![]() |
Crossrail western termunus
On Jan 6, 9:13*am, 1506 wrote:
After reading your post I looked again. *The link has gone. *It was there earlier, honestly, :-) The site appears to include automatically generated advertisements, of which John Lewis was probably one when you looked at it, but for some reason not where I am. As I am in Switzerland at this particular second and I don't believe they have a presence there, that's not entirely surprising :) John Lewis, of course, do sell items for bathrooms, but I think they would largely be of the kind that actually contain baths. Neil |
Crossrail western termunus
On Jan 6, 10:10*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Jan 6, 9:13*am, 1506 wrote: After reading your post I looked again. *The link has gone. *It was there earlier, honestly, :-) The site appears to include automatically generated advertisements, of which John Lewis was probably one when you looked at it, but for some reason not where I am. *As I am in Switzerland at this particular second and I don't believe they have a presence there, that's not entirely surprising :) John Lewis, of course, do sell items for bathrooms, but I think they would largely be of the kind that actually contain baths. Back in the 1960s one of my first jobs was in retail. I worked on Regents St. We were told that customers would ask for the bathroom, and how to direct them. |
Crossrail western termunus
|
Crossrail western termunus
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote 1506 wrote: One rarely has a problem asking the whereabouts of the bathroom in the UK. Indeed. You get the answer you need and then the person you asked spends the rest of the day telling people about the odd conversation he had. Same if they ask for directions to "the subway". That a term is understandable doesn't make it correct usage. -- Mike D |
Crossrail western termunus
On Jan 6, 8:21*am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Graham Harrison" wrote in message ... "Paul Scott" wrote in message ... "Tim Fenton" wrote in message ... "Graham Harrison" wrote in m... I sort of understand the principle of what you're arguing but, as I understand it, there is a traffic imbalance between the east and west ends of Crossrail; significantly more traffic from the east side of London than the west. * If your suggestion helped to balance the imbalance I might support it, but it doesn't as far as I can see. I expect that traffic from the west end of Crossrail will build quickly when it is seen to relieve the Central Line. But the idea that other traffic would be allowed through I doubt: compare with the Munich or Frankfurt-M S-Bahn tunnels. The London and South East 2nd generation RUS draft proposes: extending Maidenhead services to Reading (as generally expected), incorporating HEx as well as Connect, with both at 4 tph, incorporating WCML stoppers from Tring, possibly another 4 tph? AIUI that will get the misbalance down to 18tph west, 24 tph east. Paul Reading HEx HC that's 3 x 4 =12 Not sure how you get the WCML stoppers in to the tunnel but that still only makes 16tph. * Or is the base Crossrail to Maidenhead/Reading 6tph? There are two Crossrail that terminate at West Drayton. *The 10 tph in the published plan was 4 tph Connect, 4 tph Maidenhead, 2 tph West Drayton. Reaching Crossrail from the WCML slows would presumably be via Old Oak Common, using the same underpass the SN services use, with a bit of extra electrification and posibly new track. *Doesn't seem too difficult, though I assume it'll all have to fit round HS2... How far do you want to send these rapid transit trais, Bletchley? Milton Keynes Central? Northampton? Birmingham? Are Euston to Birmingham trains to share the WCML slow pair? What about freight? This looks like a formula to destroy Crossrail sheduling. |
Crossrail western termunus
"Why, it's a closet, where we store our water..."
-miles -- Discriminate, v.i. To note the particulars in which one person or thing is, if possible, more objectionable than another. |
Crossrail western termunus
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Michael R N Dolbear wrote:
wrote On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:06:19 +0000, Philip wrote: I realise that others like to complicate matters more than we do here in Yorkshire, but let's be clear: It's a bloody toilet. Yes, i've often heard that said about Yorkshire. But that word is a euphemism. Who was it who joked about bathing his brow with toilet water when the seat fell onto his head ? Why not just say bog ? /All/ of them are euphemisms, really, and in fact mostly concerned with /wash/ like the US usage of bathroom as a euphemism that this subsubthread stated with. latrine, toilet, can, convenience, head, john, johnny, lavatory, loo, privy, water closet ****house is perhaps the only term that isn't. And that's slang. Is there really no proper word for it that isn't a euphemism? tom -- curry in a sack |
Crossrail western termunus
"DevilsPGD" wrote in message ... In North America a "half bath" is a toilet and sink/handwashing facilities but no bath. A "full bath" typically includes either a tub, shower, or both. Neither definition is entirely written in stone though so you'll find other things described in some cases. While I'm familiar with the American usage of 'bathroom' to cover all types of bathrooms/loos etc, whether or not they contain a bathtub, I hadn't come across these niceties of 'full' and 'half' baths. Though, returning to the sleeper train theme, I did travel on a night train in Australia once which had a shower room attached to the sleeping compartment... Martin |
Crossrail western termunus
"Martin Rich" writes:
I hadn't come across these niceties of 'full' and 'half' baths. I've only seen those used in real-estate advertisements, presumably to avoid using a "low" word like toilet (which is what a "half bath" is...). -Miles -- "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." Mahatma Gandhi |
Crossrail western termunus
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 23:31:21 +0000, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Michael R N Dolbear wrote: wrote On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:06:19 +0000, Philip wrote: I realise that others like to complicate matters more than we do here in Yorkshire, but let's be clear: It's a bloody toilet. Yes, i've often heard that said about Yorkshire. But that word is a euphemism. Who was it who joked about bathing his brow with toilet water when the seat fell onto his head ? Why not just say bog ? /All/ of them are euphemisms, really, and in fact mostly concerned with /wash/ like the US usage of bathroom as a euphemism that this subsubthread stated with. latrine, toilet, can, convenience, head, john, johnny, lavatory, loo, privy, water closet ****house is perhaps the only term that isn't. And that's slang. No more than the others. The established names in the non-English national languages of the UK all translate as "small house" which IMU is not translated slang as the equivalents to "house" are not restricted to describing habitations. Is there really no proper word for it that isn't a euphemism? "Sh1tter" isn't a euphemism but probably won't impress the wife/boss/minister. Urinal is not euphemistic but does not answer the entire question; I formally stake a copyright claim on the creation of the "faectory". As for "privy", that is arguably not euphemistic (and has well established formal use in previous times) as it derives from the non-public nature of its use rather than from what takes place. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk