Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article , david.of
(David of Broadway) wrote:

David Biddulph wrote:
"David of Broadway" wrote in
message ...
David Biddulph wrote:
"David of Broadway" wrote in
message ...
Paul Terry wrote:

A physical link, such as an underground passageway, would
have been possible during the many occasions when Hammersmith
Broadway has been rebuilt over the years. I suspect that it
never happened because the number of passengers requiring
such an interchange is very small indeed.
If there was never an underground passageway, then what
"Subway to District and Piccadilly lines" is this (former)
sign referring to?


http://greenberger.no-ip.com/gallery...Id=15350&g2_im
ageViewsIndex=1
It could have been referring to one of the subways under the
road?
What do you mean by "one of the subways under the road" if not
"an underground passageway"?

I meant one from outside the station, rather than a direct link
between the two stations.

If there is/was a passageway under the road outside the station,
how much more work could it be to connect it inside the station?

Quite a lot as I remember the subway. Neither end was that near
either station (especially the Met/H&C one) and the levels were all
wrong too, I suspect. Why something wasn't included with the
Hammersmith (District and Piccadilly) station redevelopment is
beyond me, however.

Since the D & P platforms are islands, you would need any interchange
subway to go up or down from them first. Unless you put four escalators
in the subway, which I doubt could have been justified, such a subway
would not be more convenient than the present street-level crossing
which has the advantage that it's at platform level for the H&C station.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)