I travelled on the 17:00 GNER from London to York on Friday.  Tannoy at
Kings Cross was apologising profusely on behalf of Network Rail due to
a lightning stirke at Hitchin.

We were diverted via the slow loop (Welwyn?), which took ages and ages
as there was a long queue of trains.  Luckily I had a First Off Peak
ticket so those of us in First had an at-seat service, but the catering
crew were going to join us at Peterborough to open the
buffet/restaurant.

The train normally runs non-stop to York but we arrived at Peterborough
at 18:55 to pick up what seemed like hundreds of passengers.  Thost
Standard passengers who had sat in the First restaurant were turfed out
to make way for First Class passengers.

Finally arrived into York about 80 mins late.  No ticket check at all
during the journey in First, even from Kings Cross when the Train
Manager was sat in her office.

Was anybody else caught up in the mess on Friday?  I felt for those
poor souls on those awful WAGN trains who were packed in like sardines
during these delays.

Why is it that when GNER comes out so badly when there is chaos on the
line?  Very few announcements and several Standard passengers were in
uproar at the lack of staff presence in Standard.

> Why is it that when GNER comes out so badly when there is chaos on the
> line?  Very few announcements and several Standard passengers were in
> uproar at the lack of staff presence in Standard.


I was told on the day (7pm) that it was a lightning strike at New
Barnet, and I guess you were diverted via Hertford - Welwyn is the
normal way!

Maybe there were other problems further along. In or around Cambridge
there was severe flooding in some villages, so maybe the line around
Hitchin/Letchworth was also affected?

Many Wagn services were cancelled, but with most services being 4-car,
they didn't, or couldn't, couple them together to make 8-car sets that
could have moved many more people. And, presumably stop many trains
being left at the wrong location!

We went via Thameslink to St Albans and got a bus to Hatfield and when
at the station car park, a 4-car train came in that was bursting at the
seams!

What frustrates me is that problems seem so common now. Every
thunderstorm results in a station being hit (do other electrified lines
suffer as bad?) and rain seems to create chaos. Also, some of the 313's
seem to leak badly when it REALLY pours down, as does Kings Cross
(main) station itself! Platforms 9-11 seem pretty good, mind.

Jonathan

In message , at 
07:34:53 on Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Will Schwaeble  
remarked:

>I travelled on the 17:00 GNER from London to York on Friday.  Tannoy at
>Kings Cross was apologising profusely on behalf of Network Rail due to
>a lightning stirke at Hitchin.
>
>We were diverted via the slow loop (Welwyn?),


Which is odd if the problem was at Hitchin.


>which took ages and ages
>as there was a long queue of trains.


Always happens (the long queue that is). It's supposed to be upgraded to 
cope with this sort of diversion.


>Luckily I had a First Off Peak
>ticket so those of us in First had an at-seat service, but the catering
>crew were going to join us at Peterborough to open the
>buffet/restaurant.


So no service KX-PBO? Was a reason given for this? Perhaps the inbound 
catering crew was running late and bailed out at PBO?


>Why is it that when GNER comes out so badly when there is chaos on the
>line?  Very few announcements and several Standard passengers were in
>uproar at the lack of staff presence in Standard.


Despite their ardent fans, GNER doesn't appear to be any better in these 
situations :-(
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 
08:10:51 on Sun, 11 Sep 2005, jonmorris  remarked:

>Also, some of the 313's seem to leak badly when it REALLY pours down,


It's the temporary-looking aluminium plate hopper windows on 317's that 
I've experienced dunking nearby passengers with a bucketful of water.
-- 
Roland Perry

>> Was anybody else caught up in the mess on Friday?  I felt for those
> poor souls on those awful WAGN trains who were packed in like sardines
> during these delays.
>
> Why is it that when GNER comes out so badly when there is chaos on the
> line?  Very few announcements and several Standard passengers were in
> uproar at the lack of staff presence in Standard.
>


As a WAGN commuter I feel quite miffed with your comments about awful WAGN 
trains, Whats so Awful about them? the Class 365's are one of the best 
commuter trains ever built!

