"Mr Thant" wrote in message

On 6 Apr, 12:33, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
But why is it so expensive?

It requires a tall 500m viaduct which has to cross various obstacles,
rebuilding another mile and a half of track and building two new tube
stations, which go for £10-20m each.

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations?
Real "tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought,
cost rather more than £20m each. I assume these new Met stations will
be fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on
the DLR. Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc,
to comply with modern statndards.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Mr Thant" wrote in message

On 6 Apr, 12:33, "Jonathan Morton"
wrote:
But why is it so expensive?

It requires a tall 500m viaduct which has to cross various obstacles,
rebuilding another mile and a half of track and building two new tube
stations, which go for £10-20m each.

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Paul S

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. *I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. *Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

They'd be built to tube standards, which means ticket machines,
barriers, staff accommodation, full length canopies, etc.

Also LUL and increasingly the DLR like things ambitious
architecturally.

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

One of them is elevated and the other is in a narrowish cutting
requiring a building on stilts. The modular concept seems designed for
fairly flat open sites.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations? Real
"tube" (ie, deep-level underground) stations would, I have thought, cost
rather more than £20m each. *I assume these new Met stations will be
fairly cheap and cheerful suburban stations, not much fancier than on the
DLR. *Of course, they will have to have lifts, level platforms, etc, to
comply with modern statndards.

They'd be built to tube standards, which means ticket machines,
barriers, staff accommodation, full length canopies, etc.

ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

Also LUL and increasingly the DLR like things ambitious
architecturally.

For "ambitious" read "expensive" ?

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but probably
shorter and therefore less expensive.

One of them is elevated and the other is in a narrowish cutting
requiring a building on stilts. The modular concept seems designed for
fairly flat open sites.

Of course it's equally likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will
apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

U

On 6 Apr, 23:42, Charles Ellson wrote:
ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

No, many tube stations have canopies. The majority, even.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:42, Charles Ellson wrote:
ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

No, many tube stations have canopies. The majority, even.

You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations. "Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Well that's news to me. Thanks!

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Mr Thant
wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:42, Charles Ellson wrote:
ITYM LU standards, tube stations don't need canopies.

No, many tube stations have canopies. The majority, even.

You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations.

'Recliner' should get the credit for that point.

Paul S

In article ,
Charles Ellson wrote:
You seem to have failed to pay attention to Paul Scott quite properly
distinguishing "real" tube stations from tube used as meaningless
buzz-word stations.

Are tube stations those served by tube trains, in which case Finchley
Central is one, or is the those where the platforms are in tubes,
in which case most of the JLE stations aren't (as the JLE platforms
seem to be either above ground or in box-like structures)?

"Tube"[TM] stations might sometimes have canopies
but tube stations generally have tunnel roofs.

Tube - even restricting it to the London Underground - is hugely
overloaded. Being pedantic about it strikes me
as foolish.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 6 Apr, 23:07, "Paul Scott" wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message

Presumably they're so cheap only because they're *not* tube stations?

Perhaps if the link is ever built, LU could utilise NR's wonderful new
modular stations? Like at Greenhithe or Mitcham Eastfields, but
probably shorter and therefore less expensive. Of course it's equally
likely that the 'not invented by us' principle will apply...

Not NR's either. The concept is owned by Dean & Dyball, who were
recently bought by Balfour Beatty.

I understand there was some financing from Alliterative Associates
involved.

tom

--
I'm not quite sure how that works but I like it ...