On 18 Dec, 12:24, 77002 wrote:
On 18 Dec, 12:22, Sam Wilson wrote: In article
,

*77002 wrote:
... *At 2d (a little
under 0.5p) ...

Ahem. *1p = 2.4d, *2d = 0.83p.

Sam (who remembers 1971 surprisingly well, or thinks he does)

Thank you Sam. *Therefore 1d = 0.415p or a little under 0.5.

And of course you are all correct tuppence is OVER 0.5. Doh.

Thank you for the corrections.

In message
, at
04:17:44 on Tue, 18 Dec 2012, 77002 remarked:
At 2d (a little under 0.5p) the price was actually a little on the high
side.

The thisismoney inflation calculator puts 2d in 1990 as 84p in 2012.

Measuringworth.com says 70p using RPI and £2.88 using average earnings.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:17:44 -0800 (PST), 77002
wrote:

On 18 Dec, 08:50, Nick Leverton wrote:
In article ,





e27002 wrote:
On 17 Dec, 13:46, "Richard J." wrote:
Recliner wrote on 17 December 2012 11:08:58 ...

Steam train back on tube track for 150-year anniversary celebrations

[snip]
From:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/de...ndon-undergrou...

There's another great photo in the Standard's report
athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

--
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.

Not being a Londoner, perhaps you aren't aware that most people refer
to the whole system as 'The Tube'?

On 18 Dec, 12:39, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
04:17:44 on Tue, 18 Dec 2012, 77002 remarked:

At 2d (a little under 0.5p) the price was actually a little on the high
side.

The thisismoney inflation calculator puts 2d in 1990 as 84p in 2012.

Measuringworth.com says 70p using RPI and 2.88 using average earnings.

1900 Mr Perry. I went and ran the calculation. Useful link. Thank
you.

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





wrote:
On 17 Dec, 13:46, "Richard J." wrote:
Recliner wrote on 17 December 2012 11:08:58 ...

Steam train back on tube track for 150-year anniversary celebrations

Test run for London Underground's anniversary sees restored locomotive
pull Victorian carriage from Earl's Court to Moorgate

Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent
The Guardian, Sunday 16 December 2012 19.00 GMT
[snip]
From:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/de...ndon-undergrou....

There's another great photo in the Standard's report athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

--
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.

77002 wrote:
On 18 Dec, 13:40, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:47:20 -0800 (PST), e27002





wrote:
On 17 Dec, 13:46, "Richard J." wrote:
Recliner wrote on 17 December 2012 11:08:58 ...

Steam train back on tube track for 150-year anniversary celebrations

Test run for London Underground's anniversary sees restored locomotive
pull Victorian carriage from Earl's Court to Moorgate

Gwyn Topham, transport correspondent
The Guardian, Sunday 16 December 2012 19.00 GMT
[snip]
From:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/de...ndon-undergrou...

There's another great photo in the Standard's report
athttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/full-circle-120yearold-steam...

--
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.

Perfectly true, but this event is to celebrate the opening of the Met in
1863, and that certainly was steam operated. I wonder whether the first Met
line trains 150 years ago were also GW broad gauge? I assume they were.

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.

We use them in this country.

Of course, but given that misc.transport.urban-transit is an
international group, you might want to name the country in question.

Of course, my apologies - I'm afraid I didn't spot that you had changed
the newsgroups and you seem to have omitted to mention it prior to this also.

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

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 LondonÂ’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.

Plus London Underground issue Tube Maps which show the whole system (and
the Overground) not just tube shape lines.

All of which mean that the notion that steam has been running on the tube
really isn't incorrect in modern general language.

People think they're being clever when they point this out when in fact
they're being utterly boring.

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

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,

On the whole, Murdoch papers are more liberal right wing (neo-liberal)
rather than authoritarian. For authoritarian right wing, you want the
Daily Mail.

As for the Guardian being middle-of-the-road, you have got to be
kidding, they're off the planet 'loony left', right out there with
many a Labour council, such as Brent, Islington or Rotherham, all run
by the sisters.

My other half reads the Guardian, a couple of weeks back, they ran a
piece about how wrong it was to buy your kids gender specific toys at
Xmas.

So I got it in the ear hole for buying one of the nephews Call of Duty
Black Ops II for his Xbox, mind you hadn't noticed it was an 18 (he's
14) but it'll do him good.

The Guardian or the Modern Parents there's not a lot of difference a
lot of the time.

Latest today, they're running a piece supporting the idea that all
those cookery programs, containing recipes that start take 8 ounces of
butter, should go out after the watershed.

In Guardian land Nigella is Satan, she'e the daughter of (a not half
bad) former Tory chancellor, cooks some f**king gorgeous food (that
involves pleasure) and the greatest sin of all she uses ounces.

Blimey, that lot fails to tick more than a few boxes, on the PC check
list, at the Guardian.