|
Post by angelislington on Jul 21, 2008 21:58:48 GMT
Watford? Huh? Hmm. Are we talking tube or NR or anything specific, or are you not going to tell us?
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jul 12, 2008 19:03:08 GMT
Wicked, that's so cool! Nice one, Chris!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jul 12, 2008 10:03:35 GMT
How about a "Just Married" headboard on a 95TS from Camden Town to Euston via Kennington for the post-wedding party I have a little mental image of a 38ts trundling down the line with cans tied to the back Prolly wouldn't be very safe, though, huh! ;D
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jul 4, 2008 12:50:40 GMT
Well don't just stand there, web them up! Your pics are always wildly better than mine!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jul 4, 2008 12:47:51 GMT
MRFS and I were puzzling over just that, when we took the Northern up to Stockwell from Morden on Sunday. We were sitting at the end of the car, in the first two seats next to the opening door. When it was open, you could see a sticker through the window on the inside of the door. I have *no* idea how it was done. We concluded it must have happened when it was made
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jul 2, 2008 13:12:28 GMT
Heh - there's a leeeetle bit more to it than his ability to wow me with timetables ;D We actually met via a motorcycle forum, but the first face-to-face meeting was on a trip out on the steam railway where MRFS42 works, which the motorcycle forum had arranged!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 30, 2008 13:49:57 GMT
Yesterday, as I was sitting on my favourite train (38ts), on my favourite line (Northern) passing through my favourite station (Camden Town), my favourite guy (MRFS42) went down on bended knee and asked me if I would do him the honour of becoming his wife.
Of course, I said YES! ;D
many thanks to the impromtu engagement party attendees (those who joined us in Ganley's Pub in Morden) and who took photos to mark this auspicious occasion. Ducatisti even supplied some champers!
*passes round the bubbly, clinks glasses with all*
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 25, 2008 15:39:22 GMT
I took some pics of my avatar on Friday. I've just webbed them up. It really is a gorgeous piece of sculpture - photos don't do it justice, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 23, 2008 9:55:21 GMT
The background is Butser Ancient Farm, near Petersfield in Hants. The huts shown are possibly those modelled on the Glastonbury roundhouses, the farm being a reconstruction of an Iron Age settlement. As for them being round to confound the devil - nice idea, but structurally a circular house is easier to build and very, very sturdy. Lots has been said about the pitch of the roof - of course, anything above ground level will only ever be conjecture - but statistical evidence shows that the pitch of rooves is best at 45 o in the UK because of the amount of rain. Steeper, and it washes the reeds off, shallower and the rain goes straight through. I stayed at the farm for 5 weeks as part of my degree in Archaeology (I had a sort of subspecialism in archaeobotany, and in fact I see that the first 3 photos on the Crops page are mine, and are *still* uncredited.... could be worse, in bygone years they had a whopping 15 uncredited on the site. I had to crawl around on my stomach for ages to get that photo of the Triticum dicoccum!). I had my first introduction to the joys of horse flies there, and learnt not to annoy a Manx or a Soay
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 19, 2008 15:39:41 GMT
But in decades past, Dissie trains could run there, yes?
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 19, 2008 9:50:52 GMT
That is a snug fit indeed! Thanks, Chris, what a fab photo!
9" does indeed look to be about right. I can imagine, UG, that it would be a little freaky going into a tunnel for the first time!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 18, 2008 22:54:13 GMT
Full of the numpty questions lately: What's cab secure radio? How does it differ from Connect?
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 18, 2008 22:45:20 GMT
Yay! Are you on the earlier or later one?
<frolicks about in excitement>
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 18, 2008 22:26:42 GMT
Hello folks,
What's the distance between the top of the trains & the tunnel? Obv I know this prob depends on the particular stock we're talking about, but just wondering what it roughly is.
Also wondering if the sub-surface lines tend to have 'tall' tunnels (compared to the deep-levels) their whole length, or if there are sections which are comparable to the d-l tunnels. Having been at pretty much all of the s-s stations at one time or another, it always looks as though the tunnels are as 'commodious' [1] as the platform areas.
Ta!
[1] yeah, I've just been reading some old books with reviews of the earliest stations, all the commentators like this word!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 18, 2008 22:19:33 GMT
I love that! That's wicked, Benedict!
(I do like the little pile of lines and stations in the bottom left-hand corner, too!)
