In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the
Uxbridges, not the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the
front...

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

--
Peter Beale

Peter Beale wrote:
In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the
Uxbridges, not the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the
front...

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

I think this pedantic argument has been done to death on this newsgroup.
If you're going to split hairs over the type of stock, first recognise
the difference between "tube" and "Tube". The former may be taken to
mean just trains using the bored deep tube lines (if you wish to be so
pedantic about it). The latter refers to the London Underground system.

Of course, any reasonable person knows what someone means when they talk
about "tube services". Or even "Tube services". And I think pretty much
everyone on this newsgroup understands the difference between deep tube
and subsurface lines.

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

In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote:

I think this pedantic argument has been done to death on this
newsgroup.

I did acknowledge that I was being pedantic.

If you're going to split hairs over the type of stock,
first recognise the difference between "tube" and "Tube". The former
may be taken to mean just trains using the bored deep tube lines (if
you wish to be so pedantic about it). The latter refers to the London
Underground system.

A distinction which escapes me - perhaps I am not so pedantic after all!


--
Peter Beale

Peter Beale wrote:
In article , (Dave Arquati) wrote:


I think this pedantic argument has been done to death on this
newsgroup.

I did acknowledge that I was being pedantic.

The point was that your pedantry was incorrect.

If you're going to split hairs over the type of stock,
first recognise the difference between "tube" and "Tube". The former
may be taken to mean just trains using the bored deep tube lines (if
you wish to be so pedantic about it). The latter refers to the London
Underground system.

A distinction which escapes me - perhaps I am not so pedantic after all!

London Underground = "Tube" = deep bored + subsurface lines
Deep bored lines = "tube" lines.

Line which used to serve Watford Junction = Bakerloo = a tube line.
Line which serves Watford station, operated by LU = a Tube line.

See www.thetube.com.

Personally, I don't care if someone uses "tube" (capitalised or
otherwise) to describe any LU-operated line. It's widely accepted usage.
However, I make an effort to distinguish "Tube" and "tube" because I
know there are pedants about...

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

Peter Beale wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 12 Jan 2005:

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

pedant Watford has not been served by Tube services since the
Bakerloo was cut back.

I wonder where all those Met tubes are going, then? Not the
Uxbridges, not the Amershams, but the ones with "Watford" on the
front...

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

Hmmm - TfL now describes all of them as "The Tube"..... (something about
when you're in a hole, stop digging?)
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 2 January 2005

In article , Mrs Redboots wrote:
Peter Beale wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 12 Jan 2005:
They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

Hmmm - TfL now describes all of them as "The Tube"..... (something about
when you're in a hole, stop digging?)

Surely you mean "in a tunnel"? :-)

Niklas
--
"I always wanted to be a mad scientist, but never really got much past the
faintly-annoyed alchemist stage."
-- Mik

Niklas Karlsson wrote:
In article , Mrs Redboots wrote:
Peter Beale wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 12 Jan 2005:
They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally
describes the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not
those like the Met and District built by scooping out a trough and
subsequently covering it up).

Hmmm - TfL now describes all of them as "The Tube"..... (something
about when you're in a hole, stop digging?)

Surely you mean "in a tunnel"? :-)


Isn't a hole simply a tunnel in a different direction, or vice versa?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Peter Beale) wrote:


They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).


www.thetube.com (tube.tfl.gov.uk) seems to have details of the met
line on it (Under the heading "London Underground The Tube") :-)

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:38 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Peter Beale) wrote:

They're not tubes - they are cut-and-cover ("tube" traditionally describes
the trains using the deep-level bored tube lines, not those like the Met and
District built by scooping out a trough and subsequently covering it up).

I think tube/subsurface has long since gone the same way as less/fewer
and have/of...
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK