MIG wrote:
A Canadian posts the following picture he
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives...222_1471.shtml
with the caption:
"a metro station in london, england. unfortunately I don't remember
the name of the station."
And surprisingly none of the copmmenters so far have identified it.

Without a doubt, it is the District line terminus at Wimbledon. Compare
the wall features at the back of the photo with the following:
http://ktransit.com/transit/unitedki...district01.jpg

But where's that shelter and its pillars? Although otherwise it does
look the same though, and I'm sure there's a shelter at Richmond
anyway.

What's that at the top that looks like a bridge? And why is it just
blank white above it? Is it maybe a trick composite?

The bridge is a bridge. The 'blank white' is the top of the bridge (you
can see the rivets); the dark grey is the girder on the underside of
the bridge.

Wimbledon:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...7,0.002025&t=k

Richmond:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl...6,0.002025&t=k

Both have terminating platforms that extend beyond the length of the
canopy (north at Richmond, left-hand-side at Wimbledon), but neither
appears to have benches or a vending machine. There doesn't seem to be
an obvious candidate for the bridge, either: the one at Richmond is at
the wrong angle, and there isn't one at Wimbledon.

Does it have to be a LUL station? A Canadian wouldn't necessarily
distinguish between a LUL or National Rail metro service... I've added
uk.railway, maybe they'll be able to help.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"john b" wrote in message
oups.com...
MIG wrote:
A Canadian posts the following picture he
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives...222_1471.shtml

Without a doubt, it is the District line terminus at Wimbledon.
Compare
the wall features at the back of the photo with the following:

http://ktransit.com/transit/unitedki...district01.jpg

But where's that shelter and its pillars? Although otherwise it does
look the same though, and I'm sure there's a shelter at Richmond
anyway.

What's that at the top that looks like a bridge? And why is it just
blank white above it? Is it maybe a trick composite?

The bridge is a bridge. The 'blank white' is the top of the bridge (you
can see the rivets); the dark grey is the girder on the underside of
the bridge.
[...]
Both have terminating platforms that extend beyond the length of the
canopy (north at Richmond, left-hand-side at Wimbledon), but neither
appears to have benches or a vending machine. There doesn't seem to be
an obvious candidate for the bridge, either: the one at Richmond is at
the wrong angle, and there isn't one at Wimbledon.

Does it have to be a LUL station? A Canadian wouldn't necessarily
distinguish between a LUL or National Rail metro service... I've added
uk.railway, maybe they'll be able to help.

Sorry, but every instinct is telling me that the first photo is a composite.
The lighting is variable, the bridge at the top looks just awful and what no
one seems to have commented on is the grey boxes off the platforms. These
are LUL double red light "end of line" markers (seen in front of the train
in the second photo). All three of these end-of-line markers are facing to
the right, making all of the platform to the left of them redundant. This
means it is definitely not Wimbledon or Richmond because the end-of-line
markers are under the canopies at both these locations - plus, without going
to find Quail, I'm pretty sure that neither of those stations has three
terminating LUL lines. Also note that despite the end-of-line markers, the
yellow lines on the platform continue beyond them. Note in the second photo
that this does not happen.

I'd bet money on the first photo being a composite. I've made enough
composites myself in the past to recognise the slightly unreal quality they
have.


--
Ronnie
--
www.greatcentralrailway.com
Adjust the farmyard animals before replying

Neillw001 wrote:
The wall looks the same, the smaller graffiti just above the far
trainstop looks similar and the yellow staining on the wall behind
matches up.
There should be at least one canopy support in shot though, just about
where the vending machine object is. The girder at the top of the
picture doesn't match the Wimbledon picture at all either.

Neill

Definately looks like wimbledon to me. The pipe along the wall stops at
about the same location in both pictures. If you zoom in, you can see
an electrification arrow (and a / I think) in the same spot too.

I think that the white girder is from the outside of the platform
canopy. If you look at the second image (from Paul Terry), you can see
that the inside of the girders are brown, but the outside of the one on
the other platform is white. Therefore I think that the white girder is
the near part of the canopy, with the brown one beneath being the far
side.

I think that the canopy support is just off the picture to the right
and that the canopy is from the near platform. However, I do agree that
it looks like there should be a support on the same platform as the
chair, I'd put it behind the near set of stop lights between the chair
and the vending machine, as the Paul Terry image has the support
approximately where pipe on the wall ends (and at the end of the yellow
platform line)

Ronnie Clark wrote:
"john b" wrote in message
oups.com...
MIG wrote:
A Canadian posts the following picture he
http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/archives...222_1471.shtml

Without a doubt, it is the District line terminus at Wimbledon.
Compare
the wall features at the back of the photo with the following:

http://ktransit.com/transit/unitedki...district01.jpg

But where's that shelter and its pillars? Although otherwise it does
look the same though, and I'm sure there's a shelter at Richmond
anyway.

What's that at the top that looks like a bridge? And why is it just
blank white above it? Is it maybe a trick composite?

