So, yesterday evening I went to my PMB, and there among the pile of
assorted mail was Modern Railways, May edition. It was crinkled in a
way of only the international postal services can achieve.

Once home I was delighted to find the enclosed, detailed, map of
London's railway infrastructure. But, why did Ian Allan have to
staple in to the magazine? It was awkward to remove, and like my
fingers it now has staple holes. I wish it could simply been folded
and included, better yet sent unfolded in a tube. I know I ask a lot
and it is really good to have it.

E27002 wrote:
So, yesterday evening I went to my PMB, and there among the pile of
assorted mail was Modern Railways, May edition. It was crinkled in a
way of only the international postal services can achieve.

Once home I was delighted to find the enclosed, detailed, map of
London's railway infrastructure. But, why did Ian Allan have to
staple in to the magazine? It was awkward to remove, and like my
fingers it now has staple holes. I wish it could simply been folded
and included, better yet sent unfolded in a tube. I know I ask a lot
and it is really good to have it.

Curious to see that Neasden Jn. and Neasden South Jn. appear to have been
transposed. In previous editions of Baker, in "Miles and Chains" and in
David Maxey's "Mile By Mile" Neasden Jn. is marked as that on the Dudding
Hill line, whilst that on the Chiltern line is Neasden South Jn. This map
marks them the opposite way round.

On May 11, 2:40*pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:
E27002 wrote:
So, yesterday evening I went to my PMB, and there among the pile of
assorted mail was Modern Railways, May edition. *It was crinkled in a
way of only the international postal services can achieve.

Once home I was delighted to find the enclosed, detailed, map of
London's railway infrastructure. *But, why did Ian Allan have to
staple in to the magazine? *It was awkward to remove, and like my
fingers it now has staple holes. *I wish it could simply been folded
and included, better yet sent unfolded in a tube. *I know I ask a lot
and it is really good to have it.

Curious to see that Neasden Jn. and Neasden South Jn. appear to have been
transposed. In previous editions of Baker, in "Miles and Chains" and in
David Maxey's "Mile By Mile" Neasden Jn. is marked as that on the Dudding
Hill line, whilst that on the Chiltern line is Neasden South Jn. This map
marks them the opposite way round.

I don't know enough to comment on that. Although I suspect that the
earlier maps are correct.

May MR also has pictures of the new units for the "Goblin" line? Are
these the first diesel trains utilized for passenger service by TfL
and its predecessors?

On 12 May, 16:41, E27002 wrote:
On May 11, 2:40*pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:





E27002 wrote:
So, yesterday evening I went to my PMB, and there among the pile of
assorted mail was Modern Railways, May edition. *It was crinkled in a
way of only the international postal services can achieve.

Once home I was delighted to find the enclosed, detailed, map of
London's railway infrastructure. *But, why did Ian Allan have to
staple in to the magazine? *It was awkward to remove, and like my
fingers it now has staple holes. *I wish it could simply been folded
and included, better yet sent unfolded in a tube. *I know I ask a lot
and it is really good to have it.

Curious to see that Neasden Jn. and Neasden South Jn. appear to have been
transposed. In previous editions of Baker, in "Miles and Chains" and in
David Maxey's "Mile By Mile" Neasden Jn. is marked as that on the Dudding
Hill line, whilst that on the Chiltern line is Neasden South Jn. This map
marks them the opposite way round.

I don't know enough to comment on that. *Although I suspect that the
earlier maps are correct.

May MR also has pictures of the new units for the "Goblin" line? *Are
these the first diesel trains utilized for passenger service by TfL
and its predecessors?


Has the Goblin been out of action since the inception of London
Overground?

"MIG" wrote in message

On 12 May, 16:41, E27002 wrote:
On May 11, 2:40 pm, "Jack Taylor" wrote:





E27002 wrote:
So, yesterday evening I went to my PMB, and there among the pile of
assorted mail was Modern Railways, May edition. It was crinkled in
a way of only the international postal services can achieve.

Once home I was delighted to find the enclosed, detailed, map of
London's railway infrastructure. But, why did Ian Allan have to
staple in to the magazine? It was awkward to remove, and like my
fingers it now has staple holes. I wish it could simply been folded
and included, better yet sent unfolded in a tube. I know I ask a
lot and it is really good to have it.

Curious to see that Neasden Jn. and Neasden South Jn. appear to
have been transposed. In previous editions of Baker, in "Miles and
Chains" and in David Maxey's "Mile By Mile" Neasden Jn. is marked
as that on the Dudding Hill line, whilst that on the Chiltern line
is Neasden South Jn. This map marks them the opposite way round.

I don't know enough to comment on that. Although I suspect that the
earlier maps are correct.

May MR also has pictures of the new units for the "Goblin" line? Are
these the first diesel trains utilized for passenger service by TfL
and its predecessors?


Has the Goblin been out of action since the inception of London
Overground?

No

May MR also has pictures of the new units for the "Goblin" line? Are
these the first diesel trains utilized for passenger service by TfL
and its predecessors?

Has the Goblin been out of action since the inception of London
Overground?


No and no.

--
Nick

On 12 May, 19:23, D7666 wrote:
May MR also has pictures of the new units for the "Goblin" line? Are
these the first diesel trains utilized for passenger service by TfL
and its predecessors?
Has the Goblin been out of action since the inception of London
Overground?

No and no.

--
Nick

I didn't think so, but a yes to the latter would be the only way there
could have been a yes to the former (as I probably don't need to spell
out).

On 12/05/2010 20:20, MIG wrote:
On 12 May, 19:23, wrote:
May MR also has pictures of the new units for the "Goblin" line? Are
these the first diesel trains utilized for passenger service by TfL
and its predecessors?
Has the Goblin been out of action since the inception of London
Overground?

No and no.

--
Nick

I didn't think so, but a yes to the latter would be the only way there
could have been a yes to the former (as I probably don't need to spell
out).

I assumed he meant "are these the first diesel trains utilized for
passenger service *acquired* (as opposed to inherited) by TfL and its
predecessors?" In which case the answer AFAIK is yes. LUL does own a
diesel loco or two for maintenance purposes.

On May 12, 8:20*pm, MIG wrote:

No and no.

I didn't think so, but a yes to the latter would be the only way there
could have been a yes to the former (as I probably don't need to spell
out).


)

Right into my neatly sprung trap.

I thought of a non-Goblin LT/LRT/LUL/LU/etc diesel public timetabled
passenger diesel operation before I answered )

I admit this time to be posting exceptions to prove rules in full
pedant mode .............

--
Nick

On 12/05/2010 20:33, D7666 wrote:
On May 12, 8:20 pm, wrote:

No and no.

I didn't think so, but a yes to the latter would be the only way there
could have been a yes to the former (as I probably don't need to spell
out).


)

Right into my neatly sprung trap.

I thought of a non-Goblin LT/LRT/LUL/LU/etc diesel public timetabled
passenger diesel operation before I answered )

I admit this time to be posting exceptions to prove rules in full
pedant mode .............

IIRC there have been diesel trains run as part of Steam On The Met.