R.C. Payne wrote:
Pete Bentley wrote:

Actually, it's just inside:-
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corpo...undary_map.htm


Interesting, my understanding was that it was outside of it (from the
whole era of no (north of the river) railways may enter the city days,
am I plain wrong, or was the boundary re-drawn to include it?

Liverpool Street station is in the City of London and I am not aware of
any historical/political/pedantic ambiguity on this.

--
T.S. Cordiner
Columbia University, New York City.

In message , solar penguin
writes

It's ridiculous. The ELLX will cause chaos to lines around South
London, just to allow a few people in Sydenham to get to Hoxton more
easily. Why? I can't believe Sydenham is _really_ that full of people
all saying "I wish we could get to Hoxton more easily," or vice versa.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow it doesn't seem right to disrupt lines that
take people where we actually want to go, just to build a line that
doesn't go anywhere useful!

I doubt if many people from Sydenham will want to go to Hoxton. Surely
the relevant question is how many people from Sydenham (and other
stations on the line) work in Docklands and would benefit from
travelling via Canary Wharf or Shadwell?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that increasing
development in Docklands is having an enormous impact on traditional
travel routes over a wide area.

--
Paul Terry

"Chippy" wrote

Its being inside the City was the reason that most royal trains to
sandringham went from Kings Cross, rather than Liverpool Street.

Apparently, if the sovereign enters the City it triggers a host of
ceremonial, with the Lord Mayor required to attend, etc.

But not always. GFF recorded an occasion when he was waiting at LSt to meet
the Royal Train when a message came through that the arm had fallen off the
up starter at Tottenham. He was therefore surprised when the train eased in
smoothly to time. It transpired that there had been no nonsense about
cautioning the driver - a porter was despatched to scamper up the post
holding the signal arm, 'to hold it proudly in the off position while his
Sovereign went by under clear signals'.

Peter

DERWENT A different ELLX question
Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:41:30 +0100, "R.C. Payne"

Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:
"solar penguin" wrote in
message ...

It's ridiculous. The ELLX will cause chaos to lines around South
London, just to allow a few people in Sydenham to get to Hoxton more
easily. Why? I can't believe Sydenham is _really_ that full of people
all saying "I wish we could get to Hoxton more easily," or vice versa.
Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow it doesn't seem right to disrupt lines that
take people where we actually want to go, just to build a line that
doesn't go anywhere useful!



And yet they could make it all so much more useful with just a few feet of
reinstated track if they brought back the Shoreditch-Liverpool Street curve,
and used LS as an alternate Northern terminus to Dalston or Highbury &
Islington or wherever the **** it's going to terminate.

Direct services from Croydon, Forest Hill, New Cross etc. into the City
would actually be pretty useful, and Liverpool Street easily has the
capacity to spare a couple of platforms for this purpose.

So now Blackfriars, City Thameslink, Cannon St and the like are no
longer in the City?


There are no direct services from Forest Hill to any of these three.
New Cross has trains to Cannon Street and East Croydon trains to
Blackfriars & City Thameslink.

I do question the journey times, as London Bridge isn't really a long
walk from the city whereas the rail trip all stops via Rotherhithe is
quite a diversion...

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/ and http://prar.fotopic.net/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Peter Masson wrote:

"Chippy" wrote

But not always. GFF recorded an occasion when he was waiting at LSt to meet
the Royal Train when a message came through that the arm had fallen off the
up starter at Tottenham. He was therefore surprised when the train eased in
smoothly to time. It transpired that there had been no nonsense about
cautioning the driver - a porter was despatched to scamper up the post
holding the signal arm, 'to hold it proudly in the off position while his
Sovereign went by under clear signals'.

I'll doubtless be shouted down as a heretic for saying this, but that's
the sort of story that proves that GFF was a better raconteur than he
was railwayman.

Chippy wrote:
Peter Masson wrote:

"Chippy" wrote

But not always. GFF recorded an occasion when he was waiting at
LSt to meet the Royal Train when a message came through that the
arm had fallen off the up starter at Tottenham. He was therefore
surprised when the train eased in smoothly to time. It transpired
that there had been no nonsense about cautioning the driver - a
porter was despatched to scamper up the post holding the signal
arm, 'to hold it proudly in the off position while his Sovereign
went by under clear signals'.

I'll doubtless be shouted down as a heretic for saying this, but
that's the sort of story that proves that GFF was a better
raconteur than he was railwayman.

I fail to see what the story tells you about GFF's skills as a
railwayman. Care to explain?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:

I fail to see what the story tells you about GFF's skills as a
railwayman. Care to explain?

It doesn't tell you anything about those skills directly. But only a
supreme raconteur (and, in this context, that is a euphemism for
bull****ter) would feel confident in spouting such garbage. So, in the
field of the raconteur/bull****ter, he was supreme. As a railwayman,
he wasn't.

"Chippy" wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

I fail to see what the story tells you about GFF's skills as a
railwayman. Care to explain?

It doesn't tell you anything about those skills directly. But only a
supreme raconteur (and, in this context, that is a euphemism for
bull****ter) would feel confident in spouting such garbage. So, in the
field of the raconteur/bull****ter, he was supreme.

Of that, there is no doubt.

As a railwayman, he wasn't.

You still haven't answered Richard J.'s valid question. What evidence
do you have that he was anything other than a highly competent and
powerfully motivated (some might say passionate) railway manager?

"Tony Polson" wrote

You still haven't answered Richard J.'s valid question. What evidence
do you have that he was anything other than a highly competent and
powerfully motivated (some might say passionate) railway manager?

There's plenty of evidence that he was a brilliant railway manager. There
are examples he quoted which showed that he was not so good as a practical
railwayman, like the time he rolled a milk churn down the ramp under an
express; when he was word parfect on the Rules of Single Line Working, but
had to turn to the signalman on duty when he was faced with putting in SLW;
like the time when he demonstrated to station masters the technique of
rerailing a wagon in a yard without calling out the breakdown train - then
Hockley had a derailed wagon in the middle of the night. GFF was phoned, and
asked Control 'to tell the station master to pull it on, same as I showed
him.' Half an hour later Control phoned again (barely concealed laughter).
'He has done what you said. He has pulled it broadside across both Main
Lines.'

Peter

"Peter Masson" wrote:

"Tony Polson" wrote

You still haven't answered Richard J.'s valid question. What evidence
do you have that he was anything other than a highly competent and
powerfully motivated (some might say passionate) railway manager?

There's plenty of evidence that he was a brilliant railway manager.

Where and what is that evidence?

There
are examples he quoted which showed that he was not so good as a practical
railwayman, like the time he rolled a milk churn down the ramp under an
express; when he was word parfect on the Rules of Single Line Working, but
had to turn to the signalman on duty when he was faced with putting in SLW;
like the time when he demonstrated to station masters the technique of
rerailing a wagon in a yard without calling out the breakdown train - then
Hockley had a derailed wagon in the middle of the night. GFF was phoned, and
asked Control 'to tell the station master to pull it on, same as I showed
him.' Half an hour later Control phoned again (barely concealed laughter).
'He has done what you said. He has pulled it broadside across both Main
Lines.'

How does this evidence of practical incompetence support your
assertion that he was "a brilliant railway manager"? It makes him
appear a complete idiot.

Perhaps Chippy was right.

;-)