I have two questions about the GN&C

1)
Why were all they Great Northern & City platforms built above the
lifts, so that you had to go up to the platform, when almost all the
other tube stations are the reverse (going down to the platform from
the lift)?

2)
Are they ever going to clean up the stations so that they have proper
lighting and less oppressive paintwork (i.e. rather than the "council
house yellow" designs of network south east) and don't look like a
mugger's paradise?

lonelytraveller wrote in message
.com...
I have two questions about the GN&C

1)
Why were all they Great Northern & City platforms built above the
lifts, so that you had to go up to the platform, when almost all the
other tube stations are the reverse (going down to the platform from
the lift)?

2)
Are they ever going to clean up the stations so that they have proper
lighting and less oppressive paintwork (i.e. rather than the "council
house yellow" designs of network south east) and don't look like a
mugger's paradise?

Concerning the access to the lifts, on the Northern City Line (N.C.L.) being
below platform level this is the case at Old Street and Essex Road.
At Moorgate and Highbury the lifts were above platform level.
I am given to understand that the arrangement to have the lift below the
N.C.L.
platforms at Old Street was to allow a shared subway leading to/from the
lifts
with the Northern Line. The Northern Line is at a lower level beneath the
N.C.L
at Old Street with the tracks running on the same alignment between Old
Street
and Moorgate. The Northern Line platforms at Old Street are nearer Moorgate
than the N.C.L. platforms.
I believe the arrangement at Essex Road was for similar reasons but the tube
line
beneath never got built. It would have been a line similar to the planned
Hackney -
Chelsea tube.

Dave Cockle (work for wagn)

So why isn't (or rather wasnt) angel built like that?

lonelytraveller wrote:
So why isn't (or rather wasnt) angel built like that?

Because Angel is nothing to do with the NCL (GN&C): it is on the
Northern Line. Twenty seconds reading the post and looking at a map
would tell you that - or you are already aware of this, but have posted
without bothering to think about it for a second.

A helpful word of advice: a lot of the stuff you have posted recently
seems to be lacking in thought or does not make sense. Try applying
your brain and reading things properly - and think about them - before
posting and your contributions will be much more appreciated.

TIA

lonelytraveller wrote:
So why isn't (or rather wasnt) angel built like that?

Because Angel is nothing to do with the NCL (GN&C): it is on the
Northern Line. Twenty seconds reading the post and looking at a map
would tell you that - or you are already aware of this, but have posted
without bothering to think about it for a second.

A helpful word of advice: a lot of the stuff you have posted recently
seems to be lacking in thought or does not make sense. Try applying
your brain and reading things properly - and think about them - before
posting and your contributions will be much more appreciated.

TIA

On 16 May 2005 12:38:49 -0700, wrote:


lonelytraveller wrote:
So why isn't (or rather wasnt) angel built like that?

Because Angel is nothing to do with the NCL (GN&C): it is on the
Northern Line. Twenty seconds reading the post and looking at a map
would tell you that - or you are already aware of this, but have posted
without bothering to think about it for a second.

A helpful word of advice: a lot of the stuff you have posted recently
seems to be lacking in thought or does not make sense. Try applying
your brain and reading things properly - and think about them - before
posting and your contributions will be much more appreciated.

A helpful word of advice to you: If you want to rant about someone's
alleged Usenet cluelessness, don't post it twice. It makes you look
amateurish.

In any case, that was a pretty ****ty response, wasn't it?

Angel is to do with the chelsea-hackney line.

Oh, p.s. think through all the possibilities before assuming I meant
the one thing that meant you could leap on it and declare me wrong.

In message . com,
writes

A helpful word of advice: a lot of the stuff you have posted recently
seems to be lacking in thought or does not make sense.

You do realise you are responding to a troll, I hope?

--
Paul Terry

Bonzo wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 17 May 2005:

In any case, that was a pretty ****ty response, wasn't it?

To a troll? I thought he was very kind to bother to reply at all!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 3 April 2005