"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
12:30:28 on Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Brimstone
remarked:
What are Tfl doing about other chronically
overcrowded stations such as Camden?

Trying to get planning permission to rebuild them.

"Failing to get" I think.

I seem to recall reading something about Camden Council
refusing planning permission for rebuilding the station.

They refused permission for the particular scheme that was proposed.

--
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

In message , at 16:08:15 on Fri,
9 Sep 2005, John Rowland
remarked:
I seem to recall reading something about Camden Council
refusing planning permission for rebuilding the station.

They refused permission for the particular scheme that was proposed.

Which London Underground said was the only possible scheme that would
make sense. I detect deadlock here.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 16:44:33 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

I seem to recall reading something about Camden Council
refusing planning permission for rebuilding the station.

They refused permission for the particular scheme that was proposed.

Which London Underground said was the only possible scheme that would
make sense. I detect deadlock here.

I got the impression that LU only said that to discourage rejection of
the plans in favour of a watered-down version not involving
demolishing half of Camden so they could build a shopping centre.

In message , at 17:29:57 on
Fri, 9 Sep 2005, asdf remarked:
I seem to recall reading something about Camden Council
refusing planning permission for rebuilding the station.

They refused permission for the particular scheme that was proposed.

Which London Underground said was the only possible scheme that would
make sense. I detect deadlock here.

I got the impression that LU only said that to discourage rejection of
the plans in favour of a watered-down version not involving
demolishing half of Camden so they could build a shopping centre.

But LU still said it.
--
Roland Perry

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Brian Watson wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

That's my understanding also, the surface building would need to be
located
elsewhere in the vicinity.

Erm, how about Leicester Square.

(Here we go round again).

Just far enough away to be annoying, from the point of view of someone who
has difficulty walking.

In that we are only talking about an access point, what's the problem with
an escalator down-and-up, or a moving walkway underground, between Leicester
Square and Covent Garden?

There's plenty of space in the Square itself for a new access point.

--
Brian

Brian Watson wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Brian Watson wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

That's my understanding also, the surface building would need to be
located
elsewhere in the vicinity.

Erm, how about Leicester Square.

(Here we go round again).

Just far enough away to be annoying, from the point of view of
someone who has difficulty walking.

In that we are only talking about an access point, what's the problem
with an escalator down-and-up, or a moving walkway underground,
between Leicester Square and Covent Garden?

There's plenty of space in the Square itself for a new access point.

For those not sure of the geography Leicester Sq station is east of
Leicester Sq in Charing Cross Road and Covent Garden Station is in the
opposite direction from the square itself..

But to answer your substantive question. Probably nothing more than money
and whatever is already underground. More of the former will overcome
problems caused by the latter.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Brian Watson wrote:

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:15:47 +0100, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Angel, which is one of the stations
with the highest proportion of blind users.

Old Street I can understand. But why Angel, I wonder?

Perhaps it's the nearest station to RNIB?

No, that's King's Cross; it says so in the station announcement on one of
the lines ("The next station is King's Cross St Pancras; alight here for
the Royal National Institute of the Blind."). I'm not sure which line that
is; ISTR it's a subsurface line, probably the Met, BICBW.

tom

--
That's the problem with google. You can usually find what you're looking
for with a fairly simple search. It's knowing *which* fairly simple search
out of the millions of possible fairly simple searches you need to use to
find it ;-) -- Paul D

In message ,
Brimstone writes
That's my understanding also, the surface building would need to be
located elsewhere in the vicinity.
There's no reason why the escalators can't be from a different part of
the platforms to the current booking hall, is there?
--
Clive

Clive wrote:
In message ,
Brimstone writes
That's my understanding also, the surface building would need to be
located elsewhere in the vicinity.
There's no reason why the escalators can't be from a different part of
the platforms to the current booking hall, is there?

The principle is OK but would depend on the distance between the platforms
and the street. There is also the question of creating overloaded areas of
the platform and hence the train.

In message , at 13:06:40 on Sat,
10 Sep 2005, Clive remarked:
There's no reason why the escalators can't be from a different part of
the platforms to the current booking hall, is there?

The current booking hall is tiny. It's basically a corridor around the
liftshaft, at street level. Very similar to Russell Square, or Goodge
St.

There's no spare footprint for the top of a set of escalators.
--
Roland Perry