🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:53:19 +0000 someone who may be fox1
<fox1@NOSPAMedinburghairport.org.uk> wrote this:-

>>>I can't understand why electrification into Edinburgh Airport's
>>>proposed rail tunnel should be considered a problem.?
>
>>Just where did I say that Railfuture considered it a problem?
>
>http://www.news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1278052003

The article contains precisely the opposite of what you claimed.
"But Rail Future believes the tunnel plan can not proceed because of
a lack of electrification."

The background to that is that the station cannot be built in a
tunnel underneath the terminal building, which would be the sensible
location. Instead it has to be built in a cutting, to let the fumes
from the diesel trains escape. If the lines were electrified then
the station could be in the sensible location. I did explain all
this, but journalists and editors do tend to shorten things.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Why do they need to move the railway lines anyway? Some London tube
stations that supposedly are the same station on the tube map are as
distant as the two lines and the terminal are. And those who have been
to London airports will be used to walking such long distances at an
airport. So why not just build stations on the existing lines and have
travellators (or whatever you call flat elevators) or a monorail like at
Stanstead?

OTOH, a direct rail line from Dalmeny to Livingston North (or South)
would be handy. As would a regular bus service that doesn't manage to be
slower than going via Haymarket on the train. And yesterday the X90
didn't stop for my wife at the Forth Bridge South stop >:-(

-- Andrew MacCormack                            andrewm@cadence.com
-- Senior Design Engineer                    Phone: +44 1506 595360
-- Cadence Design Foundry      http://www.cadence.com/designfoundry
-- Alba Campus, Livingston EH54 7HH, UK        Fax: +44 1506 595959

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:53:40 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:


>>http://www.edinburghairport.org.uk/option8.jpg

>Precisely. There would be no change for people travelling from Fife,
>unlike the concept of changing at Haymarket which I was responding
>to.

Would Fife trains stop at both airport and Haymarket.?

>>What's the point? why worry about costings...this is Scotlands
>>railway future...

>Is it? What about the far greater number of existing and potential
>passengers who do not want to go to Edinburgh Airport? That is the
>issue to be discussed.

They don't have to...there will be through trains surely David.?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:03:00 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:


>The article contains precisely the opposite of what you claimed.
>"But Rail Future believes the tunnel plan can not proceed because of
>a lack of electrification."

>The background to that is that the station cannot be built in a
>tunnel underneath the terminal building, which would be the sensible
>location. Instead it has to be built in a cutting, to let the fumes
>from the diesel trains escape. If the lines were electrified then
>the station could be in the sensible location. I did explain all
>this, but journalists and editors do tend to shorten things.

David..all these problems were overcome in the channel tunnel, I
don't doubt for one minute that a short tunnel under an airport
runway and underground airport station will present problems in
comparision.?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:03:33 +0000, Andrew MacCormack
<andrewm@cadence.com> wrote:

>Why do they need to move the railway lines anyway? Some London tube
>stations that supposedly are the same station on the tube map are as
>distant as the two lines and the terminal are. And those who have been
>to London airports will be used to walking such long distances at an
>airport. So why not just build stations on the existing lines and have
>travellators (or whatever you call flat elevators) or a monorail like at
>Stanstead?
>
>OTOH, a direct rail line from Dalmeny to Livingston North (or South)
>would be handy. As would a regular bus service that doesn't manage to be
>slower than going via Haymarket on the train. And yesterday the X90
>didn't stop for my wife at the Forth Bridge South stop >:-(
>
>-- Andrew MacCormack                            andrewm@cadence.com
>-- Senior Design Engineer                    Phone: +44 1506 595360
>-- Cadence Design Foundry      http://www.cadence.com/designfoundry
>-- Alba Campus, Livingston EH54 7HH, UK        Fax: +44 1506 595959

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:03:33 +0000, Andrew MacCormack
<andrewm@cadence.com> wrote:

>Why do they need to move the railway lines anyway? Some London tube
>stations that supposedly are the same station on the tube map are as
>distant as the two lines and the terminal are. And those who have been
>to London airports will be used to walking such long distances at an
>airport. So why not just build stations on the existing lines and have
>travellators (or whatever you call flat elevators) or a monorail like at
>Stanstead?


