Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

"Mr Thant" wrote in message

On 6 Apr, 12:33, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
But why is it so expensive?

It requires a tall 500m viaduct which has to cross various obstacles,
rebuilding another mile and a half of track and building two new tube
stations, which go for £10-20m each.

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations?
Real "tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought,
cost rather more than £20m each. I assume these new Met stations will
be fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on
the DLR. Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc,
to comply with modern statndards.

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Mr Thant" wrote in message

On 6 Apr, 12:33, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
But why is it so expensive?

It requires a tall 500m viaduct which has to cross various obstacles,
rebuilding another mile and a half of track and building two new tube
stations, which go for £10-20m each.

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Paul S

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. *I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. *Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

They'd be built to tube standards, which means ticket machines,
barriers, staff accommodation, full length canopies, etc.

Also LUL and increasingly the DLR like things ambitious
architecturally.

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

One of them is elevated and the other is in a narrowish cutting
requiring a building on stilts. The modular concept seems designed for
fairly flat open sites.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. *I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. *Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

They'd be built to tube standards, which means ticket machines,
barriers, staff accommodation, full length canopies, etc.

ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

Also LUL and increasingly the DLR like things ambitious
architecturally.

For "ambitious" read "expensive" ?

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

One of them is elevated and the other is in a narrowish cutting
requiring a building on stilts. The modular concept seems designed for
fairly flat open sites.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

U

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On 6 Apr, 23:42, Charles Ellson wrote:
ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

No, many tube stations have canopies. The majority, even.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:42, Charles Ellson wrote:
ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

No, many tube stations have canopies. The majority, even.

You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Well that's news to me. Thanks!

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On 7 Apr, 08:16, Mr Thant
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Well that's news to me. Thanks!


Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Apr 7, 9:03*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 7 Apr, 08:16, Mr Thant
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Well that's news to me. Thanks!

Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Is it a registered trademark now?

(I can sort of understand some irritation with the way that they use
it; a bit like using the label "The Bus" for all bus, coach and taxi
services.)

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
That's the paper mill, not the print works. The mill was located
roughly where the end of Byewaters is, just east of the lock on the
canal (it was a regular walk in my youth).
Is this by any chance why there's a Caxton Way in the nearby industrial
estate? I assume it's why there's a Mill Lane running from Croxley Met
to the lock you mention.

It could well be; I'm not enough of a historian of Croxley to be able to
answer.

This wasn't a passenger branch, it was a normal goods siding off the
Ricky line.
Ah, fair enough. I suppose even the 1 km from Croxley Green station (or
a notional goods siding on the Rickmansworth branch) to the mill would
have been too much for big deliveries of rags etc.

Never mind the rags; my memory of the rolls of paper is that they were
bigger than I was.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:42, Charles Ellson wrote:
ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

No, many tube stations have canopies. The majority, even.

You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations.

'Recliner' should get the credit for that point.

Paul S

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

In article ,
Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations.

Are tube stations those served by tube trains, in which case Finchley
Central is one, or is the those where the platforms are in tubes,
in which case most of the JLE stations aren't (as the JLE platforms
seem to be either above ground or in box-like structures)?

"Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Tube - even restricting it to the London Underground - is hugely
overloaded. Being pedantic about it strikes me
as foolish.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On 7 Apr, 09:11, MIG wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:03 am, Mizter T wrote:

On 7 Apr, 08:16, Mr Thant
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Well that's news to me. Thanks!

Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Is it a registered trademark now?

Yes, it would appear so - "The Tube" is a registered trademark of TfL
in a number of different classes.

Trade mark 1527320 is the more relevant one here - filed in 1993,
registered in '95 - it is for goods and services in class 39,
"Transport services for passengers and goods".

Then there's trade mark 2251158A - filed in 2000, registered in 2004 -
which covers eleven classes of goods and services. This looks to be
the one that covers pencils, bath towels and mugs etc!

For more trade mark info see the IPO website he
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm.htm


(I can sort of understand some irritation with the way that they use
it; a bit like using the label "The Bus" for all bus, coach and taxi
services.)


Eh? TfL don't do that.

I'd just add that when it comes to using the phrase "The Tube" I do
reserve my usage of it for when I'm referring to the network as a
whole. If I was specifically speaking about the sub surface lines I'd
avoid it and instead speak of "the Underground". Meanwhile if I was
specifically referring to a deep-level Underground station or line I'd
use the non-capitalised "tube".

Though if I was referring to the standards of open-air Underground
stations as a whole - e.g. when describing the majority of them having
full-length canopies - personally I'd use the term Underground rather
than Tube, even though that somewhat conflicts with my first rule
above, I suppose because there isn't much tube-like about such
stations especially if they are not served by tube trains.

All this is with regards to how I'd write things on utl or uk.railway.
In speech I might refer to an SSL station or line as the Tube, and it
certainly wouldn't rile me if anyone else did.

Anyway, I think it's worth keeping it in perspective, given that an
above ground underground station or line is itself something of a
linguistic nonsense.

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On 7 Apr, 13:08, Mizter T wrote:
On 7 Apr, 09:11, MIG wrote:





On Apr 7, 9:03 am, Mizter T wrote:

On 7 Apr, 08:16, Mr Thant
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Well that's news to me. Thanks!

Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Is it a registered trademark now?

Yes, it would appear so - "The Tube" is a registered trademark of TfL
in a number of different classes.

Trade mark 1527320 is the more relevant one here - filed in 1993,
registered in '95 - it is for goods and services in class 39,
"Transport services for passengers and goods".

Then there's trade mark 2251158A - filed in 2000, registered in 2004 -
which covers eleven classes of goods and services. This looks to be
the one that covers pencils, bath towels and mugs etc!

For more trade mark info see the IPO website he
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tm.htm

Thanks. That fits with my assumption that the pedantry was more
appropriate when "tube" was merely slang for a certain type of tunnel,
but less so since TfL have been using "The Tube" as a trademark for
services operated as part of a particular network and ticketed in the
same way (therefore including Rickmansworth etc).

(I can sort of understand some irritation with the way that they use
it; a bit like using the label "The Bus" for all bus, coach and taxi
services.)

Eh? TfL don't do that.

No they don't; I was trying to come up with an equivalent to use of
"The Tube" that would look silly. I suppose a more genuine situation
regarding services run in the same way, and covered by the same kind
of ticketing, was when people would continue to refer to "red" bus
routes in the period when franchise operators foolishly didn't paint
their buses red (as they mostly do now apart from some blue and yellow
ones down my way).


I'd just add that when it comes to using the phrase "The Tube" I do
reserve my usage of it for when I'm referring to the network as a
whole. If I was specifically speaking about the sub surface lines I'd
avoid it and instead speak of "the Underground". Meanwhile if I was
specifically referring to a deep-level Underground station or line I'd
use the non-capitalised "tube".

I think I'd do the same. Despite the trademark, I always refer to the
London Underground or Underground, unless I am making a point relevant
to a particular kind of tunnel. It's all getting a lot fuzzier
though, with more services franchised by TfL as well as operated by
TfL and so on.

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On 7 Apr, 12:04, Mike Bristow wrote:
Are tube stations those served by tube trains, in which case Finchley
Central is one, or is the those where the platforms are in tubes,
in which case most of the JLE stations aren't (as the JLE platforms
seem to be either above ground or in box-like structures)?

The platforms at Southwark tube were definitely bored, as there's a
viaduct above them. I think all the ones in zone 1 are.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations.

Are tube stations those served by tube trains, in which case Finchley
Central is one, or is the those where the platforms are in tubes,
in which case most of the JLE stations aren't (as the JLE platforms
seem to be either above ground or in box-like structures)?

"Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Tube - even restricting it to the London Underground - is hugely
overloaded. Being pedantic about it strikes me
as foolish.

Right. In my youth Bakerloo trains ran to Watford Junction, and even by
1970 there were still a few in the rush hours.

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations?

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but
probably shorter and therefore less expensive. Of course it's equally
likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

I understand there was some financing from Alliterative Associates
involved.

tom

--
I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ...

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Tom Anderson
writes
That's the paper mill, not the print works. The mill was located roughly
where the end of Byewaters is, just east of the lock on the canal (it was
a regular walk in my youth).
Is this by any chance why there's a Caxton Way in the nearby industrial
estate? I assume it's why there's a Mill Lane running from Croxley Met to
the lock you mention.

It could well be; I'm not enough of a historian of Croxley to be able to
answer.

Impossible!

This wasn't a passenger branch, it was a normal goods siding off the Ricky
line.
Ah, fair enough. I suppose even the 1 km from Croxley Green station (or a
notional goods siding on the Rickmansworth branch) to the mill would have
been too much for big deliveries of rags etc.

Never mind the rags; my memory of the rolls of paper is that they were bigger
than I was.

Oh, but that's paper, and paper's light, isn't it, so they can't have
weighed much. Stands to reason.

tom

--
I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ...

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:


On 7 Apr, 09:11, MIG wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:03 am, Mizter T wrote:

Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Is it a registered trademark now?

Yes, it would appear so - "The Tube" is a registered trademark of TfL
in a number of different classes.

Trade mark 1527320 is the more relevant one here - filed in 1993,
registered in '95 - it is for goods and services in class 39,
"Transport services for passengers and goods".

Goods?

Do LU move goods? If not, when was the last time they did?

tom

--
I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ...

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:49:41 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:


On 7 Apr, 09:11, MIG wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:03 am, Mizter T wrote:

Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Is it a registered trademark now?

Yes, it would appear so - "The Tube" is a registered trademark of TfL
in a number of different classes.

Trade mark 1527320 is the more relevant one here - filed in 1993,
registered in '95 - it is for goods and services in class 39,
"Transport services for passengers and goods".

Goods?

Do LU move goods? If not, when was the last time they did?

ISTR they were still delivering newspapers by train in the 1960s,
possibly a bit later. The class 39 above is very abbreviated version
of what amounts to "this class includes........" and which is briefly
described by the Intellectual Property Office as :-
"Class 39

Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement.

Also in this class are distribution of electricity; travel
information.

Does not Include travel insurance which is in Class 36 or booking
holiday accommodation which is in Class 43."

If you look at the WIPO website you'll also find the class includes
diving bells, launching of satellites for others and horse rental
(etc.).

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

Goods?

Do LU move goods? If not, when was the last time they did?

ISTR a mid 1990s programme about Royal Mail that showed them using tube
trains at night for transporting mail (and this was definitely not the Mail
Rail).

Croxley Rail Link hits the sidings
 

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:49:41 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:

On 7 Apr, 09:11, MIG wrote:

On Apr 7, 9:03 am, Mizter T wrote:

Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Is it a registered trademark now?

Yes, it would appear so - "The Tube" is a registered trademark of TfL
in a number of different classes.

Trade mark 1527320 is the more relevant one here - filed in 1993,
registered in '95 - it is for goods and services in class 39,
"Transport services for passengers and goods".

Goods?

Do LU move goods? If not, when was the last time they did?

ISTR they were still delivering newspapers by train in the 1960s,
possibly a bit later. The class 39 above is very abbreviated version
of what amounts to "this class includes........" and which is briefly
described by the Intellectual Property Office as :-
"Class 39

Transport; packaging and storage of goods; travel arrangement.

Also in this class are distribution of electricity; travel
information.

Does not Include travel insurance which is in Class 36 or booking
holiday accommodation which is in Class 43."

Okay, so it's not that LU are claiming to deliver goods, but that the
relevant WIPO class covers it anyway. Fair enough.

If you look at the WIPO website you'll also find the class includes
diving bells, launching of satellites for others and horse rental
(etc.).

Don't tell Ken, he might get ideas!

tom

--
hypnopomp rapist