In message , John Rowland
writes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

The count of eighteen damaged trains was given on ITV news.

18 cars on three trains, perhaps?
--
Roland Perry

Subject: Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

london local news -ITV- said 10 trains had to be taken out of service...?

"Proctor46" wrote in message
...
Subject: Eighteen LU trains damaged at Farringdon...

london local news -ITV- said 10 trains had to be taken out of service...?

As Farringdon sidings can only hold three trains of 'C' stock I would
suggest that 9 would be the correct figure, as each 'train' would be formed
of three two-car fixed-formation train sets, comprising one Driving Motor
and one Uncoupling Trailer, formed either DM+UT+DM+UT+UT+DM or
DM+UT+UT+DM+UT+DM.

In message , Jack Taylor
writes
As Farringdon sidings can only hold three trains of 'C' stock I would
suggest that 9 would be the correct figure, as each 'train' would be formed
of three two-car fixed-formation train sets, comprising one Driving Motor
and one Uncoupling Trailer, formed either DM+UT+DM+UT+UT+DM or
DM+UT+UT+DM+UT+DM.

Where does it say they were damaged coming out of the sidings? Surely
that would happened way before the rush hour.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , Jack Taylor
writes
As Farringdon sidings can only hold three trains of 'C' stock I would
suggest that 9 would be the correct figure, as each 'train' would be
formed
of three two-car fixed-formation train sets, comprising one Driving Motor
and one Uncoupling Trailer, formed either DM+UT+DM+UT+UT+DM or
DM+UT+UT+DM+UT+DM.

Where does it say they were damaged coming out of the sidings? Surely
that would happened way before the rush hour.

That will teach me to read the referenced article first (which I didn't do
because John's lengthy URL wrapped around - please use
www.makeashorterlink.com or www.tinyurl.com when posting these). I wrongly
assumed that this was an incident of vandalism at Farringdon. Having seen
the article in the papers yesterday I now know that it was down to badly
carried out maintenance work (out of gauge brackets fitted to the tunnel
wall), so apologies all round.

Jack Taylor wrote:

That will teach me to read the referenced article first (which I
didn't do because John's lengthy URL wrapped around - please use
www.makeashorterlink.com or www.tinyurl.com when posting these).

I was going to suggest that your newsreader was the problem, but in fact
you and I and John all use Outlook Express 6, and I had no problems with
John's long URL. Did you perhaps try to use the copy of it in Roland
Perry's post? He uses a different newsreader, I think, and the URL
didn't survive it.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

In message , Richard J.
writes
Jack Taylor wrote:

That will teach me to read the referenced article first (which I
didn't do because John's lengthy URL wrapped around - please use
www.makeashorterlink.com or www.tinyurl.com when posting these).

I was going to suggest that your newsreader was the problem, but in fact
you and I and John all use Outlook Express 6, and I had no problems with
John's long URL. Did you perhaps try to use the copy of it in Roland
Perry's post? He uses a different newsreader, I think, and the URL
didn't survive it.

It survived in the copy of my article that arrived back here.

Perhaps both your news reader(s) erroneously line-wrap long quoted
lines?

Meanwhile, how does this url do, in yours?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/02/11/utube
..xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/11/ixportaltop.html
--
Roland Perry