On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:47:35 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

[big snip on transport experts]
A sensible response, thank you.

Curses - failed again ;-)
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:47:35 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

[big snip on transport experts]
A sensible response, thank you.

Curses - failed again ;-)

I didn't say I necessarily agreed with you though. ;-)

In article , lid
(Michael Hoffman) wrote:

John wrote:
It is a very good read and does suggest reasons for
the lack of tube south of the Thames.

Care to share?

Briefly, lack of clay and Sir Herbert Walker.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
lid (Michael Hoffman) wrote:

John wrote:
It is a very good read and does suggest reasons for
the lack of tube south of the Thames.

Care to share?

Briefly, lack of clay and Sir Herbert Walker.

I've just finished reading the book, well worthwhile.

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article , lid
(Michael Hoffman) wrote:
John wrote:

It is a very good read and does suggest reasons
for the lack of tube south of the Thames.

Care to share?

Briefly, lack of clay and Sir Herbert Walker.

Every author seems to have their pet reason or two, but the real answer will
be the benefit-cost ratio, which sums up *all* relevant factors, not just
one or two.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Rowland wrote:

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article , lid
(Michael Hoffman) wrote:
John wrote:

It is a very good read and does suggest reasons for the lack of
tube south of the Thames.

Care to share?

Briefly, lack of clay and Sir Herbert Walker.

Every author seems to have their pet reason or two, but the real answer
will be the benefit-cost ratio, which sums up *all* relevant factors,
not just one or two.

And is therefore a bit meaningless. It's a bit like saying "just because".
What we really want to know is what the costs and benefits were, and why.

tom

--
Michael Jackson had that idea back in the 80s. There was even a ride at Disneyland.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Rowland wrote:


"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...

In article , lid
(Michael Hoffman) wrote:

John wrote:


It is a very good read and does suggest reasons for the lack of
tube south of the Thames.

Care to share?

Briefly, lack of clay and Sir Herbert Walker.

Every author seems to have their pet reason or two, but the real answer
will be the benefit-cost ratio, which sums up *all* relevant factors,
not just one or two.


And is therefore a bit meaningless. It's a bit like saying "just
because".
What we really want to know is what the costs and benefits were, and why.

tom




There's a synopsis at
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/books/sub_rail.shtml and six reviews
linked from there, or see
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...890687-9405257

M