On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 07:46:49 +0200, Neil Williams
wrote:

It was only last Saturday that I noticed the small blue
priority seating notices above each one.

I think these are less important with side facing seats as all have
the same legroom and are not much different in accessibility. But I
suppose they do set an important expectation in those using them so
should probably be more prominent - unless you use a general "all
seats..." notice, I suppose.

Is there a requirement to have a certain number of priority seats on
trains?

On Jun 3, 2:15*am, Ivor The Engine wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson

wrote:
The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

Before the frontage was built I worked in the Kings Cross area. There
was something special about hearing and smelling the diesel locos as I
walked in front of the station on the way to lunch.

Ivor The Engine wrote on 03 June 2010
10:15:52 ...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

I thought that the temporary look was just the normal quality of 1970s
architecture, but Wikipedia does say it was meant to be temporary. When
first erected the 'temporary' extension was actually an improvement, as
Cubitt's original frontage had already been spoilt by an awning over a
taxi road and a row of shops in front of that. There is a photo from, I
imagine, the 1960s at
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/arch...london/54.html
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
news:ArQNn.64314$9A2.41550@hurricane...
Ivor The Engine wrote on 03 June 2010
10:15:52 ...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

I thought that the temporary look was just the normal quality of 1970s
architecture, but Wikipedia does say it was meant to be temporary. When
first erected the 'temporary' extension was actually an improvement, as
Cubitt's original frontage had already been spoilt by an awning over a
taxi road and a row of shops in front of that. There is a photo from, I
imagine, the 1960s at
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/arch...london/54.html

That frontage and the 1930s shops were demolished when the Victoria Line was
built (late 1960s). BR had proposed a 2-storey concourse building,
projecting at least 40 ft in front of Cubitt's frontage, and incorporating a
subway to what became Kings Cross Thameslink (this was the era when closure
and demolition of St Pancras was contemplated, and MML services, at least
from south of Leicester, would have been diverted to Moorgate). BR couldn't
afford the 2-storey building, which was in any case unacceptable, so the
temporary extension was built. AFAIK it has only had a series of temporary
planning consents.

Peter

On Jun 3, 9:08*am, "Richard J." wrote:
Ivor The Engine wrote on 03 June 2010
10:15:52 ...

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
*wrote:

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

I thought that the temporary look was just the normal quality of 1970s
architecture, but Wikipedia does say it was meant to be temporary. *When
first erected the 'temporary' extension was actually an improvement, as
Cubitt's original frontage had already been spoilt by an awning over a
taxi road and a row of shops in front of that. *There is a photo from, I
imagine, the 1960s athttp://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/london/54.html

Thank you for posting that link Richard. I often used to pass under
that awning on my way to, and from, the corner of Pentonville Rd and
Caledonian Rd. I had forgotten just how scruffy it all was!

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 07:49:33 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:
The wrong type of water ?



A rise in the water table caused by the decline of heavy industry on
Merseyside combined with wear caused by the 50x bogies on the steeply
curved track, for which they are not well designed.

The water has its advantages, though - it causes a natural cooling
effect, making the stations beautifully cool in summer, unlike on
London Underground.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:20:29 +0100, Ivor The Engine
wrote:
Is there a requirement to have a certain number of priority seats on
trains?

I believe so. A side effect of this is that, because the seat pitch
must be widened, full window alignment is harder to achieve.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:40:25 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:
and demolition of St Pancras was contemplated, and MML services, at
least
from south of Leicester, would have been diverted to Moorgate).

Moorgate?! Would that have meant electrification - or just a mini
New Street?

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 17:08:00 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote:

Ivor The Engine wrote on 03 June 2010
10:15:52 ...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

I thought that the temporary look was just the normal quality of 1970s
architecture, but Wikipedia does say it was meant to be temporary. When
first erected the 'temporary' extension was actually an improvement, as
Cubitt's original frontage had already been spoilt by an awning over a
taxi road and a row of shops in front of that. There is a photo from, I
imagine, the 1960s at
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/arch...london/54.html


The photo is from 1966 or later, as the Ford Cortina Mark II on the
right was made from 1966-70.

I'm not sure that the awning "spoilt" the frontage. The new frontage,
when finished, will also have an awning, but it won't protrude as far
from the building line as the one in the photo.

The photo hints at, but doesn't show, the collection of various
ramshackle wooden and tin huts on the triangular piece of land between
the taxi road and Euston Road outside. All these were swept away and
replaced by the clean and functional "temporary" building which will
have lasted nearer 40 years than 30 by the time it disappears.

I think it was designed for 10-15 years.

On Jun 3, 11:24*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 17:40:25 +0100, "Peter Masson"

wrote:
and demolition of St Pancras was contemplated, and MML services, at
least
from south of Leicester, would have been diverted to Moorgate).

Moorgate?! *Would that have meant electrification - or just a mini
New Street?

It would have meant a mini New Street. There were no plans to
electrify the MML in those days. Moreover DMUs and, IIRC, Loco hauled
Diesel trains regularly served Moorgate.

Again, IIRC it was Sir John Betjeman who led the campaign to keep
Saint Pancras.