On 17 Aug, 18:49, "Richard J." wrote:
David Cantrell wrote on 17 August 2009 12:28:33 *...

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:38:02 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
Can't say I expected anything better from the same halfwit who tried to
convince uk.railway that every road in britain is fenced.
Even though they are. *You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally confused.

I'd like to invite you to go to Google Maps, find Beulah Road in
Thornton Heath (postcode CR7 8JH), take a screenshot, and then using the
graphics package of your choice, mark where the fences are. *Cos I live
there, and I'm buggered if I can spot them.

Huh? *I put that postcode into Google Maps and clicked on Street View
for the location. It shows a house (51 Beulah Road) with a wooden fence
in front of it.

I've understood at last. There is a wide world consisting of Tony/
Bruce's house. Everything else is fenced-off from it.

A bit like the island newspaper headline "Mainland cut off".

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 02:00:34PM +0100, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:28:33 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:
I'd like to invite you to go to Google Maps, find Beulah Road in
Thornton Heath (postcode CR7 8JH), take a screenshot, and then using the
graphics package of your choice, mark where the fences are. Cos I live
there, and I'm buggered if I can spot them.
As it's an open plan estate, it is unfenced. The issue of open plan
was discussed early on in the other thread. Do keep up!

I have no idea what you mean by "open plan estate". Certainly not
anything that matches any of the four common meanings of "estate" -
those being: a large parcel of land owned by a single person; a modern
development of ugly little houses; a type of car; the entire property of
a person.

And please don't bother replying, as I have no intention of responding
to any further obtuse comments on the subject.

Ahh, the "I can't defend my arguments so shall declare my opponent to be
an imbecile" trick.

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
puppies and a belt sander
-- after JoeB, in the Monastery

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 05:49:18PM +0000, Richard J. wrote:
David Cantrell wrote on 17 August 2009 12:28:33 ...
I'd like to invite you to go to Google Maps, find Beulah Road in
Thornton Heath (postcode CR7 8JH), take a screenshot, and then using the
graphics package of your choice, mark where the fences are. Cos I live
there, and I'm buggered if I can spot them.
Huh? I put that postcode into Google Maps and clicked on Street View
for the location. It shows a house (51 Beulah Road) with a wooden fence
in front of it.

You are aware that a postcode covers more than one property, right? Not
all of them have fences or walls. Plenty of people there can walk from
their front door to the middle of the road without climbing over a wall
or fence, and without going through a gateway.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

Perl: the only language that makes Welsh look acceptable

In message , at 11:36:53
on Tue, 18 Aug 2009, David Cantrell remarked:
As it's an open plan estate, it is unfenced. The issue of open plan
was discussed early on in the other thread. Do keep up!

I have no idea what you mean by "open plan estate". Certainly not
anything that matches any of the four common meanings of "estate" -
those being: a large parcel of land owned by a single person; a modern
development of ugly little houses; a type of car; the entire property of
a person.

What? It's quite clearly the housing development. And it depends what
you mean by "modern". I was brought up on one, built in the 60's with
quite large houses by 21st Century standards, and it was prohibited to
fence your front gardens (if you had a corner plot, you were allowed a
fence at the side, but not one that was nearer the pavement than the
edge of your house).
--
Roland Perry

Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:28:33 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:38:02 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:
Can't say I expected anything better from the same halfwit who
tried to convince uk.railway that every road in britain is fenced.
Even though they are. You just wanted to put your own, very strange
personal slant on the word "fenced" and got yourself totally
confused.

I'd like to invite you to go to Google Maps, find Beulah Road in
Thornton Heath (postcode CR7 8JH), take a screenshot, and then using
the graphics package of your choice, mark where the fences are. Cos
I live there, and I'm buggered if I can spot them.


As it's an open plan estate, it is unfenced. The issue of open plan
was discussed early on in the other thread. Do keep up!

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&.... 61,,0,15.61

No estate - no fence.

David Cantrell wrote on 18 August 2009 11:41:23 ...
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 05:49:18PM +0000, Richard J. wrote:
David Cantrell wrote on 17 August 2009 12:28:33 ...
I'd like to invite you to go to Google Maps, find Beulah Road in
Thornton Heath (postcode CR7 8JH), take a screenshot, and then using the
graphics package of your choice, mark where the fences are. Cos I live
there, and I'm buggered if I can spot them.
Huh? I put that postcode into Google Maps and clicked on Street View
for the location. It shows a house (51 Beulah Road) with a wooden fence
in front of it.

You are aware that a postcode covers more than one property, right?

Yes, of course. I got the impression from your post that the whole
road, or at least the bit in that postcode, had no fences, as in "I'm
buggered if I can spot *them*".

Not all of them have fences or walls. Plenty of people there can walk from their front door to the middle of the road without climbing over a wall or fence, and without going through a gateway.

In that case, the road is fenced by your front door and the front wall
of your house.

fenced: closed or separated with *or as if with* a fence (Collins
dictionary)

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Aug 11, 4:28*pm, wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:21:30 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:

wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:38:45 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:

As mentioned upthread, for reasons of tight space and twisty track, I
think it highly unlikely that any LU tube stock will have
walk-through inter-car connections. *After all, just think how
narrow and low the doorways would have to be!

Doesn't seem to be a problem for people in bendy buses when they go
around corners.

But bendies are wider, higher and much squarer than tube stock, so the

I dunno , I reckon the height would be pretty close if you measure from
rail level. And I suspect the width is pretty much the same.

No way - or rather, I have to disagree with you on that one - I know
bendies well, and there's *much* more space in the articulated bit of
a bendy than there is in a tube carriage.


don't move much relative to each other, unlike non-articulated
carriages -- just look how much the adjacent carriage moves up and down
when a tube train is bouncing along.

Yes, there is that.

On Aug 12, 7:40*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:15:51 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:

True, or at least "true so 'tis claimed". I imagine that squishing a
2009-stock to fit the Bakerloo loading gauge and adjusting the
equipment used to produce the 2009 stock to produce the squished stock
would be significantly easier than designing a Tube gauge train and
setting up a production line from scratch, though.

I think that all rather depends on assumptions about what sort of tube
train design LUL might desire for the Bakerloo Line fleet .....

A train designed for an extended Bakerloo line would be nice...


If apparently the 09 stock did get dragged through the piccadilly line
tunnels without incident then we can't be talking much difference between
09 and other tube stocks can we? Maybe a few centimeters one way or the
other at most which surely wouldn't make much difference to equipment?

Did it arrive that way? *I thought it was delivered by road rather than
rail and then across the tube network. *I'd genuinely like to know the
answer to this so if anyone can point me at the facts it'd be good.

My understanding is they came by road - seemingly confirmed by the
responses of others.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 11, 4:28=A0pm, wrote:
I dunno , I reckon the height would be pretty close if you measure from
rail level. And I suspect the width is pretty much the same.

No way - or rather, I have to disagree with you on that one - I know
bendies well, and there's *much* more space in the articulated bit of
a bendy than there is in a tube carriage.

Hmm , well given the max width of a road vehicle is 2.5 metres and tube
trains are 2.6 metres wide ...

There may be more room on the inside of a bus because its not built so strong
but external dimensions are another matter.

B2003

On 18 Aug, 16:31, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:11:46 -0700 (PDT)

Mizter T wrote:

On Aug 11, 4:28pm, wrote:
I dunno , I reckon the height would be pretty close if you measure from
rail level. And I suspect the width is pretty much the same.

No way - or rather, I have to disagree with you on that one - I know
bendies well, and there's *much* more space in the articulated bit of
a bendy than there is in a tube carriage.

Hmm , well given the max width of a road vehicle is 2.5 metres and tube
trains are 2.6 metres wide ...

There may be more room on the inside of a bus because its not built so strong
but external dimensions are another matter.

OK, the width of the articulated bit of a bendy bus is less than the
width of a tube carriage - but we're talking more about the potential
dimensions of the articulated bit of some hypothetical future tube
train design. I'm not objecting to the basic concept, merely agreeing
with others that it might be a bit of a tight fit - specifically I'm
thinking about people bashing their heads on the low ceiling of an
articulated connection. Unless you're very tall, that's simply not an
issue w.r.t. the articulated section of a bendy bus.

There was of course the "space train" concept for new Victoria line
stock a while back that had walk-through carriage connections. It
looked exciting, but evidently it wasn't pursued.