On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 09:20:53 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:48 -0000, "Chris"
wrote:

On the tube, why are there only a finite number of reasons for delays with
very little explanation (and often different reasons at different stations)?
Does anyone have a complete list? So far I've got:
* Passenger action
* Person under a train
* Signal Failure
* Failure of safety equipment
* Late finish of engineering works
* Earlier delays
* Staff shortage

"Person taken ill" on the Bak last night.

This usually means someone fell onto the live rails and had to be
scraped off before they could start the trains again.

--

remove 'spamfree.' to respond

Huge wrote:

Too long.

Who cares? I think people with long sigs still look silly but it's not
like it impedes communication like top-posting or something.
--
Michael Hoffman

On the tube, why are there only a finite number of reasons for delays with
very little explanation (and often different reasons at different
stations)?

I used to trap these for national rail to text myself when there were
problems, and shortened them. This is what I had logged, maybe the tube ones
are similar or the same.

Cheers,
Dave

This is due to faulty freight train Londonbound causing delays.
This is due to suspected hot axle box.
This is due to no resources.
This is due to losing time on route.
This is due to door fault on train.
This is due to adhesion problem to inward stock.
This is due to reports of a bridge struck by a road vehicle.
This is due to extended engineering works.
This is due to an earlier train failure.
This is due to an earlier broken down train.
This is due to waiting for a train crew member.
This is due to waiting for a driver.
This is due to a signalling problem.
This is due to an earlier signalling problem.
This is due to weekend engineering work.
This is due to an earlier fault on the train.
This is due to unit vandalized.
This is due to vandalism.
This is due to earlier vandalism.
This is due to reports of vandalism.
This is due to an incident on the train -
This is due to an earlier security alert.
This is due to an earlier police matter.
This is due to earlier engineering works.
This is due to weekend engineering work
This is due to an earlier cancellation.
This is due to a fault on the train.
This is due to a technical fault on the train.
This is due to an earlier technical fault onboard.
This is due to speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack.
This is due to the preceding train being delayed
This is due to the preceding train being cancelled
This is due to no driver being available
This is due to no drivers relief.
This is due to no driver.
This is due to a delay on the previous journey.
This is due to a broken down train.
This is due to driver shortage.
This is due to a shortage of drivers.
This is due to a shortage of units.
This is due to stock shortage.
This is due to waiting for carriages to form the train.
This is due to ate arrival inwd stock.
This is due to late arrival inward stock.
This is due to a points problem.
This is due to an earlier points problem.
This is due to late running re weather.
This is due to late running.
This is due to severe late running.
This is due to driver on PNB.
This is due to following troubled
This is due to earlier emergency track repairs.
This is due to a slow moving freight train.
This is due to poor rail conditions.
This is due to fitters attention to unit.

Huge wrote to uk.transport.london on Sat, 4 Dec 2004:

Thursday, Jubilee Line, fox on line at West Hampstead. There was too, it ran
down the line in front of the Southbound platform.


Had it been on the Northern line, it could have caught some of the
mice.....
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 28 November 2004

On 4 Dec 2004 18:24:51 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

(Nick Cooper) writes:

[16 lines snipped]

--
1 Nick Cooper
2
3 [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
4
5 The London Underground at War:
6 http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
7 625-Online - classic British television:
8 http://www.625.org.uk
9 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
10 http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Too long.

Go **** yourself.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On 5 Dec 2004 12:41:35 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

(Nick Cooper) writes:
On 4 Dec 2004 18:24:51 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

(Nick Cooper) writes:

[16 lines snipped]

--
1 Nick Cooper
2
3 [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
4
5 The London Underground at War:
6 http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
7 625-Online - classic British television:
8 http://www.625.org.uk
9 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
10 http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Too long.

Go **** yourself.

Who was it on here was asking why long sigs are a bad thing? Well, here's your
example.

1 Nick Cooper
2
3 [Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]
4
5 The London Underground at War:
6 http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
7 625-Online - classic British television:
8 http://www.625.org.uk
9 'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
10 http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Too long.

a) My signature is less than 310 characters - less than 5 complete
lines on a standard 70 character wrap, i.e.e lett than the six line
recommended limit.

b) Not use of "recommended" in (a).

c) There's a delimiter in there.

c) Go **** yourself, you ****, because what I put in my sig is none of
your ****ing business.

On 5 Dec 2004 14:42:49 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

(Nick Cooper) writes:

[49 lines snipped]

c) Go **** yourself, you ****, because what I put in my sig is none of
your ****ing business.

Thanks, but I already realised you were a foul mouthed intolerant moron.

Good. Don't hurry back, cockmuncher.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

Nick Cooper wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 5 Dec 2004:

c) Go **** yourself, you ****, because what I put in my sig is none of
your ****ing business.

a) There is no need to be coarse

b) If the contents of your .sig is not our business, why bother having
one?

c) Some people are still on dial-up accounts, so it is only courteous to
save bandwidth.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 28 November 2004

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:47:44 +0000, Mrs Redboots
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 5 Dec 2004:

c) Go **** yourself, you ****, because what I put in my sig is none of
your ****ing business.

a) There is no need to be coarse

Some professional argument-starters deserve nothing else.

b) If the contents of your .sig is not our business, why bother having
one?

It is not the business of one individual - clearly with nothing better
to do with their miserable excuse for a "life" - who has taken it upon
themself to hassle others. It's notable that "Huge" choses to hide
its Usenet posting history, but it can hardly be said to be prolific
on this NG, having arrived only recently with a clear trouble-causing
agenda. It hides behind a fake e-mail address and an anonymously-
registered domain, so clearly it is a coward which doesn't even have
the courage of its own convictions.

c) Some people are still on dial-up accounts, so it is only courteous to
save bandwidth.

As I pointed out, characterwise my signature is not even five complete
lines of text, and is therefore under the six-line "recommended"
limit. The URLs are on separate lines for the obvious reasons.

In article ,
(Chris Fribbins) wrote:

Often we used to get delays at places like Sittingbourne, and helpful
advice that London Transport were accepting tickets (40 miles away)

Had that at Finsbury Park on Thursday last week. Wires damaged at Welwyn
GC. I was the only passenger in about 200 on the 10:15 Cambridge-King's
Cross train with a non-folding bike.

They got us to Finsbury Park by walking to Welwyn GC station, bus to
Potter's Bar and a GN Inner to Moorgate promising a connection there to
King's Cross that was nowhere to be seen. "Use the tube, tickets valid"
they said. No use with a bike of course. By the time this became clear the
doors on the incoming train were closing and I missed the chance only to
cycle from Drayton Park. :-(

--
Colin Rosenstiel