One from Ronnie Barker..........

[Brian Dominic]

This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the seventies. Ronnie
Barker could say all this without a snigger (though god knows how many
takes). Irony is that they received not one complaint. The speed of
delivery must have been too much for the whining herds. Try getting
through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your
pants] as you read ...

This is the story of Rindercella and her sugiy isters.

Rindercella and her sugly isters lived in a marge lansion. Rindercella
worked very hard frubbing sloors, emptying poss pits, and shiveliing
shot.

At the end of the day, she was knucking fackered.

The sugly isters were right bugly astards. One was called Mary Hinge,
and the other was called Betty Swallocks; they were really forribie
huckers; they had fetty sweet and fetty swannies. The sugly isters had
tickets to go to the ball, but the cotton runts would not let
Rindercella go.

Suddenly there was a bucking fang, and her gairy fodmother appeared.
Her name was Shairy Hithole and she was a light rucking fesbian. She
turned a pumpkin and six mite wice into a hucking cuge farriage with
six dandy ronkeys who had buge hallocks and dig bicks.

The gairy fodmother told Rindercella to be back by dimnlight
otherwise, there would be a cucking falamity.

At the ball, Rindercella was dancing with the prandsome hince when
suddenly the clock struck twelve. "Mist all chucking frighty!!!" said
Rindercella, and she ran out tripping barse over ollocks, so dropping
her slass glipper.

The very next day the prandsome hince knocked on Rindercella's door
and the sugly isters let him in. Suddenly, Betty Swallocks lifted her
leg and let off a fig bart. "Who's fust jarted??" asked the prandsome
hince.

"Blame that fugiy ucker over there!!" said Mary Hinge. When the
stinking brown cloud had lifted, he tried the slass giipper on both
the sugly isters without success and their feet stucking funk.

Betty Swallocks was ducking fisgusted and gave the prandsome hince a
knack in the kickers. This was not difficult as he had bucking fuge
hails and a hig bard on.

He tried the slass glipper on Rindercella and it fitted pucking
ferfectly. Rindercella and the prandsome hince were married. The
pransome hince lived his life in lucking fuxury, and Rindercella lived
hers with a foilen swanny.

Brian L Dominic

Web Sites:
Canals: http://www.brianscanalpages.co.uk
Friends of the Cromford Canal: http://www.cromfordcanal.org.uk
(Waterways World Site of the Month, November 2005)

Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read:
To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk

[Wm...]

Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:44:29 <***@4ax.com>
uk.rec.humour Brian Dominic <***@lineone.net>

[x-posted to alt.usage.english, trim follow up as appropriate]

[almost full quote because of x-post]

Post by Brian Dominic
This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the seventies.

Surely it is older than that? I thought (but may be wrong) it
originated in the USA shortly after WW2, perhaps earlier?

Post by Brian Dominic
Ronnie
Barker could say all this without a snigger (though god knows how many
takes). Irony is that they received not one complaint. The speed of
delivery must have been too much for the whining herds. Try getting
through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your
pants] as you read ...

As an aside I think
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspoone.html
===
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train". The phrase
"going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a different meaning
and could be used by someone from the Shetland Isles even though they
would be going down to those universities by train.

also
===
My boy, it's kisstomary to cuss the bride"
===
is surely an American invention? SOED says
===
cuss ... colloq. (orig. US) L18
cuss ... colloq. (orig. US) E19
===
etc.

I've no idea of how official people in aue consider that bit of the
interweb.

Post by Brian Dominic
This is the story of Rindercella and her sugiy isters.
Rindercella and her sugly isters lived in a marge lansion. Rindercella
worked very hard frubbing sloors, emptying poss pits, and shiveliing
shot.
At the end of the day, she was knucking fackered.
The sugly isters were right bugly astards. One was called Mary Hinge,
and the other was called Betty Swallocks; they were really forribie
huckers; they had fetty sweet and fetty swannies. The sugly isters had
tickets to go to the ball, but the cotton runts would not let
Rindercella go.
Suddenly there was a bucking fang, and her gairy fodmother appeared.
Her name was Shairy Hithole and she was a light rucking fesbian. She
turned a pumpkin and six mite wice into a hucking cuge farriage with
six dandy ronkeys who had buge hallocks and dig bicks.
The gairy fodmother told Rindercella to be back by dimnlight
otherwise, there would be a cucking falamity.
At the ball, Rindercella was dancing with the prandsome hince when
suddenly the clock struck twelve. "Mist all chucking frighty!!!" said
Rindercella, and she ran out tripping barse over ollocks, so dropping
her slass glipper.
The very next day the prandsome hince knocked on Rindercella's door
and the sugly isters let him in. Suddenly, Betty Swallocks lifted her
leg and let off a fig bart. "Who's fust jarted??" asked the prandsome
hince.
"Blame that fugiy ucker over there!!" said Mary Hinge. When the
stinking brown cloud had lifted, he tried the slass giipper on both
the sugly isters without success and their feet stucking funk.
Betty Swallocks was ducking fisgusted and gave the prandsome hince a
knack in the kickers. This was not difficult as he had bucking fuge
hails and a hig bard on.
He tried the slass glipper on Rindercella and it fitted pucking
ferfectly. Rindercella and the prandsome hince were married. The
pransome hince lived his life in lucking fuxury, and Rindercella lived
hers with a foilen swanny.

[poster's details snipped coz of x-post]

[Derek]

Post by Wm...
[x-posted to alt.usage.english, trim follow up as appropriate]
[almost full quote because of x-post]

Post by Brian Dominic
This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the seventies.

Surely it is older than that? I thought (but may be wrong) it originated
in the USA shortly after WW2, perhaps earlier?

Post by Brian Dominic
Ronnie
Barker could say all this without a snigger (though god knows how many
takes). Irony is that they received not one complaint. The speed of
delivery must have been too much for the whining herds. Try getting
through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your
pants] as you read ...

As an aside I think
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspoone.html
===
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train". The phrase
"going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a different meaning and
could be used by someone from the Shetland Isles even though they would be
going down to those universities by train.
also
===
My boy, it's kisstomary to cuss the bride"
===
is surely an American invention? SOED says
===
cuss ... colloq. (orig. US) L18
cuss ... colloq. (orig. US) E19
===
etc.
I've no idea of how official people in aue consider that bit of the
interweb.

