| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
ELL video
"Mizter T" wrote in message
On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote: On Apr 29, 8:16 am, Paul Corfield wrote: On Apr 28, 9:31 pm, Ivor The Engine wrote: On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:01:26 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: Are there actually plans for WLL trains to go that far east? No. The NLL and ELL overlap between Canonbury and Highbury. Oops. Never was good at geography! Or decrypting TLAs. Well to be fair it all depends how you categorise things. It depends on whether you describe the infrastructure or the service. Mr Scott and others are quite correct that trains from the WLL will run through to Stratford from Clapham Junction. However is it still a WLL service when it reaches Canonbury or is it a NLL service? I tend to think of the bits of railway as being distinct when it comes to the Overground. This is reinforced by the fact that the ELL and NLL will run side by side but with no through running in normal circumstances due to the track design at Highbury. Something similar applies at Clapham Junction as there are real practical problems there about how a ELL train would reverse and then head north up the WLL without causing all sorts of issues. I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at Clapham Jn? Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2). I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned? |
ELL video
"Recliner" wrote in message ... "Mizter T" wrote in message On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote: I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at Clapham Jn? Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2). I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned? AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover. Actually, with the confusion about WLL trains running through to Stratford via the NLL, there will be a similar confusion with ELL trains using the South London Line between Old Kent Road and Factory Junction, though of course the SLL terminology has already been abandoned between Peckham Rye and Factory Junction, where the line that goes over the top of Brixton Station is known as the Atlantic Lines, Perhaps the trains should be hauled by 4-4-2 locos. ;-) Peter |
ELL video
On Apr 29, 2:48*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message "Mizter T" On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote: I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at Clapham Jn? Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2). I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned? AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover. That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in between those on platforms 2 and 3. Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two. Actually, with the confusion about WLL trains running through to Stratford via the NLL, there will be a similar confusion with ELL trains using the South London Line between Old Kent Road and Factory Junction, though of course the SLL terminology has already been abandoned between Peckham Rye and Factory Junction, where the line that goes over the top of Brixton Station is known as the Atlantic Lines, Perhaps the trains should be hauled by 4-4-2 locos. *;-) Though from a passenger perspective, there wouldn't really be confusion - the "South London Line" is the Victoria-London Bridge service, which would be displaced by ELL phase 2 (and a number of other factors). Some annoyance seems likely though! Indeed the SLL name isn't actually used in any pax facing communications from the railway these days (it's just another of Southern's "Metro" routes in south London), but the various campaigners certainly use it. For that matter, I've just remembered about the West London Line Group, a users group who evidently make use of the WLL name. |
ELL video
|
ELL video
On 29 Apr, 18:25, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:44:05 +0100, "Paul Scott" wrote: Paul Corfield wrote: Well to be fair it all depends how you categorise things. It depends on whether you describe the infrastructure or the service. *Mr Scott and others are quite correct that trains from the WLL will run through to Stratford from Clapham Junction. However is it still a WLL service when it reaches Canonbury or is it a NLL service? Good points. Just shows how the same question can be interpreted in different ways. *I suppose I was answering 'will trains originating on the WLL reach as far as the overlap with the ELL at Highbury etc. Incidentally a post in District Dave's a couple of weeks back firmly supported the view that London Rail aren't keen on using the line names, everthing being described in terms of 'origin and destination' in timetables etc... It does indeed show that. It is a pity in some respects that so many colours have already been used up for tube lines as there would be some merit in colour coding the various Overground lines. *Perhaps the final map will be a bit like DLR where they show the service pattern as lines to illustrate where there are through services? I did see the District Dave post - ISTR that it was rather vociferous and was "telling everybody off" for using the wrong terms despite TfL not having (AFAIK) any jurisdiction over the DD board ;-) If you extend the question to empty stock moves though, LO trains from the WLL will also reach the ELL (and the depot) via all sorts of routes through South London. :-) I think you're pushing the limits of comparison perhaps just a little too far. -- Paul C Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and the SLL. |
