Tunnel Maps

29th July 2003, 03:19 PM

Cast_Iron wrote:

[Knightsbridge to South Ken]

> Hmm, interesting since the total running time is only 2 1/2 minutes.

At best, perhaps.

ISTR when I lived in that part of the world that the "train times"
posters implied a 4 minute time, which was rather in accordance with my
experience.

29th July 2003, 03:47 PM

James Farrar wrote:
> Cast_Iron wrote:
>
> [Knightsbridge to South Ken]
>
>> Hmm, interesting since the total running time is only 2
>> 1/2 minutes.
>
> At best, perhaps.
>
> ISTR when I lived in that part of the world that the "train
> times" posters implied a 4 minute time, which was rather in
> accordance with my experience.

That was from the working timetable.

29th July 2003, 04:40 PM

Cast_Iron wrote:
> James Farrar wrote:
>
>>Cast_Iron wrote:
>>
>>[Knightsbridge to South Ken]
>>
>>
>>>Hmm, interesting since the total running time is only 2
>>>1/2 minutes.
>>
>>At best, perhaps.
>>
>>ISTR when I lived in that part of the world that the "train
>>times" posters implied a 4 minute time, which was rather in
>>accordance with my experience.
>
>
> That was from the working timetable.

....which has, at best, a vague resemblance to reality...

29th July 2003, 05:32 PM

James Farrar wrote:
> Cast_Iron wrote:
>> James Farrar wrote:
>>
>>> Cast_Iron wrote:
>>>
>>> [Knightsbridge to South Ken]
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hmm, interesting since the total running time is only 2
>>>> 1/2 minutes.
>>>
>>> At best, perhaps.
>>>
>>> ISTR when I lived in that part of the world that the
>>> "train times" posters implied a 4 minute time, which was
>>> rather in accordance with my experience.
>>
>>
>> That was from the working timetable.
>
> ...which has, at best, a vague resemblance to reality...

I'm intrigued, in what way?

30th July 2003, 07:12 PM

Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com.invalid> writes
>| Might that not be simply because 'Angel is on a damn great hill'?
>
>The hill on the surface is compensated for by putting the station
>further underground. Surface terrain is not the same as the levels
>they have chosen to place the rails at.

That was precisely my point. As was made perfectly clear in the part
that you snipped.

--
Dave

31st July 2003, 06:21 AM

In article XAdbd0EAHDK$EA2h@ways., Steve wrote:
> In article <vifoehtg04f310@corp.supernews.com>, Mark Brader
> <msb@vex.net> writes
>>> At Angel there is the famous "world's longest escalator" ...
>>
>> For suitable values of "world".
>
> Hmmm. Arbatskaya has longer, I'm sure.

What about the Mid-Levels escalator in Hong Kong which, for additional
I-Spy points, is outdoors

31st July 2003, 10:33 AM

Steve Moore wrote:
> What about the Mid-Levels escalator in Hong Kong which, for additional
> I-Spy points, is outdoors

.... and is made up of loads of short individual escalators, rather than one
long one. I remember my tourist guidebook saying something about it being
the longest escalator, but being very unimpressed when I got there.

31st July 2003, 11:32 AM

In article <bgb9b0$s3m$1$8302bc10@news.>, Cal Nihoni
<cal.nihoni.2003.07@losers.co.uk> writes
>is made up of loads of short individual escalators, rather than one
>long one.

If you want a very long run of quite long escalators, the Tokyo Bay Fuji
TV building is quite impressive.
--
"It used to be that what a writer did was type a bit and then stare out of the
window a bit, type a bit, stare out of the window a bit. Networked computers
make these two activities converge, because now the thing you type on and the
window you stare out of are the same thing" - Douglas Adams 28/1/99.