Adrian wrote:

I'll bet that if you went to the buffet car on an intercity and asked for a
glass of tap water you'd get one for free.

No, because they don't carry any in a drinkable form. I recall a
notice being displayed quite prominently saying (mainly to parents with
babies) that they couldn't supply tap water because it was not
drinkable, as the buffet cars didn't have the correct infrastructure.

Neil

On 05 Jul 2006 07:19:57 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Ummm, lemme guess... No buffets on tube trains?

Pullman cars Mayflower and Galatea ran on the Met between 1910 and 1939.

Not quite tube trains in any sense.

The Met is certainly a tube line.

It's not a tube line, though it is a Tube line.

;-)

In article , Paul Terry
writes

But in those days much of the rolling stock was better designed for a
through-flow of air, with relatively large "hopper" windows and, in a
number of cases, open (but gated) platforms at the ends of carriages.

I may be mistaken but in January 1989 in Sydney I'm sure that the
passenger doors were kept open - presumably for ventilation purposes -
between stations on at least some of the older trains on the Cityrail
system. This year the trains I travelled on there appeared to be newer
and had air conditioning.

--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

Neil Williams wrote:
Adrian wrote:

I'll bet that if you went to the buffet car on an intercity and asked for a
glass of tap water you'd get one for free.

No, because they don't carry any in a drinkable form. I recall a
notice being displayed quite prominently saying (mainly to parents with
babies) that they couldn't supply tap water because it was not
drinkable, as the buffet cars didn't have the correct infrastructure.

Times have changed.

North Country Continental, Gresley buffet car, headed for Harwich,
December 1983:

"Please could I have some hot water to make up my baby son's bottle?"

"Certainly, Sir. That'll be 20p, please"

"You're joking, right?"

"No Sir, 20p please"

And he gave me a receipt for it!


--
Regards

Mike

In article . com, Paul
Oter writes

jonmorris wrote:


Tap water does me fine anyway, so if they had tap water available at
stations I'd simply use that.

Can I nominate this for this newsgroups's "best idea of the day" award?


Drinking fountains at main NR and tube stations, where travellers can
have a drink or refil their water bottles. Just like at all BAA
airports.

Unfortunately most public places in London these days don't have
drinking fountains. Instead they have concessions or vending machines
where you can spend up to (and often more than) a quid for a drink of
water.

Only a few weeks ago in Regent's Park I refilled my water bottle from
the big ornamental fountain near the Zoo. People around me were more
concerned as they didn't know whether it was safe to drink or not. I'd
already checked at the park map near the entrance, which shows where all
the drinking fountains are located - and this was one of them.

--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

Paul Terry writes:

I also suspect that staff were able to be much more pragmatic in
dealing quickly with breakdowns. These days, H&S procedures often seem
to endanger health and safety by causing long delays.

I think that the HSE need reminding that the H is for 'health' and as it
comes before 'safety' in their title should be a primary concern. Yet
(at least the perception is that) they seem to concentrate almost
entirely on safety.

On 05 Jul 2006 08:09:17 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Richard M Willis ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

Ummm, lemme guess... No buffets on tube trains?

Pullman cars Mayflower and Galatea ran on the Met between 1910 and
1939.

Not quite tube trains in any sense.

The Met is certainly a tube line.

It is not. It is entirely surface (or subsurface in some places), but
never tube. That line is run entirely by A stock, which is surface
stock, and would not fit in tube tunnels.

Even if you consider the Metropolitan to include the Circle,H+C,ELL,
it still isn't tube.

sigh
Tube in the sense of "London Underground", rather than tube in the sense of
the actual engineering behind the line itself.

"Tube" in the sense of a buzz-word slavishly copied without bothering
to recognise the correct meaning ?
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

The Met is certainly a tube line.

It is not. It is entirely surface (or subsurface in some places),
but never tube. That line is run entirely by A stock, which is
surface stock, and would not fit in tube tunnels.

Even if you consider the Metropolitan to include the Circle,H+C,ELL,
it still isn't tube.

sigh
Tube in the sense of "London Underground", rather than tube in the
sense of the actual engineering behind the line itself.

"Tube" in the sense of a buzz-word slavishly copied without bothering
to recognise the correct meaning ?

Yes, that'll be it.

Otherwise known as "in the sense that several million Londoners use it
every day, rather than the sense that a handful of railway anoraks insist
on it being used when they're feeling *really* pedantic and trying to score
points..."

On 05 Jul 2006 18:12:46 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Charles Ellson ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

The Met is certainly a tube line.

It is not. It is entirely surface (or subsurface in some places),
but never tube. That line is run entirely by A stock, which is
surface stock, and would not fit in tube tunnels.

Even if you consider the Metropolitan to include the Circle,H+C,ELL,
it still isn't tube.

sigh
Tube in the sense of "London Underground", rather than tube in the
sense of the actual engineering behind the line itself.

"Tube" in the sense of a buzz-word slavishly copied without bothering
to recognise the correct meaning ?

Yes, that'll be it.

Otherwise known as "in the sense that several million Londoners use it
every day, rather than the sense that a handful of railway anoraks insist
on it being used when they're feeling *really* pedantic and trying to score
points..."

So the proper usage by hundreds of staff (to whom the system actually
"belongs") doesn't count ? Many Londoners also mis-name St.Stephen's
Tower (and others slavishly follow) but that doesn't mean their usage
is correct.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Charles Ellson ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

sigh
Tube in the sense of "London Underground", rather than tube in the
sense of the actual engineering behind the line itself.

"Tube" in the sense of a buzz-word slavishly copied without
bothering to recognise the correct meaning ?

Yes, that'll be it.

Otherwise known as "in the sense that several million Londoners use it
every day, rather than the sense that a handful of railway anoraks
insist on it being used when they're feeling *really* pedantic and
trying to score points..."

So the proper usage by hundreds of staff (to whom the system actually
"belongs") doesn't count ? Many Londoners also mis-name St.Stephen's
Tower (and others slavishly follow) but that doesn't mean their usage
is correct.

If you want to be really pedantic about it, the outer reaches of the Met
are neither London nor Underground...