On Thu, 8 May 2008, Recliner wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li
On Thu, 8 May 2008, Paul Scott wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"Boltar" wrote in message

On May 8, 9:45 am, chunky munky
wrote:
Sounds like the spur to the Guinness brewery

Has it closed or does it all go by road now?

I think the rail connection was disused well before the brewery
closed. The brewery was soon demolished and the area is now turning
into an office park, with an increasing need for public transport
(given that the North Circular and A40 are very slow moving in the
mornings).

Isn't there a plan for another new underground station associated
with the development?

Yes, on the Central line. I was under the impression that this was
going to be a new set of platforms for Park Royal station (on the
Piccadilly), but it seems it's far enough away that it'll be a separate
station. That the distance between them is so large, attentive utl
readers will recall, is because the Central line here goes up a slope,
and platforms on slopes are no longer allowed.

Actually, I think the "problem" is that the Picc is on a slight
(imperceptible) slope. To move the platforms north wouldn't change the
slope, but it wouldn't be allowed to build new platforms on a slope,
even though it would be no worse than the current platforms. So no-one
would be hurt by such a reconstruction, and anyone changing between the
Picc and Central lines would be helped, but it still wouldn't be
allowed.

I stand corrected, thanks. This really is a stupid situation.

Are the new Central platforms in the right place for a good interchange
should the Piccadilly platforms be moved in the broad, sunlit uplands of
some enlightened future?

tom

--
For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found
that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work,
so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a
number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from
other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted
to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I
asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important
problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important
results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important,
and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working
on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming