lonelytraveller wrote:
On 7 Oct, 17:50, "Richard J." wrote:
lonelytraveller wrote:

They chose to obstruct the side entrance at paddington, rather
than demolish the horrifically ugly modern building on the other
side of the road.
Because the modern building is on the wrong side of the road for an
interchange with the mainline station. What do you mean by
"obstruct"?
Crossrail is quite deep, the escalators would be long enough to
stretch the width of the road easily. By "obstruct" I mean that it
will require the retaining wall railings and canopies to be
demolished, making the station appear somewhat naked.

The existing retaining wall limits the access to the station from
Eastbourne Terrace. This will be demolished and the road lowered to the
level of the present taxi road, so access will be improved. Bringing
the escalators up to the surface on the western side of Esatbourne
Terrace would make it more difficult for passengers interchanging
between Crossrail and mainline or Tube.

I still don't see why they didn't route it as a new tube line from
Paddington to Liverpool street via Charing Cross and Temple -
reusing the old Jubilee line route and Aldwych branch of the
Piccadilly where possible.
Well, for a start, the Jubilee/Piccadilly tunnels aren't big
enough!
They are big enough for a tube line - hence why I said that I don't
see why they didn't route it as a new TUBE line...

Oh, for heaven's sake, why do you want to condemn London to yet another
line constrained by the Tube loading gauge with its limited capacity and
poor comfort level? Paris managed to avoid this a century ago.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)