Mizter T wrote:


London Underground (LU) state they agree with this recommendation, but
then say they "did not have the funding to modify King's Cross
Thameslink station to Underground-only use and that funding would be
subject to Department for Transport agreement."

This I find hard to believe. All they'd need is a couple of fences
securely in place, maybe each with a door for the purpose of emergency
evacuation.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Aidan Stanger wrote:
London Underground (LU) state they agree with this recommendation, but
then say they "did not have the funding to modify King's Cross
Thameslink station to Underground-only use and that funding would be
subject to Department for Transport agreement."

This I find hard to believe. All they'd need is a couple of fences
securely in place, maybe each with a door for the purpose of emergency
evacuation.


It's possible that if the station were taken over by LUL, Network
Rail's grandfather rights allowing it to operate despite lack of
disabled access and (possibly) modern safety features would no longer
apply - ie it would need to meet the same rules that would apply to a
new Underground station. The modifications for this might be expensive,
requiring either DfT funding or a DfT sponsored derogation from the
rules.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 14 Jul 2006 02:41:38 -0700, John B wrote:

London Underground (LU) state they agree with this recommendation, but
then say they "did not have the funding to modify King's Cross
Thameslink station to Underground-only use and that funding would be
subject to Department for Transport agreement."

This I find hard to believe. All they'd need is a couple of fences
securely in place, maybe each with a door for the purpose of emergency
evacuation.

It's possible that if the station were taken over by LUL, Network
Rail's grandfather rights allowing it to operate despite lack of
disabled access and (possibly) modern safety features would no longer
apply - ie it would need to meet the same rules that would apply to a
new Underground station. The modifications for this might be expensive,
requiring either DfT funding or a DfT sponsored derogation from the
rules.

KXSP will already be fully disabled accessible though. Do the rules
say they have to make EVERY entrance accessible?

asdf wrote:

It's possible that if the station were taken over by LUL, Network
Rail's grandfather rights allowing it to operate despite lack of
disabled access and (possibly) modern safety features would no longer
apply - ie it would need to meet the same rules that would apply to a
new Underground station. The modifications for this might be expensive,
requiring either DfT funding or a DfT sponsored derogation from the
rules.

KXSP will already be fully disabled accessible though. Do the rules
say they have to make EVERY entrance accessible?

Good point, and no. Hmm. Maybe they're just talking crap, then.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:08:06 +0930, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:


London Underground (LU) state they agree with this recommendation, but
then say they "did not have the funding to modify King's Cross
Thameslink station to Underground-only use and that funding would be
subject to Department for Transport agreement."

This I find hard to believe. All they'd need is a couple of fences
securely in place, maybe each with a door for the purpose of emergency
evacuation.

Perhaps LU will feel it necessary need to install standard tcket
machines and booking windows, complete with brick wall to house them.
--
Peter Lawrence