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.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633086.html
(50 043 at Clapham Junction, 19 Jul 1981)

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:59:44 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:
One rarely has a problem asking the whereabouts of the bathroom in
the
UK.

No, but that's because people have heard of the term and might expect
an American to use it in context.

And, had you refered to my link: John Lewis is hardly a North
American company.

Can't see a reference to them in the Wisegeek link.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, 1506 wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:23*pm, amogles wrote:
On 1 Jan., 13:41, Robert Cox wrote:

The Crossrail tunnels will cost billions and will have to be
intensively used to make any sort of financial sense.

Crossrail will be designed to handle the peak load at peak time. That
means that the rest of the time there will be spare capacity. How about
routing a limited number of intercity trains through the tunnel at off
peak times? It is precisely at late evenings that the lower density of
trains on the Underground makes changing btween London terminii take
longer. If the last trains to Bristols or Cardiff could pick up theatre
goers in central London that might help make the train an option where
it isn't today.

Great theory. Will your intercity trains be fitted with ATO and the
correct emergency equipment for the tunnel section?

Yes, and they'll be double-decker. And sleepers. Which works, because due
to the height constraints, there's only room for someone to lie down on
each deck.

tom

--
20 Minutes into the Future

On 31/12/2010 09:34, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:56 pm, wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Full bathrooms? very few trains have them. As for Half bathrooms (a
commode and hand basin), a substantial number of trains have them.

Full bathrooms? Half bathrooms? What?

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.

Phil.

In message Philip
was claimed to have wrote:

On 31/12/2010 09:34, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:56 pm, wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Full bathrooms? very few trains have them. As for Half bathrooms (a
commode and hand basin), a substantial number of trains have them.

Full bathrooms? Half bathrooms? What?

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.

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.

On Jan 5, 7:59*am, 1506 wrote:

On Jan 5, 7:39*am, Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:19:41 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-half-bathroom.htm

...applies only in the US and possibly Canada. *Use that phrase in
the UK and people will just get confused.

If you prefer to use US terminology in a crosspost like this,
"restroom" will at least be understood internationally; in the UK a
"bathroom" always contains a bath, and indeed need not contain a WC.

One rarely has a problem asking the whereabouts of the bathroom in the
UK. *And, had you refered to my link: John Lewis is hardly a North
American company.

Have you ever considered surrendering your British passport?!

On Jan 6, 12:23*am, Grumpy wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:41*pm, Robert Cox wrote:

The Crossrail tunnels will cost billions and will have to be
intensively used to make any sort of financial sense.

If only.
The business case purports to show a net *present value of £11bn.
To get that they build a case based on huge future growth (like HS2)
and then offset the costs by trying to put a value on benefits for
such as "time savings" and "easing congestion".
For example of the net present value, £10bn is claimed to be for the
value of "time savings".
Given that this is principally going to be a London commuter
railway,it means that most of the time savings will be people having
another 15-20 minutes in bed on a morning. Meanwhile the billions
spent will have to be paid by the rest of us in real taxes/rates.
Madness. If the faster service is so valuable why cant the users be
expected to pay premium fares to use it?
The whole project just hasn't been thought through properly-witness
the confusion (aka lack of any decent planning on the Western end)
which the recently published London RUS exposes. This makes clear
there simply isn't capacity to run separate Crossrail trains to
Maidenhead as well as the FGW services. Also that a second branch (to
the LNW lines) should be provided. This sort of thing should have been
thought through well before now.

IMHO, the Crossrail branches should be served by only Crossrail
trains. Otherwise, there is a likelyhood of train frequency on the
core section being disrupted by delays on the branches. IIRC, this is
termed "service polution". Unless LNW frieght can be diverted
elsewhere, utlization of the slow AC pair is a non-starter.

On Jan 6, 12:59*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:59*am, 1506 wrote:





On Jan 5, 7:39*am, Neil Williams wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:19:41 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-half-bathroom.htm

...applies only in the US and possibly Canada. *Use that phrase in
the UK and people will just get confused.

If you prefer to use US terminology in a crosspost like this,
"restroom" will at least be understood internationally; in the UK a
"bathroom" always contains a bath, and indeed need not contain a WC.

One rarely has a problem asking the whereabouts of the bathroom in the
UK. *And, had you refered to my link: John Lewis is hardly a North
American company.

Have you ever considered surrendering your British passport?!- Hide quoted text -

Absolutely NOT. I reserve the right to spell "check" Cheque. :-)

On Jan 5, 7:16*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:59:44 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

One rarely has a problem asking the whereabouts of the bathroom in
the
UK.

No, but that's because people have heard of the term and might expect
an American to use it in context.

* And, had you refered to my link: John Lewis is hardly a North

American company.

Can't see a reference to them in the Wisegeek link.

Neil

After reading your post I looked again. The link has gone. It was
there earlier, honestly, :-)

On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:06:19 +0000, Philip wrote:

On 31/12/2010 09:34, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:56 pm, wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Full bathrooms? very few trains have them. As for Half bathrooms (a
commode and hand basin), a substantial number of trains have them.

Full bathrooms? Half bathrooms? What?

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.

Phil.

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 ?