Post by Brian Dominic
This is the story of Rindercella and her sugiy isters.
Rindercella and her sugly isters lived in a marge lansion. Rindercella
worked very hard frubbing sloors, emptying poss pits, and shiveliing
shot.
At the end of the day, she was knucking fackered.
The sugly isters were right bugly astards. One was called Mary Hinge,
and the other was called Betty Swallocks; they were really forribie
huckers; they had fetty sweet and fetty swannies. The sugly isters had
tickets to go to the ball, but the cotton runts would not let
Rindercella go.
Suddenly there was a bucking fang, and her gairy fodmother appeared.
Her name was Shairy Hithole and she was a light rucking fesbian. She
turned a pumpkin and six mite wice into a hucking cuge farriage with
six dandy ronkeys who had buge hallocks and dig bicks.
The gairy fodmother told Rindercella to be back by dimnlight
otherwise, there would be a cucking falamity.
At the ball, Rindercella was dancing with the prandsome hince when
suddenly the clock struck twelve. "Mist all chucking frighty!!!" said
Rindercella, and she ran out tripping barse over ollocks, so dropping
her slass glipper.
The very next day the prandsome hince knocked on Rindercella's door
and the sugly isters let him in. Suddenly, Betty Swallocks lifted her
leg and let off a fig bart. "Who's fust jarted??" asked the prandsome
hince.
"Blame that fugiy ucker over there!!" said Mary Hinge. When the
stinking brown cloud had lifted, he tried the slass giipper on both
the sugly isters without success and their feet stucking funk.
Betty Swallocks was ducking fisgusted and gave the prandsome hince a
knack in the kickers. This was not difficult as he had bucking fuge
hails and a hig bard on.
He tried the slass glipper on Rindercella and it fitted pucking
ferfectly. Rindercella and the prandsome hince were married. The
pransome hince lived his life in lucking fuxury, and Rindercella lived
hers with a foilen swanny.

[poster's details snipped coz of x-post]

Surprisingly enough there are a great many versions of the story of
Rindercella
'Strine versions'
http://www.fugly.com/audio/569/Rindercella-TheDyslexicPrincess.html
'Mercan'
http://www.matthewgoldman.com/spoon/audio/rindercella.mp3

the OP's version smells more than a little of Jim Davidson's style I have
the tapes but its not near enough to Christmas to want to revue them
http://www.savident.com/PastProductions/SinderellaComesAgain.htm

Derek
anybody seen the "Devil went down to Brixton" posted on the web??

[Brian Dominic]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:43:24 +0100, "Wm..."
<***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> finished tucking into their plate
of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the

Post by Wm...
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train".

I'm very sorry, but with my (virtual) anorak on, this is correct -
trains go up to London and down from London. The problem arises when
the train (or the line) goes across country, so there's no "to London"
element in the journey.

Post by Wm...
The phrase
"going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a different meaning
and could be used by someone from the Shetland Isles even though they
would be going down to those universities by train.

That I would agree with, so you could be sent down form Oxford on an
up train to London!

Confusing, isn't it??
;)

Brian L Dominic

Web Sites:
Canals: http://www.brianscanalpages.co.uk
Friends of the Cromford Canal: http://www.cromfordcanal.org.uk
(Waterways World Site of the Month, November 2005)

Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read:
To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk

[Wm...]

Post by Brian Dominic
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:43:24 +0100, "Wm..."
of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the

Post by Wm...
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train".

I'm very sorry, but with my (virtual) anorak on, this is correct -
trains go up to London and down from London. The problem arises when
the train (or the line) goes across country, so there's no "to London"
element in the journey.

Don't be sorry, Brian. I am curious, why are the up and down
colloquially the wrong way around? Oxford is clearly north of London
(one way of describing it as up) and clearly at a higher altitude
(another way of describing it as up).

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:14:11 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

Post by Wm...

Post by Brian Dominic
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:43:24 +0100, "Wm..."
of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the

Post by Wm...
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train".

I'm very sorry, but with my (virtual) anorak on, this is correct -
trains go up to London and down from London. The problem arises when
the train (or the line) goes across country, so there's no "to London"
element in the journey.

Don't be sorry, Brian. I am curious, why are the up and down
colloquially the wrong way around? Oxford is clearly north of London
(one way of describing it as up) and clearly at a higher altitude
(another way of describing it as up).

<anorak>
"Up", in railway terms, is always to the most important end of the
line. So any line which ends in London always has the London-bound
route as the "up" line. For cross-country routes that don't go to/from
London then the "up" end is usually the end with the largest city.

It may seem that this is the wrong way round, geographically, but it's
no more so than someone "going up" to Oxford to study (or being sent
down when they fail!) when they live in Manchester - in both cases, up
and down are relative to the institution rather than the location.

There are a number of theories about how this terminology came about.
The most plausible is that the railways simply adopted it from canals,
which did have literal up(stream) and down(stream) ends with the up
end being the city and down being the port (for fairly obvious reasons
related to sea level and water flow!). Since the earliest railways
tended to be canal replacements often built from city to port in much
the same way, the concept of up being the city end was a fairly
obvious transfer, and then when railways started to be more of a
network of city-city links then making the most important city the up
end was a logical development.
</anorak>

If you really want to know more, then ask in uk.railway.

Mark

[Wm...]

Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:42:02

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:14:11 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

[munch previous stuff]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Wm...
Don't be sorry, Brian. I am curious, why are the up and down
colloquially the wrong way around? Oxford is clearly north of London
(one way of describing it as up) and clearly at a higher altitude
(another way of describing it as up).

<anorak>
"Up", in railway terms, is always to the most important end of the
line. So any line which ends in London always has the London-bound
route as the "up" line. For cross-country routes that don't go to/from
London then the "up" end is usually the end with the largest city.

I understand the explanation and thank you for it, Mark. The bit I
don't get is why. Why is "up" to the biggest town or city? Is it
because the larger town or city is better?

Post by Mark Goodge
It may seem that this is the wrong way round, geographically, but it's
no more so than someone "going up" to Oxford to study (or being sent
down when they fail!) when they live in Manchester - in both cases, up
and down are relative to the institution rather than the location.

I know that, I was trying to work out the rail bit which amuses and
puzzles me.

Post by Mark Goodge
There are a number of theories about how this terminology came about.
The most plausible is that the railways simply adopted it from canals,
which did have literal up(stream) and down(stream) ends with the up
end being the city

Not always.

Post by Mark Goodge
and down being the port (for fairly obvious reasons
related to sea level and water flow!).

That makes some sense.

Post by Mark Goodge
Since the earliest railways
tended to be canal replacements often built from city to port in much
the same way, the concept of up being the city end was a fairly
obvious transfer,

"To whom?" is, I suppose, the question I am asking.

Post by Mark Goodge
and then when railways started to be more of a
network of city-city links then making the most important city the up
end was a logical development.

I am unconvinced it was a logical development.

Post by Mark Goodge
</anorak>

Anorak noted, thanks for trying, Mark.

Post by Mark Goodge
If you really want to know more, then ask in uk.railway.

I am more interested in the fun in the words than the trains. Thanks
for the offer, I don't really want to get involved with Clive et al
about trains (Clive may not know more about trains than others but I
associate him with the group).

Have a short pome :)

Their was a young man called Mark
who tried to disembark
another man called Wm [1]
from up and down on a trn

Another fella called Brian
Took on the issue with iron-
y and stalked a rout
misadvisedly

I am a lazy pote so stopped.

[1] this may not work if you don't know how I say Wm

[Dean Dark]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:17:44 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
I understand the explanation and thank you for it, Mark. The bit I
don't get is why. Why is "up" to the biggest town or city? Is it
because the larger town or city is better?

No. It's simply because the old railway companies defined it that way
for reasons that doubtless made sense to them. Ask Richard
Trevithick, it's nearly as old as he is. You may as well question
habeas corpus - oh, hold on. I didn't mean to say that.

[Wm...]

Post by Dean Dark
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:17:44 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...
I understand the explanation and thank you for it, Mark. The bit I
don't get is why. Why is "up" to the biggest town or city? Is it
because the larger town or city is better?

No. It's simply because the old railway companies defined it that way
for reasons that doubtless made sense to them. Ask Richard
Trevithick, it's nearly as old as he is. You may as well question
habeas corpus - oh, hold on. I didn't mean to say that.

I am pleased someone managed to squeeze in a joke.

Q: Did you hear the one about the guy who spotted the 456217?

A: He was on the wrong platform. The 15h34 from Glasgow can't go past
Runcorn before 15h45 can it? I mean if you think more about it he was
just missing the 456257 from his list and lied about it. I have seen
the 456217 in Lancashire but there is no way I am going to tell you
where I have seen it, it might not even be Lancashire, you have to work
it out for yourself. I know "Fred" said he had seen 453217 but he is a
know liar, I am the only person that has seen 456218 and do you know
why? Because I am the only person that was on the platform at the time.
No one else on the platform was looking, I know that because I looked. I
even met the train driver's brother's wife's niece and she confirmed
this. Unfortunately she is washing her hair whenever I phone her for
more details. Some guy who said he was her brother answered the phone
the other day and said I shouldn't call any more. I think they really
want to keep 451245 a secret. I know the right way to do this is to act
alone, capture the informant and get the details from her myself but her
uncle's sister works for the police so I need some help in this
operation. Is anyone else prepared to go all the way to get 34916? If
you are prepared to join me you must have been able to have sex with a
woman other than your mother at least once. If you are a Christian and
have a lot of fertilizer that may help too.

etc.

(p.s. not a dig at dean)

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:17:44 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

Post by Wm...
Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:42:02

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:14:11 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

[munch previous stuff]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Wm...
Don't be sorry, Brian. I am curious, why are the up and down
colloquially the wrong way around? Oxford is clearly north of London
(one way of describing it as up) and clearly at a higher altitude
(another way of describing it as up).

<anorak>
"Up", in railway terms, is always to the most important end of the
line. So any line which ends in London always has the London-bound
route as the "up" line. For cross-country routes that don't go to/from
London then the "up" end is usually the end with the largest city.

I understand the explanation and thank you for it, Mark. The bit I
don't get is why. Why is "up" to the biggest town or city? Is it
because the larger town or city is better?

If the canal theory is correct, it's simply because the earliest
railways used the terms in the same direction as the canals. So if a
canal from A to B had the up end at A and the down end at B, then the
subsequently built railway did the same.

As to why the canals did it that way, then that's partly explained by
the fact that a port to city canal would have had the city end at the
literal upstream. And the earliest canals were constructed to link
cities with the coast, it was only later that they started to be used
as more of a cross-country network.

There's also the fact that the concept of going "up" to the city is
very long-stablished in English usage - it predates the invention of
railways by a considerable margin (the phrase is found in Shakespeare
and the King James Bible), and still has a lot of currency. So it may
well be as much to do with simply adopting the colloquiallism of the
time as with any more logical reason.

Mark

[Wm...]

Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:03:50
<***@news.markshouse.net> uk.rec.humour
Mark Goodge <***@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

[I am x-posting to aue again, I am not trying to start a fight; I just
don't understand this up and down thing which seems to make less sense
the more it gets examined; please choose your follow up group
appropriately; surely the worst that can happen is that one bunch of
people discovers another :) ]

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 21:17:44 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

Post by Wm...
Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:42:02

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:14:11 +0100, Wm... put finger to keyboard and

[munch previous stuff]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Wm...
Don't be sorry, Brian. I am curious, why are the up and down
colloquially the wrong way around? Oxford is clearly north of London
(one way of describing it as up) and clearly at a higher altitude
(another way of describing it as up).

<anorak>
"Up", in railway terms, is always to the most important end of the
line. So any line which ends in London always has the London-bound
route as the "up" line. For cross-country routes that don't go to/from
London then the "up" end is usually the end with the largest city.

I understand the explanation and thank you for it, Mark. The bit I
don't get is why. Why is "up" to the biggest town or city? Is it
because the larger town or city is better?

If the canal theory is correct, it's simply because the earliest
railways used the terms in the same direction as the canals. So if a
canal from A to B had the up end at A and the down end at B, then the
subsequently built railway did the same.

Even if you were on a canal you'd be going down to London from Oxford
not up. I am baffled why someone using a canal wouldn't know that
London is nearer sea level than Oxford. Were people using the canals
when they were first built that dumb? I doubt it. They'd have been
seafaring folk before and would have a good idea of north, south, up,
down, etc. I think it may be relevant to point out that barges were
drawn by horses on canals until motors were invented. I cannot see how
the journey from London to Oxford (upstream and harder work for the
horse) could be described as down.

Post by Mark Goodge
As to why the canals did it that way, then that's partly explained by
the fact that a port to city canal would have had the city end at the
literal upstream. And the earliest canals were constructed to link
cities with the coast, it was only later that they started to be used
as more of a cross-country network.

But, but, mumble, etc. So you should go down to London from Oxford not
up?

Post by Mark Goodge
There's also the fact that the concept of going "up" to the city is
very long-stablished in English usage - it predates the invention of
railways by a considerable margin (the phrase is found in Shakespeare
and the King James Bible), and still has a lot of currency. So it may
well be as much to do with simply adopting the colloquiallism of the
time as with any more logical reason.

The last bit makes sense to me. Cheers, Mark. The railway and canal
enthusiasts aren't going to like it, mind you.

(If you are reading this in aue, I often add a short pome of sorts to
leaven discussion).

A young man named Mark
thought it a lark
to undo the up
and down

without a frown
he claims the crown
of up down sensibility.

[Brian Dominic]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:14:11 +0100, "Wm..."
<***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> finished tucking into their plate
of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the

Post by Wm...

Post by Brian Dominic
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:43:24 +0100, "Wm..."
of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the

Post by Wm...
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train".

I'm very sorry, but with my (virtual) anorak on, this is correct -
trains go up to London and down from London. The problem arises when
the train (or the line) goes across country, so there's no "to London"
element in the journey.

Don't be sorry, Brian. I am curious, why are the up and down
colloquially the wrong way around? Oxford is clearly north of London
(one way of describing it as up) and clearly at a higher altitude
(another way of describing it as up).

I think it was the convention that was adopted when the first railway
to the Capital was constructed - "up" and "down" is much less of a
mouthful that "to London" or "from London". Why they were done that
way round is quite possibly lost in the mists of time - I certainly
don't know......

After that, everybody followed suit though it gets complicated when
lines (and the trains on them) don't run to or from London.

Brian L Dominic

Web Sites:
Canals: http://www.brianscanalpages.co.uk
Friends of the Cromford Canal: http://www.cromfordcanal.org.uk
(Waterways World Site of the Month, November 2005)

Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read:
To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk

[Wm...]

Post by Brian Dominic
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:14:11 +0100, "Wm..."
of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the

Post by Wm...

Post by Brian Dominic
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:43:24 +0100, "Wm..."
of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths, they swiggged the

Post by Wm...
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train".

I'm very sorry, but with my (virtual) anorak on, this is correct -
trains go up to London and down from London. The problem arises when
the train (or the line) goes across country, so there's no "to London"
element in the journey.

Don't be sorry, Brian. I am curious, why are the up and down
colloquially the wrong way around? Oxford is clearly north of London
(one way of describing it as up) and clearly at a higher altitude
(another way of describing it as up).

I think it was the convention that was adopted when the first railway
to the Capital was constructed - "up" and "down" is much less of a
mouthful that "to London" or "from London". Why they were done that
way round is quite possibly lost in the mists of time - I certainly
don't know......
After that, everybody followed suit though it gets complicated when
lines (and the trains on them) don't run to or from London.

Hmmmn. I'm not much of a follower of stupid conventions so I am going to
state "they" were and are wrong.

[Jacqui]

Post by Wm...
As an aside I think
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspoone.html
===
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train". The phrase
"going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a different meaning
and could be used by someone from the Shetland Isles even though they
would be going down to those universities by train.

Hmm. Like the North Pole, to some extent *everywhere* from Oxford is
down. However, the 'up' platform goes *to* London and the 'down'
platform goes away from London, even when geographically that makes no
sense to the average passenger (trains travel north through Oxford away
from London, south towards it). Down trains from nearby Princes
Risborough go to Aylesbury, further north - because they come from the
direction of London (check Google, it'll confirm that with a picture).
That's just how it is.

There was some horrified kerfuffle in various letters pages when
Inspector Morse was first televised because a train in one episode
arrived or departed from Oxford on the 'wrong platform'. It took a lot
of Oxford residents to quell the reports of that 'error' - it really
was the correct platform for that service.

Jac

[the Omrud]

Post by Jacqui
There was some horrified kerfuffle in various letters pages when
Inspector Morse was first televised because a train in one episode
arrived or departed from Oxford on the 'wrong platform'. It took a lot
of Oxford residents to quell the reports of that 'error' - it really
was the correct platform for that service.

I once became quite distressed when a TV play showed a child cycling
off Cromer pier and straight up Sheringham High Street.

[Robert Lieblich]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Jacqui
There was some horrified kerfuffle in various letters pages when
Inspector Morse was first televised because a train in one episode
arrived or departed from Oxford on the 'wrong platform'. It took a lot
of Oxford residents to quell the reports of that 'error' - it really
was the correct platform for that service.

I once became quite distressed when a TV play showed a child cycling
off Cromer pier and straight up Sheringham High Street.

In the movie "No Way Out," Kevin Costner runs along the Whitehurst
Freeway in DC (from which pedestrians are banned) and runs straight
into the Georgetown Metro station (which would be impossible even if
such a stop existed, which it doesn't -- Metro doesn't even have
trackage in Georgetown -- because the Whitehurst is elevated and there
are no stairs leading down from it, and the jump would break his legs
if not kill him) which turnes out to look exactly like a subway
station in Baltimore (which it is -- he performs a couple of reckless
stunts in the station, and the Metro authorities wouldn't let the
filmmakers use a Metro station for filming, so they filmed in
Baltimore). The film has a number of other such realistic touches.

Strangely, none of that shows up on the relevant IMDB "goofs" page
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093640/goofs>.

[athel...@yahoo]

Robert Lieblich wrote:

[ ... ]

Post by Robert Lieblich
In the movie "No Way Out," Kevin Costner runs along the Whitehurst
Freeway in DC (from which pedestrians are banned) and runs straight
into the Georgetown Metro station (which would be impossible even if
such a stop existed, which it doesn't -- Metro doesn't even have
trackage in Georgetown -- because the Whitehurst is elevated and there
are no stairs leading down from it, and the jump would break his legs
if not kill him) which turnes out to look exactly like a subway
station in Baltimore (which it is -- he performs a couple of reckless
stunts in the station, and the Metro authorities wouldn't let the
filmmakers use a Metro station for filming, so they filmed in
Baltimore). The film has a number of other such realistic touches.

It's a long time since I saw The Graduate, but as I recall the hero
drove across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland on the upper
level (no doubt because it looks more photogenic than the lower level
where he would really have been), this in the context of a marathon
drive that took him (with no overnight stops or other form of resting),
from Berkeley to Los Angeles to Berkeley to Santa Barbara.

athel

[Wm...]

