On Feb 25, 8:09*am, lonelytraveller
wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:00*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:



On 24/02/2012 12:52, 77002 wrote:

On Feb 24, 12:31 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000

Graeme *wrote:
Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. *But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations.

Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
and the other was built?

B2003

Define "Station". *In my mind Waterloo is one station. *I catch
trains, from platforms, there. *However, Network Rail and TfL define
it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
Waterloo Underground.

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Historically there could be said to be up to 6 different stations the

Waterloo LSWR
Waterloo SER
Waterloo & City Line
Bakerloo Line
Northern Line
Jubilee Line
Waterloo International

Not true. Firstly, your list of stations for which there were "up to
6" contains 7 stations. Secondly, you failed to include the Necropolis
Station, which increases the number of stations.-

Was not the Windsor side once considered separate? I know that is now
the empty International Station. I am surprised that the Bakerloo and
Northern Line platforms are considered two stations. They are well
integrated. I believe Victoria is, or has been, considered three
stations. To me if it has platforms, and a name, it is a Station.
Although Kings Cross, Saint Pancras, and Kings Cross/Saint Pancras
(TfL) always caused me some mental somersaults.

On 25/02/2012 08:09, lonelytraveller wrote:
On Feb 24, 1:00 pm, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 12:52, 77002 wrote:









On Feb 24, 12:31 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000

Graeme wrote:
Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations.

Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
and the other was built?

B2003

Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
Waterloo Underground.

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Historically there could be said to be up to 6 different stations the

Waterloo LSWR
Waterloo SER
Waterloo& City Line
Bakerloo Line
Northern Line
Jubilee Line
Waterloo International

Not true. Firstly, your list of stations for which there were "up to
6" contains 7 stations. Secondly, you failed to include the Necropolis
Station, which increases the number of stations.


Forgot the Necropolis, and yes, I can't count. So make that 8 stations!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:32 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller
wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:14*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"burkey" wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

Peter

Why didn't they run a parliamentary "replacement bus service",
instead? It worked for network southeast, with the croxley line.

That was a tactic to avoid having to run trains, not something that
applies in the case of the Croxley Link except when work requires it.

On Feb 25, 9:21*am, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:32 -0800 (PST), lonelytraveller









wrote:
On Feb 23, 11:14*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"burkey" wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

Peter

Why didn't they run a parliamentary "replacement bus service",
instead? It worked for network southeast, with the croxley line.

That was a tactic to avoid having to run trains, not something that
applies in the case of the Croxley Link except when work requires it.

It avoids having to run trains to Watford (cassiobury park) Station.
And especially avoids having to pay lip service to criticism from the
locals.

"77002" wrote in message
...

I believe Victoria is, or has been, considered three stations. To me if it
has platforms, and a name, it is a Station.

You're with Lady Bracknell, then - "the line is immaterial, Mr Worthing", a
joke lost on modern audiences.

Regards

Jonathan

"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message
...
On Feb 24, 1:00 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Historically there could be said to be up to 6 different stations the

Waterloo LSWR
Waterloo SER
Waterloo & City Line
Bakerloo Line
Northern Line
Jubilee Line
Waterloo International

Not true. Firstly, your list of stations for which there were "up to
6" contains 7 stations. Secondly, you failed to include the Necropolis
Station, which increases the number of stations.


Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4 separate
stations:
South, New or Cyprus
Central or Main
Windsor
North or Khartoum

Peter

On 25/02/2012 09:48, Peter Masson wrote:


"lonelytraveller" wrote in
message
...
On Feb 24, 1:00 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Historically there could be said to be up to 6 different stations the

Waterloo LSWR
Waterloo SER
Waterloo & City Line
Bakerloo Line
Northern Line
Jubilee Line
Waterloo International

Not true. Firstly, your list of stations for which there were "up to
6" contains 7 stations. Secondly, you failed to include the Necropolis
Station, which increases the number of stations.


Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4
separate stations:
South, New or Cyprus
Central or Main
Windsor
North or Khartoum


Were they administratively different or just staff nicknames for the
different groups of platforms?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 24/02/2012 21:44, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:19:06 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 24/02/2012 14:01, Andy wrote:
On Feb 24, 12:25 pm, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:57, Andy wrote:





On Feb 24, 11:17 am, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:01, Andy wrote:

On Feb 24, 9:39 am, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 01:33, Andy wrote:

On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:59 am, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

"Peter wrote:
wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.

And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. I guess it would be
Edgeware?

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

Of course, if we are going to get silly, then not too far from Watford
Met, on the north curve from Croxley to Rickmansworth, there is the
only tunnel with tube like construction on the Met.

Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.

Often still a tube though, just a larger diameter than the running tunnels

Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

The running tunnels are still tubes (or pipes, pace the Bellets ). I
would also dispute the statement that very few stations on tube lines in
central London are tubes.

Who said that?

Err, you did.

I said that very few stations are tube stations, even

in central London.

You said it again

My original quote: "Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even
in central London". In Central London, pure tube stations are less
than half of the number, taking into account the Sub Surface lines
plus the Victoria and Jubilee lines. Sure in Central London there will
be a higher proportion as everything is underground, but still not the
majority. If you are talking platforms then that is a different
matter.


Taken over the whole system, stations in a tube are
in a definite minority

I wasn't disputing that. Hence the emphasis on /central/ London.

and a large proportion of the Tube stations in
central London are on the subsurface lines

A proportion...

and, of the rest, there are
not many of the Lancaster Gate / Queensway / Goodge Street design
remaining where the old station tunnels are still obviously tubes for
all the platforms.

Aren't there?


No, if you don't believe me, go and have a look. Many Central London
stations and their platforms have changed a great deal since the first
line arrived at the location. As I said, when is a 'tube' no longer a
tube? How many holes are needed, or additional sections added to the
ends to a different design?



Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the majority are still tubes.

Are you talking about individual platforms or whole stations?

Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations. eg Earls Court/Gloucester Road/ South Ken where the District
station is a cut and cover/cutting but the Picc station is in tubes.

So double counting the stations to inflate the numbers?

No they are still tube stations, even if they are part of the same
complex as a sub-surface station. Otherwise one could just as easily
claim they weren't sub-surface stations as they were cosited with a tube
station.

I make it 23 sub-surface stations on the Circle Line with c.20 tube
stations enclosed and around half a dozen more coincident but
structurally distinct from "upstairs". Not counted were "big tubes"
(Moorgate and DLR). So (without benefit of a spare Underground map to
mark) the tube stations seem to win.


There are very few stations where one platform will be in tube and the
other not. Off hand I can't think of many. The Victoria line
interchanges come to mind, principally Oxford Circus. Otherwise?


The rebuilt stations such as London Bridge as well?

Pass, I seldom use it and can't remember the subterranean setails.

What about the
construction style of the interchange passages between the platform
tunnels, does that count in the definition?

A lot of those are classic tube construction as well, but no I wasn't
counting them in or out of the definition.

Never mind all that. Is Waterloo sunset still fine?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 25/02/2012 09:48, Peter Masson wrote:

Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4
separate stations:
South, New or Cyprus
Central or Main
Windsor
North or Khartoum


Were they administratively different or just staff nicknames for the
different groups of platforms?

Cyprus and Khartoum were staff nicknames, but South, Central, Windsor and
North were official names. Each section seems to have had its own cab yard,
and passenger routes between the various concourses were not obvious.
South's platforms were not numbered in the main sequence (and in the main
sequence the LSWR did not apply different platform numbers to the opposite
faces of an island platform.

There are plenty of stories of the confusion of the place. Best known is
perhaps the problems the protagonists in Three Men in a Boat had in finding
their train to Kingston, which they solved by bribing the engine driver. A
Devon farmer is said to have remarked to his wife, after four or five
unsuccessful attempts to find his train, 'No wonder the French got licked
here.' ;-)

Peter

On 25/02/2012 11:59, Peter Masson wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 25/02/2012 09:48, Peter Masson wrote:

Towards the end of the 19th century Waterloo LSWR consisted of 4
separate stations:
South, New or Cyprus
Central or Main
Windsor
North or Khartoum


Were they administratively different or just staff nicknames for the
different groups of platforms?

Cyprus and Khartoum were staff nicknames, but South, Central, Windsor
and North were official names. Each section seems to have had its own
cab yard, and passenger routes between the various concourses were not
obvious. South's platforms were not numbered in the main sequence (and
in the main sequence the LSWR did not apply different platform numbers
to the opposite faces of an island platform.


So we are up to 10 different stations in one place. Any advance on 10?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail