| Author |
Message |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:15 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Robert Bannister wrote:
| Quote: |
Paul Wolff wrote:
(what acute hearing!). We are told that the trains which [sic]
traversed those lines
ObAue: Can you explain your "sic", please? Are you objecting to "trains"
or "which" or what? I can't see the point.
|
I'll bet he's a "that"-nik.
So am I, but I don't OY! (or [sic]) "which" as a defining relative. I
don't like it, and I don't use it, but I don't OY! it or [sic] it.
Paul Wolff does. So it goes.
--
Bob Lieblich
And which's which
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:16 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:00:57 +0800, Robert Bannister
robban@it.net.au> wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
(what acute hearing!). We are told that the trains which [sic]
traversed those lines
ObAue: Can you explain your "sic", please? Are you objecting to "trains"
or "which" or what? I can't see the point.
I think the correct word is "who". Every time I'm wrong, it turns out
that I should have used "who".
|
Say what?
--
Bob Lieblich
The wicked which of Leftpondia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Paul Wolff:
| Quote: | In the Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans, a man's body was found
beside the Underground line at a point where the eastbound trains
emerged from a tunnel immediately before Aldgate Station. It had
apparently fallen from an ordinary Metropolitan train ...
We are told that the trains which ... traversed those lines were
either purely Metropolitan, or from Willesden and outlying junctions.
|
Unfortunately, "Metropolitan" is somewhat ambiguous here.
The original line of the Metropolitan Railway, opened in 1863, was
in present-day terms the portion of the Hammersmith & City Line from
Paddington to Farringdon. The line was an immediate success and so
many plans were put forward for new ones that Parliament took the
unusual step of involved itself in the planning. Committees in
1863 and 1864 recommended using the existing line as one side of an
"inner circuit", a name that soon became the Inner Circle.
As the route chosen would be an expensive one to build, the Metro-
politan Railway felt that they would not be able to raise enough
additional capital to complete the Circle themselves. But they
didn't want some competing company stepping into the breach either.
So they formed a second company that would raise its own capital and
build the part of the Circle between the stations now called South
Kensington and Tower Hill, while the original company would extend
its line at both ends to join onto it.
The idea was that the two companies would be merged as soon as the
pesky capital-raising period was over. Just as companies often do
today, the idea that their interests were essentially the same was
expressed by choosing a similar name: the new company was called
the Metropolitan District Railway.
But the plans fell through and the merger never happened. When the
first section of the MDR opened, it was the Met that operated its
trains; but soon enough the MDR acquired its own trains and the two
companies descended to a state of enmity. The MDR became known
informally as the District Railway, giving rise to today's term "the
District Line". But its full name was still displayed where the
public would see it.
The sentence referring to a "purely Metropolitan" train seems to
imply a point of view that there was a single "Metropolitan" system
that included all Inner Circle trains, and thus that the identities
of the two companies were still somewhat blurred, at least in the
mind of Dr. Watson. So it's possible that "Metropolitan" really
meant "either Metropolitan or District".
| Quote: | Sherlock identified the building from whose
window the body had been placed on a carriage roof as being just outside
Gloucester Road Station. The window-sill was thickly coated with soot
from the passing engines. These events are dated to November 1895.
Gloucester Road to Aldgate without a change seems to require what is
called the Circle Line, today, by my tube map,
|
Yes -- and therefore the train could have been running in either
direction.
| Quote: | but the trains would have been travelling North, not East; presumably
the line was part of the Metropolitan Railway then. Or it was fiction.
|
Aldgate was indeed on the Metropolitan Railway's part of the Circle.
What matters is that it is at the easternmost point of Circle, and
therefore a train approaching it in *either direction* may be
described as eastbound.
Don Aitken:
| Quote: | Except for a short period of joint working with the District right at
the start,
|
Don is presumably referring to the original plan whereby each company
would operate every second Inner Circle train in each direction.
This plan was a failure from the outset, due to more trains being
scheduled than the line and its junctions could handle.
| Quote: | the Circle service was always operated by the Metropolitan;
|
Wrong. Once things settled down, the Met operated all trains in one
direction around the circle and a minority of trains in the other
direction, but the District ran the rest. Even after nationalization
there was an echo of this, as there were still separate Met and
District Line fleets and the Circle trains were drawn from these in
the same manner until 1990.
Since then the Hammersmith & City Line has been split off from the
Metropolitan, and its fleet has operated the Circle exclusively.
| Quote: | the separate name was only for convenience of presentation.
It was then the Inner Circle...
|
A name was needed for the Circle route because something had to
be shown to identify its trains. However, the route was never
identified distinctively on maps until 1947 -- indeed, since 1935
the system diagram had not even distinguished the District from
the Met by color, although some versions labeled them in words.