Stansted has an underground station Andrew.? The monorails are basic
transits that move pax from one terminal to another.

Stansted also has a bus station to facilitate both railway and
airline transfers.

A bus station at EDI would feed both aircraft and trains surely.?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:04 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:


>>Moving the terminal buildings could be *very* expensive

>�500 million? That is a ballpark figure for the railway scheme.

I would have thought that Rail Future would welcome any scheme
irrespective of the cost.?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:58:32 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

>>I can't comment on the CB analysis, but on the scheme shown where it 
>>looks like Fife trains will go under the airport instead of past the end 
>>of the runway I think the extension to the journey time will be very 
>>little.

>Even if it is only three minutes (five is more likely) then all
>those three minutes soon add up to a lot of extra time.

But we still have a much needed railway scheme...?

>>It would also ease getting from Fife to Glasgow by train - 
>>change at the airport instead of Haymarket.

>Far better to have a direct train once an hour, which has been an
>aspiration for years. The current one train a day was hoped to be
>the start of such a service.

Anything is better than nothing...why not have a bus every hour.?

On 21 Nov 2003 19:42:59 +0000, August West <august@kororaa.co.uk>
wrote:

>> Stansted also has a bus station to facilitate both railway and
>> airline transfers.
>
>The bus station is further from the terminal than the railway station.
>I'm not realy sure that it facilitate rail transfers, though.


Rail passengers are not allowed to use the buses August.?

"August West" <august@kororaa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6h1xs1.mrss-fsf@news2.kororaa.com...
> The entity currently known as fox1 wrote:
>
> > Stansted has an underground station Andrew.?
>
> Stansted has a station more or less underneath the main terminal
> building. It is on the London mainline, and also serves the local line
> to Cambridge.
>
> > Stansted also has a bus station to facilitate both railway and
> > airline transfers.
>
> The bus station is further from the terminal than the railway station.
> I'm not realy sure that it facilitate rail transfers, though.


Thats right you have too walk bas the steps to the railway station to get to
the bus station.

The bus station has been used for bus/rail replacement services. Not sure on
connections to other stations though.

>
> -- 
> there ain't no cure

"Nev Arthur" <nevarthur@SpamtraPyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bpkam8$8ur$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
>(snip) Look at the way Tony Blur reveled
> in the CTRL opening, when it had bugger all to do with him! 
> (snip)

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

At the risk of going political, CTRL Phase 1 was only built because
the [Labour] Government (later much criticised by the National Audit
Office for fiddling the Cost Benefit Analysis calculations until the
sums added up in favour of the rail link)- and John Prescott in
particular - guaranteed the borrowings and so brought the cost of
borrowing down.

IIRC there was also some HMG grant involved.

Regards

P

fox1 wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:04 +0000, David Hansen
> <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>>Moving the terminal buildings could be *very* expensive
> 
>>�500 million? That is a ballpark figure for the railway scheme.
> 
> I would have thought that Rail Future would welcome any scheme
> irrespective of the cost.?

Given that the Scottish Exec doesn't have an infinite amount of money, 
the more they spend on the Edinburgh Airport link, the less they'll have 
to spend elsewhere.

eat

-- 
http://photos.eatnet.org.uk      : updated 18-Nov-03
http://photos.ewanandlaura.co.uk : updated 18-Nov-03
scot-rail | scotland's online railway community:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail

fox1 wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:03:08 +0000, David Hansen
> <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Railfuture has been campaigning for proper rail links to Glasgow and
>>Edinburgh airports for many years. That means services that run to
>>places like Dundee, not just a train to the city centres.
> 
> The proposed station at Edinburgh Airport promises this and
> more...not just links to aeroplanes....

You mean... they'll be providing links from aeroplanes as well!!!

