Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Having not been to London since it opened. I was wondering how on a
day to day basis the new transport infrastructure is holding up. Are there incidents of trains being PIXC? Is the WLL station large enough to cope with the real passenger flow? |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:
Having not been to London since it opened. Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you? Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind. tom -- There are many ways of going crazy, but the most valuable of them is this one which makes a genius out of an ordinary man. -- Claudio Grondi |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 5, 3:11 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote: Having not been to London since it opened. Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you? Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind. And I assumed Mumbles was out the other side of Swansea and didn't make it to the smoke too often (wise man). |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 5 Dec, 22:49, TimB wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:11 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote: Having not been to London since it opened. Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you? Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind. And I assumed Mumbles was out the other side of Swansea and didn't make it to the smoke too often (wise man). I was there on the Sunday after it opened, and in the evening there was one train an hour, there must have been 250 people on the southbound side. The 313 was as busy as you have ever seen one. On the northbound there were a lot of people, all of us wondering how a new station could be built with no canopies whatsoever, its a horrible windy and miserable place |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 6, 1:27*am, wrote:
On 5 Dec, 22:49, TimB wrote: On Dec 5, 3:11 pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote: Having not been to London since it opened. Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you? Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind. And I assumed Mumbles was out the other side of Swansea and didn't make it to the smoke too often (wise man). I was there on the Sunday after it opened, and in the evening there was one train an hour, there must have been 250 people on the southbound side. The 313 was as busy as you have ever seen one. On the northbound there were a lot of people, all of us wondering how a new station could be built with no canopies whatsoever, its a horrible windy and miserable place Like I was saying in another thread, I bet the attraction of an interchange to the Central Line is a far bigger draw than Westfield. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 6 Dec, 12:32, Alex Ingram wrote:
Indeed. If this is the future of retail then it's a future in a very different climate. http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...72157608819610... The glass building at the bottom of the stairs was designed (and originally built) as a waiting room, with the entrance facing the camera. That's why the steelwork on the left is so ugly, as it was put in when the end wall was removed. Would it have been possible to move the whole station further into the shopping centre boundary and rebuild it totally, or are the curves a problem that negates such useful planning? I think wonga is the thing that negates it or anything like it. TfL were meant to dig some passages underground to spread passengers along the platform, but didn't want to pay for it. U |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mr Thant wrote:
On 6 Dec, 12:32, Alex Ingram wrote: Indeed. If this is the future of retail then it's a future in a very different climate. http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...72157608819610... The glass building at the bottom of the stairs was designed (and originally built) as a waiting room, with the entrance facing the camera. That's why the steelwork on the left is so ugly, as it was put in when the end wall was removed. Would it have been possible to move the whole station further into the shopping centre boundary and rebuild it totally, or are the curves a problem that negates such useful planning? I think wonga is the thing that negates it or anything like it. TfL were meant to dig some passages underground to spread passengers along the platform, but didn't want to pay for it. It doesn't need "passages underground". It just needs some canopies over the open platforms to keep the rain off. It beggars belief that a new urban station has been built to the standards of a 19th century rural halt, with no protection from the weather apart from the small area at the foot of the stairs. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard J. wrote:
Mr Thant wrote: On 6 Dec, 12:32, Alex Ingram wrote: Indeed. If this is the future of retail then it's a future in a very different climate. http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...72157608819610... The glass building at the bottom of the stairs was designed (and originally built) as a waiting room, with the entrance facing the camera. That's why the steelwork on the left is so ugly, as it was put in when the end wall was removed. Would it have been possible to move the whole station further into the shopping centre boundary and rebuild it totally, or are the curves a problem that negates such useful planning? I think wonga is the thing that negates it or anything like it. TfL were meant to dig some passages underground to spread passengers along the platform, but didn't want to pay for it. It doesn't need "passages underground". It just needs some canopies over the open platforms to keep the rain off. It beggars belief that a new urban station has been built to the standards of a 19th century rural halt, with no protection from the weather apart from the small area at the foot of the stairs. Sorry, just realised that the para I replied to relates to the Central Line station. My comment relates to the Overground station. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 8 Dec, 01:11, "Richard J." wrote:
*It just needs some canopies over the open platforms to keep the rain off. *It beggars belief that a new urban station has been built to the standards of a 19th century rural halt, with no protection from the weather apart from the small area at the foot of the stairs. It was originally designed with canopies, but that assumed they'd be allowed to move the signals. When they were told it would cost £20-30m as the changes they wanted to make required resignalling the whole area, they hastily deleted the planned canopies (which would be in the way) and came up with the waiting room at the bottom of the stairs idea, which provided the minimum amount of coverage required. (Interestingly the planning document only discusses minimum allowable amounts of canopy, not providing an adequate amount for likely predicted usage, which is why they didn't design a new canopy in the area north of the stairs on the southbound platform, where surely one will appear in years to come) U |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Shepherd's Bush Market, Wood Lane - H&C line developments | London Transport | |||
Shepherd's Bush WLL update | London Transport | |||
Shepherd's Bush WLL | London Transport | |||
Shepherd's Bush WLL station | London Transport | |||
Shepherd's Bush on the Central Line - another platform? | London Transport |