So what sort of staff did they expect to see in Standard class on your 
train? a few to each coach perhaps?

Roland Perry wrote:

> It's the temporary-looking aluminium plate hopper windows on 317's that
> I've experienced dunking nearby passengers with a bucketful of water.


Oh definitely a problem on the 317s but the 313 I got on in the last
MAJOR downpoor /seemed/ to be letting in water through the roof!

Jonathan

REDSKINS wrote:

>
> As a WAGN commuter I feel quite miffed with your comments about awful WAGN
> trains, Whats so Awful about them? the Class 365's are one of the best
> commuter trains ever built!
>
> So what sort of staff did they expect to see in Standard class on your
> train? a few to each coach perhaps?


I have to agree with REDSKINS on this one. for a medium distance
commuter train the 365's are excellent. A little more leg room wouldn't
hurt, but it's not hard to get comfortable and they can hammer along at
a good enough pace to feel like you're making good progress.

Will Schwaeble wrote:

> Why is it that when GNER comes out so badly when there is chaos on the
> line?

Perspective. You were on a train that was delayed because of a lightning
strike, was delayed in a queue of trains, made an out-of-course stop to
pick up passengers at Pboro, and you didn't get your ticket checked. You
call this chaos.

To the people who were picked up at Pboro, GNER probably comes across as
a helpful company focused on getting them on their way with less delay
than they might have been fearing. Perspective.

And I wonder why you make a big thing of not having your ticket checked.
When I'm travelling, I don't much care whether they check mine or not.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9638816.html
(43 083 at Wood Green, 28 Jun 1981)

In message <11dsnfcnbwnz$.1dlivoiv39c8v$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 01:10:46 on 
Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>Perspective. You were on a train that was delayed because of a lightning
>strike, was delayed in a queue of trains, made an out-of-course stop to
>pick up passengers at Pboro, and you didn't get your ticket checked. You
>call this chaos.


No, I think he was complaining that despite being 80 minutes late there 
was very little information from the train crew.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> I think he was complaining that despite being 80 minutes late there 
> was very little information from the train crew.


I did register the OP's point that there were few announcements. But on
a train which doesn't stop in many places (hence with few new passengers
to inform arising from such stops) I would not expect too many. It is
not explicitly stated in the original post, but I infer that most of the
problems occurred before Pboro. 

In contrast, waiting at Edinburgh the other day, an announcement was
made about a late running GNER service, running "approximately 42
minutes late". 3-4 minutes later, there was a further announcement. The
train was now approx 40 late. Then approx 41. It seemed like overkill,
but then the clientele at the station is constantly changing.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633026.html
(47 170 on the "East Anglian" at Norwich, 24 Jun 1980)

In message <htvrzzatmps7.1gghytwz3x65z$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 10:39:48 on 
Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>> I think he was complaining that despite being 80 minutes late there
>> was very little information from the train crew.
>
>I did register the OP's point that there were few announcements. But on
>a train which doesn't stop in many places (hence with few new passengers
>to inform arising from such stops) I would not expect too many. It is
>not explicitly stated in the original post, but I infer that most of the
>problems occurred before Pboro.


Yes, I expect most of the problems were before Peterborough, but the 
train crew will have known that a diversion on the loop was *bound* to 
cause at least a half hour delay, and that they'd never catch it up. 
Some of the passengers will have had arrangements to make, if they were 
over an hour late. I sometimes wonder if train crews think their 
passengers (and people picking them up at stations etc) have all the 
time in the world.

Having parked the other day at a station with "20 minute" waiting, for a 
train that was almost 20 minutes late, I think they should change that 
to "20 minutes + <delta>" where <delta> is however late the train you 
are meeting is.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> Yes, I expect most of the problems were before Peterborough, but the 
> train crew will have known that a diversion on the loop was *bound* to 
> cause at least a half hour delay, and that they'd never catch it up. 
> Some of the passengers will have had arrangements to make, if they were 
> over an hour late. I sometimes wonder if train crews think their 
> passengers (and people picking them up at stations etc) have all the 
> time in the world.

You seem to be making different assumptions about the original posting
from me. I don't see anything that said information was lacking. Indeed,
the OP seems to have been rather well informed about what was going on. 

Anyone being met at York will (unless completely in the dark about
geography) have known by Pboro that they would be at least an hour late,
and could have phoned ahead. Naturally, folk might value a good estimate
of the arrival time at their destination, but when the service is so
badly disrupted, inaccurate guesses could easily cause more frustration
overall, both for those on the train and waiting to meet others off it.

In message <1c9b0omqrr006.1eabw2ubjqd04$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 12:31:17 on 
Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>> Yes, I expect most of the problems were before Peterborough, but the
>> train crew will have known that a diversion on the loop was *bound* to
>> cause at least a half hour delay, and that they'd never catch it up.
>> Some of the passengers will have had arrangements to make, if they were
>> over an hour late. I sometimes wonder if train crews think their
>> passengers (and people picking them up at stations etc) have all the
>> time in the world.
>You seem to be making different assumptions about the original posting
>from me. I don't see anything that said information was lacking.


"Very few announcements" was what he said.


>Indeed, the OP seems to have been rather well informed about what was 
>going on.
>
>Anyone being met at York will (unless completely in the dark about
>geography) have known by Pboro that they would be at least an hour late,
>and could have phoned ahead. Naturally, folk might value a good estimate
>of the arrival time at their destination, but when the service is so
>badly disrupted, inaccurate guesses could easily cause more frustration
>overall, both for those on the train and waiting to meet others off it.


He says it took them 1 hr 55 mins to get to Peterborough, which 
indicates that most (if not all) of the 80 minutes was lost by then. But 
why would the passengers instinctively know this? Surveys show that 
people on trains like this make very few journeys on average.

Perhaps one of the "very few" announcements was "Ladies and Gents as we 
are now over an hour late having got as far as our unscheduled stop at 
Peterborough, and have no prospect of catching up even if everything 
from here on runs 100% properly, please expect to be at least an hour 
late at your final destination". But I've never heard anything like that 
on any similarly late trip I've been on.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote

>
> Perhaps one of the "very few" announcements was "Ladies and Gents as we
> are now over an hour late having got as far as our unscheduled stop at
> Peterborough, and have no prospect of catching up even if everything
> from here on runs 100% properly, please expect to be at least an hour
> late at your final destination". But I've never heard anything like that
> on any similarly late trip I've been on.


GFF once tried to persuade guards to explain delays to passengers. Next
delayed train he was on, he got the guard to go througfh the front half,
while GFF did the rear. Last compartment was full of enginemen travelling
home on the cushions. GFF flung back the sliding door: 'Gentlemen, the
British transport Commission regret to announce that the engine has had a
hot axle box. It has had to be changed. We expect to be 28 minutes late at
Kings Cross'.

The senior driver put on a frog-like expression and said 'Guv'nor, what is a
hot axle box?'

Peter

Well friday was fun!

Roland Perry wrote:

> Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>>You seem to be making different assumptions about the original posting
>>from me. I don't see anything that said information was lacking.
> "Very few announcements" was what he said.

That's about how often things were said, not their information content.


>>Anyone being met at York will (unless completely in the dark about
>>geography) have known by Pboro that they would be at least an hour late,
> He says it took them 1 hr 55 mins to get to Peterborough, which 
> indicates that most (if not all) of the 80 minutes was lost by then. But 
> why would the passengers instinctively know this?

The OP says he was on the 17:00, and that it called at PB at 18:55.
Since that train is due into York at 18:47, I don't believe anyone would
have been unaware that they would be late at York. And I would expect
anyone who thought about it to realise that the trip would take some
time - oh, finger in the air, about an hour, at least. Why do you think
such reasoning is beyond even infrequent travellers?

