On Feb 24, 9:39*am, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 24/02/2012 01:33, Andy wrote:





On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, *wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, *wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:59 am, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

"Peter *wrote:
*wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.

And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. *I guess it would be
Edgeware?

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

Of course, if we are going to get silly, then not too far from Watford
Met, on the north curve from Croxley to Rickmansworth, there is the
only tunnel with tube like construction on the Met.

Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.

Often still a tube though, just a larger diameter than the running tunnels


Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:01:45 -0800 (PST)
Andy wrote:
Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

Does the East london line count as a tube line because of the tunnels
under the thames I wonder?

B2003

On 24/02/2012 10:36, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 23/02/2012 21:16, Recliner wrote:
I did wonder if Stanmore, or Rainers Lane might be closer.
I've never heard of "Rainers Lane" (it's certainly not in London), but
wouldn't Harrow& Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line be nearer?

Perhaps you've heard of Rayners Lane then...

Of course I have, and have often changed trains there, as well as
driving along the aforesaid lane. That's why I know how it's spelled.

Therefore you were, in true uk.r tradition, being unnecessarily pedantic.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 24/02/2012 10:39, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:47:19 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:07:23 +0000
Charles wrote:
Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.
The tube is now widely used for all London Underground services and
even TfL now use the term for both the deep level 'tube' lines and the
Sub-Surface lines.

So ? Does repetition make something any more true ?

The whole system is known as the tube ergo the met line is part of it
regardless of the loading gauge of the trains. Whether it was considered
so 100 years is irrelevant. Definitions change. Deal.

Indeed, much of the first TV programme entitled "The Tube" was about
relaying track at Harrow-on-the-Hill station, which is a long way from
any Tube tunnels.

A lot of the rest was at Morden which is not a tube station but serves a
tube stock line, ho hum.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 24/02/2012 11:01, Andy wrote:
On Feb 24, 9:39 am, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 01:33, Andy wrote:





On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:59 am, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

"Peter wrote:
wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.

And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. I guess it would be
Edgeware?

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

Of course, if we are going to get silly, then not too far from Watford
Met, on the north curve from Croxley to Rickmansworth, there is the
only tunnel with tube like construction on the Met.

Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.

Often still a tube though, just a larger diameter than the running tunnels


Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

The running tunnels are still tubes (or pipes, pace the Bellets ). I
would also dispute the statement that very few stations on tube lines in
central London are tubes. Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the
majority are still tubes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 24/02/2012 11:07, d wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:01:45 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

Does the East london line count as a tube line because of the tunnels
under the thames I wonder?


No. IIRC the tunnels are actually square cross section.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:12:08 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 24/02/2012 10:36, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 23/02/2012 21:16, Recliner wrote:
I did wonder if Stanmore, or Rainers Lane might be closer.
I've never heard of "Rainers Lane" (it's certainly not in London), but
wouldn't Harrow& Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line be nearer?

Perhaps you've heard of Rayners Lane then...

Of course I have, and have often changed trains there, as well as
driving along the aforesaid lane. That's why I know how it's spelled.

Therefore you were, in true uk.r tradition, being unnecessarily pedantic.

Yup, guilty as charged.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:18:07 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:07, d wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:01:45 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

Does the East london line count as a tube line because of the tunnels
under the thames I wonder?


No. IIRC the tunnels are actually square cross section.

They don't look square to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel

B2003

On Feb 24, 11:17*am, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:01, Andy wrote:





On Feb 24, 9:39 am, Graeme *wrote:
On 24/02/2012 01:33, Andy wrote:

On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, * *wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, * *wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:59 am, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

"Peter * *wrote:
* *wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.

And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. *I guess it would be
Edgeware?

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

Of course, if we are going to get silly, then not too far from Watford
Met, on the north curve from Croxley to Rickmansworth, there is the
only tunnel with tube like construction on the Met.

Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.

Often still a tube though, just a larger diameter than the running tunnels

Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

The running tunnels are still tubes (or pipes, pace the Bellets ). *I
would also dispute the statement that very few stations on tube lines in
central London are tubes.

Who said that? I said that very few stations are tube stations, even
in central London. Taken over the whole system, stations in a tube are
in a definite minority and a large proportion of the Tube stations in
central London are on the subsurface lines and, of the rest, there are
not many of the Lancaster Gate / Queensway / Goodge Street design
remaining where the old station tunnels are still obviously tubes for
all the platforms.

Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the majority are still tubes.



Are you talking about individual platforms or whole stations?

On 24/02/2012 11:23, Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:12:08 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 24/02/2012 10:36, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:48:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 23/02/2012 21:16, Recliner wrote:
I did wonder if Stanmore, or Rainers Lane might be closer.
I've never heard of "Rainers Lane" (it's certainly not in London), but
wouldn't Harrow& Wealdstone on the Bakerloo line be nearer?

Perhaps you've heard of Rayners Lane then...

Of course I have, and have often changed trains there, as well as
driving along the aforesaid lane. That's why I know how it's spelled.

Therefore you were, in true uk.r tradition, being unnecessarily pedantic.

Yup, guilty as charged.

Red Queen mode

Orf With his head!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail