• Tube anniversary: 100 years of the Hampstead railway to Edgware (London Rail)
• TfL, DfT ‘in discussions’ over new Crossrail 2 safeguarding (Building)
• How Chiltern Railways built a new rail chord & station at Bicester Village On time & On Budget (Freewheeling)
• Mind the Gap’ delves into history behind the Overground Suffragette line: Podcast (TfL)
• Walking or cycling to school more likely in ULEZ, study suggests (BBC)
• London businesses urged to swap vans for increasingly popular cargo bikes (Standard)
• The Spaghetti Bowl of Railways in the Rhine-Ruhr: Video (RM Transit)
• Why Germany faces major challenges for its trains (Mediarail)
- Industry News – updated every business day
- Webinars and Online Conferences
That London Rail article reads like it has been written by AI.
@Chris. I’ve tried using AI for my articles but it doesn’t work. Just a couple have Quilbot introductions because I didn’t think the flow/intonation/emphasis was right. This one you refer to (Edgware Extension 100th Anniversary) doesn’t have AI anywhere, no Quilbot nor Grammarly even, is used. It took hours and hours and hours to write and was written over a number of months from May to August. And no, I can’t even use speech based technology to write articles (unlike some who deliver blog stuff daily) so I have to depend on typing entirely.
AI would have never written anything in the level of detail that I have done. Maybe this is a case of it being like others, when the subject of the English is brought up (either in comments on the site or by way of rail forums) an insinuation there’s something wrong with me?
The Bicester Chord ( & station ) article is an object lesson.
Will anyone take any notice, I wonder?
Cargo Bikes
I’m not sure any “urging” is needed, certainly given the number & variety of electric-cargo-bikes in my part of NE London!
@Chris – About LRB: This site is purely a hobby blog created by a deaf disabled autistic person.
The article contains spelling and syntax errors, unlike AI.
Yes it’s a random trawl of gleaned facts from the net but there are items I had forgotten about.
Rather than demean write a better one?
Whatever, it’s certainly clumsy, e.g. “It was the first tube line to have more than one route (etc etc) . Hence it was the first tube line to have more than one route”. Not wrong, not ungrammatical, no odd syntax, just … clumsy.
@Alek
I take issue with your statement that Rog’s linked article is “a random trawl of gleaned facts from the net”.
First of all, Rog does deep research on his posts, and often finds information most other authors miss. I’ve been following his blogs for years. He takes a different path in his research, finding events long forgotten, like his post The Unknown Hammersmith & City Construction Calamity for LR a few months back. His articles are not a random trawl of facts.
Furthermore, most of us transport writers use the internet extensively to research articles – it’s opened up books, blogs, histories that were previously the province of a limited set of people. There is no shame in using the web for research. Rog also visits sites he writes about, taking photos and informing himself of the context of his subject.
People on the spectrum often have different perspectives – I for one have realised I am slightly so affected. To me it is a blessing, it is part of who I am. At LR we try to bring in different perspectives and ideas, if they be well researched and argued. The level or standard of English used is of secondary importance.
@Alek.
I don’t think anyone will find anything on the net (or even in any books on the tube) about the fact the Edgware extension’s bridges were uniquely built by one of the country’s most well known ironworks – or the fact the original company (Walkers) for the bridges had folded and the UERL had to quickly find another contractor (Charles Brand) who then, because they were too busy with the Morden extension, sub contracted the work out and that is how those bridges got built.
Or even about how the plaques at Golders Green have been ‘misplaced’ (eg they are on the wrong side of the canopy pillars because they don’t fit) – not that it matters really as it gives a touch of uniqueness to the Edgware extension work.
Certainly no-one’s spent hours riding tube trains or visiting side roads to try and spot every single milepost or gradient post that remains and which could be seen, and then write about these!
No-one’s not even written about the original route for the Edgware extension which was meant to go to the east – almost practically via Temple Fortune – but because of rapid development the UERL had to find a new route to the west via Brent.
Its like that article I wrote some years ago on the 1933 Stanmore extension. There was so much detail not written about before yet I was accused of having made so much of it up – yet each and every detail was from the net, legal journals and the British library.
This blog is wonderful, and full of well-researched detail that you simply can’t find in other places. To criticise it purely for the style of English used is downright rude, in my opinion. People write in many different ways, and as a professional writer of formal documentation I know I must welcome all input, regardless of style, or I won’t get offered valuable information.
If you look at other historical, informative blogs, you will find typos, spelling and grammar mistakes – nobody can proof-read their own work perfectly, including me. Look beyond the style to the content. If we insult people like Rog by criticising their style, we’ll lose their work, and then we’ll all be poorer.
OK, I looked at the site and couldn’t find any information about Rog, so I guess that was my fault for not looking hard enough. Thanks to everyone who provided the background.
I thought it was a great article for highlighting such rich and random historical remnants that most people don’t give a second thought to. I hope those at the London Transport Museum will have seen this.
The one thing I will query, however, is the commentary on the staircase at Hendon, where the stainless steel supports and brackets look quite new. At any rate, thank you for drawing attention to the wonderful LondonRail blog.