Regent's Park underground station lifts and sign spelling? Need pics!

I heard a long discussion on a London talk radio station about the re-
opened Regent's Park tube station and how it went over-budget, opened
late, lifts weren't working etc - the usual stuff, no surprise,
that'll be Metronet.

The part I'm interested in is the bit where several people said that
the signs for Madame Tussauds had been spelt wrongly.

Does anyone have a picture of this? I put a watch for this story on
Google News since Tuesday and have looked in other sources and can't
find it. Or does anyone know what the mis-spelling was? I thought it
would be classic if they'd put "TwoSwords" or something. Anyway, any
info appreciated.

On Jun 22, 11:58 am, Jonathan <digitalto...@> wrote:
> I heard a long discussion on a London talk radio station about the re-
> opened Regent's Park tube station and how it went over-budget, opened
> late, lifts weren't working etc - the usual stuff, no surprise,
> that'll be Metronet.
>
> The part I'm interested in is the bit where several people said that
> the signs for Madame Tussauds had been spelt wrongly.
>
> Does anyone have a picture of this? I put a watch for this story on
> Google News since Tuesday and have looked in other sources and can't
> find it. Or does anyone know what the mis-spelling was? I thought it
> would be classic if they'd put "TwoSwords" or something. Anyway, any
> info appreciated.

Probably spelt it "Tussaurds" or missed off the apostrophe that should
be there (but is never used by Madame Tussauds itself, unlike
Sainsbury's.)

On 22 Jun, 13:14, Adrian <toomany2...@> wrote:
> Jonathan (digitalto...@) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
> > The part I'm interested in is the bit where several people said that
> > the signs for Madame Tussauds had been spelt wrongly.
>
> > Does anyone have a picture of this? I put a watch for this story on
> > Google News since Tuesday and have looked in other sources and can't
> > find it. Or does anyone know what the mis-spelling was? I thought it
> > would be classic if they'd put "TwoSwords" or something. Anyway, any
> > info appreciated.
>
> My money's on simply missing the "e" from the end of "Madame"

Which would make it an entirely different kind of establishment
altogether...

On Jun 22, 9:33 pm, Ianigsy <ianrcr...@m> wrote:

> > My money's on simply missing the "e" from the end of "Madame"
>
> Which would make it an entirely different kind of establishment
> altogether...

Was my mind at the same gutteral level before i got this far down the
thread ?

--
Nick

On Jun 22, 1:52 pm, "Ian F." <wowfabgro...@> wrote:
> "Adrian" <toomany2...@> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns995786C859DE4adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153. 245.131...
>
> > My money's on simply missing the "e" from the end of "Madame"
>
> That's what it was. There was a picture of it in the Standard on (I think)
> Wednesday.


Bah! A bit of a disappointment then. Still, wouldn't mind a pic, but I
was expecting a little more, what with all the fuss they were making
on the radio!

Thanks for letting me know anway

On 23 Jun, 07:27, Jonathan <digitalto...@> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:52 pm, "Ian F." <wowfabgro...@> wrote:
>
> > "Adrian" <toomany2...@> wrote in message
>
> >news:Xns995786C859DE4adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153 .245.131...
>
> > > My money's on simply missing the "e" from the end of "Madame"
>
> > That's what it was. There was a picture of it in the Standard on (I think)
> > Wednesday.
>
> Bah! A bit of a disappointment then. Still, wouldn't mind a pic, but I
> was expecting a little more, what with all the fuss they were making
> on the radio!
>
> Thanks for letting me know anway

What must be remembered is that LU supply the information regards what
is required on signs etc it's there spec yes we know Metronet make
lots of mistakes also re the lifts with new equipment there is always
teething problems and pressure to re-open does not allow for breaking
them in or should that be warranty just like a car.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:52 GMT, <hounslow3m> wrote:

>I'm not exactly sure.
>
>My normal experience of Tube trains going through temporarily closed
>stations is that they may slow to 5-10 miles, but they don't stop. I guess
>that they are similar to draw up signals in that they will clear if
>approached at a certain speed, assuming that there is no train ahead of the
>one in the station.

I suspect the approach control signals are still there so they have to
slow for them.

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:36:47 -0400, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@> wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:52 GMT, <hounslow3m> wrote:
>
>>I'm not exactly sure.
>>
>>My normal experience of Tube trains going through temporarily closed
>>stations is that they may slow to 5-10 miles, but they don't stop. I guess
>>that they are similar to draw up signals in that they will clear if
>>approached at a certain speed, assuming that there is no train ahead of the
>>one in the station.
>
>I suspect the approach control signals are still there so they have to
>slow for them.
>
IIRC slowing down and/or briefly stopping at closed stations are the
result of near misses some years ago involving persons working at
temporarily closed stations being endangered by some trains passing
through at full speed and moving loose materials with the
consequential air movement. On lines without any approach control at
the particular station but where headways are usually short the trains
will often be stopping as usual at a red platform starter but without
the loading/unloading of passengers which usually coincides with the
time taken for the signal to clear.

Christopher A.Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:52 GMT, <hounslow3m> wrote:
>
>>
>> My normal experience of Tube trains going through temporarily closed
>> stations is that they may slow to 5-10 miles, but they don't stop. I
>> guess that they are similar to draw up signals in that they will
>> clear if approached at a certain speed, assuming that there is no
>> train ahead of the one in the station.
>
> I suspect the approach control signals are still there so they have to
> slow for them.

It's actually to do with the lengths of the signal overlaps on the exit from
the station. A train departing a closed station at full speed can crash into
another train without being stopped by the signalling. A train departing the
station having stopped, or crawled, can't.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, John Rowland wrote:

> Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:32:52 GMT, <hounslow3m> wrote:
>>
>>> My normal experience of Tube trains going through temporarily closed
>>> stations is that they may slow to 5-10 miles, but they don't stop. I
>>> guess that they are similar to draw up signals in that they will clear
>>> if approached at a certain speed, assuming that there is no train
>>> ahead of the one in the station.
>>
>> I suspect the approach control signals are still there so they have to
>> slow for them.
>
> It's actually to do with the lengths of the signal overlaps on the exit
> from the station. A train departing a closed station at full speed can
> crash into another train without being stopped by the signalling. A
> train departing the station having stopped, or crawled, can't.

Does this mean that, on the rare occasions when one of its stations is
closed, the DLR does not suffer from this problem?

tom

--
.... the gripping first chapter, which literally grips you because it's
printed on a large clamp.