Transport Tycoon Forums

Kevo00 wrote:And if we think of the point of transport, in that things are often built close to transport for a reason, by demolishing the BNP Paribas building we could be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Alan doesn't like the building cause it has the word "BNP" in it. We're trying to think too logically here.

Everytime I see "BNP" I always think of the Swedish word "Bruttonationalprodukt", gross national product, which is abbreviated BNP.

Then I think of Nick Griffin.

GurraJG wrote:Everytime I see "BNP" I always think of the Swedish word "Bruttonationalprodukt", gross national product, which is abbreviated BNP.

Then I think of Nick Griffin.

Then I think of Family Guy.

Alan Fry wrote:You know what BNP Paribas shouls sue the British National Party over this

What?

Alan Fry wrote:

Dave W wrote:

Alan Fry wrote:You know what BNP Paribas shouls sue the British National Party over this

What?

I am suggest BNP Paribas should sue British National Party over the use of the "BNP" name

Becuase it is BNP Paribas that owns the "BNP" trademark

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-os/t-f ... 0794219001

Why? Surely it is legally known as the British National Party, it just happens to be abbreviated to BNP. I'm sure if there were a conflict over the use of BNP, it would have occured already..

Alan Fry wrote:

Griff wrote:Why? Surely it is legally known as the British National Party, it just happens to be abbreviated to BNP. I'm sure if there were a conflict over the use of BNP, it would have occured already..

I think that mainly because apart from investment banking, they don't have much of a operation here. Also the British National Party use the term "BNP" thoughout their branding (it was used on their logo until recently). Plus it damages the reputation of the bank in the UK

I think that anyone with their head screwed on can tell the difference between the British National Party and the Banque National de Paris.

Alan Fry wrote:

Griff wrote:Why? Surely it is legally known as the British National Party, it just happens to be abbreviated to BNP. I'm sure if there were a conflict over the use of BNP, it would have occured already..

I think that mainly because apart from investment banking, they don't have much of a operation here. Also the British National Party use the term "BNP" thoughout their branding (it was used on their logo until recently). Plus it damages the reputation of the bank in the UK

London is BNP Paribas's 2nd Global HQ. This is the largest bank and company in the whole. source I'm not debating what is going on in your mind, but to me, the largest bank in the world's 2nd HQ is a big operation. I'm sure that if they felt the British National Party's use of BNP was damaging to them in any way, they would have wiped the toilet floor with them ages ago.

Can you source any information which suggests the reputation of BNP Paribas is being damaged in the UK by the British National Party? After all, hopefully by now you are not still making unfounded statements.

Alan Fry wrote:

Griff wrote:London is BNP Paribas's 2nd Global HQ. This is the largest bank and company in the whole. source I'm not debating what is going on in your mind, but to me, the largest bank in the world's 2nd HQ is a big operation. I'm sure that if they felt the British National Party's use of BNP was damaging to them in any way, they would have wiped the toilet floor with them ages ago.

Can you source any information which suggests the reputation of BNP Paribas is being damaged in the UK by the British National Party? After all, hopefully by now you are not still making unfounded statements.

Or, they just don't care about a idiotic party like them

How do you know that London is BNP Paribas's 2nd Global HQ

I did read on The Times (interviewing their CEO) saying that if they opened branches in the UK, the "BNP" would be a issue

First you say they don't care about an idiotic party like them, and then you contradict yourself by saying the BNP Paribas's CEO thought the name BNP would cause problems. So which one is it? Can you provide a source/link for this The Times interview please.

And I know that London is BNP Paribas's 2nd Global HQ because their own website tell us so. Unlike you, I provide sources: source but to quote directly;

"BNP Paribas has had a presence in the UK for 130 years and London is the bank's second global headquarters"

Griff wrote:And I know that London is BNP Paribas's 2nd Global HQ because their own website tell us so. Unlike you, I provide sources: source but to quote directly;

"BNP Paribas has had a presence in the UK for 130 years and London is the bank's second global headquarters"

Now watch Alan try to argue against this.

Having BNP in their name might damage some custom from complete morons if they started opening high street branches, but I imagine that most people who saw a bank called BNP Paribas wouldn't immediately think that the British National Party had diversified from politics into banking.

