| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Disruption at Feltham
|
Disruption at Feltham
On 17 Nov, 11:24, CJB wrote:
Details at: http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/engineeringwork.aspx CJB. There's a nice pic of the damaged bridge in one of the local papers: http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n..._travel_chaos/ Looks like it has been well and truly undermined by the flooded river and will need some substantial repairs (at least 4 weeks according to Network Rail). GM |
Disruption at Feltham
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:45:18 -0800 (PST)
GMac wrote: On 17 Nov, 11:24, CJB wrote: Details at: http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/engineeringwork.aspx CJB. There's a nice pic of the damaged bridge in one of the local papers: http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...3.Bridge_colla se_sparks_travel_chaos/ Looks like it has been well and truly undermined by the flooded river and will need some substantial repairs (at least 4 weeks according to Network Rail). Seems like someone forgot to do maintenance. A bridge shouldn't be washed away by some perfectly normal heavy rainfall that we get every year despite what tabloid reporters with the memory of a goldfish seem to think. B2003 |
Disruption at Feltham
"GMac" wrote in message ... On 17 Nov, 11:24, CJB wrote: Details at: http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/engineeringwork.aspx CJB. There's a nice pic of the damaged bridge in one of the local papers: http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n..._travel_chaos/ Looks like it has been well and truly undermined by the flooded river and will need some substantial repairs (at least 4 weeks according to Network Rail). Friday, or the weekend,should see the track slewed. I've just posted in the earlier thread. Paul S |
Disruption at Feltham
"Paul Scott" wrote in message ... Friday, or the weekend,should see the track slewed. I've just posted in the earlier thread. Is there room to do that? From memory (with a little help from Google Maps) there's a pedestrian underpass immediately to the south of the damaged bridge... http://tinyurl.com/ycmnm8k (link to relevant Google Maps page) |
Disruption at Feltham
"Bondee" wrote in message ... Friday, or the weekend,should see the track slewed. I've just posted in the earlier thread. Is there room to do that? From memory (with a little help from Google Maps) there's a pedestrian underpass immediately to the south of the damaged bridge... http://tinyurl.com/ycmnm8k (link to relevant Google Maps page) Maybe one line only? Where does that underpass come out then, I can't see any sign of it on the north of the tracks? Paul S |
Disruption at Feltham
Meanwhile for bus livery spotters there are replacement buses from all
over the South offering a connecting service at Feltham for Whitton or Twickenham. But the connection times are about 30-45 mins due to having to detour to avoid residential streets &/or pass through other residential streets. But at Waterloo there are no trains whatsoever advertised for Reading or Windsor. There is a simply a couple of LCD signs stating that such trains can be caught at Feltham. HOWEVER THERE ARE NO NOTICES ABOUT HOW TO ACTUALLY GET TO FELTHAM. ITS AS THOUGH THE STATION DOES NOT EXIST. AND THERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF ANY CONNECTING BUS SERVICES BETWEEN WHITTON / TWICKENHAM AND FELTHAM. Basically at Waterloo in the rush hour tonight there were thousands of commuters wanting to get home west of Feltham, and NO information about how to actually get there. In addition there are notices on nearly every (all?) SWT stations about planned Engineering Works for this coming weekend - Nov 21 / 22 - whereby the Hounslow Loop will be closed with a special timetable which includes stops at Feltham. Seems like despite the total closure of the mainline through Feltham, the Engineering Works are still to take place. I would have thought that a priority might have been to cancel the Works and remove those signs. Its going to be one very chaotic weekend on SWT. But par for the course with SWT I guess. CJB. |
Disruption at Feltham
|
Disruption at Feltham
"Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "Bondee" wrote in message ... Friday, or the weekend,should see the track slewed. I've just posted in the earlier thread. Is there room to do that? From memory (with a little help from Google Maps) there's a pedestrian underpass immediately to the south of the damaged bridge... http://tinyurl.com/ycmnm8k (link to relevant Google Maps page) Maybe one line only? Where does that underpass come out then, I can't see any sign of it on the north of the tracks? I'm not sure. I've never really paid any attention to the area until I read about the bridge collapse. It's not a footpath from the golf course, is it? I guess the entrance on the other side would be hidden by the trees. |
Disruption at Feltham
"Bondee" wrote in message ... "Paul Scott" wrote in message ... Where does that underpass come out then, I can't see any sign of it on the north of the tracks? I'm not sure. I've never really paid any attention to the area until I read about the bridge collapse. It's not a footpath from the golf course, is it? I guess the entrance on the other side would be hidden by the trees. A good quality picture of the failure has appeared on the Network Rail site now: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...idge_Nov09.JPG Paul S |
Disruption at Feltham
In message
"Paul Scott" wrote: "Bondee" wrote in message ... "Paul Scott" wrote in message ... Where does that underpass come out then, I can't see any sign of it on the north of the tracks? I'm not sure. I've never really paid any attention to the area until I read about the bridge collapse. It's not a footpath from the golf course, is it? I guess the entrance on the other side would be hidden by the trees. A good quality picture of the failure has appeared on the Network Rail site now: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...idge_Nov09.JPG Nasty! -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Disruption at Feltham
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:02:37 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: A good quality picture of the failure has appeared on the Network Rail site now: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...idge_Nov09.JPG A couple of tubes of decorator's filler, and the job's a good 'un. |
Disruption at Feltham
|
Disruption at Feltham
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600, wrote: Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? The spandrels were always filled with rubble. Next question? OK as long as there is enough structural brickwork containing it, Clearly there wasn't here. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Disruption at Feltham
wrote:
In article , (Bruce) wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600, wrote: Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? The spandrels were always filled with rubble. Next question? OK as long as there is enough structural brickwork containing it, Clearly there wasn't here. Quite, what sort of cowboys would build a bridge that would only last 161 years. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Disruption at Feltham
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:19:28 -0600,
wrote: In article , (Bruce) wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600, wrote: Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? The spandrels were always filled with rubble. Next question? OK as long as there is enough structural brickwork containing it, Clearly there wasn't here. "Clearly" there was, because the spandrel walls have successfully contained their rubble fill for a very long time. Basil Jet suggests 361 years! ;-) |
Disruption at Feltham
wrote on 18 November 2009 23:19:28 ...
In article , (Bruce) wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600, wrote: Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? The spandrels were always filled with rubble. Next question? OK as long as there is enough structural brickwork containing it, Clearly there wasn't here. You're talking as though the problem is insufficient brickwork at the top of the arch. But it's clear from the photo that the failure occurred lower down, where a great mass of brickwork has moved. Looks like a gross failure of the foundations. I wonder why it was necessary to renew so much of the brickwork at the top of the arch (different colour bricks obvious in photo). This is pure speculation, but I'm wondering whether there was some earlier instability of the foundations that resulted in some movement higher up, which was just patched up rather than properly investigated. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Disruption at Feltham
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:18:36 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: You're talking as though the problem is insufficient brickwork at the top of the arch. But it's clear from the photo that the failure occurred lower down, where a great mass of brickwork has moved. Looks like a gross failure of the foundations. Indeed it does. It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water. I wonder why it was necessary to renew so much of the brickwork at the top of the arch (different colour bricks obvious in photo). This is pure speculation, but I'm wondering whether there was some earlier instability of the foundations that resulted in some movement higher up, which was just patched up rather than properly investigated. More likely, a combination of gradual long term settlement of the structure (it appears to be very old) and frost damage to the brickwork. Problems can then be caused by using hard modern bricks and hard cement mortar, rather than the hand made clay bricks and slightly flexible lime mortar that would have been used in the original structure. |
Disruption at Feltham
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:18:36 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: You're talking as though the problem is insufficient brickwork at the top of the arch. But it's clear from the photo that the failure occurred lower down, where a great mass of brickwork has moved. Looks like a gross failure of the foundations. Indeed it does. It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water. I wonder why it was necessary to renew so much of the brickwork at the top of the arch (different colour bricks obvious in photo). This is pure speculation, but I'm wondering whether there was some earlier instability of the foundations that resulted in some movement higher up, which was just patched up rather than properly investigated. More likely, a combination of gradual long term settlement of the structure (it appears to be very old) and frost damage to the brickwork. Problems can then be caused by using hard modern bricks and hard cement mortar, rather than the hand made clay bricks and slightly flexible lime mortar that would have been used in the original structure. I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event. In the photo you can see the head loss in the stream and associated turbulence with eroding power. Once the foundations start to go, there is nothing to hold up abutment, and then the arch fails. Numbers of such brick culverts fail, often to be replaced by piled foundations set further back, and concrete beams spanning the gap and redundant footings. I remember a serious failure near Godalming, in '68?, and i know of a place where it is possible to walk beneath a main line on the footings of an old culvert, with concrete beams of a good few metres now spanning a much larger gap. Jim Chisholm |
Disruption at Feltham
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm"
wrote: I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event. That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water." You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in your reply. Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to read? Why? |
Disruption at Feltham
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm" wrote: I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event. That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water." You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in your reply. Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to read? Why? Sorry. No need to be agressive... I read the last para which implied a different mode of failure, although I support the fact that modern bricks and cement based motors, result in increased cracking. I was always told that mortar is to keep bricks apart, not to stick therm together. I think engineers are going back to lime based mortars in many applications where twenty years ago they would have used cement based ones without a thought. Jim |
Disruption at Feltham
"Bruce" wrote in message ... On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:18:36 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: You're talking as though the problem is insufficient brickwork at the top of the arch. But it's clear from the photo that the failure occurred lower down, where a great mass of brickwork has moved. Looks like a gross failure of the foundations. Indeed it does. It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water. There are suggestions doing the rounds that this structure wasn't built as a water course, but as a 'subway' under Feltham Yard when first built. There is a second course of the River Crane under the tracks further east, next to the recently built PO sorting office. As a non expert, I'm wondering if the foundations for a subway would meet the requirements for a culvert. OTOH if it was built as a culvert, maybe the majority of the flow now goes through this route, as it is much straighter than the other? Paul |
Disruption at Feltham
J. Chisholm wrote on 19 November 2009 12:13:06 ...
Bruce wrote: On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm" wrote: I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event. That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water." You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in your reply. Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to read? Why? Sorry. No need to be agressive... I read the last para which implied a different mode of failure, But the "last para" was in response to my speculation about what led to the earlier brickwork replacement at the top of the arch, i.e. a different event to the recent collapse. Incidentally, was the rain in the Feltham area really that extreme last week? (I was several hundred miles away at the time.) There is another photo, of unsupported track, presumably above a point further along the tunnel, at http://rail-news.com/wp-content/uplo...Feltham-v2.jpg (The report containing that photo is at http://rail-news.com/2009/11/17/100-...-flood-damage/ ) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Disruption at Feltham
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:02:05 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:18:36 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: You're talking as though the problem is insufficient brickwork at the top of the arch. But it's clear from the photo that the failure occurred lower down, where a great mass of brickwork has moved. Looks like a gross failure of the foundations. Indeed it does. It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water. There are suggestions doing the rounds that this structure wasn't built as a water course, but as a 'subway' under Feltham Yard when first built. There is a second course of the River Crane under the tracks further east, next to the recently built PO sorting office. As a non expert, I'm wondering if the foundations for a subway would meet the requirements for a culvert. Probably not. There would be no requirement for the foundations of a subway to be designed to resist the scouring action of flowing water. |
Disruption at Feltham
There are suggestions doing the rounds that this structure wasn't built as a water course, but as a 'subway' under Feltham Yard when first built. There is a second course of the River Crane under the tracks further east, next to the recently built PO sorting office. As a non expert, I'm wondering if the foundations for a subway would meet the requirements for a culvert. Probably not. *There would be no requirement for the foundations of a subway to be designed to resist the scouring action of flowing water. Was there a plan to run the London LOOP walking route under Feltham Yard? I remember having to make a long detour through Hounslow Heath and through Whitton to get back to the river. It would seem a good time to get a new subway built while they're replacing it, since I doubt the LOOP could have justified it on its own. Perhaps it was hiking extremists who caused the flood damage by blocking up the other course! |
