Here's the planning application:

http://idocs.westminster.gov.uk:8080...r=09/09265/LBC

There's a new concourse above the platforms with three sets of stairs
and a lift. North of the concourse is a new ticket hall and entrance
facing the canal, and running over the roof of the ticket hall is a
new taxi ramp connecting Bishop's Bridge Road to the taxi rank to be
built north of the main station's fourth span.

(there is, strangely enough, an existing abandoned taxi ramp on
roughly the same alignment, although useless since Bishop's Bridge was
replaced a few years ago)

Jump to the diagram on page 31 of the Design Statement for a good 3D
diagram of the whole scheme, and there are some good plans and cross
sections earlier on.

U

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
Here's the planning application:

http://idocs.westminster.gov.uk:8080...r=09/09265/LBC

There's a new concourse above the platforms with three sets of stairs
and a lift. North of the concourse is a new ticket hall and entrance
facing the canal, and running over the roof of the ticket hall is a
new taxi ramp connecting Bishop's Bridge Road to the taxi rank to be
built north of the main station's fourth span.

(there is, strangely enough, an existing abandoned taxi ramp on
roughly the same alignment, although useless since Bishop's Bridge was
replaced a few years ago)

Jump to the diagram on page 31 of the Design Statement for a good 3D
diagram of the whole scheme, and there are some good plans and cross
sections earlier on.

Useful info thanks, but is my computer having difficulties, or does that
'design statement' pdf use a special 'almost unreadable' font?

Paul S

"Paul Scott" wrote:

Useful info thanks, but is my computer having difficulties, or does that
'design statement' pdf use a special 'almost unreadable' font?

It's not just you. Zooming doesn't help either.

Robert Neville wrote on 23 December 2009 20:36:26 ...
"Paul Scott" wrote:

Useful info thanks, but is my computer having difficulties, or does that
'design statement' pdf use a special 'almost unreadable' font?

It's not just you. Zooming doesn't help either.

They appear to have produced the PDF by pasting images from a low-res
scan of the original document. Hopeless.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Dec 23, 4:43*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
Here's the planning application:

http://idocs.westminster.gov.uk:8080...cs.do?appNumbe...
....
Jump to the diagram on page 31 of the Design Statement for a good 3D
diagram of the whole scheme, and there are some good plans and cross
sections earlier on.

Thanks for posting this. I did a search for other planning
applications by Crossrail, and there's a related one with reference
09/09263/XR7PS which has a similar Design and Access Statement with
the same 3D diagram on page 31. But this time it's a proper electronic
copy rather than a poor quality scan:
http://idocs.westminster.gov.uk:8080...TOKEN=14577946

In the planning application you posted, reference 09/09265/LBC, I'm
intrigued by Photo-1753612 of the disused stables on the Triangle Site
- does anyone know more about the history of these? AFAICS Crossrail's
applications make little reference to these disused stables, perhaps
because demolition consent had already been given as part of a
previous development scheme.

Dominic

In message
,
Dominic writes

In the planning application you posted, reference 09/09265/LBC, I'm
intrigued by Photo-1753612 of the disused stables on the Triangle Site
- does anyone know more about the history of these?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddtmmm/3875180482/

Built 1877-8 as a two-storey stable block for GWR horses on delivery
services to and from Paddington. Much extended (including adding a 3rd
storey) and housing 665 horses by 1909 but disused by the 1940s. Some of
it subsequently used as a drawing office by BR Chief Engineer's
department and the rest by St Mary's Hospital, who eventually purchased
the block (naming it the Mint Wing) in 1968 and added a totally
inappropriate facade in 1960s' utility style. St Mary's have had various
plans to either modernise, rebuild or abandon it. The block is Grade II
listed, although it has been so hacked around that I can't really see
why.
--
Paul Terry

On 24 Dec, 07:49, Paul Terry wrote:
In message
,
Dominic writes

In the planning application you posted, reference 09/09265/LBC, I'm
intrigued by Photo-1753612 of the disused stables on the Triangle Site
- does anyone know more about the history of these?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddtmmm/3875180482/

Built 1877-8 as a two-storey stable block for GWR horses on delivery
services to and from Paddington. Much extended (including adding a 3rd
storey) and housing 665 horses by 1909 but disused by the 1940s. Some of
it subsequently used as a drawing office by BR Chief Engineer's
department and the rest by St Mary's Hospital, who eventually purchased
the block (naming it the Mint Wing) in 1968 and added a totally
inappropriate facade in 1960s' utility style. St Mary's have had various
plans to either modernise, rebuild or abandon it. The block is Grade II
listed, although it has been so hacked around that I can't really see
why.
--
Paul Terry

Thanks for the stables info - I'll have a walk and take a look at it.

Something I don't quite understand from the planning applications is
how will pedestrians get into Paddington Station from Bishop's Bridge
Road? If one alighted from a bus at the stops on Bishop's Bridge Road,
what route would one take to get into the new station? I hope the
shortest route won't involve walking down the taxi ramp, because I
can't see any footway on it!

Dominic

On 24 Dec, 10:40, Dominic wrote:
I hope the
shortest route won't involve walking down the taxi ramp, because I
can't see any footway on it!

There's a pavement on the south side of the taxi ramp. See the diagram
on the page numbered 17 (21 in the PDF).

U

In article
,
(Mr Thant) wrote:

On 24 Dec, 10:40, Dominic wrote:
I hope the
shortest route won't involve walking down the taxi ramp, because I
can't see any footway on it!

There's a pavement on the south side of the taxi ramp. See the diagram
on the page numbered 17 (21 in the PDF).

What is all this going to do to make the H&C station any less useless for
interchanging between the main line and Underground at Paddington, then?
Nothing as far as I can see. One inadequate footbridge and narrow
staircase to the H&C platforms as now?

--
Colin Rosenstiel