In message
Charles Ellson wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:15:43 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

In message
"Graham Harrison" wrote:


"Graeme" wrote in message
...
In message
"Graham Harrison" wrote:

On the "Main Line" trains are usually referred to as going "up" or "down"
by
the staff. However, it seems that, even "London Transport" refer to
Underground lines by their geographic direction; it's not just the public
signs that say "Northbound" etc. Is that correct? Did they ever use
up/down? I've seen it suggested that the reason for using "Southbound"
etc. is related to the American involvement in the building of some of
the
tube lines; comments?


The main line use of up/down is not applicable to the UndergrounD so the
geographic system is more appropriate. I believe such useage predates
Yerkes
involvement.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/


Yes, when I read it I did think that (a) up/down wasn't appropriate and
(b) what happened before Yerkes.

But

I also wondered about the Metropolitan given its' grand plans and
whether the line through Rickmansworth was ever up/down?


The brief history of the Metropolitan Line published in 1973 makes no
mention of the terms. Neither does the contemporary How the Underground
Works in its description of four tracking of the line north(!) of Harrow
on the Hill. Negative evidence I know.

Old BR sectional appendixes will presumably use the owner's definitions
between Harrow and Amersham/Aylesbury ?

Does anybody have access to the appropriate docs?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/