Mon, 2 Oct 2006 04:30:14

Post by ***@yahoo
It's a long time since I saw The Graduate, but as I recall the hero
drove across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland on the upper
level (no doubt because it looks more photogenic than the lower level
where he would really have been), this in the context of a marathon
drive that took him (with no overnight stops or other form of resting),
from Berkeley to Los Angeles to Berkeley to Santa Barbara.

What is the problem with that?

Dustin "bladder of an elephant" Hoffman

[Peter Moylan]

Post by ***@yahoo
It's a long time since I saw The Graduate, but as I recall the hero
drove across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland on the
upper level (no doubt because it looks more photogenic than the lower
level where he would really have been), this in the context of a
marathon drive that took him (with no overnight stops or other form
of resting), from Berkeley to Los Angeles to Berkeley to Santa
Barbara.

The bit that I never understood is how they found a time when there was
no other traffic on the upper level. My recollection is that that bridge
is packed day and night.

[athel...@yahoo]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by ***@yahoo
It's a long time since I saw The Graduate, but as I recall the hero
drove across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland on the
upper level (no doubt because it looks more photogenic than the lower
level where he would really have been), this in the context of a
marathon drive that took him (with no overnight stops or other form
of resting), from Berkeley to Los Angeles to Berkeley to Santa
Barbara.

The bit that I never understood is how they found a time when there was
no other traffic on the upper level. My recollection is that that bridge
is packed day and night.

Indeed, it is, and was then. Maybe they paid a huge sum to close the
bridge to other traffic for a few minutes on a Sunday morning. [During
the time I lived in Berkeley in the late 1960s the ten-millionth (or
maybe it was the 100-millionth, I don't remember) driver paid her toll,
and duly appeared on television. Alas, she had phoned her boss to say
she was ill and couldn't go to work that day; the boss was not amused.
At around the same time they doubled the toll in one direction and
eliminated it in the other, giving rise to the joke that you can go to
Oakland for free but you have to pay to go to San Francisco.]

In fact, as I recall, the car was actually approaching San Francisco
when the story line required it to be approaching Oakland. I think it
was on the top level for each of the three crossings. Presumably the
director reckoned that most people wouldn't know and most of the others
wouldn't care. Of course, another point is that if you were really in a
hurry to get from Los Angeles to Berkeley (or vice versa) you wouldn't
cross the Bay Bridge at all. Bearing that in mind it's surprising they
didn't have him crossing the Golden Gate Bridge.

a.

[j***@yahoo.com]

Post by Robert Lieblich

Post by the Omrud

Post by Jacqui
There was some horrified kerfuffle in various letters pages when
Inspector Morse was first televised because a train in one episode
arrived or departed from Oxford on the 'wrong platform'. It took a lot
of Oxford residents to quell the reports of that 'error' - it really
was the correct platform for that service.

I once became quite distressed when a TV play showed a child cycling
off Cromer pier and straight up Sheringham High Street.

In the movie "No Way Out," Kevin Costner runs along the Whitehurst
Freeway in DC (from which pedestrians are banned) and runs straight
into the Georgetown Metro station (which would be impossible even if
such a stop existed, which it doesn't -- Metro doesn't even have
trackage in Georgetown -- because the Whitehurst is elevated and there
are no stairs leading down from it, and the jump would break his legs
if not kill him) which turnes out to look exactly like a subway
station in Baltimore (which it is -- he performs a couple of reckless
stunts in the station, and the Metro authorities wouldn't let the
filmmakers use a Metro station for filming, so they filmed in
Baltimore). The film has a number of other such realistic touches.
Strangely, none of that shows up on the relevant IMDB "goofs" page
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093640/goofs>.

Probably because they're not goofs, any more than Tolstoy goofed when
he wrote /War and Peace/ about people who never existed.

I've never understood why this kind of thing bothers people. To me,
movie backgrounds are artistically just sets.

And yes, this has happened with a place I know. In /The Deerhunter/,
an Orthodox church in Cleveland that I'd passed many times was
transplanted to Pennsylvania. I smiled when I recognized it but didn't
think of that as a goof.

[HVS]

-snip topographical disjunctions-

Post by j***@yahoo.com

Post by Robert Lieblich
Strangely, none of that shows up on the relevant IMDB "goofs"
page <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093640/goofs>.

Probably because they're not goofs, any more than Tolstoy
goofed when he wrote /War and Peace/ about people who never
existed.
I've never understood why this kind of thing bothers people.
To me, movie backgrounds are artistically just sets.

I'm with you on this in the sense that there's no difference
between these cases and the usual movie/TV thing of using two (or
more) building exteriors and interiors to represent a single place.

But that said, if one recognises the disjunction it means the set-
making has been done badly.

[Frances Kemmish]

Post by HVS
-snip topographical disjunctions-

Post by j***@yahoo.com

Post by Robert Lieblich
Strangely, none of that shows up on the relevant IMDB "goofs"
page <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093640/goofs>.

Probably because they're not goofs, any more than Tolstoy
goofed when he wrote /War and Peace/ about people who never
existed.
I've never understood why this kind of thing bothers people.
To me, movie backgrounds are artistically just sets.

I'm with you on this in the sense that there's no difference
between these cases and the usual movie/TV thing of using two (or
more) building exteriors and interiors to represent a single place.
But that said, if one recognises the disjunction it means the set-
making has been done badly.

And some of them are so obvious as to be disturbing. The opening scenes
of "Down with Love" (the 2003 version) were so disorientating that I was
left feeling seasick.

Fran

[HVS]

-snip-

Post by Frances Kemmish

Post by HVS
I'm with you on this in the sense that there's no difference
between these cases and the usual movie/TV thing of using two
(or more) building exteriors and interiors to represent a
single place.
But that said, if one recognises the disjunction it means the
set- making has been done badly.

And some of them are so obvious as to be disturbing. The
opening scenes of "Down with Love" (the 2003 version) were so
disorientating that I was left feeling seasick.

Precisely: badly done.

If it had been done well, you wouldn't have notice it at all.

[Wm...]

Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:16:29

Post by Jacqui

Post by Wm...
As an aside I think
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspoone.html
===
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train". The phrase
"going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a different meaning
and could be used by someone from the Shetland Isles even though they
would be going down to those universities by train.

Hmm. Like the North Pole, to some extent *everywhere* from Oxford is
down. However, the 'up' platform goes *to* London and the 'down'
platform goes away from London, even when geographically that makes no
sense to the average passenger (trains travel north through Oxford away
from London, south towards it).

Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Post by Jacqui
Down trains from nearby Princes
Risborough go to Aylesbury, further north - because they come from the
direction of London (check Google, it'll confirm that with a picture).
That's just how it is.

That may be "how it is", I am curious about why it is as it is.

Post by Jacqui
There was some horrified kerfuffle in various letters pages when
Inspector Morse was first televised because a train in one episode
arrived or departed from Oxford on the 'wrong platform'. It took a lot
of Oxford residents to quell the reports of that 'error' - it really
was the correct platform for that service.
Jac

[John Dean]

Post by Wm...
Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:16:29

Post by Jacqui

Post by Wm...
As an aside I think
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspoone.html
===
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train". The
phrase "going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a
different meaning and could be used by someone from the Shetland
Isles even though they would be going down to those universities by
train.

Hmm. Like the North Pole, to some extent *everywhere* from Oxford is
down. However, the 'up' platform goes *to* London and the 'down'
platform goes away from London, even when geographically that makes
no sense to the average passenger (trains travel north through
Oxford away from London, south towards it).

Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Platforms are not named, they are numbered. If a platform is known as the
"up" platform it will be because the "up" train usually departs from there.
There is nothing "incorrect" about referring to "up" and "down" trains. The
term is a use particular to the railways and signifies whether a train is
going towards its depot or main terminus (up) or away from it (down). London
was almost always regarded as the depot in the UK.
The system is in use round the world. See, eg,
http://www.hiraganatimes.com/hp/scenes/japanese-society.html

"The trains coming up to Tokyo are called "Nobori-Densha," or "Up Train" and
trains leaving Tokyo are called "Kudari-Densha" or "Down Train." ..."

Or http://allahabad.netfirms.com/train_numbering.htm

"Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e., the
homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever is closer. Up
refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters or divisional HQ,
whichever is closer.
... Interestingly [1], the East Indian Railway decided to name trains
towards its base, Calcutta, "down" trains, perhaps expecting the GIPR to
eventually reach Calcutta; this convention was also adopted by the
Bengal-Nagpur Railway. On the North Western Railway "up" was to the west, so
that trains from Delhi to Amritsar are "up". "

[1] sic. or even Sikh

[Wm...]

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:16:29

Post by Jacqui

Post by Wm...
As an aside I think
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspoone.html
===
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away from
London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train". The
phrase "going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a
different meaning and could be used by someone from the Shetland
Isles even though they would be going down to those universities by
train.

Hmm. Like the North Pole, to some extent *everywhere* from Oxford is
down. However, the 'up' platform goes *to* London and the 'down'
platform goes away from London, even when geographically that makes
no sense to the average passenger (trains travel north through
Oxford away from London, south towards it).

Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Platforms are not named, they are numbered. If a platform is known as the
"up" platform it will be because the "up" train usually departs from there.
There is nothing "incorrect" about referring to "up" and "down" trains. The
term is a use particular to the railways and signifies whether a train is
going towards its depot or main terminus (up) or away from it (down). London
was almost always regarded as the depot in the UK.
The system is in use round the world. See, eg,
http://www.hiraganatimes.com/hp/scenes/japanese-society.html
"The trains coming up to Tokyo are called "Nobori-Densha," or "Up Train" and
trains leaving Tokyo are called "Kudari-Densha" or "Down Train." ..."
Or http://allahabad.netfirms.com/train_numbering.htm
"Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e., the
homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever is closer. Up
refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters or divisional HQ,
whichever is closer.
... Interestingly [1], the East Indian Railway decided to name trains
towards its base, Calcutta, "down" trains, perhaps expecting the GIPR to
eventually reach Calcutta; this convention was also adopted by the
Bengal-Nagpur Railway. On the North Western Railway "up" was to the west, so
that trains from Delhi to Amritsar are "up". "
[1] sic. or even Sikh

I am finding the defence of this silliness irritating. Surely even Pooh
Bear could have worked out "to" and "from" was better than the clearly
incorrect "up" and "down"?

[John Dean]

Post by Wm...

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:16:29

Post by Jacqui

Post by Wm...
As an aside I think
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxspoone.html
===
"You have deliberately tasted two worms and you can leave Oxford
by the town drain." (The "down train" was the train going away
from London, in this case through Oxford.
===
is wrong. The train going *to* London is the "down train". The
phrase "going up to Oxford" or Cambridge or Edinburgh has a
different meaning and could be used by someone from the Shetland
Isles even though they would be going down to those universities
by train.

Hmm. Like the North Pole, to some extent *everywhere* from Oxford
is down. However, the 'up' platform goes *to* London and the
'down' platform goes away from London, even when geographically
that makes no sense to the average passenger (trains travel north
through Oxford away from London, south towards it).

Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Platforms are not named, they are numbered. If a platform is known
as the "up" platform it will be because the "up" train usually
departs from there. There is nothing "incorrect" about referring to
"up" and "down" trains. The term is a use particular to the railways
and signifies whether a train is going towards its depot or main
terminus (up) or away from it (down). London was almost always
regarded as the depot in the UK. The system is in use round the world.
See, eg,
http://www.hiraganatimes.com/hp/scenes/japanese-society.html
"The trains coming up to Tokyo are called "Nobori-Densha," or "Up
Train" and trains leaving Tokyo are called "Kudari-Densha" or "Down
Train." ..." Or http://allahabad.netfirms.com/train_numbering.htm
"Down refers to a train travelling away from its headquarters (i.e.,
the homing railway) or from its Divisional headquarters, whichever
is closer. Up refers to a train travelling towards its headquarters
or divisional HQ, whichever is closer.
... Interestingly [1], the East Indian Railway decided to name
trains towards its base, Calcutta, "down" trains, perhaps expecting
the GIPR to eventually reach Calcutta; this convention was also
adopted by the Bengal-Nagpur Railway. On the North Western Railway
"up" was to the west, so that trains from Delhi to Amritsar are
"up". " [1] sic. or even Sikh

I am finding the defence of this silliness irritating. Surely even
Pooh Bear could have worked out "to" and "from" was better than the
clearly incorrect "up" and "down"?

I hope you're good at tolerating irritation because this one is going to
last long after you're dead. "up" and "down" in the context of railways are
terms of art, just as they are (in quite different ways) in nuclear physics.
Time you got used to the idea that one word may have many meanings. Other
meanings for up which will probably irritate you include:

- effervescent (of fermented liquor)
- in a state of emotional stimulation
- vivacious
- dwelling up-country

None of them are incorrect.

[Wm...]

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
I am finding the defence of this silliness irritating. Surely even
Pooh Bear could have worked out "to" and "from" was better than the
clearly incorrect "up" and "down"?

I hope you're good at tolerating irritation because this one is going to
last long after you're dead.

Goodness. I am amused actually.

Post by John Dean
"up" and "down" in the context of railways are
terms of art,

Hmmmn. Artifice makes sense, but that probably wasn't what you wanted
to convey.

Post by John Dean
just as they are (in quite different ways) in nuclear physics.
Time you got used to the idea that one word may have many meanings. Other
- effervescent (of fermented liquor)
- in a state of emotional stimulation
- vivacious
- dwelling up-country
None of them are incorrect.

I don't have a problem with any of those.

There was a young man called John Dean
Who didn't give a bean
for the sense of words
so long as they were
the words he thought they might mean

(I read your message in urh, btw)

[John Dean]

Post by Wm...

Post by John Dean
"up" and "down" in the context of railways are
terms of art,

Hmmmn. Artifice makes sense, but that probably wasn't what you wanted
to convey.

I conveyed what I wanted to convey but without confidence that you could
assimilate it.

Post by Wm...
There was a young man called John Dean
Who didn't give a bean
for the sense of words
so long as they were
the words he thought they might mean

There was a young man called Wm
Who said "I know just what a pm"
And I've a misapprehension
That ere my deprehension
My poetry'll kid you how bm

[CDB]

John Dean wrote:
[...]

Post by John Dean
There was a young man called Wm
Who said "I know just what a pm"
And I've a misapprehension
That ere my deprehension
My poetry'll kid you how bm

We're assuming you left out the "r" so as not to excite the envy of
the gods.

[Geordie the Forgery]

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
There was a young man called John Dean
Who didn't give a bean
for the sense of words
so long as they were
the words he thought they might mean

There was a young man called Wm
Who said "I know just what a pm"
And I've a misapprehension
That ere my deprehension
My poetry'll kid you how bm

Stop nicking Tiddys' style.
<Grin>

[Peter Duncanson]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:14:11 +0100, "Wm..."
<***@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:

[About "up" and "down" trains.]

Post by Wm...
I am finding the defence of this silliness irritating. Surely even Pooh
Bear could have worked out "to" and "from" was better than the clearly
incorrect "up" and "down"?

Think of the stations in a railway system as forming a hierarchy.

A train is travelling "up" when it is moving from a lower to a
higher level in the hierarchy. This is independent of the final
destination of the train. A train moving up the hierarchy is not
necessarily destined for the top. Trains on a local branch line
might shuttle mainly to and from the nearest town. A few each day
might go through that town and on to a larger one.

Only a small proportion of the trains on the network would get to
the top of the hierarchy (the station that was the headquarters of
the railway company). These would not start at the periphery of the
network but at a major station higher up the hierarchy.

[Wm...]

Post by Peter Duncanson
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:14:11 +0100, "Wm..."
[About "up" and "down" trains.]

Post by Wm...
I am finding the defence of this silliness irritating. Surely even Pooh
Bear could have worked out "to" and "from" was better than the clearly
incorrect "up" and "down"?

Think of the stations in a railway system as forming a hierarchy.
A train is travelling "up" when it is moving from a lower to a
higher level in the hierarchy. This is independent of the final
destination of the train. A train moving up the hierarchy is not
necessarily destined for the top. Trains on a local branch line
might shuttle mainly to and from the nearest town. A few each day
might go through that town and on to a larger one.
Only a small proportion of the trains on the network would get to
the top of the hierarchy (the station that was the headquarters of
the railway company). These would not start at the periphery of the
network but at a major station higher up the hierarchy.

Sounds like a post analysis to me. You don't really know why the up and
down trains were incorrectly named do you?

[Dean Dark]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:06:13 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...

Post by Peter Duncanson
Only a small proportion of the trains on the network would get to
the top of the hierarchy (the station that was the headquarters of
the railway company). These would not start at the periphery of the
network but at a major station higher up the hierarchy.

Sounds like a post analysis to me. You don't really know why the up and
down trains were incorrectly named do you?

I'm inclined to agree with you. From work-related experience of 30 or
more years ago, I recall that 'up' and 'down' are more important terms
in respect of the lines themselves, rather than the trains that run on
them. It can be quite important when you want to stop the trains from
running on one or the other of them and let me assure you that I
wouldn't have given a flying fuck about the semantics and origins of
the nomenclature - I just wanted to be sure that I had it right. And
I did.

[Mark Brader]

From work-related experience of 30 or more years ago, I recall that
'up' and 'down' are more important terms in respect of the lines
themselves, rather than the trains that run on them...

If you had an up train running on the down line when it wasn't supposed
to be, you might think differently about that!

[Dean Dark]

Post by Mark Brader

From work-related experience of 30 or more years ago, I recall that
'up' and 'down' are more important terms in respect of the lines
themselves, rather than the trains that run on them...

If you had an up train running on the down line when it wasn't supposed
to be, you might think differently about that!

Certainly, protocols and lockouts *can* fail. But they usually don't,
that's the point.

It's a statistics game really. You'll win the lottery jackpot the
same day I get killed by an up train on the down line. Meanwhile,
I'll continue to look both ways before I cross the street.

[Peter Duncanson]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:06:13 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...

Post by Peter Duncanson
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:14:11 +0100, "Wm..."
[About "up" and "down" trains.]

Post by Wm...
I am finding the defence of this silliness irritating. Surely even Pooh
Bear could have worked out "to" and "from" was better than the clearly
incorrect "up" and "down"?

Think of the stations in a railway system as forming a hierarchy.
A train is travelling "up" when it is moving from a lower to a
higher level in the hierarchy. This is independent of the final
destination of the train. A train moving up the hierarchy is not
necessarily destined for the top. Trains on a local branch line
might shuttle mainly to and from the nearest town. A few each day
might go through that town and on to a larger one.
Only a small proportion of the trains on the network would get to
the top of the hierarchy (the station that was the headquarters of
the railway company). These would not start at the periphery of the
network but at a major station higher up the hierarchy.

