Thameslink
 

In article
,
(D7666) wrote:

IIMU that Thameslink and the other national rail lines were removed
from the tube map prior to initial Oyster implementation when they
were then only valid on tube lines i.e. to not confuse customers. No
more deeper reason than that.

That can't be right because Oyster was always valid on the lines on the
map, including the GN Moorgate branch.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Thameslink
 

On 8/11/2010 4:12 PM, 1506 wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:48 pm, Theo Markettos theom
wrote:
In uk.transport.london Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 11/08/2010 18:52, Scott wrote:
Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?

Gloucestershire.

Minnesota.

(which appears to have a railroad passing loop, but not a station)

Theo

Massachessetts, and the transit authority has recently purchased the
mainline thru there to Boston North station.

Calling that rickety line by MIT a "mainline" is a bit of a reach don't
you think?

Thameslink
 

On 22 Aug, 07:38, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
On 8/11/2010 4:12 PM, 1506 wrote:





On Aug 11, 12:48 pm, Theo Markettos theom
wrote:
In uk.transport.london Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 11/08/2010 18:52, Scott wrote:
Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. *I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?

Gloucestershire.

Minnesota.

(which appears to have a railroad passing loop, but not a station)

Theo

Massachessetts, and the transit authority has recently purchased the
mainline thru there to Boston North station.

Calling that rickety line by MIT a "mainline" is a bit of a reach don't
you think?

Indeed so: Parts of the "T" more resemble a "mainline". The Green
Line to Riverside looks decidedly heavy duty in places. Forgive this
lapse on my part.