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 18, 2008 22:16:34 GMT
My mate, when he worked at Balham NR, always used to laugh at the numpties who'd come running up and ask 'what platform is the next train from?' and then get huffy when they'd be told 'depends where you're going'
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 15, 2008 22:30:13 GMT
Wow, these are fantastic, thank you so much!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 14, 2008 13:48:14 GMT
Aaaah, it all makes sense. Thanks, guys!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 14, 2008 13:45:50 GMT
Just for you, AngelIs.... It's from the top of the stairs at Angel, it shows both the grot and the narrow platform. Don't forget that Euston was like that as well before 1967! Ooo, thanks! I'm sure you've posted that pic before for me - or a similar one - I forgot all about my sign-in name when I contributed to this thread, duh! I can't imagine what Euston would have been like. It's just so permanently a wide platform for me, now, having never seen it beforehand like I did with Angel. I dread to think what it was like when two trains passed at once im guessing the turbulance produced both trains was a pretty scarry experience!!! In practice, and this is only from what I remember, it wasn't too bad - it's actually fairly unusual for a start that two trains would be coming in at exactly the same time, and of course they're not going that fast by then anyway. I preferred it as it gave a proper 'side' to the platform - I didn't feel like I was going to fall off! It was just worse when the train actually left, especially if you were walking along the side next to the train. Suddenly there'd be this big gap of track next to you <shudder>. Sometimes I'd actually sit and wait till the platform had cleared a bit before walking away. But then here I'm talking about the Claphams, and I'd probably been given the creeps by the stories of pax falling off at Angel! I'm not usually such a wuss, I'm sure!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 14, 2008 9:13:35 GMT
Random question - where do the numbers come from? These new trains are 378s and they're going to replace 313s and 508s (according to the link that astock5000 posted). There's bound to be a reason for these numbers but I can't spot it.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 14, 2008 8:47:42 GMT
'Rebuilt for safety reasons' - I should say so - when I worked at LT Property they told me that the overcrowding was so bad at peak that at least one person per week would get accidentally pushed off onto the track Although I do have fond memories of the old stations I am pretty shocked at the before-and-after pics in the links provided by DavidH. I really don't remember them being that grotty. Having said that, the house we lived in in Colliers Wood had a very mouldy bathroom and all the old (30s!) tiles were falling off and the paint was going all bubbly and crusty and we did actually call it 'the Northern Line Experience loo'! I do get pretty itchy when I have to alight at Clapham Common or North. There's something about the narrowness of the platform that only really becomes apparent when the train leaves. I get a sort of slight vertigo sensation. The real problem is when people want to exit and they walk in a big clump up the stairs, which, if you're coming down onto the platform, can cause some real moments close to the edges of the platform. I'm glad Angel was redone.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 10, 2008 19:12:31 GMT
... one positive thing which I actually cannot believe what with health and safety etc. is that London still has 1,600 gas lamps remaining; I regularly see them in covent garden. ... You're kidding me! Working ones? Wow!
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 5, 2008 21:48:40 GMT
Tom - do the kph calculations get messed up by the fact that the tube was originally designed in Imperial? Or is it relatively straightforward?
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 5, 2008 21:42:29 GMT
In short - why do it?
I'm just thinking of all the faff in resigning, reprinting maps etc, letting passengers know...
I'm thinking in particular of the whole Charing Cross/Strand/Embankment fun & games, but of course there are many others.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 5, 2008 21:31:37 GMT
Hello, 1) I think it's to do with 'tidying up' the end of the Dissie. It's a difficult place to have a line terminate - in map terms, I mean! - and there seems to have been some problems in deciding how to do it until about 1965. For instance, in the mid-fifties, the Dis was on the left, with the line terminating in the middle of the Met and Circle lines. Some even had it terminating above the Met. By the late fifties you can see that the Dis heads 'north' on the left of the Circ, then actually crosses over the Circ at Paddington to terminate 'below' the Circ. By the mid-sixties it's the 'standard' layout that we know - and it's a much neater way of terminating that bit of the Dis. 2) I'd hazard a guess that not all Pic or Dis trains stopped there? I'm sure someone I know very well will be along before too long with a barrage of timetable info to prove or disprove this theory! ;D
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 5, 2008 21:20:17 GMT
Thanks, folks, for all the links. I've had a good rummage round and even well after Beck there seems to be some chopping and changing of colours. The only one that's consistent seems to be the Dissie. Most lines seem to have been printed in red when they were first opened, probably to draw attention to them.
I wonder if at first it had to do with trying to keep the maps legible despite being overlaid on a street plan; and later to do with cheapness of ink/difficulties with the complexity of the image & printing press processes - certainly a great deal of early maps I've seen have had one colour or another ever so slightly offset.
Strange, not having any consistency until about 1950, given that the roundel made its debut in the early years of the century.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 5, 2008 10:24:10 GMT
Phil, you are a BAD BAD bear. I have spent 110 minutes doing the stupidly fiddly 247-triangle version. Go and sit on the naughty step and contemplate the error of my ways.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 5, 2008 10:09:43 GMT
And the District, Ham&City, Circle and what was the ELL, natch!
Don't think it would cut any mustard in a court of law... esp as if we know the difference between subsurface and deep-level we can't really argue that we didn't think 'tube' referred to 'subsurface' too! Shame. Not that I ever remember haivng a guzzle on the choob anyway.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 5, 2008 9:59:02 GMT
I have a dedicated webmail account which I use for shopping, questionnaires, banking, ebay, paypal and the like. Whenever I get anything to my 'real' address, I know it's a spoof. Quite fun, though, anaylising the links and finding out where they really go.
|
|
|
Post by angelislington on Jun 4, 2008 20:05:06 GMT
Now, I know us gurlies like our colours but I would like to know when it was decided which colour should belong with which line. I know when they settled, frinstance, on red for the Central, but why? Does anyone know?
|
|