In message
,
lonelytraveller writes
On 14 Dec, 18:33, Rupert Candy wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, lonelytraveller

wrote:
I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the
buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office
block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild
it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild
it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same
bricks etc.

Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket?

That would be nice.

No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many
passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at
this time of year.

As far as I am concerned it would be nice if all new trains were built
with more seat width (there are an awful lot of fatties commuting into
London these days) and more leg room.
--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html

On 15 Dec, 13:24, Jane Sullivan wrote:

(snip)

As far as I am concerned it would be nice if all new trains were built
with more seat width (there are an awful lot of fatties commuting into
London these days) and more leg room.
--
Jane


Why not approach that problem from the other end?

On 15 Dec, 13:24, Jane Sullivan wrote:
In message
,
lonelytraveller writes

On 14 Dec, 18:33, Rupert Candy wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:51 pm, lonelytraveller

wrote:
I don't see why they should be allowed to pull down things like the
buildings on Cowcross Street and replace them with some huge office
block or glassy steel windowed box; they should be forced to rebuild
it all, like at the forecourt of St. Pancras, or at least to rebuild
it according to the new design if its too expensive to reuse the same
bricks etc.

Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket?

That would be nice.

No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many
passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at
this time of year.
You wrote "built to look like" not "built to function like". It could
easily look like the Rocket but function like a modern locomotive. And
it would therefore be nice.

In article ,
Jane Sullivan wrote:
In message
,
lonelytraveller writes

Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket?

That would be nice.

No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many
passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at
this time of year.

Fanny Kemble seems to have managed OK..

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

In message
(Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

In article ,
Jane Sullivan wrote:
In message
,
lonelytraveller writes

Why? Should all new trains be built to look like the Rocket?

That would be nice.

No it wouldn't. The Rocket was a locomotive, so it couldn't carry many
passengers if any, and it could be very unpleasant travelling on it at
this time of year.

Fanny Kemble seems to have managed OK..


Mind you that was September.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html