Roland Perry wrote:

> Perhaps one of the "very few" announcements was "Ladies and Gents as we 
> are now over an hour late having got as far as our unscheduled stop at 
> Peterborough, and have no prospect of catching up even if everything 
> from here on runs 100% properly, please expect to be at least an hour 
> late at your final destination". But I've never heard anything like that 
> on any similarly late trip I've been on.


I meant to reply to this as well. On a recent late running Pendolino,
the announcement was pretty much: "we apologise for the late running of
this train, which was due to ... As a result, we are now running nn
minutes late, and we should make up some of this. We expect to be
arriving at XXX at 99:99 and ..." This last bit of info about projected
arrivals was also included in the LED displays at the coach ends. IIRC,
the announcement was made after leaving Rugby, Stafford and Crewe. I got
off at Chester. 

That's three times in an hour and a half. Few. But enough.

In message <kofvf29xoj5i.m2uy5jaeaksb$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 01:21:30 on 
Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>> Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>>>You seem to be making different assumptions about the original posting
>>>from me. I don't see anything that said information was lacking.
>> "Very few announcements" was what he said.
>That's about how often things were said, not their information content.


I think that if the content had been satisfactory, he wouldn't have been 
making the complaint.


>>>Anyone being met at York will (unless completely in the dark about
>>>geography) have known by Pboro that they would be at least an hour late,
>> He says it took them 1 hr 55 mins to get to Peterborough, which
>> indicates that most (if not all) of the 80 minutes was lost by then. But
>> why would the passengers instinctively know this?
>The OP says he was on the 17:00, and that it called at PB at 18:55.
>Since that train is due into York at 18:47, I don't believe anyone would
>have been unaware that they would be late at York. And I would expect
>anyone who thought about it to realise that the trip would take some
>time - oh, finger in the air, about an hour, at least. Why do you think
>such reasoning is beyond even infrequent travellers?


Because I have spoken to infrequent travellers and by and large they 
don't carry an atlas in their head, and have no idea how far it might be 
from Peterborough to York (they weren't expecting to stop there, 
either). I've even met people off a train who were stopped (as they 
often do) for ten minutes a hundred yards outside Nottingham station, 
and they had no idea where they were (and received no announcement).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <aknd656eu6we$.1u07eip507ahp.dlg@40tude.net>, at 02:21:05 on 
Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>On a recent late running Pendolino,
>the announcement was pretty much: "we apologise for the late running of
>this train, which was due to ... As a result, we are now running nn
>minutes late, and we should make up some of this. We expect to be
>arriving at XXX at 99:99 and ..." This last bit of info about projected
>arrivals was also included in the LED displays at the coach ends. IIRC,
>the announcement was made after leaving Rugby, Stafford and Crewe. I got
>off at Chester.


Glad to hear it, but I've never experienced one like that myself.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> I have spoken to infrequent travellers and by and large they 
> don't carry an atlas in their head

I had already excluded such people from my comments.


> I've even met people off a train who were stopped (as they 
> often do) for ten minutes a hundred yards outside Nottingham station, 
> and they had no idea where they were (and received no announcement).

This kind of thing mystifies me, and I do understand your frustration. I
was meeting SWMBO at Crewe from the south once, and naughtily parked at
the appropriate time just outside the entrance. She was late, but I got
no phone call. When eventually she did roll in, it went like this: 
She: "I didn't ring because I didn't know where I was". Me: "Maybe not,
but you knew that the time you should have been here had come and gone."
She: "And anyway, you told me that mobile phones don't work on Virgin
trains." Me: "well it was working well enough when you rang after
leaving New St to say you were on time." As I say, totally mystifying.

In message <1fv1pc7wpe7kh$.1ryzb7y6f6js$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 08:25:06 on
Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>> I have spoken to infrequent travellers and by and large they
>> don't carry an atlas in their head
>I had already excluded such people from my comments.


err, no you hadn't:

        In message <kofvf29xoj5i.m2uy5jaeaksb$.dlg@40tude.net>, at
        01:21:30 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley 
        remarked:

        >Why do you think such reasoning is beyond even infrequent
        >travellers?


>> I've even met people off a train who were stopped (as they
>> often do) for ten minutes a hundred yards outside Nottingham station,
>> and they had no idea where they were (and received no announcement).