Sounds like a post analysis to me. You don't really know why the up and
down trains were incorrectly named do you?

You see incorrectness. I see a reasonable convention.

As for post analysis: I've no doubt that when I was young my Dad
would have explained that "up" was to a larger or more important
place, making "down" the reverse direction. I do not remember asking
Dad but it is the sort of question that I would have asked. If I did
not get it from him I would have got it from a book. I was much more
fascinated by things and how they worked, than by the strange
behaviour of humans.

[Peter Duncanson]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:36:21 +0100, Peter Duncanson

Post by Dean Dark
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:06:13 +0100, "Wm..."

Post by Wm...

Post by Peter Duncanson
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 01:14:11 +0100, "Wm..."
[About "up" and "down" trains.]

Post by Wm...
I am finding the defence of this silliness irritating. Surely even Pooh
Bear could have worked out "to" and "from" was better than the clearly
incorrect "up" and "down"?

Think of the stations in a railway system as forming a hierarchy.
A train is travelling "up" when it is moving from a lower to a
higher level in the hierarchy. This is independent of the final
destination of the train. A train moving up the hierarchy is not
necessarily destined for the top. Trains on a local branch line
might shuttle mainly to and from the nearest town. A few each day
might go through that town and on to a larger one.
Only a small proportion of the trains on the network would get to
the top of the hierarchy (the station that was the headquarters of
the railway company). These would not start at the periphery of the
network but at a major station higher up the hierarchy.

Sounds like a post analysis to me. You don't really know why the up and
down trains were incorrectly named do you?

You see incorrectness. I see a reasonable convention.

[Stuff]

I forgot to add that the up and down labels were very probably
adopted from a prexisting convention -- as others here are
exploring.

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Platforms are not named, they are numbered.

With the exception of New Cross station in south London, where they are
lettered.

Loading Image...

Matthew Huntbach

[John Dean]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Platforms are not named, they are numbered.

With the exception of New Cross station in south London, where they
are lettered.
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/station/London/New_Cross/NewCross-platformsABCD-01.jpg

Ah - the infamous "New Cross" / "New Cross Gate" schism that made the
Mornington Crescent brouhaha look like a game of snap.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Platforms are not named, they are numbered.

With the exception of New Cross station in south London, where they are
lettered.

The platforms at Waterloo (East) are lettered A to D I think, to avoid
confusion with the numbered platforms in the LSWR station next door.

French railway track directions are "pair" (even) and "impair" (odd).
Even is the direction towards Paris. As an aide-mémoire, Channel
Tunnel staff are taught that you have to be odd to leave France. Hence
the cross-passage doors and other equipment in Running Tunnel South
(direction France-England) have location numbers ending in an odd
digit, whilst those in the north tunnel end in an even digit.

[Brian Dominic]

On 2 Oct 2006 09:05:21 -0700, ***@gmail.com finished tucking
into their plate of fish, chips and mushy peas. Wiping their mouths,

Post by m***@gmail.com
The platforms at Waterloo (East) are lettered A to D I think, to avoid
confusion with the numbered platforms in the LSWR station next door.
French railway track directions are "pair" (even) and "impair" (odd).
Even is the direction towards Paris. As an aide-mémoire, Channel
Tunnel staff are taught that you have to be odd to leave France. Hence
the cross-passage doors and other equipment in Running Tunnel South
(direction France-England) have location numbers ending in an odd
digit, whilst those in the north tunnel end in an even digit.

Wanna borrow my anorak?? (wink)

Brian L Dominic

Web Sites:
Canals: http://www.brianscanalpages.co.uk
Friends of the Cromford Canal: http://www.cromfordcanal.org.uk
(Waterways World Site of the Month, November 2005)

Newsgroup readers should note that the reply-to address is NOT read:
To email me, please send to brian(dot)dominic(at)tiscali(dot)co(dot)uk

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Brian Dominic
Wanna borrow my anorak?? (wink)

I've got a perfectly good one of my own, thank you very much. :)

[Wm...]

Mon, 2 Oct 2006 09:55:35

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by John Dean

Post by Wm...
Does anyone know why the platforms are so (incorrectly) named?

Platforms are not named, they are numbered.

With the exception of New Cross station in south London, where they are
lettered.

And some others.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/gb/station/London/New_Cross/NewCross-pl
atformsABCD-01.jpg

<aside: I'm reading this in urh and we usually see links to jpg's as a
caption competition without prizes>

"The person that painted the smiley on that speaker should get a bonus"

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:44:29 +0100, Brian Dominic put finger to

Post by Brian Dominic
This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the seventies. Ronnie
Barker could say all this without a snigger (though god knows how many
takes). Irony is that they received not one complaint. The speed of
delivery must have been too much for the whining herds. Try getting
through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your
pants] as you read ...
This is the story of Rindercella and her sugiy isters.

Sorry to spoil a joke, but this isn't a Ronnie Barker sketch at all,
and was never on TV. There is a famous Two Ronnies sketch which used
spoonerisms which created double entendres, but this isn't it.

Mark

[Wm...]

Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:00:21

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:44:29 +0100, Brian Dominic put finger to

Post by Brian Dominic
This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the seventies. Ronnie
Barker could say all this without a snigger (though god knows how many
takes). Irony is that they received not one complaint. The speed of
delivery must have been too much for the whining herds. Try getting
through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your
pants] as you read ...
This is the story of Rindercella and her sugiy isters.

Sorry to spoil a joke, but this isn't a Ronnie Barker sketch at all,
and was never on TV. There is a famous Two Ronnies sketch which used
spoonerisms which created double entendres, but this isn't it.

Four candles, etc.

Much better.

[Geordie the Forgery]

Post by Wm...
Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:00:21

Post by Mark Goodge
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:44:29 +0100, Brian Dominic put finger to

Post by Brian Dominic
This was originally shown on BBC TV back in the seventies. Ronnie
Barker could say all this without a snigger (though god knows how many
takes). Irony is that they received not one complaint. The speed of
delivery must have been too much for the whining herds. Try getting
through it without converting the spoonerisms [and not wetting your
pants] as you read ...
This is the story of Rindercella and her sugiy isters.

Sorry to spoil a joke, but this isn't a Ronnie Barker sketch at all,
and was never on TV. There is a famous Two Ronnies sketch which used
spoonerisms which created double entendres, but this isn't it.

Four candles, etc.
Much better.

Bill hooks?