|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...re-road-the-in
terchange-from-hell.do TfL can't say they weren't warned! -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 22 Dec, 20:03, Paul Corfield wrote:
I would hardly call the "article" damning nor does it reflect the exaggerated title. More an indictment of a wishy-washy article than any suggestion that Edgware Road hasn't become significantly less fit for purpose than it already was. -- gordon |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. *Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. *And could selective door opening be used to allow a decent train length to run on the Circle? Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and Circle services. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:58:55 -0800 (PST), John B
wrote: Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. A very large number of people want to go beyond Aldgate, though - Tower Hill is a specific example (though perhaps education about how Aldgate is only ten minutes' walk would help more). So maybe the "backwards C" of the Circle Line has very high demand, while the left-hand side doesn't. Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and Circle services. Good, as the current 5-car (I think) trains run on the Circle are completely inadequate. Does anyone know how quick the acceleration of the S-stock is? I think a lot more trains could be fitted into the existing track (thus giving scope for an increase in Circle frequency even without a decrease in other frequencies) if acceleration/deceleration and average running speed could be brought up to the level of, say, the Central Line. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
"Neil Williams" wrote in message ... Good, as the current 5-car (I think) trains run on the Circle are completely inadequate. 6 car - but of only 16m so seems quite short. A stock is 8 x 16m, D stock is 6 x 18.3m Does anyone know how quick the acceleration of the S-stock is? I think a lot more trains could be fitted into the existing track (thus giving scope for an increase in Circle frequency even without a decrease in other frequencies) if acceleration/deceleration and average running speed could be brought up to the level of, say, the Central Line. The end game in 2018 with S stock and new signalling is shown in that LU document posted a couple of weeks back: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...ce-Changes.pdf 32 tph peak on the north (8 H&C, 8 Circle, 16 Met) and south (24 District, 8 Circle) of the circle. So 8 tph Adgate to Tower Hill, 16 tph Edgware Rd - Baker St. Paul S |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:26:05 -0000, "Paul Scott"
wrote: 32 tph peak on the north (8 H&C, 8 Circle, 16 Met) and south (24 District, 8 Circle) of the circle. So 8 tph Adgate to Tower Hill, 16 tph Edgware Rd - Baker St. That seems quite an improvement. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Dec 23, 12:44�pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:26:05 -0000, "Paul Scott" wrote: 32 tph peak on the north (8 H&C, 8 Circle, 16 Met) and south (24 District, 8 Circle) of the circle. �So 8 tph Adgate to Tower Hill, 16 tph Edgware Rd - Baker St. That seems quite an improvement. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. Can anyone explain why, yesterday morning, I had to wait for 25 minutes at Fulham Broadway for an Eastbound train of any description? And when it came, it was a High Street Ken train. Is this in any way related to the new Lassoo Line, or an example of the "normal" service to be expected at 6.15 on a weekday morning? Marc. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
wrote in message ... Can anyone explain why, yesterday morning, I had to wait for 25 minutes at Fulham Broadway for an Eastbound train of any description? And when it came, it was a High Street Ken train. Is this in any way related to the new Lassoo Line, or an example of the "normal" service to be expected at 6.15 on a weekday morning? The new Circle apparently does not affect the off peak service on the Wimbledon Branch (6:6), but the 15 tph peak is now balanced 9:6 in favour of the service towards Embankment. I'd suggest at 0615 yesterday if there was a long gap it was more likely down to bog standard stock availability problems. Did they have weather issues at start of service at all? Paul S |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Apart from that, bang on, of course! tom -- X is for ... EXECUTION! |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 23 Dec, 10:58, John B wrote:
On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. *Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. *And could selective door opening be used to allow a decent train length to run on the Circle? Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and Circle services. I didn't realise that, and it seems very odd. Doesn't the problem apply to several stations in a row? Either there will be one coach not used by anyone on that stretch, or it would have to be a different end at different stations. This sort of thing was tried on the Hampstead tube wasn't it, and I didn't think it had been all that successful? |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys.. I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East London at the same time. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 10:58, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24 am, (Neil Williams) wrote: And could selective door opening be used to allow a decent train length to run on the Circle? Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and Circle services. I didn't realise that, and it seems very odd. Doesn't the problem apply to several stations in a row? Either there will be one coach not used by anyone on that stretch, or it would have to be a different end at different stations. This sort of thing was tried on the Hampstead tube wasn't it, and I didn't think it had been all that successful? The Hampstead tube didn't have articulated carriages. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
"MIG" wrote in message
... On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24 am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East London at the same time. =========== It appears the BBC rely on post codes, often something happening in what everyone else would think of as South London e.g Brixton, but they call south west because it is SW3 or because adjacent Herne Hill is SE24, it becomes SE London. They have no actual geographical knowledge. MaxB |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Dec 23, 8:06*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
*Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. What? *This will, of course, explain why the Central Line is empty in the peaks between NHG and Bank / Liverpool Street. Clearly there is no need for Crossrail then! The sub surface lines - all of them - are heavily oversubscribed in the peaks. *If they weren't, as you allege, then what is the justification for the Sub Surface upgrade and the additional implementation of 7 car S Stock on the H&C / Circle routes? Eh? Yes, of course the SSL is massively overcrowded in the peaks, and I've never claimed otherwise. But the vast majority of SSL peak passengers are trying to get to the City, either from west-of-Earl's-Court or east-of-Whitechapel on the District, from northwest-of-Baker-Street on the Met, or from west-of- Paddington on the H&C(&C). The Circle is an irrelevance to them: Met/ H&C passengers can easily walk to all City destinations from the Met route, and District passengers to all City destinations from the District route. Outside of the peaks, when flows are more evenly split throughout central London, the Circle becomes relevant. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Dec 23, 4:54*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys.. I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Apart from that, bang on, of course! LAHNDON! ESSEX! LAHNDON! ESSEX! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKEBCG3iJtw You are, of course, right - I thought Upminster was outside GL boundaries, but it's LB Havering. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
rth.li... I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. What's more distressing - coming from London or Essex? I was born in Wanstead which, in 1964, was in Essex. If I'm asked what county I was born in I can reply either "Essex" or "London", although I would say I was *from* Surrey or Sussex because that's where I've spent nearly all of my life. Historically, East London *is* Essex. Similarly all of London to the south of the Thames is Kent or Surrey. Surrey County Council has its HQ at Kingston-upon-Thames and Surrey County Cricket Club is based at The Oval, neither of which are in the present day county of Surrey. The rest of London - including the cities of London and Westminster - is in Middlesex, still used by some people on postal addresses. Middlesex Guildhall still stands in Parliament Square - I think it now houses the Supreme Court. It's not worth getting distressed about. D A Stocks |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
Batman55 wrote:
It appears the BBC rely on post codes, often something happening in what everyone else would think of as South London e.g Brixton, but they call south west because it is SW3 or because adjacent Herne Hill is SE24, it becomes SE London. They have no actual geographical knowledge. The occasional description by the local news of something happening in 'Middlesex' is equally baffling, due to that county ceasing to exist 44 years ago. And as it would cover nearly half of their transmission area, it is not very geographically helpful either. To give BBC London their due, the recent coverage of the gas (and electricity) failures in East Barnet has correctly been described as north London. However National Grid was totally confused about the location in their press releases, stating that they were liaising with the emergency planning department in Bedfordshire, then Hertfordshire before finally (correctly) settling on the London Borough of Barnet. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
"Basil Jet" wrote in message
MIG wrote: On 23 Dec, 10:58, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24 am, (Neil Williams) wrote: And could selective door opening be used to allow a decent train length to run on the Circle? Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and Circle services. I didn't realise that, and it seems very odd. Doesn't the problem apply to several stations in a row? Either there will be one coach not used by anyone on that stretch, or it would have to be a different end at different stations. This sort of thing was tried on the Hampstead tube wasn't it, and I didn't think it had been all that successful? The Hampstead tube didn't have articulated carriages. Nor does the S Stock (or any other LU trains). What the S Stock does have is open gangways. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
"MIG" wrote in message
