--- Terry Harper said:

Those from South-East of London find it more convenient to go to
Ashford,
rather than go into London, transfer to Waterloo, walk down a very
long
platform, and return whence they came. Gatwick was much more
convenient, but
nature abhors a vacuum.

Some parts of South East London, maybe? But what about those of us in
other parts of South London? To get from here to Ashford, I'd probably
have to go to Victoria or London Bridge and change for a semi-fast train
out to Ashford, taking forever to get there. And again on the way back.
There'd be no time left to enjoy my day trip to Paris at all.

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...
--- Terry Harper said:

Those from South-East of London find it more convenient to go to
Ashford,
rather than go into London, transfer to Waterloo, walk down a very
long
platform, and return whence they came. Gatwick was much more
convenient, but
nature abhors a vacuum.

Some parts of South East London, maybe? But what about those of us in
other parts of South London? To get from here to Ashford, I'd probably
have to go to Victoria or London Bridge and change for a semi-fast train
out to Ashford, taking forever to get there. And again on the way back.
There'd be no time left to enjoy my day trip to Paris at all.

I didn't say South East London, I said South-East of London, which covers
large parts of Surrey, all of Kent and a large part of Sussex. Those who
have the misfortune to live in Chairman Ken's domain have to put up with the
consequences.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In article ,
(Terry Harper) wrote:

I said South-East of London, which covers
large parts of Surrey,

None of Surrey is south-easy of London.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Terry Harper) wrote:

I said South-East of London, which covers
large parts of Surrey,

None of Surrey is south-easy of London.

Lingfield is south-east of London and in Surrey.

Dave.

In article ,
(Dave Liney) wrote:

None of Surrey is south-easy of London.

Lingfield is south-east of London and in Surrey.

Lingfield is due south of London City airport, and is one of the most
easterly points in Surrey.

Kent is south-east of London, Surrey is south and Southwest.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Dave Liney) wrote:

None of Surrey is south-easy of London.

Lingfield is south-east of London and in Surrey.

Lingfield is due south of London City airport, and is one of the most
easterly points in Surrey.

Lingfield is both south and east of the City and the geographical centre of
Greater London. And the reason I choose it was because it was the most
easterly point I could remember. My post was a bit tongue in cheek.

Kent is south-east of London, Surrey is south and Southwest.

You don't say.

Dave

--- Terry Harper said:


I didn't say South East London, I said South-East of London, which
covers large parts of Surrey, all of Kent and a large part of Sussex.
Those who have the misfortune to live in Chairman Ken's domain
have to put up with the consequences.

What has Ken got to do with the decision to close Waterloo
International? I didn't think TfL's authority covered international
services. Or is this just a cheap party political shot that's got
nothing to with the discussion...?

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...
--- Terry Harper said:

I didn't say South East London, I said South-East of London, which
covers large parts of Surrey, all of Kent and a large part of Sussex.
Those who have the misfortune to live in Chairman Ken's domain
have to put up with the consequences.

What has Ken got to do with the decision to close Waterloo
International? I didn't think TfL's authority covered international
services. Or is this just a cheap party political shot that's got
nothing to with the discussion...?

No, it's a comment on the consequences of living in Greater London on one's
choice of transport. The word, if it exists, is probably centrospective.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

Terry Harper wrote:
"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...

--- Terry Harper said:


I didn't say South East London, I said South-East of London, which
covers large parts of Surrey, all of Kent and a large part of Sussex.
Those who have the misfortune to live in Chairman Ken's domain
have to put up with the consequences.

What has Ken got to do with the decision to close Waterloo
International? I didn't think TfL's authority covered international
services. Or is this just a cheap party political shot that's got
nothing to with the discussion...?

No, it's a comment on the consequences of living in Greater London on one's
choice of transport. The word, if it exists, is probably centrospective.

Personally, I'd rather have Ken running my transport than the DfT, or
whatever county council. At least things get done.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

In article "Dave Arquati" writes:

Terry Harper wrote:
snip
No, it's a comment on the consequences of living in Greater London on one's
choice of transport. The word, if it exists, is probably centrospective.

Personally, I'd rather have Ken running my transport than the DfT, or
whatever county council.

You mean Ken Livingstone, the head of the local county council? What's
the practical difference?
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|