Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be
striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London?

I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not
appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling
panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms.

I can understand it when its part of a major refurbishment (See the utter
mess Oxford Circus is in at the moment for example) but the ticket hall at
Piccadilly Circus has random missing panels and now I have noticed that
those above the top of the main escalators at Holborn have begun to randomly
vanish as well.

What is going on? Its not very good what ever it is as it is making a lot
of the stations look an uncared for mess (insert maintenance debate here!)
I know that much repair work has to take place outside of operating hours
but there is no excuse for leaving some stations looking like they are
derelict!

Regards
John M Upton

My Fotopic Collections:
South Central/Southern, Model Railway & Other Rail Pictures:
http://gallery39764.fotopic.net/

Bus Pics:
http://gallery42239.fotopic.net/

My Online Novels:
http://www.securitynovels.com

JMUpton2000 wrote:

There
does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely
random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and
platforms.

The Disability Unit have declared that good-looking stations are
discriminatory to the blind

-)

I believe that it is a phenomena that is not limited to the London
Underground.
The Toronto subway system also suffers from the same affliction.
Underground Gremlins?

Regards
Ray


JMUpton2000 wrote:
Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be
striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London?

I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not
appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling
panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms.

MisterShooter wrote:
I believe that it is a phenomena that is not limited to the London
Underground.
The Toronto subway system also suffers from the same affliction.
Underground Gremlins?

Regards
Ray


JMUpton2000 wrote:
Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be
striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London?

I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not
appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling
panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms.


I'd like to announce that, after minths of hard work, the new ceiling
panels in my kitchen are almost completely insatalled. :-)


Neill

JMUpton2000 wrote:
Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be
striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central
London?


"MisterShooter" wrote
I believe that it is a phenomena that is not limited to the London
Underground.

(Top posting corrected)

"A phenomena"? For some time, there seems to have been confusion between
the singular and plural forms of criterion/criteria. I do hope this isn't
spreading to phenomenon/phenomena.

They fall on passenger's heads and taken away with the bodies?

In article ews.net,
"JMUpton2000" securitynovels @ freeuk.com wrote:

Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to be
striking random parts of random Underground stations across Central London?

I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There does not
appear to be a station left that does not have completely random ceiling
panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and platforms.

I wondered about posting this when it happened a few weeks ago. I'm a
Westminster councillor and sit on one of the Planning Sub-Committees.
One application we recently decided was from London Underground and
concerned Great Portland Street Station (a listed building: had it not
been, then there would have been no requirement to seek planning
permission). The application was for the removal and replacement of
the tiles throughout the station.

The sub-committee looked at the application and decided that it wasn't
happy the case for getting rid of such a large amount of original
features. It decided to have a site visit. When this was announced
it was revealed to the committee that most of the tiles had actually
been removed the previous weekend.

We went on the site visit to be told that there had been a confusion
when the supervisor had been told "We're good to go" (meaning to the
committee), and assumed this meant it was good to go removing the
tiles. Although LUL had claimed that the original tiles were all
badly damaged, it was quite clear that the damage was not that severe.
When it came back to the committee we decided to refuse the application.

As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this normally
means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets prosecuted
for damaging a listed building without permission.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"We can also agree that Saddam Hussein most certainly has chemical and biolog-
ical weapons and is working towards a nuclear capability. The dossier contains
confirmation of information that we either knew or most certainly should have
been willing to assume." - Menzies Campbell, 24th September 2002.

David Boothroyd wrote:
In article
ews.net,
"JMUpton2000" securitynovels @ freeuk.com wrote:

Would someone mind explaining a mysterious phonomena that seems to
be striking random parts of random Underground stations across
Central London?

I refer to the mysterious case of the phantom panel nicker! There
does not appear to be a station left that does not have completely
random ceiling panels missing from ticket halls, corridors and
platforms.

I wondered about posting this when it happened a few weeks ago. I'm
a Westminster councillor and sit on one of the Planning
Sub-Committees.
One application we recently decided was from London Underground and
concerned Great Portland Street Station (a listed building: had it
not been, then there would have been no requirement to seek planning
permission). The application was for the removal and replacement of
the tiles throughout the station.

You've raised an entirely new topic here. This thread was originally
about ceiling panels, which are a comparatively recent feature of
station architecture, and nothing to do with mid-19th century listed
buildings.

For those interested in more detail of the Great Portland Street case,
there is a .pdf file at
http://tinyurl.com/s7m6u . English Heritage supported the application
but the 20th Century Society objected. (Some of the tiles date from the
1920s.)

The sub-committee looked at the application and decided that it
wasn't happy the case for getting rid of such a large amount of
original features. It decided to have a site visit. When this was
announced it was revealed to the committee that most of the tiles
had actually been removed the previous weekend.

We went on the site visit to be told that there had been a confusion
when the supervisor had been told "We're good to go" (meaning to the
committee), and assumed this meant it was good to go removing the
tiles. Although LUL had claimed that the original tiles were all
badly damaged, it was quite clear that the damage was not that
severe.

If most of the tiles had already been removed, how were you able to form
that judgement? In any case damage that's "not that severe" can still
look unsightly with small chips and crazing of the glaze. Tiles cannot
be refurbished in the same way that iron, stone and brick can.

When it came back to the committee we decided to refuse the
application.

As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this
normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets
prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission.

And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The
application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the
tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and
later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired
public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision
appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to
do now?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
. ..
For those interested in more detail of the Great Portland Street case,
there is a .pdf file at
http://tinyurl.com/s7m6u . English Heritage supported the application
but the 20th Century Society objected. (Some of the tiles date from the
1920s.)

My interest in this area is as a member of an ecclesiatical Listed Buildings
Advisory Committee (which takes the place of the local authority under
Ecclesiastical Exemption), so my knowledge is not of railways in particular.

However, if an application like this had come before our committee there is
no way we would have thought of considering this without a site visit.

It is often the case that an amentity society has more specialist knowledge
than a hard pressed relatively junior EH case worker.

When it came back to the committee we decided to refuse the
application.

As it is now not possible to put the original tiles back, this
normally means that whoever was responsible for removing them gets
prosecuted for damaging a listed building without permission.

And how would that help the travelling public - your electors? The
application was actually trying to recreate the original look of the
tiling, which is currently a mixture of original vitreous enamel and
later ceramic tiles, some quite modern. It would revitalise a "tired
public transport facility" in the words of your officers. Your decision
appears vindictive to me. What do you actually want LU and Metronet to
do now?

Helping the travelling public is irrelevant in this in stance. the purpose
of Listed Building control is protect Listed Buildings from inappropriate
changes. In this case the kind of tiling has no effect upon the use of the
building. The rules about not carrying out work without consent apply just
as much as to whether the work was "accidentally" or deliberately done.
Having read the file attached, I would think that a refusal was not
unjustified regardless of the issue of the work having been done.

Michael

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:41:37 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

For those interested in more detail of the Great Portland Street case,
there is a .pdf file at
http://tinyurl.com/s7m6u . English Heritage supported the application
but the 20th Century Society objected. (Some of the tiles date from the
1920s.)

English Heritage are right and the 20th Century Society (whoever they
are, I've never even heard of them before) are wrong. The original
design intent wasn't to have 80-year-old tiles looking terrible, and
you just have to have looked at the difference between Queensway and
Lancaster Gate to see the difference retiling can make.

Now that doesn't mean the responsible person in LUL shouldn't be
punished for violation of listed building regulations, but I'm
surprised that the committee felt a site visit was necessary. It's a
no-brainer to me.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com