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

On 7 Apr, 08:16, Mr Thant
wrote:

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!


Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

On Apr 7, 9:03*am, Mizter T wrote:
On 7 Apr, 08:16, Mr Thant
wrote:

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!

Like many others here I certainly differentiate between the Tube and
the tube, though I would not say that the Tube is a meaningless buzz-
word given that LU themselves use it as a shorthand for their network.

Is it a registered trademark now?

(I can sort of understand some irritation with the way that they use
it; a bit like using the label "The Bus" for all bus, coach and taxi
services.)

"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 7 Apr, 12:04, Mike Bristow wrote:
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)?

The platforms at Southwark tube were definitely bored, as there's a
viaduct above them. I think all the ones in zone 1 are.

U

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