(well, what else is there at Edinburgh Airport?)

eat

-- 
http://photos.eatnet.org.uk      : updated 18-Nov-03
http://photos.ewanandlaura.co.uk : updated 18-Nov-03
scot-rail | scotland's online railway community:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail

fox1 wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:03:00 +0000, David Hansen
> <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>The article contains precisely the opposite of what you claimed.
>>"But Rail Future believes the tunnel plan can not proceed because of
>>a lack of electrification."
> 
> 
>>The background to that is that the station cannot be built in a
>>tunnel underneath the terminal building, which would be the sensible
>>location. Instead it has to be built in a cutting, to let the fumes
> 
>>from the diesel trains escape. If the lines were electrified then
> 
>>the station could be in the sensible location. I did explain all
>>this, but journalists and editors do tend to shorten things.
> 
> David..all these problems were overcome in the channel tunnel, I
> don't doubt for one minute that a short tunnel under an airport
> runway and underground airport station will present problems in
> comparision.?

Err, since when did the Channel Tunnel have underground stations served 
by diesel trains?

eat

-- 
http://photos.eatnet.org.uk      : updated 18-Nov-03
http://photos.ewanandlaura.co.uk : updated 18-Nov-03
scot-rail | scotland's online railway community:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail

"Ewan" <nospam@eatnet.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bpluj4$1qnp4n$1@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de...
> fox1 wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:56:04 +0000, David Hansen
> > <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>>Moving the terminal buildings could be *very* expensive
> >
> >>�500 million? That is a ballpark figure for the railway scheme.
> >
> > I would have thought that Rail Future would welcome any scheme
> > irrespective of the cost.?
>
> Given that the Scottish Exec doesn't have an infinite amount of money,
> the more they spend on the Edinburgh Airport link, the less they'll have
> to spend elsewhere.

Correct, the �50m Glasgow Crossrail Link would best serve the needs of the
Scottish taxpayer but also the Scottish rail travelling public.

Blimps

"Ewan" <nospam@eatnet.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bplun4$1qnp4n$2@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de...
> fox1 wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:03:08 +0000, David Hansen
> > <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Railfuture has been campaigning for proper rail links to Glasgow and
> >>Edinburgh airports for many years. That means services that run to
> >>places like Dundee, not just a train to the city centres.
> >
> > The proposed station at Edinburgh Airport promises this and
> > more...not just links to aeroplanes....
>
> You mean... they'll be providing links from aeroplanes as well!!!
>
> (well, what else is there at Edinburgh Airport?)
>
> eat
Actually it might also be a good railway station for any events at the
showground as well?.....

"Ewan" <nospam@eatnet.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bplv3j$1q0iit$1@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de...
> fox1 wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:03:00 +0000, David Hansen
> > <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>The article contains precisely the opposite of what you claimed.
> >>"But Rail Future believes the tunnel plan can not proceed because of
> >>a lack of electrification."
> >
> >
> >>The background to that is that the station cannot be built in a
> >>tunnel underneath the terminal building, which would be the sensible
> >>location. Instead it has to be built in a cutting, to let the fumes
> >
> >>from the diesel trains escape. If the lines were electrified then
> >
> >>the station could be in the sensible location. I did explain all
> >>this, but journalists and editors do tend to shorten things.
> >
> > David..all these problems were overcome in the channel tunnel, I
> > don't doubt for one minute that a short tunnel under an airport
> > runway and underground airport station will present problems in
> > comparision.?
>
> Err, since when did the Channel Tunnel have underground stations served
> by diesel trains?
>
> eat
>
Gas masks all round for each passenger then.

In article <6h1xs1.mrss-fsf@news2.kororaa.com>, August West 
<august@kororaa.co.uk> writes
>> Stansted has an underground station Andrew.?
>Stansted has a station more or less underneath the main terminal
>building. It is on the London mainline, and also serves the local line
>to Cambridge.

Sheesh.

It is on a branch off the London-Cambridge main line, with a triangular 
junction northwest of the airport (you can see it from the M11).

>> Stansted also has a bus station to facilitate both railway and
>> airline transfers.
>The bus station is further from the terminal than the railway station.

About 10 metres further.

As for the "monorail", the trains run on two - concrete - rails. So it's 
a duorail.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself  | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

> >The background to that is that the station cannot be built in a
> >tunnel underneath the terminal building, which would be the sensible
> >location. Instead it has to be built in a cutting, to let the fumes
> >from the diesel trains escape. If the lines were electrified then
> >the station could be in the sensible location. I did explain all
> >this, but journalists and editors do tend to shorten things.
>
> David..all these problems were overcome in the channel tunnel, I
> don't doubt for one minute that a short tunnel under an airport
> runway and underground airport station will present problems in
> comparision.?