ELL video
Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 29, 2:48 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message "Mizter T" On Apr 29, 1:52 pm, TimB wrote: I thought they were expected to use the same platform (2?) at Clapham Jn? Platform 1 is to be reinstated (across the island from platform 2). I thought Ih ad read that this plan had been abandoned? AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover. That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in between those on platforms 2 and 3. Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two. I suggested a few weeks ago somewhere (uk.transport.london?) that perhaps they should build out the western half of the current P2 over the track bed, which would leave a roughly 6 car long bay for the current service (to be renumbered P1), followed by a second 6 car platform face for a new P2. That way you'd avoid the need for points half way along the platform, and there would be a much more obvious separation between the two platforms for passengers, as well as more circulation space. AIUI there are still track alterations needed such as doubling the Latchmere Reversible to aid the higher frequency, I'm not sure about the track layout leading to the up and down Ludgate lines, but I suspect there is additional S&C to fit to allow completely independent operation of the two future LO routes. What seems noteworthy is that the current P2 is under the control of Wimbledon ASC, and there are boundaries with Victoria Central for the WLL and Victoria Southeastern for the Ludgate lines - surely there's scope for a change of control responsibilities there? Although I'm not writing with any real signalling knowledge, it doesn't seem designed for streamlined operations... Paul S |
ELL video
On Apr 29, 10:29*pm, "Paul Scott" wrote: Mizter T wrote: On Apr 29, 2:48 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: [snip] AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover. That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in between those on platforms 2 and 3. Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two. I suggested a few weeks ago somewhere (uk.transport.london?) that perhaps they should build out the western half of the current P2 over the track bed, which would leave a roughly 6 car long bay for the current service (to be renumbered P1), followed by a second 6 car platform face for a new P2. That way you'd avoid the need for points half way along the platform, and there would be a much more obvious separation between the two platforms for passengers, as well as more circulation space. OK, I'd missed that, but that seems like a good solution too - it would block access to the currently disused Kensington sidings (?) - well, from that centre track at least - but if they're not needed then that's no bother really. We shall see what they come up with. AIUI there are still track alterations needed such as doubling the Latchmere Reversible to aid the higher frequency, I'm not sure about the track layout leading to the up and down Ludgate lines, but I suspect *there is additional S&C to fit to allow completely independent operation of the two future LO routes. What seems noteworthy is that the current P2 is under the control of Wimbledon ASC, and there are boundaries with Victoria Central for the WLL and Victoria Southeastern for the Ludgate lines - surely there's scope for a change of control responsibilities there? *Although I'm not writing with any real signalling knowledge, it doesn't seem designed for streamlined operations... Sounds like some changes might be in order - a good example of the hidden expenses of such projects I suppose. |
ELL video
On Apr 29, 9:45*pm, wrote: (Mizter T) wrote: On Apr 29, 2:48*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote: [snip] AIUI the current plan is to use platform 2 in two halves. Presumably WLL trains will use the eastern half of the platform, and ELL trains will use the western half via a new mid-platform crossover. Described in this month's Modern Railways (IIRC) as the "Cambridge solution". :-)) Well that'll show me for not having read it this month! That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in between those on platforms 2 and 3. Isn't there a middle road between 2 and 3 at Clapham Junction? Yes, that's exactly what I mean above when I said there was a centre track. Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two. I think the other problem with the original platform 1 is the signalling or other hardware that would have to be moved. My memory is that there track bed space isn't used for anything critical like that, BICBW. |
ELL video
|
ELL video
|
ELL video
"MIG" wrote in message
On 29 Apr, 18:25, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:44:05 +0100, "Paul Scott" wrote: Paul Corfield wrote: Well to be fair it all depends how you categorise things. It depends on whether you describe the infrastructure or the service. Mr Scott and others are quite correct that trains from the WLL will run through to Stratford from Clapham Junction. However is it still a WLL service when it reaches Canonbury or is it a NLL service? Good points. Just shows how the same question can be interpreted in different ways. I suppose I was answering 'will trains originating on the WLL reach as far as the overlap with the ELL at Highbury etc. Incidentally a post in District Dave's a couple of weeks back firmly supported the view that London Rail aren't keen on using the line names, everthing being described in terms of 'origin and destination' in timetables etc... It does indeed show that. It is a pity in some respects that so many colours have already been used up for tube lines as there would be some merit in colour coding the various Overground lines. Perhaps the final map will be a bit like DLR where they show the service pattern as lines to illustrate where there are through services? I did see the District Dave post - ISTR that it was rather vociferous and was "telling everybody off" for using the wrong terms despite TfL not having (AFAIK) any jurisdiction over the DD board ;-) If you extend the question to empty stock moves though, LO trains from the WLL will also reach the ELL (and the depot) via all sorts of routes through South London. :-) I think you're pushing the limits of comparison perhaps just a little too far. -- Paul C Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and the SLL. Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the metropolis than any other LU line. |
ELL video
On Apr 30, 11:59*am, "Recliner" wrote: "MIG" wrote: Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and the SLL. Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the metropolis than any other LU line. *Exactly* what I was going to say! ;) |
ELL video
On Apr 30, 11:55*am, wrote: (Mizter T) wrote: On Apr 29, 9:45*pm, wrote: (Mizter T) wrote: [snip] That's very interesting - first time I've come across that. That plan makes the notion of sharing a platform face actually workable (having the WLL and ELL services actually share the very same operational platform would be a recipe for total disaster, which is why I'd dismissed it previously - never thought of what you've mentioned though). It's possible of course because there's a centre track in between those on platforms 2 and 3. Isn't there a middle road between 2 and 3 at Clapham Junction? Yes, that's exactly what I mean above when I said there was a centre track. Indeed. You seemed unsure. No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track between platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan wouldn't be feasible. Actually quite ingenious. I knew that the decking beneath the track space of platform 1 wasn't in a very healthy state - I guess that some time in the future that might have to be dealt with properly, then again maybe it's fine and can continue to be patched up so long as it doesn't need to take the weight of a train or two. I think the other problem with the original platform 1 is the signalling or other hardware that would have to be moved. My memory is that there track bed space isn't used for anything critical like that, BICBW. It's in the ELL article on page 54 of MR. It just says that "bringing platform 1 back into use is technically difficult". I thought the potential show stopper w.r.t. reinstating platform 1 was simply that the decking was in need of some major (and therefore expensive) structural work to bring it up to scratch. |
ELL video
On 30 Apr, 12:15, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 30, 11:59*am, "Recliner" wrote: "MIG" wrote: Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and the SLL. Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the metropolis than any other LU line. *Exactly* what I was going to say! ;) And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... |
ELL video
MIG wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ...
On 30 Apr, 12:15, Mizter wrote: On Apr 30, 11:59 am, wrote: wrote: Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and the SLL. Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the metropolis than any other LU line. *Exactly* what I was going to say! ;) And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. Based on Google maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or around 50 metres. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
ELL video
On 30 Apr, 22:38, "Richard J." wrote:
MIG wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ... On 30 Apr, 12:15, Mizter *wrote: On Apr 30, 11:59 am, *wrote: *wrote: Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and the SLL. Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the metropolis than any other LU line. *Exactly* what I was going to say! ;) And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. *Based on Google maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or around 50 metres. Please don't spoil my claims with facts. |
ELL video
|
ELL video
|
ELL video
On 1 May, 08:16, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , writes In article , (Mizter T) wrote: No - what I meant was that this proposed solution is only possible because of the (essentially unused) middle road / centre track between platforms 2 and 3 - if it wasn't there, then the whole plan wouldn't be feasible. I vaguely recall wondering what was the point of it when I was a child. I suspect it became mostly redundant at electrification. I think it was used for goods trains that needed to reverse into Kensington sidings - mostly milk trains from the South West that came via East Putney. The reversal was needed because there was no access to Kensington sidings from the west and the central road allowed the reversal to take place without blocking the passenger lines. -- Paul Terry And recently used for dumping some 31s in I recall. |
ELL video
|
ELL video
