually cared where the bombs went off? The
objective - assuming the current theories as to who it was - was to kill
people and to achieve martyrdom. At 08.50 on a weekday you can achieve
that virtually anywhere on the London public transport network in Zone
1.

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield typed

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

Agreed. See my other posting.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

Human nature.

Surely you don't expect people to sit back and say nothing more than
"I expect we'll find out all about it when the official report comes out
and the officials tell us what happened"?

People have enquiring minds and want to test their ideas and theories by
communicating with others.

I see nothing wrong in that. Do you?

--
Paul Terry

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:40:32 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

Human nature.
Surely you don't expect people to sit back and say nothing more than
"I expect we'll find out all about it when the official report comes out
and the officials tell us what happened"?

I'm obviously not human then. I can fully understand people discussing
privately how they feel or perhaps commenting on facts released by the
police or by TfL. I genuinely see no value in people trying to speculate
on whether you can chuck bombs on Circle Line trains from opposing
platforms at Kings Cross or how quickly you can dash to the Piccadilly
Line. It's over and done with - what does knowing or speculating add to
anyone's future journey plans?

Is Kings Cross station going to be redesigned to prevent people moving
too quickly from one platform to another just in case someone might
decide to place bombs? - I hardly think so. People placing bombs in any
public place is a risk that many, many people have to live with to
varying degrees of probability. Our world and our lives are not going to
be redesigned to try to make them bomb proof.

Given that the Police appear to be saying that these were suicide
bombers why are people still talking about the possibilities of there
being one bomber? That discussion has been overtaken by events.

People have enquiring minds and want to test their ideas and theories by
communicating with others.

I see nothing wrong in that. Do you?

I think it is pointless in this particular context. I'm obviously just
odd.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:40:32 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:


People have enquiring minds and want to test their ideas and
theories by communicating with others.

I see nothing wrong in that. Do you?

I think it is pointless in this particular context.

It's pointless in the sense that others have more information and will
reach valid conclusions more certainly and quickly (as the police did).
But I can understand people wanting to understand how it happened, in
the same way that people do whenever there's a railway accident. What
****ed me off was people with little real knowledge of the Underground
thrashing around in ignorance as though they were the only ones
qualified to produce some credible theories (all of which turned out to
be wrong anyway).

I'm obviously just odd.

Compared to many of the people cross-posting to this NG since last
Thursday, you are decidedly even!

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

]
Paul Corfield a écrit :

I still do not understand the need for the amazing amount of speculation
and theorizing.

I can fully understand people discussing
privately how they feel or perhaps commenting on facts released by the
police or by TfL. I genuinely see no value in people trying to speculate
on whether you can chuck bombs on Circle Line trains from opposing
platforms at Kings Cross or how quickly you can dash to the Piccadilly
Line.

I'm obviously just odd.

Well, that makes us even, then .

Not to mention that the ones who speculated the most (and felt entitled to
write quite authoritatively on what could and what could not have been, what
was more likely and less likely, etc.) turned out to be also the most
clueless about the Underground!

In message , Paul Corfield
writes

It's over and done with - what does knowing or speculating add to
anyone's future journey plans?

It doesn't. But this newsgroup is not just about journey plans - it has
often included speculative discussion such as "what if the Aldwych
branch were to be re-opened and extended to Waterloo".

As Richard says, it is only natural that people want to understand how
the events of last week happened, especially given the prominent role
that London's Transport plays in most of our lives.

I would be much more worried if everyone thought that such events should
not be discussed here until some official report finally appeared in the
distant future.

Given that the Police appear to be saying that these were suicide
bombers why are people still talking about the possibilities of there
being one bomber?

I think it is important to realise that most of the wilder and more
inaccurate speculation comes from articles posted to alt.conspiracy,
which have also been cross-posted here. Unfortunately, many of these
lack the sound knowledge of London's transport system normally found in
u.t.l. - and many are also not aware of the up-to-date information that
we see here in London.

--
Paul Terry