Surely the sensible answer is to cut their losses, electrify and reap the
rewards of improved reliability and lower maintenance costs of stock on such
an intensively used line?

Richard

Five Cats <cats_five@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:iFe0BnDzWkv$Ew4l@nevis-
view.demon.co.uk:

> In article <pm5srv0ujhkoqii4gh1vliedug8rm2f5sm@4ax.com>, fox1 
> <fox1@NOSPAMedinburghairport.org.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:07:36 +0000, David Hansen
>><SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If it is to have a rail link, it needs to be with both Glasgow &
>>>>Edinburgh, and also Fife.
>>>
>>>That is what the Executive is proposing, with no change for those
>>>from Fife.
>>
>>The Aberdeen/Fife line seem to be included here...
>>
>>http://www.edinburghairport.org.uk/option8.jpg
>>
>>http://www.edinburghairport.org.uk/rail.htm
>>
>>>However, given the cost of building a railway tunnel under the
>>>airport it may well be cheaper to move the airport terminal
>>>buildings to Turnhouse, build a station there on the Fife line and
>>>divert Falkirk trains that way. I have not seen this costed by the
>>>Executive.
>>
>>What's the point? why worry about costings...this is Scotlands
>>railway future...
>>
> If it costs too much it won't happen, or something else won't happen 
> instead.
> 

Well politics is a wonderful way of distorting economic truisms.  It
will happen if it is made to happen!

Much snow up north just now?

-- 
Adrian

On 21 Nov 2003 20:45:08 +0000, August West <august@kororaa.co.uk>
wrote:


>> Rail passengers are not allowed to use the buses August.?

>Of course they are, but I can't see that getting on a bus to take you
>to another station would be faster than taking the train that's
>already there.

Have they finished the dual carriageway from STN heading east toward
Chelmsford?

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:03:32 +0000, Ewan <nospam@eatnet.org.uk>
wrote:


>> I would have thought that Rail Future would welcome any scheme
>> irrespective of the cost.?

>Given that the Scottish Exec doesn't have an infinite amount of money, 
>the more they spend on the Edinburgh Airport link, the less they'll have 
>to spend elsewhere.

They managed the M74 extension funding.? };-))

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:05:39 +0000, Ewan <nospam@eatnet.org.uk>
wrote:


>> The proposed station at Edinburgh Airport promises this and
>> more...not just links to aeroplanes....

>You mean... they'll be providing links from aeroplanes as well!!!

>(well, what else is there at Edinburgh Airport?)


Shops? };-)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:12:18 +0000, Ewan <nospam@eatnet.org.uk>
wrote:


>Err, since when did the Channel Tunnel have underground stations served 
>by diesel trains?


Ventilation...they manage it fine at Schipol....

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:06:51 -0000, "Richard"
<richard2002@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Surely the sensible answer is to cut their losses, electrify and reap the
>rewards of improved reliability and lower maintenance costs of stock on such
>an intensively used line?


Agreed...

fox1 wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:12:18 +0000, Ewan <nospam@eatnet.org.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Err, since when did the Channel Tunnel have underground stations served
>>by diesel trains?
> 
> 
> Ventilation...they manage it fine at Schipol....

yes, but this is the UK, with HSE watching.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, fox1 wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:57:26 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell"
>
> >I had the distinct impression that the trains at Schiphol ran on
> >electrickery.
>
> Surely the trains planned for Scotland's most prestigious rail
> scheme would run on electricity.?

I can see that you're deliberately avoiding the practical issues,
then.

> If anything this thread has highlighted the need for electrification
> of both Edinburgh/Fife/Aberdeen/Glasgow lines.?

Well, if you make the building of Ed. Airport station conditional on
electrification all the way to Aberdeen, then I think you can pretty
much guarantee you'll get neither.

One might rate better chances of a reinstated and electrified
central-belt link, specifically the proposal via Bathgate and Airdrie.
That's if the East and West can manage to co-operate, instead of
trying to win some advantage at the other's expense, which seems to be
the more usual plot.