On 1 May, 18:50, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , writes That would be consistent with my recollections, I agree. I'd forgotten about freight. I recall milk trains in platform 1 at Vauxhall but maybe they used to sit in Kensington sidings too. I think milk wagons were sorted in Kensington sidings ready for dispatch to various bottling plants in SW London. Vauxhall platform 1 was certainly one such destination - the milk went straight down stainless steel pipes into the United Dairies bottling depot in the arches below the station. The empties would then go up to Waterloo for reversal back to CJ. Other milk wagons went to Stewarts Lane depot and to the Express Dairy bottling plant at Morden. I've never seen the central track ("the middle siding") between platforms 2 and 3 at CJ used in modern times. At the west end it only connected with the Kensington sidings and, with those out of use, it is pretty much redundant and therefore an excellent solution for allowing two different services to use platform 2. Definitely used in recent years for parking some interestingly coloured 47s and 31s from one or other of the charter companies in recent years. |
ELL video
On May 1, 8:42*pm, MIG wrote: On 1 May, 18:50, Paul Terry wrote: In message , writes That would be consistent with my recollections, I agree. I'd forgotten about freight. I recall milk trains in platform 1 at Vauxhall but maybe they used to sit in Kensington sidings too. I think milk wagons were sorted in Kensington sidings ready for dispatch to various bottling plants in SW London. Vauxhall platform 1 was certainly one such destination - the milk went straight down stainless steel pipes into the United Dairies bottling depot in the arches below the station. The empties would then go up to Waterloo for reversal back to CJ. Other milk wagons went to Stewarts Lane depot and to the Express Dairy bottling plant at Morden. I've never seen the central track ("the middle siding") between platforms 2 and 3 at CJ used in modern times. At the west end it only connected with the Kensington sidings and, with those out of use, it is pretty much redundant and therefore an excellent solution for allowing two different services to use platform 2. Definitely used in recent years for parking some interestingly coloured 47s and 31s from one or other of the charter companies in recent years. Agree I've seen it used in recent-ish years (though not lately), though never saw anything actually moving there. Wasn't one of the Eurostar class 37s parked up there for quite some time? |
ELL video
|
ELL video
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, MIG wrote:
On 30 Apr, 22:38, "Richard J." wrote: MIG wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ... On 30 Apr, 12:15, Mizter *wrote: On Apr 30, 11:59 am, *wrote: *wrote: Seems to me that the NLL goes further W and S than both the WLL and the SLL. Just following the LU tradition, whereby the Northern Line goes further south than other lines and the Metropolitan Line goes further from the metropolis than any other LU line. *Exactly* what I was going to say! ;) And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. *Based on Google maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or around 50 metres. Please don't spoil my claims with facts. Hang on, surely that means that if you only consider points served by the lines, ie stations rather than bits of track such as Brixton where the SLL famously does not stop, then your claim is supported by the facts? To add to the list, we have Southern running trains further north than North London Railway (aka London Overground). tom -- Mr. Cadbury's Parrot impressions go down surprisingly well during lovemaking! -- D |
ELL video
Tom Anderson wrote on 03 May 2010 11:26:52 ...
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, MIG wrote: On 30 Apr, 22:38, "Richard wrote: wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ... And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. Based on Google maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or around 50 metres. Please don't spoil my claims with facts. Hang on, surely that means that if you only consider points served by the lines, ie stations rather than bits of track such as Brixton where the SLL famously does not stop, then your claim is supported by the facts? Aha, I knew someone would raise that! His claim was that the NLL "goes further S" than the SLL, not that it stops further south. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
ELL video
On May 4, 9:19*am, "Richard J." wrote: Tom Anderson wrote on 03 May 2010 11:26:52 ... On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, MIG wrote: On 30 Apr, 22:38, "Richard *wrote: *wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 .... And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. *Based on Google maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or around 50 metres. Please don't spoil my claims with facts. Hang on, surely that means that if you only consider points served by the lines, ie stations rather than bits of track such as Brixton where the SLL famously does not stop, then your claim is supported by the facts? Aha, I knew someone would raise that! His claim was that the NLL "goes further S" than the SLL, not that it stops further south. I'm enjoying this Battle Royale... To add to it, the actual line itself is now known as the "Atlantic lines" (plural, I think) west of Peckham Rye station - well, Crofton Road junction just west of P Rye is where I think the official designation starts, not sure. East of this point, i.e. from P Rye up to London Bridge, the lines are still known as the "South London Line". In days of yore, before various junctions went it (in the early/ mid 80's I think), then my understanding is that the whole line was known as the South London Line - the partial re-designation as the Atlantic Lines (named after Atlantic Road in Brixton) I think reflects the fact that the actual trackwork on the alignment(s) between P Rye and Wandsworth Road/ Factory Junction is now more flexible (e.g. the Atlantic lines are used by freight to/from the WLL, other non-stopping passenger services such as Vic-Dartford via Lewisham, etc). Of course it all depends on whether we're talking about name of the train service (i.e. that which is in common-ish usage) or the (official) name of the line (i.e. the actual track). Confused... I am! |
