Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Richard J. wrote:
RPM wrote on 18 May 2009 19:37:11 ... On May 18, 6:41 pm, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Richard J. writes That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. It could go somewhere else, I suppose. After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well there. Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go? It has never been suggested it should be rebuilt in its original location. That would mean placing it roughly where the gateline is for the London Midland/London Overground platforms. Instead it is proposed to re-site it between the existing lodges on Euston Road, something that should have been done in 1962 IMHO. The pediment (top triangle) is OK, but the rest is a mish-mash. Pretentious and not very beautiful in my view. Oh well, we all differ. Indeed, and it is the the importance of the arch in *railway* architecture rather than architecture in general that merits its restoration. What importance? As far as I can see it had no effect at all on subsequent railway architecture, where more effort and expense was put into the station itself (such as at King's Cross and Paddington) than on some great marketing promotion outside. At Euston, the arch was there from the start in 1837, but it took another 20 years or more before more than one arrival platform was provided. The arch has probably had an important role in _other_ railway (and non-railway) architecture having survived - St Pancras, perhaps. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mizter T wrote:
On May 18, 6:30 pm, CJB wrote: Historian Don Cruikshank was in the water as a crane lifted some stones out of the - appropriately named - Prescott Channel to deepen the water for Olympic barges. Why "appropriately named"? 'CJB' has just had one of those 2 + 2 = 5 moments, I think. The channel was named after Sir William Prescott of the Lee Conservancy, when built in the 30s... Thankfully the expensive new lock has been named 'Three Mills Lock' to avoid even more mistaken references to another Prescott... Paul S |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Paul Scott" wrote:
Mizter T wrote: On May 18, 6:30 pm, CJB wrote: Historian Don Cruikshank was in the water as a crane lifted some stones out of the - appropriately named - Prescott Channel to deepen the water for Olympic barges. Why "appropriately named"? 'CJB' has just had one of those 2 + 2 = 5 moments, I think. The channel was named after Sir William Prescott of the Lee Conservancy, when built in the 30s... I must admit I wondered if it was a reference to filling the substantial void between John Prescott's ears ... Thankfully the expensive new lock has been named 'Three Mills Lock' to avoid even more mistaken references to another Prescott... That would be "Three Jags Lock", then. ;-) |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
CJB wrote:
Historian Don Cruikshank was in the water ... His name's Dan Cruikshank, just for accuracy. Charlie |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 18 May, 19:37, RPM wrote:
On May 18, 6:41*pm, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Richard J. writes That said, I would think long and hard about a "rebuild", especially given the dramatic changes in layout at Euston since then. * It could go somewhere else, I suppose. * After all, Temple Bar was brought "back" to a completely different location but looks (and functions) very well there. Now where might the Arch (sorry, "Propylaeum") go? It has never been suggested it should be rebuilt in its original location. That would mean placing it roughly where the gateline is for the London Midland/London Overground platforms. Instead it is proposed to re-site it between the existing *lodges on Euston Road, something that should have been done in 1962 IMHO. Would be interested to see where if they could drive a bendy bus through it in that spot into/out of the bus station. Although, if Boris gets his way, I suppose it would only be a large double-decker instead. |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:08:30PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
The arch has probably had an important role in _other_ railway (and non-railway) architecture having survived - St Pancras, perhaps. But the *Euston* arch, and the specific form of that arch, had no important role. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life -- Samuel Johnson |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BBC: Attempt to "Save" Lost Euston Arch | London Transport | |||
BBC: Attempt to "Save" Lost Euston Arch | London Transport | |||
BBC: Attempt to "Save" Lost Euston Arch | London Transport | |||
BBC: Attempt to "Save" Lost Euston Arch | London Transport | |||
BBC: Attempt to "Save" Lost Euston Arch | London Transport |