Five Cats <cats_five@127.0.0.1> wrote in news:STbYU6AnRyv$Ew$N@nevis-
view.demon.co.uk:

> In article <bpm2um$lar$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, John Dundas 
> <j.m.dundas@btinternet.spamcom> writes
>>
>>"Ewan" <nospam@eatnet.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:bplun4$1qnp4n$2@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>> fox1 wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:03:08 +0000, David Hansen
>>> > <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>Railfuture has been campaigning for proper rail links to Glasgow 
and
>>> >>Edinburgh airports for many years. That means services that run to
>>> >>places like Dundee, not just a train to the city centres.
>>> >
>>> > The proposed station at Edinburgh Airport promises this and
>>> > more...not just links to aeroplanes....
>>>
>>> You mean... they'll be providing links from aeroplanes as well!!!
>>>
>>> (well, what else is there at Edinburgh Airport?)
>>>
>>> eat
>>Actually it might also be a good railway station for any events at the
>>showground as well?.....
> 
> It might.  However the only one with real queues seems to be the Royal 
> Show, and building a station for a once-a-year event is a bit OTT 
IMHO.
>>
>>
> 

It might get the chance to host the international flower-arranging
convention which would definitely be a major event and one
worthy of a station.

-- 
Adrian

"Adrian Tupper" <adrian.tupper@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message >
> It might get the chance to host the international flower-arranging
> convention which would definitely be a major event and one
> worthy of a station.
>
> -- 
> Adrian

Yes I am sure that any town or City would be happy too hold a convention at
which over 20,000 people attended, but you carry on taking the piss Adrain.

On 22 Nov 2003 21:56:17 GMT, Adrian Tupper
<adrian.tupper@totalise.co.uk> wrote:


>> It might.  However the only one with real queues seems to be the Royal 
>> Show, and building a station for a once-a-year event is a bit OTT 
>IMHO.

>It might get the chance to host the international flower-arranging
>convention which would definitely be a major event and one
>worthy of a station.

Quoting the Glasgow Evening Times a few months ago!  :-)))

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:18:34 +0000 someone who may be fox1
<fox1@NOSPAMedinburghairport.org.uk> wrote this:-

>Would Fife trains stop at both airport and Haymarket.?

Undoubtedly.

>>Is it? What about the far greater number of existing and potential
>>passengers who do not want to go to Edinburgh Airport? That is the
>>issue to be discussed.
>
>They don't have to...there will be through trains surely David.?

That rather depends on how the airport line is built, if it is
built. If all trains are diverted through the airport then people
travelling from Fife (and Falkirk) to Edinburgh will have at a guess
3-5 minutes added to their journeys.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:13:30 +0000 someone who may be fox1
<fox1@NOSPAMedinburghairport.org.uk> wrote this:-

>Anything is better than nothing...why not have a bus every hour.?

It was possible to make that sort of journey by getting off the
train at Dalmeny and changing to the 38 bus. There are also buses
along the north side of the Forth via Kincardine. Buses to places
like Livingston were tried as part of the opening of the Ferrytoll
park and ride site, but didn't get a lot of custom. The last I heard
they had been scaled back.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

In article <6hd6bl.9p76-fsf@news2.kororaa.com>, August West 
<august@kororaa.co.uk> writes
>Being a simple regular user of the Stansted to Cambridge line, and not
>a rail geek, any station that has service from trains running from
>London to Liverpool looks like a mainline station to me.

No London to Liverpool trains call at Stansted.

Stansted is at the end of a branch line. Anyone who used it regularly 
should be able to notice this.

>Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
>anoraks [note the crosspostings].

You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and its 
suburb of Edinburgh?

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself  | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

"Clive D. W. Feather" <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2HF64ZkhLTw$EwSJ@romana.davros.org...
> In article <6hd6bl.9p76-fsf@news2.kororaa.com>, August West
> <august@kororaa.co.uk> writes
> >Being a simple regular user of the Stansted to Cambridge line, and not
> >a rail geek, any station that has service from trains running from
> >London to Liverpool looks like a mainline station to me.
>
> No London to Liverpool trains call at Stansted.
>
> Stansted is at the end of a branch line. Anyone who used it regularly
> should be able to notice this.
>
> >Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
> >anoraks [note the crosspostings].
>
> You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and its
> suburb of Edinburgh?


LOL!

Blimps

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

> In article <6hd6bl.9p76-fsf@news2.kororaa.com>, August West 
> <august@kororaa.co.uk> writes
> 
>> Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
>> anoraks [note the crosspostings].
> 
> You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and its 
> suburb of Edinburgh?
> 

It should really be the other way round there Clive... that's if the 
folks of Edinburgh will have Glasgow for a suburb of course ;)

eat

-- 
http://photos.eatnet.org.uk      : updated 23-Nov-03
http://photos.ewanandlaura.co.uk : updated 18-Nov-03
scot-rail | scotland's online railway community:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 08:37:43 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "John
Dundas" <j.m.dundas@btinternet.spamcom> wrote this:-

>> They managed the M74 extension funding.? };-))
>
>Which has been planned for years

So have many rail schemes. However, the Executive have not yet
funded them. In the case of rail schemes they claim that all sorts
of studies are necessary. In the case of the M74 extension it
appears that no studies are necessary, including the studies the
Executive says are necessary for all projects.

>and is also part funded by the councils involved in the project.

Not very much. Anyway, Councils are part funded by the Executive.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

In article <bplun4$1qnp4n$2@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de>, Ewan
<nospam@eatnet.org.uk> wrote:

> (well, what else is there at Edinburgh Airport?)

Well there's certainly nowhere to watch planes from these days.

Sam

"Blimpie" <blimpie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<bprg78$cnh$1@titan.btinternet.com>...
> "Clive D. W. Feather" <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2HF64ZkhLTw$EwSJ@romana.davros.org...
> > In article <6hd6bl.9p76-fsf@news2.kororaa.com>, August West
> > <august@kororaa.co.uk> writes
> > >Being a simple regular user of the Stansted to Cambridge line, and not
> > >a rail geek, any station that has service from trains running from
> > >London to Liverpool looks like a mainline station to me.
> >
> > No London to Liverpool trains call at Stansted.
> >
> > Stansted is at the end of a branch line. Anyone who used it regularly
> > should be able to notice this.
> >
> > >Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
> > >anoraks [note the crosspostings].
> >
> > You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and its
> > suburb of Edinburgh?
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Blimps

what about england and its northern district of scotland?
or the US and its eastern colony of Britain?

David Hansen wrote:
> It was possible to make that sort of journey by getting off the
> train at Dalmeny and changing to the 38 bus. There are also buses
> along the north side of the Forth via Kincardine. Buses to places
> like Livingston were tried as part of the opening of the Ferrytoll
> park and ride site, but didn't get a lot of custom. The last I heard
> they had been scaled back.

The Queensferry (and probably from Fife before that) busses to the
airport were cancelled not long after I moved to Queensferry in 2000.
The X90 runs from Dunfermline to Livingston via Ferrytoll and runs twice
a day in each direction.

-- Andrew MacCormack                            andrewm@cadence.com
-- Senior Design Engineer                    Phone: +44 1506 595360
-- Cadence Design Foundry      http://www.cadence.com/designfoundry
-- Alba Campus, Livingston EH54 7HH, UK        Fax: +44 1506 595959

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:04:12 +0000, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

> In the case of the M74 extension it
>appears that no studies are necessary, including the studies the
>Executive says are necessary for all projects.

I think the SE are now having to wade through  many objections to
the M74 extension... was it wise to go ahead in the first place.?

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:33:14 +0000, Sam Wilson <Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>> (well, what else is there at Edinburgh Airport?)

>Well there's certainly nowhere to watch planes from these days.


Usenet post of the week! };-))

On 24 Nov 2003 03:05:24 -0800, gordon.tracey@caramail.com (Gordon
Tracey) wrote:


>what about england and its northern district of scotland?
>or the US and its eastern colony of Britain?

LOL...