The color distinction of the two lines was restored in 1949, and
the Circle Line given its new name and its own color at that time.
| Quote: | there were also, at various dates, a Middle
Circle, Outer Circle, and Super Outer Circle. Some of the routes
operated in steam days were pretty bizarre.
|
And none of them was ever an actual circular service -- they were
all more or less U-shaped, with the open end to the east. They
originated when the Inner Circle itself was still incomplete and
therefore similarly U-shaped.
--
Mark Brader | A computer[']s view of the world is analogous [to]
Toronto | a flashlight in the dark. What they can see, they
msb@vex.net | see well. What they can't see, they see not at all.
| -- M. Valvo
My text in this article is in the public domain.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | The surface sections at the east end of the Central Line were
formerly part of the Great Eastern Railway (served from Liverpool
Street via Stratford and, for the east side of the loop, Ilford).
Central Line trains reached Epping by 1949, but that was not the
terminus then...
|
Rob Bannister:
| Quote: | I remember catching steam trains from Woodford Green to Liverpool Street
and the huge disruption to streets (removal of level crossings) and
train services during the electrification. Can you remember when the
Hainault Loop was electrified?
|
No, but it was 1947 and 1948. Specifically, the opening dates for the
extended Central Line electric service were:
1946-12-04 Liverpool Street * Stratford
1947-05-05 Stratford * Leytonstone - Leyton
1947-12-14 Leytonstone - Woodford, Leytonstone * Newbury Park
1948-05-31 Newbury Park - Hainault
1948-11-21 Woodford - Loughton, Woodford - Hainault
1949-09-25 Loughton - Epping
1957-11-18 Epping - Ongar (separate service)
Where * is used instead of -, this indicates new route in tunnel.
By the way, it was the Fairlop Loop in steam days. For many years the
Underground operated Hainault as a double terminus rather than running
any trains all the way around the loop, so it became natural to call it
the Hainault Loop.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "A cow-orker of mine used to ood dogs."
msb@vex.net -- Steve Hayes
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:29:52 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Don Aitken wrote:
[...]
LT used steam locos for maintenance trains on its surface and
subsurface lines until around 1970; they are still used (or were a
few
years ago) for an annual "steam day" public working from Watford to
Rickmansworth. I think the last scheduled steam passenger service
on a
British railway (other than presrved lines) was the Met service to
Aylesbury, which ceased some time in the sixties.
I wish I could date it precisely, but I know I took the sleeper
(imagine! the _sleeper_!) from Carmarthen to Paddington as late as
1968 or '9, and I feel sure it was even then hauled by either a
Castle or a Hall. Bath and breakfast at the hotel at the end of the
platform before hitting the Town. Ichabod! Boiss bach, another
Marston's Pedi, and I'm going to cry: sorry.
|
Two observations:
1. On 12 July 1966 I travelled from Streatham, London, to Abingdon by bus and
train. The Metropolitan line took me to Amersham, and I had to wait 45 minutes
there for a Green Line bus to Alyesbury, so I don't think the Metropolitan
line reached Aylesbury. That was the closest I could get to Abingdon on my
London Transport free pass.
2. On 6 September 1966 I travelled from London to Bournemouth, and the train
(Southern Region BR, from Waterloo) was steam hauled. It was a memoral day,
because it was the day Dr Verwoerd was assassinated.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:30:21 -0700, "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Robert Bannister wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
(what acute hearing!). We are told that the trains which [sic]
traversed those lines
ObAue: Can you explain your "sic", please? Are you objecting to
"trains" or "which" or what? I can't see the point.
I think the correct word is "who". Every time I'm wrong, it turns
out that I should have used "who".
Say what?
C'mon, Bob. You can work it out. Hope you do. I don't want you
saying that I'm not clear again.
The expression "Say what?" is not a request for clarification.
|
No, it's usually a statement of disbelief. Why would you think I
think it's a request for clarification?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Robert Bannister wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
(what acute hearing!). We are told that the trains which [sic]
traversed those lines
ObAue: Can you explain your "sic", please? Are you objecting to
"trains" or "which" or what? I can't see the point.
I think the correct word is "who". Every time I'm wrong, it turns
out that I should have used "who".
Say what?
C'mon, Bob. You can work it out. Hope you do. I don't want you
saying that I'm not clear again.
|
The expression "Say what?" is not a request for clarification.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> spake thusly:
Mark Brader:
My water here is also on a flat rate... based on the number of
fixtures and the number of rooms in the house.
William H.:
In the UK, it's based on a tax we no longer have.
Ah, now that *is* in the national character! I love it!
New residential properties in Britain (NI is probably different) have
had water meters since the late 1980s.
|
When my mother was growing up in upstate New York, they were charged by
the number of faucets they had. Her older brother remembers them keeping
bottles of milk under running water in the kitchen sink to keep them
cold.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:08 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:16:08 -0400, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:00:57 +0800, Robert Bannister
robban@it.net.au> wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
(what acute hearing!). We are told that the trains which [sic]
traversed those lines
ObAue: Can you explain your "sic", please? Are you objecting to "trains"
or "which" or what? I can't see the point.
I think the correct word is "who". Every time I'm wrong, it turns out
that I should have used "who".
Say what?
|
C'mon, Bob. You can work it out. Hope you do. I don't want you
saying that I'm not clear again.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:58 pm
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | 2. On 6 September 1966 I travelled from London to Bournemouth, and
the train (Southern Region BR, from Waterloo) was steam hauled. It
was a memoral day, because it was the day Dr Verwoerd was
assassinated.
|
Was the motive power from one of those amazing quasi-streamlined
Pacifics which suffered wheelspin on starting? Merchant Navy, were
they? Battle of Britain?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:25 pm
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:02:09 -0000, msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
| Quote: | Don Aitken:
Except for a short period of joint working with the District right at
the start,
Don is presumably referring to the original plan whereby each company
would operate every second Inner Circle train in each direction.
This plan was a failure from the outset, due to more trains being
scheduled than the line and its junctions could handle.
the Circle service was always operated by the Metropolitan;
Wrong. Once things settled down, the Met operated all trains in one
direction around the circle and a minority of trains in the other
direction, but the District ran the rest. Even after nationalization
there was an echo of this, as there were still separate Met and
District Line fleets and the Circle trains were drawn from these in
the same manner until 1990.
Charles E Lee ("The Metropolitan District Railway") says that "all the |
Inner Circle trains were provided and staffed by the Metropolitan"
until after the circle was completed in 1884. There was then a
(presumably short) period when the two companies operated alternate
trains in both directions, after which the arrangement you describe
came into effect. On electrification, in 1905, both companies
originally proveded trains, but the District "later left the whole of
the Inner Circle workings to the Metropolitan". By December 1907, when
the District train service was extensively revised, "the Inner Circle
service ... was worked wholly by Metropolitan stock". Some District
trains returned to the Circle in October 1908, but all of them, except
for three Sunday trains, were withdrawn on 1 November 1926, when the
Putney Bridge to Edgware Road service began.
If this is correct (and Lee is usually reliable) then neither of us
got it quite right!
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:34 pm
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Don Aitken writes:
| Quote: | Charles E Lee ("The Metropolitan District Railway") says ...
|
Well, that seems specific enough. Thanks for the correction.
My source was CULG, and I don't know where Clive got it from.
I'll forward this to him.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Dr. Slipher, I have found your Planet X."
msb@vex.net -- Clyde Tombaugh (1906-97), 1930-02-18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:17 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:58:55 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes wrote:
[...]
2. On 6 September 1966 I travelled from London to Bournemouth, and
the train (Southern Region BR, from Waterloo) was steam hauled. It
was a memoral day, because it was the day Dr Verwoerd was
assassinated.
Was the motive power from one of those amazing quasi-streamlined
Pacifics which suffered wheelspin on starting? Merchant Navy, were
they? Battle of Britain?
|
Battle of Britain.
Took photos of one, Sir Eustace Missenden, No 34090.
Not streamlined, but had smoke deflectors.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:20 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
In message <435C2797.D823DCC8@verizon.net>, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> writes
| Quote: | Robert Bannister wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
(what acute hearing!). We are told that the trains which [sic]
traversed those lines
ObAue: Can you explain your "sic", please? Are you objecting to "trains"
or "which" or what? I can't see the point.
I'll bet he's a "that"-nik.
So am I, but I don't OY! (or [sic]) "which" as a defining relative. I
don't like it, and I don't use it, but I don't OY! it or [sic] it.
Paul Wolff does. So it goes.
Yes, it needed a "that" there. I wouldn't have sicced another poster, |
but felt it my duty to sic a quotation from a published Victorian
author.
I feel obliged to get in the occasional usage comment to justify my
presence here at all.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:33 am
Post subject: Re: reticulated water |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | "Skitt" wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Robert Bannister wrote:
Paul Wolff wrote:
(what acute hearing!). We are told that the trains which [sic]
traversed those lines
ObAue: Can you explain your "sic", please? Are you objecting to
"trains" or "which" or what? I can't see the point.
I think the correct word is "who". Every time I'm wrong, it turns
out that I should have used "who".
Say what?
C'mon, Bob. You can work it out. Hope you do. I don't want you
saying that I'm not clear again.
The expression "Say what?" is not a request for clarification.
No, it's usually a statement of disbelief. Why would you think I
think it's a request for clarification?
|
Well, your combination of "you can work it out" and "saying that I'm not
clear" steered me in that direction. How else should I have interpreted
those remarks? I mean, you yourself brought up the "not clear" idea for
Bob's comment.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in