ELL video
On Tue, 4 May 2010, Richard J. wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote on 03 May 2010 11:26:52 ... On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, MIG wrote: On 30 Apr, 22:38, "Richard wrote: wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ... And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. Based on Google maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or around 50 metres. Please don't spoil my claims with facts. Hang on, surely that means that if you only consider points served by the lines, ie stations rather than bits of track such as Brixton where the SLL famously does not stop, then your claim is supported by the facts? Aha, I knew someone would raise that! His claim was that the NLL "goes further S" than the SLL, not that it stops further south. If a railway line's trains don't call somewhere, then it can't be said to go there - it might pass through it, but it doesn't go there. If i take the tube from the Angel to the Elephant, would you let me get away with saying "i went to the middle of the Thames today"? Before the wall came down, would you have said that the West Berlin U-bahn went to East Berlin? It certainly passed under it, but you would have a very hard time indeed travelling there on it. This is my story and i am sticking to it. tom -- My goal wasn't to make a ton of money. It was to build good computers. -- Woz |
ELL video
Tom Anderson:
If a railway line's trains don't call somewhere, then it can't be said to go there - it might pass through it, but it doesn't go there. ... Before the wall came down, would you have said that the West Berlin U-bahn went to East Berlin? Sure -- at Friedrichstrasse station. You could get off there and either visit the duty-free shop (a source of foreign exchange for the East Germans), change to the West Berlin S-Bahn (which was also run by the East Germans!), or go through East German customs and enter East Berlin. Assuming, of course, that you had the applicable rights/permissions to do so. -- Mark Brader | ...politicians are forever seeking a "level playing field": Toronto | it lets them talk out of both sides of their mouth. | --Roland Hutchinson |
ELL video
Tom Anderson wrote:
If a railway line's trains don't call somewhere, then it can't be said to go there - it might pass through it, but it doesn't go there. If i take the tube from the Angel to the Elephant, would you let me get away with saying "i went to the middle of the Thames today"? No. The line does not go through the middle of the Thames, but under it. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683731.html (55995 (Class 128) at Manchester Piccadilly, 7 Jun 1985) |
ELL video
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Chris Tolley wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: If a railway line's trains don't call somewhere, then it can't be said to go there - it might pass through it, but it doesn't go there. If i take the tube from the Angel to the Elephant, would you let me get away with saying "i went to the middle of the Thames today"? No. The line does not go through the middle of the Thames, but under it. Right. Then the SLL doesn't go to Brixton, it goes over it! tom -- Gotta treat 'em mean to make 'em scream. |
ELL video
Tom Anderson wrote on 05 May 2010 00:51:23 ...
On Tue, 4 May 2010, Richard J. wrote: Tom wrote on 03 May 2010 11:26:52 ... On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, MIG wrote: On 30 Apr, 22:38, "Richard wrote: wrote on 30 April 2010 16:32:41 ... And what I should have said was that the NLL goes further W than the WLL, further S than the SLL and further E than the ELL ... Further south than the SLL is a questionable claim. Based on Google maps, I believe Richmond (the southernmost part of the NLL) is just slightly further north than the southernmost part of the SLL (the flyover over Brixton station) - by about 0.0004 degrees of latitude, or around 50 metres. Please don't spoil my claims with facts. Hang on, surely that means that if you only consider points served by the lines, ie stations rather than bits of track such as Brixton where the SLL famously does not stop, then your claim is supported by the facts? Aha, I knew someone would raise that! His claim was that the NLL "goes further S" than the SLL, not that it stops further south. If a railway line's trains don't call somewhere, then it can't be said to go there - it might pass through it, but it doesn't go there. If i take the tube from the Angel to the Elephant, would you let me get away with saying "i went to the middle of the Thames today"? "to" implies a destination, which the middle of the Thames clearly isn't, so your statement is badly phrased. We were talking about which of two lines went the furthest south. A similar topic would be to discuss which tube line goes deepest when passing under the Thames. ('Deepest' = furthest below mean sea level) I'm sure you would agree that this is a perfectly valid thing to measure and discuss even though you can't get out of the train there. I'm just doing the same sort of thing in a different direction. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk