home archive of uk.* news reader.
 
  
67 at Waterloo   
I just caught site of a 67 heading away from Waterloo at the back of a
train. I couldn't see how long the train was or what the coaches were.
Any ideas?

Kevin
Date:26 Jul 2005 05:54:18 -0700   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
On 26 Jul 2005 05:54:18 -0700, kajr@mwfree.net wrote:


> I just caught site of a 67 heading away from Waterloo at the back of a
> train. I couldn't see how long the train was or what the coaches were.
> Any ideas?


Fascinating. That's very rare. Was it headed towards Southport, or in
the Liverpool direction?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632982.html
(43 171 at Stockport, 1985)
Date:Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:37:49 GMT   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
Chris Tolley wrote:

> On 26 Jul 2005 05:54:18 -0700, kajr@mwfree.net wrote:
>
> > I just caught site of a 67 heading away from Waterloo at the back of a
> > train. I couldn't see how long the train was or what the coaches were.
> > Any ideas?
>
> Fascinating. That's very rare. Was it headed towards Southport, or in
> the Liverpool direction?

Or Clapham Junction.
Date:26 Jul 2005 08:39:51 -0700   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
The message 
from exjims@aol.com contains these words:


> > > I just caught site of a 67 heading away from Waterloo at the back of a
> > > train. I couldn't see how long the train was or what the coaches were.
> > > Any ideas?
> >
> > Fascinating. That's very rare. Was it headed towards Southport, or in
> > the Liverpool direction?
> Or Clapham Junction.


IIRC it's just "Clapham" now that the line to Low Gill has gone...

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham
Date:Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:32:30 +0100   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
"David Jackson"  wrote in message
news:313030303337333342E68FCE80@zetnet.co.uk...

> The message 
> from exjims@aol.com contains these words:
>
> > > > I just caught site of a 67 heading away from Waterloo at the back of
a
> > > > train. I couldn't see how long the train was or what the coaches
were.
> > > > Any ideas?
> > >
> > > Fascinating. That's very rare. Was it headed towards Southport, or in
> > > the Liverpool direction?
> > Or Clapham Junction.
>
> IIRC it's just "Clapham" now that the line to Low Gill has gone...
>

Clapham is now Clapham High Street...

Peter
Date:Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:36:11 +0000 (UTC)   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
The message <dc63bb$1a1$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
from "Peter Masson"  contains these words:


> > > Or Clapham Junction.
> >
> > IIRC it's just "Clapham" now that the line to Low Gill has gone...
> >
> Clapham is now Clapham High Street...


Clapham has a High Street???

Just checked on Streetmap.co.uk.  No High Street.

I could point out that there are rather a lot of Claphams listed, apart
from the one whose station was the Junction for Low Gill and Tebay.  

There's even one in the London area!        <g>

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham
Date:Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:49:22 +0100   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
"David Jackson"  wrote in message
news:313030303337333342E6BDF240@zetnet.co.uk...

> The message <dc63bb$1a1$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
> from "Peter Masson"  contains these words:
>
> > > > Or Clapham Junction.
> > >
> > > IIRC it's just "Clapham" now that the line to Low Gill has gone...
> > >
> > Clapham is now Clapham High Street...
>
> Clapham has a High Street???
>
> Just checked on Streetmap.co.uk.  No High Street.
>
> I could point out that there are rather a lot of Claphams listed, apart
> from the one whose station was the Junction for Low Gill and Tebay.
>
> There's even one in the London area!        <g>
>

Exactly. The station now named Clapham High Street used to be named Clapham.
Presumably changed to avoid confusion with Clapham (North Yorkshire). It is
located at Clapham High Street. See
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=529644&y=175410&z=1&sv=Clapham+High+Street&st=1&tl=Clapham+High+Street,+SW4&searchp=newsearch.srf&mapp=newmap.srf

Peter
Date:Tue, 26 Jul 2005 22:46:58 +0000 (UTC)   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
Dear OP. Please dont worry about these responses. It isn't always like
this.....

It was probably on the back of a Charter train.

JohnK
Date:Wed, 27 Jul 2005 07:11:26 GMT   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
Apart from 37's, in the last 10 years I've seen more steam engines at
Waterloo than actual locos. Odd time of the day for a charter.

Kevin
Date:27 Jul 2005 01:19:25 -0700   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
On 27 Jul 2005 01:19:25 -0700, kajr@mwfree.net wrote:


> Apart from 37's, in the last 10 years I've seen more steam engines at
> Waterloo than actual locos. Odd time of the day for a charter.


Boat train from Southampton?


-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589949.html
(37 218 at Lancaster, 21 Jul 2004)
Date:Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:22:43 GMT   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   

> IIRC it's just "Clapham" now that the line to Low Gill has gone...


Except that the station is actually in Wandsworth
Date:27 Jul 2005 08:45:32 -0700   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
The message 
from "Joe"  contains these words:


> > IIRC it's just "Clapham" now that the line to Low Gill has gone...

> Except that the station is actually in Wandsworth


Err, no.  I don't think that there's a "Wandsworth" in that part of
Yorkshire.  

Never assume that everybody knows which station is being talked about.
Waterloo was mentioned, and London Waterloo was assumed, but for no good
reason - there is a station called Waterloo on the Northern Line (of
Merseyrail, naturally!).

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham
Date:Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:19:25 +0100   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
"David Jackson"  wrote


> Waterloo was mentioned, and London Waterloo was assumed, but for no good
> reason - there is a station called Waterloo on the Northern Line (of
> Merseyrail, naturally!).
>

There is a station called Waterloo on the Northern Line (of LUL) which
connects with the National Rail stations called LondonWaterloo and London
Waterloo East.

Peter
Date:Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:31:17 +0000 (UTC)   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
I've 67s at Waterloo several times in the last year with the NR track 
testing train.
Date:Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:49:15 +0100   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:31:17 +0000 (UTC), Peter Masson wrote:


> There is a station called Waterloo on the Northern Line (of LUL) which
> connects with the National Rail stations called London Waterloo and London
> Waterloo East.


Indeed there is, but I was certain that wasn't the one referred to by
the OP. 67's wouldn't fit in the tunnels.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683716.html
(55030 (Class 121) at Oxford, 2 Jun 1985)
Date:Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:23:42 GMT   Author:  

Re: 67 at Waterloo   
The message <dc8gd5$rcj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
from "Peter Masson"  contains these words:


> There is a station called Waterloo on the Northern Line (of LUL) which
> connects with the National Rail stations called LondonWaterloo and London
> Waterloo East.


I know. There's a schematic diagram of the LUL network somewhere on this
computer...I think!  <g>

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham
Date:Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:29:00 +0100   Author: