Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... Does the Central Line lie at an inconvenient distance for Farringdon (too close for a discrete station, too long for an interchange)? The Central Line is nowhere near Farringdon, but it passes within yards of City Thameslink. The platforms at St Pauls run westward from the station entrance, so I am guessing that a direct subterranean passage from the west end of St Pauls platforms to the middle of City Thameslink should be about the same length as the long passage at Leicester Square (the one from the north end of the Northern Line platforms to the east end of the Picc platforms. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Why are there better connections between Thameslink and the deep-level
lines? The most obvious example is a new station on the Central Line where it passes underneath the line, with the possible closure of either St. Paul's or (less likely) Chancery Lane. Does the Central Line lie at an inconvenient distance for Farringdon (too close for a discrete station, too long for an interchange)? A unified station at Elephant & Castle would also be a huge benefit, especially as changing trains is a time-consuming and intimidating process for many. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... Why are there better connections between Thameslink and the deep-level lines? I presume that youe mean why are thet NOT..... because building an extra 'station' on an already constructed line cost one shed load of money, and for what, a slightly shorter walk to a connection? Just look how long it's taken LU to do the bleeding obvious and add an exit at the Euston end of Euston Square (about 80 years) for exactly the same benefit and that costs pennies compared to the cost of a full set of platforms tim The most obvious example is a new station on the Central Line where it passes underneath the line, with the possible closure of either St. Paul's or (less likely) Chancery Lane. Does the Central Line lie at an inconvenient distance for Farringdon (too close for a discrete station, too long for an interchange)? A unified station at Elephant & Castle would also be a huge benefit, especially as changing trains is a time-consuming and intimidating process for many. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Rowland" wrote in message ... I am guessing that a direct subterranean passage from the west end of St Pauls platforms Would probably lead you into some very intresting places, but then we'd have to kill you. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Robin Mayes
writes I am guessing that a direct subterranean passage from the west end of St Pauls platforms Would probably lead you into some very intresting places, but then we'd have to kill you. It would be under the Old Bailey, or were you thinking "telephone exchanges" ? St Pauls station used to be called "Post Office" after the building demolished after the war (it was bombed several times) behind where BT Centre now is. -- Roland Perry |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Out of station NR interchanges: to touch out or not? | London Transport | |||
Why touch in at interchanges? | London Transport | |||
Out of Station TfL interchanges | London Transport | |||
Easy interchanges in London (Waterloo vs St. Pancras International) | London Transport | |||
The best non-interchange interchanges | London Transport |