At Caledonian Road & Barnesbury a significant reconstruction has been
undertaken with new electrification, new tracks and a revamped station
including new bridge, lifts and stairs. All to the Network Rail modular
design which looks over engineered, cheap and horrible.

Didn't go that far - even if it's not so nice, I'll have to take a trip
up to see it as it's obviously changed dramatically.

At Highbury and Islington the scale of change is quite breathtaking. I
couldn't quite believe my eyes when I stepped off a NLL train. The NLL
platforms are larger and more substantial than I imagined.

Completely agree. I was mightily impressed with what was there. Loads of
space. Obviously, it will look even better once the south side is
completed. The only pain I had was that it finally put paid to any idea
that the "Old Highbury and Islington" entrance won't ever be re-opened. I
seem to remember some time back that abandonedstations.co.uk claimed it
was going to be re-opened when the ELL came up to H&I, and while I knew
it was never going to happen, it was finally laid to rest. Ahh well.
Otherwise, a fine job.

At Canonbury the new NLL platforms are in place as is the new bit of the
centre platform for the ELL. The w/b ELL platform has a lot of work
still needed - there is a missing overbridge and lift towers and stairs
not connected together! Of all of the locations Canonbury looked the
most rushed and it was evident to my eyes that there'd been a last
minute rush to get it to the point of being ready for passengers. There
are no train indicators, PA or CCTV at Canonbury so it's staff with
loudhailers and scribble boards for the time being.

Not a shock - one of the posters the other week had stuck his head over
the wall and said it looked like they'd hardly started with it.... Also,
it was throwing it down at the time, and there's only a small shelter
there IIRC? Couldn't they have put in some sort of roof? Couldn't have
been that expensive to put one in?

Photos are still loading up but most of them are there at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24759744@N02/

Awesome!

One final point, why do they still have "Temporary Sign" all over EVERY
sign? What's the point? Why have they done this?

On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 21:39:05 +0000 (UTC), Martin Petrov
wrote:
One final point, why do they still have "Temporary Sign" all over
EVERY
sign? What's the point? Why have they done this?

Not DDA compliant? As someone with no sight issues (other than a need
for glasses) I find those black on orange ones hard to read, assuming
they are that type.

Failing that maybe a planning permission issue - but isn't the
railway usually exempt?

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

On 2 June, 06:22, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 21:39:05 +0000 (UTC), Martin Petrov

wrote:
One final point, why do they still have "Temporary Sign" all over
EVERY
sign? What's the point? Why have they done this?

Not DDA compliant? As someone with no sight issues (other than a need
for glasses) I find those black on orange ones hard to read, assuming
they are that type.

Failing that maybe a planning permission issue - but isn't the
railway usually exempt?

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 06:56:48 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Sunil"
wrote:

On 2 June, 06:22, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 21:39:05 +0000 (UTC), Martin Petrov

wrote:
One final point, why do they still have "Temporary Sign" all over
EVERY
sign? What's the point? Why have they done this?

Not DDA compliant? As someone with no sight issues (other than a need
for glasses) I find those black on orange ones hard to read, assuming
they are that type.

Failing that maybe a planning permission issue - but isn't the
railway usually exempt?

Signs that can't be seen from the street don't usually significantly
affect the external appearance so yes in that respect and yes again if
external signs do not significantly (or "materially" ?) falter the
external appearance.


The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:
So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

Must just be an "it looks scruffy now but we will sort later"
statement, then, I guess.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
.net...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:
So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

Must just be an "it looks scruffy now but we will sort later" statement,
then, I guess.

Generally, the final signage on LO is similar in style to LU, eg orange
roundels for station names on platforms. While they are still at the stage
of vinyl overlays on the existing 'ex Silverlink' hardware, they add the
words 'temporary sign'.

Paul S

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

On Jun 3, 2:15*am, Ivor The Engine wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson

wrote:
The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

Before the frontage was built I worked in the Kings Cross area. There
was something special about hearing and smelling the diesel locos as I
walked in front of the station on the way to lunch.

Ivor The Engine wrote on 03 June 2010
10:15:52 ...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

I thought that the temporary look was just the normal quality of 1970s
architecture, but Wikipedia does say it was meant to be temporary. When
first erected the 'temporary' extension was actually an improvement, as
Cubitt's original frontage had already been spoilt by an awning over a
taxi road and a row of shops in front of that. There is a photo from, I
imagine, the 1960s at
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/arch...london/54.html
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
news:ArQNn.64314$9A2.41550@hurricane...
Ivor The Engine wrote on 03 June 2010
10:15:52 ...
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:31:08 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The signs have been up for the best part of two years!

So IIRC not "temporary" for planning purposes.

I thought the Kings Cross frontage was "temporary" and that's been
around 30 years!

I thought that the temporary look was just the normal quality of 1970s
architecture, but Wikipedia does say it was meant to be temporary. When
first erected the 'temporary' extension was actually an improvement, as
Cubitt's original frontage had already been spoilt by an awning over a
taxi road and a row of shops in front of that. There is a photo from, I
imagine, the 1960s at
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/arch...london/54.html

That frontage and the 1930s shops were demolished when the Victoria Line was
built (late 1960s). BR had proposed a 2-storey concourse building,
projecting at least 40 ft in front of Cubitt's frontage, and incorporating a
subway to what became Kings Cross Thameslink (this was the era when closure
and demolition of St Pancras was contemplated, and MML services, at least
from south of Leicester, would have been diverted to Moorgate). BR couldn't
afford the 2-storey building, which was in any case unacceptable, so the
temporary extension was built. AFAIK it has only had a series of temporary
planning consents.

Peter