On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:46:54 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 02/11/2015 08:09, Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 01/11/2015 21:56, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 21:26:24 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 01/11/2015 20:34, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 18:32:23 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 01/11/2015 02:53, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 02:37:58 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 01:40:46 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 00:02:08 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 12:03:37 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\10\31 12:01, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\31 09:34, e27002 aurora wrote:

Dalston, Angel and St Pancras look reasonable. BUT, then the line
heads for Victoria. Victoria already has a direct route toKX/St P.
But Waterloo does not. Why not follow the route of the WWI plan for
an express Northern Line pair to Waterloo?

Boris's new toy then follows a zigzag route to Wimbledon. Wimbledon
is already well served and cramped. Adding the entrances here for a
Crossrail station will be difficult. Moreover it adds little value.
Anyone heading from Wimbledon to Victoria has a choice of routes. One
can change at Clapham Junction, or use the District Line.

Why not continue to shadow the Northern Line with Stations at
Kennington, Clapham North, Balham, Tooting Broadway, and South
Wimbledon?

Borisrail then continues to Raynes Park. There is a logic to this
because several of the main SW suburban routes have converged there.
But Boris's route then runs onto them ALL. That begs the question: Why
retain the slow pair from Waterloo. How does TfL, et al, expect to
maintain the discipline of a rapid transit service with four branches?

No, from Colliers Wood Crossrail two should continue to Raynes Park
for interchange and then take over the pair towards Motspur Park. The
route could terminate at Chessington and Horsham. The later will
provide many valuable connections to, and from, the outer suburbs.


That sounds dear. I don't know why everybody wants to build underground
stations everywhere. They're dear!

By 2030 the Waterloo trains will probably all be electric or bi-mode. I
suggest a new twin-tunnel mainline from Hersham to Clapham Junction with
a pair of tunnelled platforms at Kingston, to replace Surbiton as the
principal station in the area. That would free up lots of room on the
surface lines through Wimbledon and Surbiton for more local trains which
could then go into the CR2 tunnel near Clapham Junction in approximately
the same place as the mainline tunnel ended.

I forgot to say that the mainline would be under parkland for much of
the route and under the A3 for another chunk, all of which cheapens and
simplifies construction.

If the oil runs out you could put the railway on one side of the A3 as
the other side might be all that's needed for what's left of public
and goods road transport.

The oil isn't running out any time soon,

Strange, three parties spent two years telling people in Scotland that
it was.

Charles, stop being so obtuse. You know very well that what they correctly
said was that *Scotland's* oil was running out.

Not all of the oil in the North Sea is in Scottish waters and there
are more undeveloped fields in the west.

Does the SNP now also claim the oil in Norwegian waters?

Norway is East of Scotland.

There have been
undeveloped fields in the west for decades. There still will be just as
many in decades to come, because there are many cheaper places to extract
oil.


It was the SNP that lied, on this and many other topics.

Oh ?

LIB - Carmichael - In danger of losing seat because of lies.
[http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2015/...ael-case-ends]

LIB/LAB/CON - Promised new Scotland Bill ready to be voted on by 25th
January. Bill is still making way through Westminster.

LAB - Claims that "Scottish Labour" is a political party when it is
merely a registered alias of GB Labour.

LAB/LIB/CON - Claimed thousands depend on Trident for jobs at Faslane
- MOD later confirms they only employ 159 and contractors employ about
360. Figures had been puffed up by counting 3500 sailors and 3000
other staff mostly not employed on Trident, many of whom are not
always there.

But all of which will be lost if the nuclear subs move out of Faslane.

No, it is a favoured location for a future Scottish naval base. The
boats don't fix themselves.


How many people does it take to maintain a couple of motor launches?

The current fisheries protection vessels are respectively 781, 2181
and 2181 tonnes. The smaller one is a bit heavier than a Hunt class
minesweeper and the other two a bit heavier than an RN River class
vessel and of comparable size to Irish naval vessels.
If/when independence occurs the Grey Funnel Line will have more
offshore protection vessels than they need (if the current mob in
Westminster haven't shaved things down any more) so the logical thing
to do is leave behind those already used in Scottish waters.


So that'll be three people then…

If you think two assistants are all you need then tender for the job
now. Jura is currently invading Hull if you want to get your paint
tins ready.


Not sure you think we'll need less FP vessels in the event of Scottish
independence, got to make sure they don't go fishing in our waters.


Actually, fishery protection would be important to an independent Scotland.
It won't have much oil production by then, and may be outside the EU, so
fish will be an important asset to be defended.


Even more reason why the rest of us should make sure they stick to their
own waters.

Good luck with confining England to its own waters for fishing.

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 02/11/2015 14:27, wrote:
In article ,
(Graeme Wall) wrote:

Not sure you think we'll need less FP vessels in the event of
Scottish independence, got to make sure they don't go fishing in our
waters.

Not in London, that's for sure. Please take this to a more relevant
newsgroup.

Are we allowed to say this every time Cambridge (insert anything
here, but especially minicabs) are mentioned in the future?

That at least bears some relation to discussions about London cabs. There
is, as far as I know, no question of London getting its own fisheries.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 02/11/2015 20:31, wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 02/11/2015 14:27, wrote:
In article ,
(Graeme Wall) wrote:

Not sure you think we'll need less FP vessels in the event of
Scottish independence, got to make sure they don't go fishing in our
waters.

Not in London, that's for sure. Please take this to a more relevant
newsgroup.

Are we allowed to say this every time Cambridge (insert anything
here, but especially minicabs) are mentioned in the future?

That at least bears some relation to discussions about London cabs. There
is, as far as I know, no question of London getting its own fisheries.

You never know:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/teemi...s-6702371.html

You could attach a net to the back of a Thames Clipper and, having
dropped the catch off at Billingsgate, subsidise the cost to bring it
within reach of a standard travel card.

There you go, London transport and fishing....

On 2015\11\03 12:12, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:45:10 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

You never know:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/teemi...s-6702371.html

You could attach a net to the back of a Thames Clipper and, having
dropped the catch off at Billingsgate, subsidise the cost to bring it
within reach of a standard travel card.


I don't think they would make a Net profit.

Can it!

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:35:39 +0000, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\11\03 12:12, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:45:10 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

You never know:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/teemi...s-6702371.html

You could attach a net to the back of a Thames Clipper and, having
dropped the catch off at Billingsgate, subsidise the cost to bring it
within reach of a standard travel card.


I don't think they would make a Net profit.

Can it!

His is angling.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:31:15 -0600,
wrote:

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 02/11/2015 14:27, wrote:
In article ,
(Graeme Wall) wrote:

Not sure you think we'll need less FP vessels in the event of
Scottish independence, got to make sure they don't go fishing in our
waters.

Not in London, that's for sure. Please take this to a more relevant
newsgroup.

Are we allowed to say this every time Cambridge (insert anything
here, but especially minicabs) are mentioned in the future?

That at least bears some relation to discussions about London cabs. There
is, as far as I know, no question of London getting its own fisheries.

Councillor consider utilizing your kill file. It will reduce your
Mishegas Quotient and improve your Usenet experience.

My USD0.02
..