>This kind of thing mystifies me, and I do understand your frustration.


I was approaching this from the point of view that even when almost at
the destination, infrequent travellers won't recognise the surroundings
unless there are *extremely* well known landmarks visible (which is rare
in the wastelands around railways in most cities). The railways
acknowledge this, to some extent, by putting up large signs like "Kings
Cross One Mile" beside the track.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:


> In message <1fv1pc7wpe7kh$.1ryzb7y6f6js$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 08:25:06 on
> Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:
>>Roland Perry wrote:
>>> I have spoken to infrequent travellers and by and large they
>>> don't carry an atlas in their head
>>I had already excluded such people from my comments.
> err, no you hadn't:
>         In message <kofvf29xoj5i.m2uy5jaeaksb$.dlg@40tude.net>, at
>         01:21:30 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley 
>         remarked:
>         >Why do you think such reasoning is beyond even infrequent
>         >travellers?


It's a bit early for panto. I had in fact already written: "Anyone ...
will (unless completely in the dark about geography) have known ..." And
both you and I quoted those words in the previous exchange.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632900.html
(33 202 at Wimbledon Depot, 6 May 1991)

In message <ev32f4nmfe2g$.13g2m16xmv3ar$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 08:52:26 on 
Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>>>> I have spoken to infrequent travellers and by and large they
>>>> don't carry an atlas in their head
>>>I had already excluded such people from my comments.
>> err, no you hadn't:
>>         In message <kofvf29xoj5i.m2uy5jaeaksb$.dlg@40tude.net>, at
>>         01:21:30 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley 
>>         remarked:
>>         >Why do you think such reasoning is beyond even infrequent
>>         >travellers?
>
>It's a bit early for panto. I had in fact already written: "Anyone ...
>will (unless completely in the dark about geography) have known ..." And
>both you and I quoted those words in the previous exchange.


You said "anyone will ... have known" that Peterborough is a long way 
from York. I'm saying that lots of people will have *no idea* how far it 
is. General grasp of geography is nothing like what you appear to be 
assuming.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> I'm saying that lots of people will have *no idea* how far it is.

I wouldn't be arguing if this conversation were about getting from Orton
Longueville to Nether Poppleton. But it's about Peterborough and York.
I'd respectfully submit that anyone who really doesn't have any clue at
all about the general geographical relationship between such significant
places is probably better off not being allowed to travel by train
unaccompanied.


> General grasp of geography is nothing like what you appear to be
> assuming.

There's nothing like an unscientific experiment, is there? I just asked
SWMBO (given that <a> you already have a clue as to how she thinks and
<b> we live in Cheshire) how long it would be from PB to Y by train. She
said, "It's no good asking *me*. I don't know anything about geography
and that." After 10-15 secs of umms and ahhs, she said, "About an hour,
hour and a half, I guess. Go on, tell me." So I told her she was right.

In message <1wegucuvxmcyq$.16f6vski1pcwn$.dlg@40tude.net>, at 10:09:50 
on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley  remarked:

>> I'm saying that lots of people will have *no idea* how far it is.

>I wouldn't be arguing if this conversation were about getting from Orton
>Longueville to Nether Poppleton. But it's about Peterborough and York.
>I'd respectfully submit that anyone who really doesn't have any clue at
>all about the general geographical relationship between such significant
>places is probably better off not being allowed to travel by train
>unaccompanied.


Peterborough *will* be pleased to hear it's a significant place; 
although only really from a railway point of view!
-- 
Roland Perry

In article <j9$zByPXapJDFAYf@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk>, Roland 
Perry  writes

>You said "anyone will ... have known" that Peterborough is a long way 
>from York. I'm saying that lots of people will have *no idea* how far 
>it is. General grasp of geography is nothing like what you appear to be 
>assuming.


I've heard of someone working in the Newcastle office of a company (some 
years ago) that always got sent to meetings in Peterborough because - 
head office in London told him - "it's up north, like you are".

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather                       | Home: 
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work)             | Web:  <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937                    | Work: 
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , at 08:52:09 on Thu, 15 
Sep 2005, Clive D. W. Feather  remarked:

>I've heard of someone working in the Newcastle office of a company 
>(some years ago) that always got sent to meetings in Peterborough 
>because - head office in London told him - "it's up north, like you are".


Well, it *is* north of Wolverhampton... and as close to Nottingham as 
Cambridge (about an hour either way). Nevertheless it does manage to 
"feel" like it's further south than it really is.
-- 
Roland Perry

exjims@aol.com wrote:


> How many people can pinpoint Watford Gap?


Pinpoint? Nobody. The Watford Gap Services sits in it, of course, but
the gap itself extends through the hills for some distance. Since the
Grand Union Canal needs to follow level ground, one could say that the
canal marks the gap from, say the flight of 7 locks to the north of the
services down as far as Long Buckby Wharf. In this section, the GUC, the
A5, the M1 and the WCML all keep rather close company.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589935.html
(08 610 at Tyseley, 4 Oct 1987)

Neil Williams wrote:


> one of my colleagues recently, quite seriously, didn't know where
> Birmingham was


Did she know where she was?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683690.html
(59611 (Class 116) at Birmingham Moor Street, 10 Jun 1985)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:46:42 GMT, Chris Tolley 
wrote:


>Did she know where she was?


Milton Keynes, and yes.  The Watford Gap was clearly the
differentiator there.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message
news:432b434c.839997@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:46:42 GMT, Chris Tolley 
> wrote:
>
> >Did she know where she was?
>
> Milton Keynes, and yes.  The Watford Gap was clearly the
> differentiator there.


Am I right in thinking that the expression was originally "North of Watford"
(meaning Hertfordshire), and that it is only more recently that the
(corrupt?) version "North of the Watford Gap" (Northamptonshire) has become
popular?

"John Salmon"  wrote:


>Am I right in thinking that the expression was originally "North of Watford"
>(meaning Hertfordshire), and that it is only more recently that the
>(corrupt?) version "North of the Watford Gap" (Northamptonshire) has become
>popular?



No, it was originally the other way round.  I think the phrase was
coined in the 1970s/80s by a northern playwright (Alan Bennett?) but
it was corrupted by people from southern England who confused Watford
Gap with Watford.  

Watford Gap *is* near Watford, Northamptonshire, but not near the
Watford (Hertfordshire) they were thinking of.

Neil Williams wrote:


> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:46:42 GMT, Chris Tolley 
> 
>>Did she know where she was?
> 
> Milton Keynes, and yes.  The Watford Gap was clearly the
> differentiator there.


She is Jade Goody* AICMFP.

* or something like that.
-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683831.html
(158 775 at Manchester Victoria, 13 Oct 2000)

Chris Tolley wrote:

> Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
> 
> 
>>I've heard of someone working in the Newcastle office of a company (some 
>>years ago) that always got sent to meetings in Peterborough because - 
>>head office in London told him - "it's up north, like you are".
> 


When I worked from our office in Leeds, we regulaly got sent to 
Grangemouth because "that's near you".

Mind you, having also been sent to Portsmouth on a regular basis, I got 
the impression that anything outside the M25 was regarded as "up north"

The message 
from exjims@aol.com contains these words:


> How many people can pinpoint Watford Gap?


S'easy!  It's at Watford, which everybody knows is where the WCML and
the M1 are close together, and the car-drivers in the jam wish they'd
let the train take the strain.  Next station norhtbound: Rugby... 

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham

On 16 Sep 2005 06:09:03 -0700, exjims@aol.com wrote:


>How many people can pinpoint Watford Gap?


Anyone who was paying attention while driving down the M1?

Perhaps more seriously, one of my colleagues recently, quite
seriously, didn't know where Birmingham was[1], and made some comment
about it all being "the same up North" or some similar rubbish.

[1] She asked where Telford was, and my answer was "between Birmingham
and Shrewsbury", hoping she might know at least one of them!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.