And since I don't really see BNP Paribas opening high street banks in Britain in the near future (I'm sure they've got other concerns at the moment), it isn't a problem at all. Unless investment banker people don't know what the largest bank in the world is.

1. They don't operate bank branches.

2. Therefore they do care.

3. If they did operate bank branches their CEO thinks that the BNP could be a problem.

4. PROFIT??

I use to have a BNP branded fuel card, so they do have quite public operations in the UK.

Indeed, sorry to put out your flame Griff et al, but I agree with Alan that the BNP name probably does cause problems. They have a significant enough public presence, sponsoring Wimbledon anyway. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the people they deal with probably have enough knowledge to know the difference between the two.

ANYWAY, the point I was making was that Alan's justifies his points completely irrelevantly. Which was demonstrated very well.

What were we talking about again? Ohyeah, Alan wanting to knock down a the BNP building so he can run 4tph to Watford Met, despite there being a perfectly good new station opening just down the road. Which would mean ridiculously large overcapacity all the way up the Met line.

Oddly today Trains have been running Chesham/Amersham to Watford met every 15 mins due to the closer of the met!

Any reason they couldn't make a 3rd platform at Croxley?

Then you could have a nice little track for running preserved 3rd rail electric trains up and down. Saving Watford Met from closer by taking money from the National Lottery as a charitable project!

Also what would demolishing BNP do apart from extending platforms 5 and 6; you wouldn't be able to get in any new ones!

In my opinion there is no legal case to answer - the BNP name has been in use long enough by both parties to not constitute trademark infringement. Recently Little Chef were told they could continue to use the 'Olympic Breakfast' name because it had been in use for many years and could not be held to infringe the trademark of the Olympics.

Bollocks to that, the Bacardi Martini building is just round the corner!

Alan Fry wrote:There will not be any extra services on the Met line since the Amersham + Chesham servcies will move to the London to Aylesbury Line

Your so called 'London to Aylesbury' line doesn't exist. It is the Metropolitan line, apart from north of Amersham and east of Harrow-on-the-Hill, ie. if you moved the Amersham and Chesham services to Chiltern, they would still have to share track with the Metropolitan line trains between Harrow-on-the-Hill and the junction for Watford.

Alan Fry wrote:If that "new station" is Ascot Road, I have asked if it is a good replacement for Watford Tube and it was not the case, it has been stated here that some residents would diagree if Watford Tube shut down. My plan is to keep both open while not reducing services to other lines

There will not be any extra services on the Met line since the Amersham + Chesham servcies will move to the London to Aylesbury Line

At the very most, run a shuttle bus or something. Or a Parry People Mover in LU livery! No need to justify 4tph to keep a single tube line station open. Mill Hill East only gets a train every 30 minutes!!

Alan Fry wrote:

Class 165 wrote:Your so called 'London to Aylesbury' line doesn't exist. It is the Metropolitan line, apart from north of Amersham and east of Harrow-on-the-Hill, ie. if you moved the Amersham and Chesham services to Chiltern, they would still have to share track with the Metropolitan line trains between Harrow-on-the-Hill and the junction for Watford.

Is it not the case that there are 4 tracks in some areas of the line (2 for Chilterns and 2 for the Met)

In some areas yes. But there are sections where the two services share tracks (which is why Chiltern's 172s are barred from the route: the 'voyager' style lightweight bogies can't be fitted with tripcocks which are a requirement for running on the LU lines.). these sections also restrict the capacity of both lines as they're a bottleneck.

Alan Fry wrote:

Class 165 wrote:Your so called 'London to Aylesbury' line doesn't exist. It is the Metropolitan line, apart from north of Amersham and east of Harrow-on-the-Hill, ie. if you moved the Amersham and Chesham services to Chiltern, they would still have to share track with the Metropolitan line trains between Harrow-on-the-Hill and the junction for Watford.

Is it not the case that there are 4 tracks in some areas of the line (2 for Chilterns and 2 for the Met)

I explained that. Between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Baker Street/Marylebone, Chiltern have separate tracks to the Metropolitan, however between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Amersham the Chiltern trains share the same track with the Metropolitan line trains. Thus this would be a bottle neck and you wouldn't be able to shove another 4 tph up this section to Watford.