Both Metronet and Tube Lines come in for harsh criticism in LU's third
annual report on the PPP arrangements. Metronet is the bigger offender,
but Tube Lines is also failing with regards to the Northern Line in
particular.

Interesting comment from the TfL press release regarding Metronet:
"The current closure of the Waterloo & City line is an "acid test" for
Metronet, to demonstrate their capability to manage major projects."

TfL press release:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=851

BBC News online story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5209438.stm

Like the sub-surface Underground lines, my unneccesary apostrophe
filter appears to be suffering from poor performance because of the
heat. I shall take the advice of the Tube station posters and drink
some water before I continue my journey on usenet.

Mizter T wrote:
Like the sub-surface Underground lines, my unneccesary apostrophe
filter appears to be suffering from poor performance because of the
heat. I shall take the advice of the Tube station posters and drink
some water before I continue my journey on usenet.

It could be argued that words endin in -co as an abreviation for company
could legitmately be made plural by co's as a contraction of companies.
Of course if you were doing that, you should probably write it infra'co's.

Robin

R.C. Payne wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Like the sub-surface Underground lines, my unneccesary apostrophe
filter appears to be suffering from poor performance because of the
heat. I shall take the advice of the Tube station posters and drink
some water before I continue my journey on usenet.

It could be argued that words endin in -co as an abreviation for company
could legitmately be made plural by co's as a contraction of companies.
Of course if you were doing that, you should probably write it infra'co's.

Robin

I did consider that as my defence but as you say logic would suggest
the inclusion of two apostrophes, so I decided not to as I would've
been caught out by the sharp eyed readers here on utl!

IMO it would of course be better if we didn't have to write about
infracos/infra'co's whatsoever, but the Treasury decided that PPP was
the way to go so here we are, wondering at the joys of the infracos'
incompetence (that is, the incompetence of the infracos!).

Mizter T wrote:
R.C. Payne wrote:

Mizter T wrote:
Like the sub-surface Underground lines, my unneccesary apostrophe
filter appears to be suffering from poor performance because of the
heat. I shall take the advice of the Tube station posters and drink
some water before I continue my journey on usenet.
It could be argued that words endin in -co as an abreviation for company
could legitmately be made plural by co's as a contraction of companies.
Of course if you were doing that, you should probably write it infra'co's.

Robin

I did consider that as my defence but as you say logic would suggest
the inclusion of two apostrophes, so I decided not to as I would've
been caught out by the sharp eyed readers here on utl!

IMO it would of course be better if we didn't have to write about
infracos/infra'co's whatsoever, but the Treasury decided that PPP was
the way to go so here we are, wondering at the joys of the infracos'
incompetence (that is, the incompetence of the infracos!).

Which might also be written infra'co's' for those with a particular love
of the apostrophe!

Robin

R.C. Payne wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

(snip)

IMO it would of course be better if we didn't have to write about
infracos/infra'co's whatsoever, but the Treasury decided that PPP was
the way to go so here we are, wondering at the joys of the infracos'
incompetence (that is, the incompetence of the infracos!).

Which might also be written infra'co's' for those with a particular love
of the apostrophe!


Quite!

"Mizter T" wrote
I did consider that as my defence but as you say logic would suggest
the inclusion of two apostrophes, so I decided not to as I would've
been caught out by the sharp eyed readers here on utl!

I'm glad you're getting to grips with apostrophes. It was you who posted
this, I think:

"Plus has Sudbury Hill Harrow looks like it loses it's 'limited service'
station
symbol simply because it's incompatible with the 'interchange station'
symbol"

Ignoring the strange grammar, I would comment as follows:
"it's incompatible" is ok, because it's = it is;
but "it's limited service station symbol" is definitely NOT ok, because the
possessive its should NEVER include an apostrophe.
See http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html

Spotted today at Glasgow Central station: A Network Rail poster
advising that RMT has called off "it's" strike.

-----------------------------------------------------
Railway Signs and Signals of Great Britain: http://www.railsigns.co.uk/

John Salmon wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote
I did consider that as my defence but as you say logic would suggest
the inclusion of two apostrophes, so I decided not to as I would've
been caught out by the sharp eyed readers here on utl!

I'm glad you're getting to grips with apostrophes. It was you who posted
this, I think:

"Plus has Sudbury Hill Harrow looks like it loses it's 'limited service'
station
symbol simply because it's incompatible with the 'interchange station'
symbol"

Those are indeed my words from June '05. I do very much hope that you
haven't been silently brewing over my apostophe faux-pas for the past
year, and instead came across the aforementioned text by using a Google
search of the utl archives ;-)

(The erroneous "has" in my post about Sudbury Hill Harrow appears to be
an artifact unintentionally left over from my first draft.)


Ignoring the strange grammar, I would comment as follows:
"it's incompatible" is ok, because it's = it is;
but "it's limited service station symbol" is definitely NOT ok, because the
possessive its should NEVER include an apostrophe.
See http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html


Point taken! I'm aware of the rules of the apostrophe, but it seems
this particular one isn't quite hard-wired into my brain. The webpage
is a useful reminder.

In my defence I'd say that I do attempt to communicate clearly whenever
I post here, however my somewhat lackadaisical approach to
proof-reading is in part a result of a wariness of spending too much
time on usenet. After all, newsgroups are hardly an exemplar of perfect
prose!

So I can promise more imperfect (though hopefully at least partially
comprehensible) contributions in the future.

Mizter T wrote:

John Salmon wrote:

(snip)

I'm glad you're getting to grips with apostrophes. It was you who posted
this, I think:

"Plus has Sudbury Hill Harrow looks like it loses it's 'limited service'
station
symbol simply because it's incompatible with the 'interchange station'
symbol"

Those are indeed my words from June '05. I do very much hope that you
haven't been silently brewing over my apostophe faux-pas for the past
year, and instead came across the aforementioned text by using a Google
search of the utl archives ;-)

(snip)


For those reading this on uk.railway - to which John has seemingly
crossposted this thread to merely to highlight my grammatical error
rather than spread any pertinant information about LU's third PPP
report - you can find the full thread including my initial post with a
links to a summary of the report over at uk.transport.london.