"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

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.)

In article , Tom
Anderson writes
That's the paper mill, not the print works. The mill was located
roughly where the end of Byewaters is, just east of the lock on the
canal (it was a regular walk in my youth).
Is this by any chance why there's a Caxton Way in the nearby industrial
estate? I assume it's why there's a Mill Lane running from Croxley Met
to the lock you mention.

It could well be; I'm not enough of a historian of Croxley to be able to
answer.

This wasn't a passenger branch, it was a normal goods siding off the
Ricky line.
Ah, fair enough. I suppose even the 1 km from Croxley Green station (or
a notional goods siding on the Rickmansworth branch) to the mill would
have been too much for big deliveries of rags etc.

Never mind the rags; my memory of the rolls of paper is that they were
bigger than I was.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: