On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:13:44 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 18/12/2012 14:42, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,
77002 wrote:
On 18 Dec, 08:50, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,

--
Which section was tube track? AFIK Earls Court to Moorgate is all sub-
surface. Moreover, one cannot bring back something which never
existed. The tube lines were electric from their beginning.

It's a colloquialism.

Indeed so. It dates back to the opening of London’s deep level lines
bored thru London Clay. In 1900 the Central London Railway was opened
and became known as the 'Tuppenny Tube'. This of course was because
of its price and the shape of the bored tunnels. At 2d (a little
under 0.5p) the price was actually a little on the high side.

The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

I must say it's quite entertaining to see the number of irrelevant
things you try to blame on politics, such as use of colloquial language.

Few ordinary newspaper-reading people on the Clapham omnibus today,
whether they read some hard-line authoritarian right-wing Murdoch rag or a
slightly liberal middle-of-the-road paper like the Graun, are concerned
about the hundred-year-old history of how each individual line was
built in order to inform them of what they should be calling it. It's a
unified system these days. Unfortunately, when the Underground Group
were publicising the Tube back in the first quarter of the last century,
they seem to have omitted to tell people that this word wasn't to be used
for the sub-surface lines, so now you're stuck with it like it or not.

Next think we know people will be claiming there is a difference between
locomotive and train, commuter and passenger (or customer), locomotive
4772 and the Scotch express.

Popular use is simple - in London you have the Tube and the Overground.

Is that the Overground or the overground ?

Maybe a few adventurous types might know that somewhere in the deep
south are strange green things running down the roads.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0800 (PST), e27002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 07:42, allantracy wrote:
The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. *Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

Well seeing as how TfL routinely use the term Tube to describe the
London Underground, all over their website (as in Tube map or Tube
engineering works),

That's what happens (not just with railways) when the publicity people
know SFA about what they're promoting.

I think we can excuse all the bourgeois communists
this time.

Well Allan, I guess I will have to concede. Although I dislike it
when official bodies give in to inaccurate popular culture.
Celebrating the new Millenium in 2000 was the biggest example of this
in our lifetime.

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:29:52 -0600, Recliner
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:51:55 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 13:40, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:47:20 -0800 (PST), e27002

Which section was tube track? AFIK Earls Court to Moorgate is all sub-
surface. Moreover, one cannot bring back something which never
existed. The tube lines were electric from their beginning.

Existing ones might have been, The Tower subway was cable operated.

Accepted. And, the cable may have been run thru a stationary steam
engine. The power for the electric lines may have been steam
generated. But, NO tube lines ever had a steam motive power unit
within its consist whilst running in the deep level tunnels.

Not for passenger operation,the Central London Railway had two
Hunslets built to tube gauge for maintenance trains.
Unfortunately no photo seems to be around on the WWW to link to,
In a book I have they look quite smart. Dual fired ,on coal or oil.

I wonder if they ever rescued a passenger train?

According to Wonkypaedia, once the railway opened for passenger
service they seldom entered the tunnels and were used mainly for
shunting coal wagons at Wood Lane.

Jeremy Double wrote:

IIRC, the GNR had to make a big effort to have enough condensing locos
available to take over the running when the GWR pulled out at short notice.
--


IIRC = If I recall correctly.

You must be a very old man to recall any of this! :-)

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:23:56 -0800 (PST), e27002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 07:42, allantracy wrote:
The tube routes should never be confused with the earlier sub surface
lines. Although I guess we should not be surprised that this is lost
on the bourgeois communists at the Guardian.

Well seeing as how TfL routinely use the term Tube to describe the
London Underground, all over their website (as in Tube map or Tube
engineering works),

That's what happens (not just with railways) when the publicity people
know SFA about what they're promoting.

It's also worth remembering that "The Tube" is now a London icon, but
"Underground" is not. "Subway" or "Metro" may be generic names for such
systems around the world, but "Tube" always means the London Tube. That's
far more important than worrying about tunnel profiles (in any case, by the
pedantic definition, wouldn't Crossrail also be regarded as a "Tube"?).

On 18 Dec, 13:15, (Mark Brader) wrote:
Well Allan, I guess I will have to concede. *Although I dislike it
when official bodies give in to inaccurate popular culture.

I hope you don't have too much trouble if you ever have to ask directions

Point well taken sir.

On 18 Dec, 13:29, Anthony Polson wrote:
Jeremy Double wrote:
IIRC, the GNR had to make a big effort to have enough condensing locos
available to take over the running when the GWR pulled out at short notice.
--

IIRC = If I recall correctly.

You must be a very old man to recall any of this! *:-)

He is probably recalling what he read.

d wrote:

Not surprising - liberal left politics as a whole is a very female take on
the world. Everyone is nice really given a chance, encouragement not punishment,
everyone is equal even when clearly they're not, turn the other cheek, we
must atone for the sins of our fathers (note - not mothers), etc etc. All
very laudable but all very naive.

But I wouldn't worry , Guardian readership is in freefall so it won't be
around much longer and one can only hope liberal left politics gets buried
with it in the dustbin of history where it belongs.


If the Guardian folds, the Independent is ready to take over. The
Indy used to be literally that; an independent, impartial newspaper,
or at least the nearest one could ever get to that ideal.

Now, the Indy has taken a sharp left turn and would likely inherit the
Guardian's mantle if that paper were to close. The orange headlines
remind me of the Socialist Worker.

Peter Masson:
Yes. The Met was built as mixed gauge from Paddington (Bishop's Road) at
least to Farringdon and AFAIK to Moorgate, and was initially (Jan - Aug
1863) worked between Bishop's Road and Farringdon by the GWR using broad
gauge stock. The Met fell out with the GWR, who gave 9 days notice that they
would cease to work the line after 10 August 1863, but by then the
connection with the GNR at Kings Cross had been completed, so the Met began
operating the service themselves, using standard gauge stock obtained from
the GNR. It's not clear how much the broad gauge was used after this (GWR
meat trains to Smithfield, perhaps)...

After the Met outfoxed the GWR as Peter describes, the two companies
came to terms. Broad-gauge suburban passenger trains began running
through from the GWR onto the Met to Farringdon and then Moorgate.
They last operated in 1869. Here's a famous painting of one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...t_Junction.jpg

This is Praed St. Junction, between Edgware Road and Paddington,
where today's District and Circle Lines tracks (foreground) diverge
from today's Hammersmith & City and Circle Lines tracks. The former
tracks were the Met's original route, so this train cannot be a Met
train from before the Met/GWR dispute unless it's going out of service,
and then there wouldn't be passengers on board. Unless the artist
goofed, it must be a GWR train.

The through services continued with standard-gauge trains until 1939.
--
Mark Brader | Switzerland is also called water tower...
Toronto | And people are like here weather environment.
| --seen in spam

My text in this article is in the public domain.

allantracy wrote:

On 18 Dec, 16:13, Anthony Polson wrote:
77002 wrote:
At 2d (a little
under 0.5p) the price was actually a little on the high side.

2d is 0.83p.

Yes, the good old days.


It was good for learning arithmetic.