The bridge is a bridge. The 'blank white' is the top of the bridge (you
can see the rivets); the dark grey is the girder on the underside of
the bridge.
[...]
Both have terminating platforms that extend beyond the length of the
canopy (north at Richmond, left-hand-side at Wimbledon), but neither
appears to have benches or a vending machine. There doesn't seem to be
an obvious candidate for the bridge, either: the one at Richmond is at
the wrong angle, and there isn't one at Wimbledon.

Does it have to be a LUL station? A Canadian wouldn't necessarily
distinguish between a LUL or National Rail metro service... I've added
uk.railway, maybe they'll be able to help.

Sorry, but every instinct is telling me that the first photo is a composite.
The lighting is variable, the bridge at the top looks just awful and what no
one seems to have commented on is the grey boxes off the platforms. These
are LUL double red light "end of line" markers (seen in front of the train
in the second photo). All three of these end-of-line markers are facing to
the right, making all of the platform to the left of them redundant. This
means it is definitely not Wimbledon or Richmond because the end-of-line
markers are under the canopies at both these locations - plus, without going
to find Quail, I'm pretty sure that neither of those stations has three
terminating LUL lines. Also note that despite the end-of-line markers, the
yellow lines on the platform continue beyond them. Note in the second photo
that this does not happen.

I'd bet money on the first photo being a composite. I've made enough
composites myself in the past to recognise the slightly unreal quality they
have.



I certainly think some editing has gone on, but the end of line markers
are in the correct spot and facing the correct way. Don't forget that
there is normally a lengthy overrun at terminating platforms, beyond
the stop lights. These stop lights are under the canopy here and
Wimbledon has four terminating District Line platforms (1-4). We can
see both the actual platform surfaces for these lines, with Platform 1
being the most distant. Entrance to the platforms is to the left of the
picture.

The yellow platform line is too unclear in the image for me to trace
where it goes beyond the lights on the far platform, which is the
platform displayed on the other image.

I agree with the composite theory. The girder and white area above it
are too artificial to be original for a start. If you look at Paul
Terry's picture the first canopy supoort is just about level with the
front of the train, about two or three feet back from the end of the
pipe, where the red machine is.
I don't know if this is significant, but the righthand trainstop lights
don't have a shadow on them, whilst the other two sets do. I think the
wall is definately Wimbledon, the clincher is the number 47 just before
the end of the pipe in both pictures. If you examine that in both
pictures, the 47 in the Canadian one seems to be larger than in Paul's
picture. The viewpoint in the Canadian picture is further away however,
suggersting the foreground features could have been dropped in at a
smaller scale in front of the wall.

Neill

Neillw001 wrote:
I agree with the composite theory. The girder and white area above it
are too artificial to be original for a start. If you look at Paul
Terry's picture the first canopy supoort is just about level with the
front of the train, about two or three feet back from the end of the
pipe, where the red machine is.
I don't know if this is significant, but the righthand trainstop lights
don't have a shadow on them, whilst the other two sets do. I think the
wall is definately Wimbledon, the clincher is the number 47 just before
the end of the pipe in both pictures. If you examine that in both
pictures, the 47 in the Canadian one seems to be larger than in Paul's
picture. The viewpoint in the Canadian picture is further away however,
suggersting the foreground features could have been dropped in at a
smaller scale in front of the wall.

Neill


I'm now starting to be convinced that the girder-looking thing could be
the inside of the canopy, and the white area the outside of the canopy.

But there is still something unreal about the whole thing. Why are we
looking up so sharply under the canopy, when we seem to be looking
straight across at the couple? That seems to be the opposite of the
general foreshortening.

And should we really be able to see the top of the wall under the
canopy from this angle? In the picture with the train it looks as if
the canopy comes down lower than the top of the wall, which again
implies looking upwards from close, while the picture of the couple is
looking straight across.

All very odd.

Neillw001 wrote:
I agree with the composite theory.

Though if it were a composite, why would the web site compiler make any
comment at all about not being able to remember which station he was
at?

PhilD

--

In message . com,
Neillw001 writes

I agree with the composite theory. The girder and white area above it
are too artificial to be original for a start.

Possible, but the Wimbledon canopy is a bit odd anyway, with very long
spans. Although on the other side of the station, the following shows
the canopy quite well:

http://tinyurl.com/k3b9l

--
Paul Terry

In article .com,
PhilD wrote:

Neillw001 wrote:
I agree with the composite theory.

Though if it were a composite, why would the web site compiler make any
comment at all about not being able to remember which station he was
at?

I think the bench with the couple is a drop in, as may be the vending
machine. In that picture the stop lights are about the same size as
the people's heads. The photo of the train shows that in real life
they are not much bigger than, say, a large orange. Once you see that
you can also see that the bench is out of scale with the platform
supports and the bricks in the wall.

I've seen it written by a professional photographer that pictures with
people in sell much more than pure landscapes and that such dropins are
fairly common.

Sam

The canopy arches aren't solid though. I agree the girder structure is
in the right place however.

Neill