"fox1" <fox1@NOSPAMedinburghairport.org.uk> wrote in message
news:op34sv8a141h3rhkervrr1vkfkau8algvg@4ax.com...
> On 24 Nov 2003 03:05:24 -0800, gordon.tracey@caramail.com (Gordon
> Tracey) wrote:
>
>
> >what about england and its northern district of scotland?

Don't you mean Edinburgh, Englands northernmost city?

Blimps

In article <bpshpm$1rp6lp$1@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de>, Ewan 
<nospam@eatnet.org.uk> writes
>>> Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
>>> anoraks [note the crosspostings].
>>  You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and its 
>>suburb of Edinburgh?
>It should really be the other way round there Clive... that's if the 
>folks of Edinburgh will have Glasgow for a suburb of course ;)

Ahem. I work for a Glasgow company. It's Obvious to the Meanest 
Intelligence that Edinburgh is insignificant.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself  | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article <wRubNzOPnvw$EwSa@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather 
<clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <bpshpm$1rp6lp$1@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de>, Ewan 
><nospam@eatnet.org.uk> writes
>>>> Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
>>>> anoraks [note the crosspostings].
>>>  You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and 
>>>its suburb of Edinburgh?
>>It should really be the other way round there Clive... that's if the 
>>folks of Edinburgh will have Glasgow for a suburb of course ;)
>
>Ahem. I work for a Glasgow company. It's Obvious to the Meanest 
>Intelligence that Edinburgh is insignificant.

Nonsense.  We all live in suburbs of Inverness.  ;-)
>

-- 
Surfer!
If you really want to send me email then use:
five_cats at uk2 dot net

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:42:23 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
<clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>It should really be the other way round there Clive... that's if the 
>>folks of Edinburgh will have Glasgow for a suburb of course ;)

>Ahem. I work for a Glasgow company. It's Obvious to the Meanest 
>Intelligence that Edinburgh is insignificant.


Who's wearing the Fur Coats! };-))

In article <wRubNzOPnvw$EwSa@romana.davros.org>,
Clive D. W. Feather <clive@davros.org> wrote:

>Ahem. I work for a Glasgow company.

That's strange.  I phoned their directory enquiries service and they'd
never heard of Glasgow.

-- Richard
-- 
Spam filter: to mail me from a .com/.net site, put my surname in the headers.

FreeBSD rules!

In article <bpvjld$672$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Tobin 
<richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In article <wRubNzOPnvw$EwSa@romana.davros.org>,
>Clive D. W. Feather <clive@davros.org> wrote:
>
>>Ahem. I work for a Glasgow company.
>
>That's strange.  I phoned their directory enquiries service and they'd
>never heard of Glasgow.

Is there a Glasgow in India?

-- 
Surfer!
If you really want to send me email then use:
five_cats at uk2 dot net

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
> In article <bpshpm$1rp6lp$1@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de>, Ewan 
> <nospam@eatnet.org.uk> writes
> 
>>>> Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
>>>> anoraks [note the crosspostings].
>>>
>>>  You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and its 
>>> suburb of Edinburgh?
>>
>> It should really be the other way round there Clive... that's if the 
>> folks of Edinburgh will have Glasgow for a suburb of course ;)
> 
> 
> Ahem. I work for a Glasgow company. It's Obvious to the Meanest 
> Intelligence that Edinburgh is insignificant.

So do I - but you're still wrong ;)

eat

-- 
http://photos.eatnet.org.uk      : updated 23-Nov-03
http://photos.ewanandlaura.co.uk : updated 18-Nov-03
scot-rail | scotland's online railway community:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

> In article <bpshpm$1rp6lp$1@ID-207219.news.uni-berlin.de>, Ewan
> <nospam@eatnet.org.uk> writes
>>>> Such hair-splitting distinctions are, I feel, best left to the train
>>>> anoraks [note the crosspostings].
>>>  You mean like the hair-splitting distinction between Glasgow and its
>>>suburb of Edinburgh?
>>It should really be the other way round there Clive... that's if the
>>folks of Edinburgh will have Glasgow for a suburb of course ;)
> 
> Ahem. I work for a Glasgow company. It's Obvious to the Meanest
> Intelligence that Edinburgh is insignificant.
> 

Oooh I can't resist this - what about superior intellligence then ?