Disruption at Feltham
"Paul Terry" wrote in message ... In message , Paul Scott writes There are suggestions doing the rounds that this structure wasn't built as a water course, but as a 'subway' under Feltham Yard when first built. No, the subway (in fact there appears to be two) runs parallel with the river tunnel, as seen he http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/108858 Right - well done for finding those pictures. I wonder if that more modern looking ramped access visible in the various aerial view sites, eg Multimap, just provides an access into the RH of the two smaller tunnels shown he http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/366747 to reduce its effective length, ie just to get under the railway? I wonder if diverting the mill stream caused greater flow in the main channel, exacerbating the problem? AIUI the main flow will follow the path of least resistance. I imagine under the conditions of heaviest rainfall the Crane drains surface run off from a vast area? Another possibility is that the smaller tunnels were some sort of flood channel of course, as originally built. Paul S |
Disruption at Feltham
In message , Paul Terry
writes No, the subway (in fact there appears to be two) runs parallel with the river tunnel, as seen he http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/108858 Sorry, that's the wrong URL. It should be: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/366747 -- Paul Terry |
Disruption at Feltham
In message , Paul Scott
writes Right - well done for finding those pictures. I wonder if that more modern looking ramped access visible in the various aerial view sites, eg Multimap, just provides an access into the RH of the two smaller tunnels shown he http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/366747 to reduce its effective length, ie just to get under the railway? I actually gave the wrong URL for the first photo, but you have quite rightly spotted the correct one. Yes, I think the ramp simply goes down to the old foot tunnel, which is why someone earlier in the thread couldn't see where what appeared to be a pedestrian subway emerged. AIUI, there is a footpath above the pedestrian tunnel (which provides a viable alternative to the long, unlit tunnel), and the ramp was put in to take pedestrians down to the one bit of tunnel that is still used, beneath the railway line. The Google satellite image shows this path quite clearly. AIUI the main flow will follow the path of least resistance. I imagine under the conditions of heaviest rainfall the Crane drains surface run off from a vast area? I suspect that, like a lot of London's smaller rivers, it takes a huge amount of surface water when the drains can't cope in heavy rain. The Environment Agency's flood map shows the banks of the Crane (and its tributary, the Yeading) virtually all the way from Northolt to Twickenham. Interestingly, the same map indicates little or no flood risk for the mill stream on Hounslow Heath, which I presume means that it is now pretty much cut off from the main channel. This again could have been a contributory factor to the bridge collapse on the main channel. Another possibility is that the smaller tunnels were some sort of flood channel of course, as originally built. At least one of them might have been - I can't see any reason for two parallel foot tunnels. If so, their closure (probably dating back to when the marshalling yard was built) would certainly have exacerbated the problem. -- Paul Terry |
Disruption at Feltham
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600, wrote: Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? The spandrels were always filled with rubble. Next question? Now that it's failed, does that make it a cockup spandrel? tom -- Tubes are the foul subterranean entrails of the London beast, stuffed with the day's foetid offerings. -- Tokugawa |
Disruption at Feltham
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:07:01 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600, wrote: Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? The spandrels were always filled with rubble. Next question? Now that it's failed, does that make it a cockup spandrel? Trust you to come up with that. ;-) |
Disruption at Feltham
"Richard J." wrote in message
... J. Chisholm wrote on 19 November 2009 12:13:06 ... Bruce wrote: On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm" wrote: I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event. That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water." You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in your reply. Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to read? Why? Sorry. No need to be agressive... I read the last para which implied a different mode of failure, But the "last para" was in response to my speculation about what led to the earlier brickwork replacement at the top of the arch, i.e. a different event to the recent collapse. Incidentally, was the rain in the Feltham area really that extreme last week? (I was several hundred miles away at the time.) There is another photo, of unsupported track, presumably above a point further along the tunnel, at http://rail-news.com/wp-content/uplo...Feltham-v2.jpg (The report containing that photo is at http://rail-news.com/2009/11/17/100-...-flood-damage/ ) Now at http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David Biddulph |
Disruption at Feltham
"David Biddulph" groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message
... "Richard J." wrote in message ... J. Chisholm wrote on 19 November 2009 12:13:06 ... Bruce wrote: On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:48 +0000, "J. Chisholm" wrote: I don't go with 'constant change' theory. More like a typical foundation that has been undermined by a particular rainfall event. That's precisely why I stated "It is probably a result of scour under the foundations as a result of the extreme flows of water." You obviously didn't bother to read that. However, you quoted it in your reply. Do you make a habit of replying to postings you cannot be bothered to read? Why? Sorry. No need to be agressive... I read the last para which implied a different mode of failure, But the "last para" was in response to my speculation about what led to the earlier brickwork replacement at the top of the arch, i.e. a different event to the recent collapse. Incidentally, was the rain in the Feltham area really that extreme last week? (I was several hundred miles away at the time.) There is another photo, of unsupported track, presumably above a point further along the tunnel, at http://rail-news.com/wp-content/uplo...Feltham-v2.jpg (The report containing that photo is at http://rail-news.com/2009/11/17/100-...-flood-damage/ ) Now at http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David Biddulph It's done it again. :-( I wish OE didn't keep gluing my sig to the end of a link. Should be http://rail-news.com/2009/11/19/100-...damage/--David BiddulphRowing web pages athttp://www.biddulph.org.uk/ |
Disruption at Feltham
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote: On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:07:19 -0600, wrote: Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? The spandrels were always filled with rubble. Next question? Now that it's failed, does that make it a cockup spandrel? LOL! -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Disruption at Feltham
In article ,
(Paul Scott) wrote: A good quality picture of the failure has appeared on the Network Rail site now: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/servic...tional_info/Fe ltham_Bridge_Nov09.JPG Hmm. Looks to me like part of the top of the arch was filled with rubble. LSWR jerry building? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Disruption at Feltham
Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:18:36 GMT, "Richard J." wrote: I wonder why it was necessary to renew so much of the brickwork at the top of the arch (different colour bricks obvious in photo). This is pure speculation, but I'm wondering whether there was some earlier instability of the foundations that resulted in some movement higher up, which was just patched up rather than properly investigated. More likely, a combination of gradual long term settlement of the structure (it appears to be very old) and frost damage to the brickwork. Elsewhere on the South Western Division, I've seen an ex-LSWR bridge where the facing bricks have been replaced (untidily) with modern ones in just this way. The old ones were showing frost damage (not bad for 150 years) but the structure appears sound. This is just replacement of individual bricks, not whole courses. I get the feeling it's a one-size-fits-all replacement programme, hence the miscoloured bricks. Theo |
Disruption at Feltham
In article ,
(Theo Markettos) wrote: Elsewhere on the South Western Division, I've seen an ex-LSWR bridge where the facing bricks have been replaced (untidily) with modern ones in just this way. The old ones were showing frost damage (not bad for 150 years) but the structure appears sound. This is just replacement of individual bricks, not whole courses. I get the feeling it's a one-size-fits-all replacement programme, hence the miscoloured bricks. It's probable that bricks of the original colour aren't available. For some reason that's a big problem these days. We can't even get matching bricks for a housing scheme near me built in 1975, let alone matching 150 year old ones. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Disruption at Feltham
Latest report is that normal service will resume tomorrow morning:
http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/eng...9548b8faaad06\ 961215 Network Rail's press release shows the track work in progress, I can't work out from the pic if they've laid two tracks or just the one. Can anyone clarify? http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...ID=4827&NewsA\ reaID=2&SearchCategoryID=8 Paul S |
Disruption at Feltham
On Nov 22, 4:27*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: Latest report is that normal service will resume tomorrow morning: http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/eng...a1c9e4a1d13495... 961215 Network Rail's press release shows the track work in progress, I can't work out from the pic if they've laid two tracks or just the one. Can anyone clarify? http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co...aspx?ReleaseID... reaID=2&SearchCategoryID=8 Paul S Try this link: http://tinyurl.com/yfhofpb CJB |
Disruption at Feltham
"CJB" wrote in message ... On Nov 22, 4:27 pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: Latest report is that normal service will resume tomorrow morning: http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/eng...a1c9e4a1d13495... 961215 Network Rail's press release shows the track work in progress, I can't work out from the pic if they've laid two tracks or just the one. Can anyone clarify? I'll let you know tomorrow. Looks like the commute will take a little longer than usual, but not as long as it did last week. : ) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk