In message , Recliner
writes
wrote in message

Did anybody else see all the London Underground stuff in Spooks last
night?

That train they walked through looked very old and reminded me of my
childhood!

I'm assuming it was a 1972, parked in the Aldwych tunnel at Holborn? If
so, there are many older trains still in service on LU.

We also saw the usual escape into the disused Jubilee platforms at
Charing Cross (not far from Aldwych, but I don't think there's an
underground route between them).

But bizarrely they had gone underground at Liverpool street and were
using "disused tunnels" to get to London Bridge. Now I'm willing to
suspend belief for fiction purposes that they were using a tunnel that
doesn't exist. But they least they could have done then was to cover
up the roundels saying that they were at Charing Cross, which rather
made a mockery of the whole thing. Even "King William Street" would have
done! :-)

I was wondering where all the other twisty foot passages were? They
looked clean and unused, rather than disused.
I assumed that hey were all part of the Charing Cross complex but could
of course be wrong. The 72 stock *was* in Aldwych, I presume?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

....

But bizarrely they had gone underground at Liverpool street and were
using "disused tunnels" to get to London Bridge. Now I'm willing to
suspend belief for fiction purposes that they were using a tunnel that
doesn't exist. But they least they could have done then was to cover
up the roundels saying that they were at Charing Cross, which rather
made a mockery of the whole thing. Even "King William Street" would
have done! :-)

Actually, that would have been rather clever, but assumes a knowledge
about LU's history that companies like Kudos are unlikely to have. I've
been down the old King William Street tunnels, and it would have been
great if they could have re-created that seedy (and dark ) WWII look.
Wouldn't it be nice if disused tunnels were all so clean, dry and
brightly lit as in Spooks (not a rat or stalagmite to be seen)?

Obviously, if we're being picky, I doubt that you could get a nuclear
bomb into a briefcase either. But then, Spooks isn't about accuracy, and
they do tell their tales rather well.

In message , Recliner
writes
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message

...

But bizarrely they had gone underground at Liverpool street and were
using "disused tunnels" to get to London Bridge. Now I'm willing to
suspend belief for fiction purposes that they were using a tunnel that
doesn't exist. But they least they could have done then was to cover
up the roundels saying that they were at Charing Cross, which rather
made a mockery of the whole thing. Even "King William Street" would
have done! :-)

Actually, that would have been rather clever,

Blush

Oh, really, it's nothing. You're too kind! :-))


but assumes a knowledge
about LU's history that companies like Kudos are unlikely to have.

They have only to ask.......


I've
been down the old King William Street tunnels, and it would have been
great if they could have re-created that seedy (and dark ) WWII look.
Wouldn't it be nice if disused tunnels were all so clean, dry and
brightly lit as in Spooks (not a rat or stalagmite to be seen)?

Brightly lit in unlikely circumstances is a particular failing of
television and film production generally. The problem is, if you
recreated total darkness, it's not terribly good from a story-telling
point of view.

Obviously, if we're being picky,

Me?! :-)


I doubt that you could get a nuclear
bomb into a briefcase either.

If indeed inaccurate, I for one am mightily relieved.


But then, Spooks isn't about accuracy, and
they do tell their tales rather well.

This is only the second one I've seen. I saw one in an hotel last week
and tuned in again this week because I'd enjoyed it so much.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Dec 9, 4:01 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
I doubt that you could get a nuclear
bomb into a briefcase either.

If indeed inaccurate, I for one am mightily relieved.

Unfortunately not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition

B2003

wrote in message

On Dec 9, 4:01 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
I doubt that you could get a nuclear
bomb into a briefcase either.

If indeed inaccurate, I for one am mightily relieved.

Unfortunately not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition


Did you actually see the programme? In it, the nuclear bomb was
apparently squeezed into a fairly ordinary looking leather briefcase,
casually carried by someone purporting to be just another commuter. It
certainly didn't weigh 68kg, nor was it the size of a large backpack.
So my statement stands.

On Dec 9, 5:14 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
Did you actually see the programme? In it, the nuclear bomb was
apparently squeezed into a fairly ordinary looking leather briefcase,
casually carried by someone purporting to be just another commuter. It
certainly didn't weigh 68kg, nor was it the size of a large backpack.
So my statement stands.

Right, because a commuter carrying an explosive backpack on the tube
would immediately be clocked as suspicious.
Anyway , that was 30 years ago - who knows what classified munitions
they have now that could fit in a suitcase.

B2003

wrote in message

On Dec 9, 5:14 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
Did you actually see the programme? In it, the nuclear bomb was
apparently squeezed into a fairly ordinary looking leather briefcase,
casually carried by someone purporting to be just another commuter.
It certainly didn't weigh 68kg, nor was it the size of a large
backpack. So my statement stands.

Right, because a commuter carrying an explosive backpack on the tube
would immediately be clocked as suspicious.
Anyway , that was 30 years ago - who knows what classified munitions
they have now that could fit in a suitcase.

In the Spooks story, this was an old Russian (pretending to be American)
bomb, placed with a sleeper. And it was in a briefcase, not a suitcase.

I suspect that there's only so far you can miniaturise a nuclear bomb.
You need a certain mass of the fissile material (presumably enriched
uranium), plus various other essential components, including shielding
and conventional explosives. The only thing that may have got smaller in
recent years is the electronics, if any.

In message , at 16:01:24 on Tue,
9 Dec 2008, Ian Jelf remarked:
Brightly lit in unlikely circumstances is a particular failing of
television and film production generally. The problem is, if you
recreated total darkness, it's not terribly good from a story-telling
point of view.

Nor is it very good for the overtime bills, people falling over one
another and so on. I'm told that most "night" scenes are actually shot
in daylight with filters on the camera.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 16:01:24 on
Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Ian Jelf remarked:
Brightly lit in unlikely circumstances is a particular failing of
television and film production generally. The problem is, if you
recreated total darkness, it's not terribly good from a story-telling
point of view.

Nor is it very good for the overtime bills, people falling over one
another and so on. I'm told that most "night" scenes are actually shot
in daylight with filters on the camera.

That was a technique called "la nuit americaine" and is less used
nowadays, I think.

Graeme Wall will no doubt shortly be along to confirm or deny this!

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:01:24 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

I doubt that you could get a nuclear
bomb into a briefcase either.

If indeed inaccurate, I for one am mightily relieved.

Unfortunately, I believe it is possible. I have watched documentaries
about the subject in the past.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.