On 23 Dec, 10:58, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24 am, (Neil Williams) And could selective door opening be used to allow a decent train length to run on the Circle? Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and Circle services. I didn't realise that, and it seems very odd. Doesn't the problem apply to several stations in a row? Either there will be one coach not used by anyone on that stretch, or it would have to be a different end at different stations. This sort of thing was tried on the Hampstead tube wasn't it, and I didn't think it had been all that successful? Thwe S Stock has open gangways, so even if a full car is off the platform (unlikely), passengers are still not imprisoned. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote:
On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East London at the same time. As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks being referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well! tom -- Big Bang. No god. Fadeout. End. -- Stephen Baxter |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, John B wrote:
On Dec 23, 4:54*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote: No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Apart from that, bang on, of course! LAHNDON! ESSEX! LAHNDON! ESSEX! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKEBCG3iJtw You are, of course, right - I thought Upminster was outside GL boundaries, but it's LB Havering. Oh, forget local authorities, it's London as far as the A130! tom -- Big Bang. No god. Fadeout. End. -- Stephen Baxter |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, David A Stocks wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li... I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. What's more distressing - coming from London or Essex? London. Specifically, deep East London. I was born in Wanstead No offence! which, in 1964, was in Essex. If I'm asked what county I was born in I can reply either "Essex" or "London", although I would say I was *from* Surrey or Sussex because that's where I've spent nearly all of my life. Historically, East London *is* Essex. Similarly all of London to the south of the Thames is Kent or Surrey. Right, but what you might have missed is that we don't live in history, we live in the present. Otherwise, you might as well say it's all just Provincio Britannia. Surrey County Council has its HQ at Kingston-upon-Thames and Surrey County Cricket Club is based at The Oval, neither of which are in the present day county of Surrey. The rest of London - including the cities of London and Westminster - is in Middlesex, still used by some people on postal addresses. Middlesex Guildhall still stands in Parliament Square - I think it now houses the Supreme Court. It's not worth getting distressed about. Until roughly the millionth time when, on revealing that you're from Essex, you're asked "So have you got a pair of white stilletoes, then? Been up Faces for some discount champagne and a fight lately?", etc. Because this is the result of idiot westerners somehow thinking that Essex means Romford, or Basildon if i'm lucky, and tarring me with their idiot brush. When there's nothing wrong with the real Essex - it's not big or clever, in fact it's quite quiet and backward, but it's relaxed, it's beautiful, it's got history and soul, and i'm quite chuffed that i'm from there. But there's no way to communicate this to anyone because the name is immediately associated with LOL WHITE STILETTOES AND A FORD CAPRI WITH BLUE NEONS!! At which point, one becomes distressed. Anyway, nurse, my medicine please! tom -- Big Bang. No god. Fadeout. End. -- Stephen Baxter |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, wrote:
In article , (David A Stocks) wrote: Historically, East London *is* Essex. Similarly all of London to the south of the Thames is Kent or Surrey. Surrey County Council has its HQ at Kingston-upon-Thames and Surrey County Cricket Club is based at The Oval, neither of which are in the present day county of Surrey. The rest of London - including the cities of London and Westminster - is in Middlesex, still used by some people on postal addresses. Middlesex Guildhall still stands in Parliament Square - I think it now houses the Supreme Court. Historically the City of London has *not* been in Middlesex. And nor has Ely Place! tom -- Big Bang. No god. Fadeout. End. -- Stephen Baxter |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
In message . li, Tom
Anderson writes On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, David A Stocks wrote: "Tom Anderson" wrote in message news:alpine.DEB.1.10.0912231653390.10835@urchin. earth.li... I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. What's more distressing - coming from London or Essex? London. Specifically, deep East London. Hey, I like living in east London :p -- Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building. You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK (please use the reply to address for email) |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
|
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 24 Dec, 14:32, "Recliner" wrote:
"MIG" wrote in message On 23 Dec, 10:58, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24 am, (Neil Williams) And could selective door opening be used to allow a decent train length to run on the Circle? Yes, this is part of the S-stock upgrade plans: 7-car S-stock trains the length of current District stock will run all District, H&C and Circle services. I didn't realise that, and it seems very odd. *Doesn't the problem apply to several stations in a row? *Either there will be one coach not used by anyone on that stretch, or it would have to be a different end at different stations. This sort of thing was tried on the Hampstead tube wasn't it, and I didn't think it had been all that successful? Thwe S Stock has open gangways, so even if a full car is off the platform (unlikely), passengers are still not imprisoned.- Fair enough, but it's not necessarily easy to move through when it's crowded. I've missed a late train from Charing Cross when it was announced seconds before stopping that just one set of doors in the (Northern) carriage wouldn't open, and some people with suitcases, whom I was stuck behind, couldn't get through the crowd to the open door. Walking back from Embankment was just too late. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On 24 Dec, 18:04, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote: On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, John B wrote: On Dec 23, 12:24*am, (Neil Williams) wrote: On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:29:01 -0600, wrote: I'm appalled and disgusted that the manifold deficiencies in passenger information and facilities for people changing trains at Edgware Road were not addressed in the slightest before TfL destroyed the Circle Line.. MX of the first week of it is that the Circle Line's atrocious punctuality did not appear to have improved much, though it would be genuinely interesting to see figures. But 6tph *nowhere near* fulfils the demand that exists on the Circle Line. Yes it does: not very many people want to use the Circle-specific bits. Might it not actually be worth considering cutting other lines short (e.g. terminating more Met trains at Baker St) so that the Circle frequency can be increased? No. The core demand for passenger journeys is far greater between Metroland and the City than between Notting Hill and the City. The same applies for Essex-City journeys versus Liverpool St-Tower Hill journeys. I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East London at the same time. As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks being referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well! tom A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean, just look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why Beckenham isn't East London by the same definition. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
MIG wrote on 24 December 2009 23:55:24 ...
On 24 Dec, 18:04, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote: On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East London at the same time. As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks being referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well! A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean, just look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why Beckenham isn't East London by the same definition. I've looked on a map (Streetmap.co.uk) and it says that Walthamstow is in E17, therefore East London. Seems obvious to me. :-) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
MIG wrote:
A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean, just look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why Beckenham isn't East London by the same definition. I don't know about Beckenham, but Chiselhurst is definitely in East London. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&so...th+Africa&z=15 -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:55:24 -0000, MIG
wrote: A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean, just look on a map and tell me how that's East London East of the Lea? East London. and why Beckenham isn't East London. South of the Thames? South London. These are the 2 most important rivers in London. Don't cross either and you shall come to no harm. Simples! -- FIG |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
Tom Anderson wrote:
Because this is the result of idiot westerners somehow thinking that Essex means Romford, or Basildon if i'm lucky, and tarring me with their idiot brush. I hate to break it to you, but Basildon is still in Essex. And Romford is a place unto itself. |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009, MIG wrote:
On 24 Dec, 18:04, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 23 Dec 2009, MIG wrote: On 23 Dec, 16:54, Tom Anderson wrote: I do wish people would stop referring to East London as Essex. As someone who is actually from Essex, it is highly distressing. Maybe if they did, they could stop referring to North London as East London at the same time. As someone who actually lives in the bit of North London that risks being referred to as East London, i am strongly behind this as well! A typical one, which may be what you mean, is Walthamstow. I mean, just look on a map and tell me how that's East London and why Beckenham isn't East London by the same definition. I think what happens is that people who live in Kentish Town look east and say "oh, that must be East London". tom -- It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum |
Edgware Road: The interchange from hell
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009, Tim Roll-Pickering wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: Because this is the result of idiot westerners somehow thinking that Essex means Romford, or Basildon if i'm lucky, and tarring me with their idiot brush. I hate to break it to you, but Basildon is still in Essex. Sedition! Calumny! tom -- It's the 21st century, man - we rue _minutes_. -- Benjamin Rosenbaum |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk