Mark Morton wrote in news:4en72hF1foaaoU1
@individual.net:

Tristán White wrote:
I hope they've made the right decision. Personally, I'm not
convinced.

Why do you think that?

Brick Lane is fast becoming one of London's major thoroughfares for late
night bars and clubs, not to mention the restaurants. But it's not the
safest of areas late at night (in case you're wondering, a good mate of
mine was beaten up there by a gang in an unprovoked attack not long
ago). It never has been the safest of areas right from Jack the Ripper
days! :-))

Having an underground station nearby means that it's easy to get in and
out without having to make your way through backstreets to the new
alternative station on Shoreditch High Street. Which is not ready yet as
an alternative (if it goes to schedule, we're looking at June 2010 -
four years to go!)

Therefore, I think they should have extended the current hours of the
station, rather than dispense of a very quaint station.

Another thing: Has anyone studied the impact that 4 year period will
have on Brick Lane market?

But my main reason is much more 'romantic'. It's always sad to see the
death of a station, especially one which has survived two world wars in
one of the country's most heavily blitzed areas. And a Grade II listed
one at that (I am sure palms will be greased and it will be turned into
yet another bunch of offices or something).

Do we really want to lose even more history? Could they not have gone up
to Hoxton from the current station? (surely Brick Lane needed it more
than Shoreditch High Street, which is served excellently nearby by
Liverpool Street station (which has trains going to Hackney area
already). Come on! The old Bishopsgate station was made redundant in the
19th century when Liverpool Street expanded!

I remember seeing PDFs and consultations and stuff on UTL when they were
discussing the exact route north of Whitechapel, but I can't remember
reading a completely convincing argument why they couldn't use the
existing route that used to go to Liverpool Street pre-war (and which
was a goods-only service until the 60s).

If they could have provided an interchange from the ELL-Extension at
Bishopsgate/SHS to the Central Line, I would agree that there is sense
in moving the station to Bishopsgate. But since there's not (another
missed opportunity), what is the exact thinking? Or they could even have
integrated Bishopsgate with Liverpool Street via an escalator link or
something - done a Monument/Bank thing.

But no. So was it really necessary to get rid of another piece of
functional history? A quaint little station, with original wooden floors
in the booking hall, and with the bizarrest opening hours on the whole
network. A great shame.

I'm not an expert, just a 'passenger' (I prefer calling myself a
passenger than a customer, sorry). So my thoughts are largely governed
by personal feelings and sorrow at areas losing a bit of history. I
should add that.