|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 4, 2014 10:40:52 GMT
To some extent, I don't think uniform should attempt to be fashionable, as fashions change like seasons and something that is in fashion one week will be horribly dated the next. Workwear, like any other form of industrial design, needs to be suitable for the task and practical. As Frank Pick used to promote, it needs to have a 'fitness for purpose'. The current uniform needed improving, yes. Improving on choices available, quality, and fit. It didn't need a designer to come along and stick badly proportioned roundels on every single item. This uniform will end up looking old before its time and will probably have to be reworked in about three years or so to make it more acceptable to the wearers. I can see a lot of trouble with this. There's no way that staff are going to wear this in its current form, and the "mix & match" nature of the new uniform lends itself to staff adding items of their own, or from the current uniform. I can't see local management enforcing this as they will be just as unhappy with it. Meanwhile I suspect some areas will develop their own local uniforms, I know of one forward-looking business unit which has done this already! What amuses me slightly, part of the brief for the new uniform was to make staff more 'visible'. In my view one of the only issues with the design of the current uniform is that, unlike the superb 1990s uniform, it does not feature the red/blue LU roundel, but instead makes use of the plain blue TFL roundel. I seem to remember this was a deliberate decision, perhaps to save cost by enabling items to be used by staff across TFL. Perhaps if they had just taken the current uniform and added the correct roundel in appropriate locations, without using it in so-called 'clever' ways, they could have achieved the visibility objective without the need to waste a huge amount of money. Maybe there's some confusion about which corporate identity is supposed to be the brand image here. I'd have thought they should concentrate on LUL as it's the Tube, and stick to the LU roundel. But of course, 'they' don't appreciate that people working on the various parts of TfL might appreciate something that distinguishes their area of work from the rest of the operation. As they clearly have pride in what they do, they should expect TfL management to underscore that pride and have a separate discernible uniform for each aspect that says 'We are all proud of our Underground/Overground/Buses-ecce signum!' Can you imagine letting a fashion designer loose on other similarly iconic parts of London uniform-Beefeaters? Horse Guards' Parade? Your friendly neighbourhood bobby? Or maybe, having had another look at the link, and whence it was sourced, this is all a sinister plot to replace LU information staff with Blue Peter presenters. And badges.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 3, 2014 22:47:11 GMT
In the 1950's we used to get the District from Victoria down to Dagenham about once a month to visit Dad's parents etc.
They definitely had Plaistow reversers at that stage. Dad reckoned it would be a good name for a football team!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 3, 2014 21:14:55 GMT
What's the problem with the current uniform? Perhaps we should have saved that one for the daily quiz! Though it would probably take 10 years to get the answer. To me it looks like a cheap school uniform and not at all authoritative in appearance but there again, I don't think much of the current one either. Having said that, I'm an angler and we're not exactly known for our sartorial elegance (see avatar for evidence) so what would I know?...... Yes, but when did you last get asked which way the Bakerloo Eastbound is when out angling? The new look is a bit too bright and happy for me. I suppose we should be grateful that they haven't reddified these: to go on it. Looks like something the clods on The Apprentice came up with, to be frank.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 1, 2014 20:53:13 GMT
The other possibility re wartime is that of bomb damage at the very top of the tunnel.
Could just have been a hairline crack that years of vibrations from trains has sent down to the tunnel roof-must have been around 2 or 3 million trains gone by most given points on LUL since the war.
And, as phillw48 said earlier, water could also have seeped in. To or indeed through an initial crack.
All of which, unless the main structure is noticeably bulging, visibly cracking or blistering or dripping/seeping water, would have been difficult to detect at the time, or to suspect subsequently that this had happened, if that is what did.
The Underground's safety record should reassure us all; sure they will sort it out and recheck every similar place on the network again (as I'll bet they've already done since this happened) once the cause is ascertained.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 1, 2014 16:55:17 GMT
Well, as long as nobody's seen Prof. Quatermass investigating, that rules aliens out at least!
Seriously, does anybody know when this concrete was put there, because I doubt it's original build? Not impossible it was part of the hastily-erected(of necessity) wartime flood control seals.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 31, 2014 21:49:47 GMT
Hmm. Perhaps it was just a training exercise. Like this lot used to do: And look how they ended up.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 30, 2014 15:34:46 GMT
Has anyone actually asked the travelling public about this?
Does anyone know how the idea will enhance passenger comfort, convenience or safety, or even maintain these at their present levels?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 29, 2014 21:07:10 GMT
Actually, wasn't it the H & C? Whoopie Goldhawk-Road? I'll get me coat. Has it got buckles on the back? I don't know. Guess I'd better ask: the previous owner! PS-still trying to find the orange dotted line representation that norbitonflyer mentioned. Could it have been a carriage map?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 29, 2014 20:05:25 GMT
Actually, wasn't it the H & C? Whoopie Goldhawk-Road?
I'll get me coat.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 29, 2014 20:03:07 GMT
Seems a strange poll but to be honest it may reflect the high use age and levels of cleaning. I wonder what the sample numbers were? Dependent on the number of people who were presumably paid to batter TfL property? Thanks, Time Out, for giving vandals the green light? I suspect most punters would be more concerned with finding a seat in the first place. And, having done so, would be fairly unlikely to bounce up and down on it stirring up the dust anyway. If they had concentrated on platform and line cleanliness, that's a much more useful area to highlight, if it isn't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 29, 2014 16:06:20 GMT
Occasionally guesses do get overlooked - we are only human. If you think this has happened, you can politely draw our attention to it but the team have access to the answers the same as I do, so if one of them has already commented I'm not going to be saying anything different, especially after the answers have been given. Over the years I've put a lot of my own time and money (travelling to take the photos) into producing this quiz, and I take nothing from it other than other people's enjoyment. Demanding things tends not to encourage me to keep on doing it. And can I put on record, Chris, the Forum Staff's ongoing gratitude for the time and effort you put in as well as the other forum members who help you. I look forward to buying you a drink at Christmas.
To say nothing of the artistic ambience and beauty Chris consistently finds in everyday and unconsidered views and objects. The camera can't do that for you, only the photographer's skill can. I'm lucky enough to be married to someone with that same ability, so I know it when I see it in others. As the forum is doubly blessed-better make his a double!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 28, 2014 22:23:46 GMT
I did also read that Fleet was used because of the grey colour assigned to it, when working, for the Tube map, at an early stage I'm sure early maps showed it, when under construction, as an orange dotted line. Yes, they did, although the only example I can find on a quick net search is grey: The orange was due to some connection with Nell Gwynn, and I honestly read exactly what that was once, but cannot remember it.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 28, 2014 21:49:09 GMT
John TuthillI remember the old enamel sign well, fixed to a roughly constructed low brick wall around the Bomb Site, with a solitary Pub standing in the centre. theblackferretI have seen the Wiki article as well, and that it was named after the River Fleet North /South valley. Although, I have read that it was named so because it would have run under Fleet Street for half a mile. On one level, it does seem more obvious that it was named after Fleet Street, which is well known rather than the River Fleet. Which account is correct? At face value, Wiki. Perhaps this is like finding the person who first coined Bakerloo. I think Baker-loo was coined by the London Evening News in 1906 & the company picked it up officially soon after. I don't believe loo was in common usage then for water-closet facilities, and I think that in turn was brought back from France or came over with Belgian refugees in WWI (derivated from L'eau(water), hence why it caught on. I did also read that Fleet was used because of the grey colour assigned to it, when working, for the Tube map, at an early stage & that in turn was reminiscent of ships of the Fleet, which historically once were regulars on the Thames. But that may be apocryphal.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 28, 2014 21:28:03 GMT
Where did the name 'Fleet Line' originate from? Does it run alongside the Fleet Ditch, which, it I remember rightly, is the outflow of the Highgate ponds? According to Wikipedia: The new line was to have been called the Fleet line[5] after the River Fleet (although it would only have crossed under the Fleet at Ludgate Circus; the central London section mostly follows the Tyburn). 5- Willis, Jon (1999). Extending the Jubilee Line: The planning story. London Transport. OCLC 637966374.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 27, 2014 23:00:03 GMT
Thanks-I lost track with Charing Cross/Embankment/Strand/Trafalgar Square in the late 1970's.
After which time, If I commuted up from Kent to London on the ex-SER lines, I used to get off to the Tube at London Bridge rather than CC.
More chance of a seat, of course.
In theory, anyhow.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 27, 2014 22:27:12 GMT
Is that the ex-Trafalgar Square of my youth?
If so, it had four entrances from the street, one in the Square itself.
Don't recall any pigeons on trains, even though you could feed them in the Square for 1s/6d a thimble, or cup as they called it, of corn.
And that's been closed since 8 January-so, did that beat the 43-week expected duration of works or not?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 25, 2014 16:38:12 GMT
Is Marylebone the only one where you cannot change to another line within the same station building?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 25, 2014 15:02:34 GMT
Marylebone is the only one of that lot served by the Bakerloo Line, and is also the only one of the four added to a Tube line after the initial line construction? Plus, you can't change Tube lines there?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 23, 2014 19:16:04 GMT
This was a pretty rare thing to've happened, glad to see they do make a recommendation nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 22, 2014 20:31:06 GMT
This may sound like a stupid question, and i am pretty sure that the answer will be very obvious when i hear it, but does anyone know where i could find some photos of the station still in use? Specifically photos with trains in them, possibly from platform level. All the photos that i have seen show the station buildings. Yep, there's one from 1928 with train in J.E.Connor's "London's Disused Underground Stations". Capital Transport ISBN 1-85414-250-X. Also has a couple from platform level when still in use, but no train there. Book is apparently in stock on Capital Transport's website, too and transportdiversions.com.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 21, 2014 15:42:55 GMT
London Transport Museum is a money-making machine, so it's not impossible such an idea would turn over a profit-think tourists rather than Tube-lovers herewith.
But whether Aldwych is the right site could be another matter.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 20, 2014 21:26:14 GMT
Yes, it's not that much of a blast from the past, but still quintessentially 1960's somehow, even without the standard stock clue.
Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 20, 2014 20:40:28 GMT
Yeh, and, incidentally, the juice came on at Epping on 25.9.1949, so the last steam shuttle was Epping <====> Ongar up until November 1957, hope you might have photos of that, too?
After Nov 1957, anybody was free to experience the surreal effect you so accurately portrayed in passing through Blake Hall in a Tube train.
Apparently, before closure, up to six people a day used that station.
Wonder if there was a hole in the space-time continuum on the Central Line there, and these six were wretched souls who had escaped the curse of The Flying Dutchman, only to now be eternally condemned to commute from Blake Hall to Liverpool Street for their sins.
Luckily, LT intervened in 1981. So they probably now have to commute from somewhere Crossrail 2 was meant to go, but never will.
Well, that's enough metaphysics and philosophy for one post!
Like the GER valancing on the platform canopies, too.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 20, 2014 19:46:47 GMT
Many thanks for sharing this.
Hainault had 'the juice turned on' wef 31.5.1948, Buckhurst Hill & Loughton on 21.11.1948 a Sunday, so the last date a steam shuttle would have had to start or terminate at Woodford was either that or Saturday 20 November.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 20, 2014 13:28:28 GMT
Yeh, my mistake-shop did have a lift as well last time I went (a year ago), but noted it wasn't working then.
Brainstorm last night, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 19, 2014 21:32:12 GMT
I suspect there are very many issues - not least access as has been alluded to. The lifts were ostensibly to cost £3 million odd in 1994 to replace so let's say £10 million now. Then you have a stumbling block in that there are steps to the platform - DDA would be an issue. You'd need plenty of staff down the bottom for evacuation purposes. If it were run as an operational railway it would also need operational trained staff which LTM staff are not. I'd really really love to see it happen, but I'm not convinced it will any time soon. Isn't it still also the #1 film location/video shoot place & thus earning money for TfL? Suspect a reopening would involve escalators, too, even if only for museum use-the shop at LTM has both, as an example & that's just the shop! The one place on the network I can think of might be Mill Hill East, but only if there's space beyond the operational station for a train-shed style museum with platforms?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 18, 2014 15:45:10 GMT
And what about women with male toddlers?
Or anybody transgendered or transgendering?
Total nightmare to administer or enforce and is it needed or not?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 18, 2014 14:26:56 GMT
Thanks for the photos.
The No Smoking sign brought back memories!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 17, 2014 16:01:43 GMT
Would this not be in breach of sexual equality laws? Arguable, not impossible. Probably, unless better-standard accommodation were to be provided or disabled provision was not included, it would not be held to be discriminatory in principle.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Oct 17, 2014 15:35:20 GMT
We certainly had these on mainline railways in the past (last were withdrawn in 1977), but I'm not sure it was ever utilised on the underground.
And the Parliamentary U/S mooted this at the Tory Conference this year, btw, so Harriet Harman will be delighted to know she's being credited with reviving the idea!!
UPDATE!!!
Yes, they did have them, on the Met at least, according to images at LT museum, from which the era concerned looks to be c. 1925-1935.
|
|