On 24/02/2012 11:30, d wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:18:07 +0000
Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:07, d wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:01:45 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

Does the East london line count as a tube line because of the tunnels
under the thames I wonder?


No. IIRC the tunnels are actually square cross section.

They don't look square to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel


Arched as opposed to tube.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 24/02/2012 11:57, Andy wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:17 am, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:01, Andy wrote:





On Feb 24, 9:39 am, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 01:33, Andy wrote:

On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:59 am, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

"Peter wrote:
wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.

And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. I guess it would be
Edgeware?

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

Of course, if we are going to get silly, then not too far from Watford
Met, on the north curve from Croxley to Rickmansworth, there is the
only tunnel with tube like construction on the Met.

Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.

Often still a tube though, just a larger diameter than the running tunnels

Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

The running tunnels are still tubes (or pipes, pace the Bellets ). I
would also dispute the statement that very few stations on tube lines in
central London are tubes.

Who said that?

Err, you did.

I said that very few stations are tube stations, even
in central London.

You said it again

Taken over the whole system, stations in a tube are
in a definite minority

I wasn't disputing that. Hence the emphasis on /central/ London.

and a large proportion of the Tube stations in
central London are on the subsurface lines

A proportion...

and, of the rest, there are
not many of the Lancaster Gate / Queensway / Goodge Street design
remaining where the old station tunnels are still obviously tubes for
all the platforms.

Aren't there?


Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the majority are still tubes.



Are you talking about individual platforms or whole stations?

Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations. eg Earls Court/Gloucester Road/ South Ken where the District
station is a cut and cover/cutting but the Picc station is in tubes.

There are very few stations where one platform will be in tube and the
other not. Off hand I can't think of many. The Victoria line
interchanges come to mind, principally Oxford Circus. Otherwise?


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations.

Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
and the other was built?

B2003

On 24/02/2012 12:31, d wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000
Graeme wrote:
Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations.

Minor point - they're not different stations.

Ah well that's where it gets a bit metaphysical. Plenty of examples on
the surface world of two seperate stations on the same physical site
and, often, sharing the same buldings.

Perhaps you think a basement
isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
and the other was built?


Then again perhaps I don't.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Feb 24, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000

Graeme Wall wrote:
Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. *But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations.

Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
and the other was built?

B2003

Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
Waterloo Underground.

On 24/02/2012 12:52, 77002 wrote:
On Feb 24, 12:31 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:25:14 +0000

Graeme wrote:
Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations.

Minor point - they're not different stations. Perhaps you think a basement
isn't part of the building thats sitting on top of it because one was dug
and the other was built?

B2003

Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
Waterloo Underground.

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

Historically there could be said to be up to 6 different stations the

Waterloo LSWR
Waterloo SER
Waterloo & City Line
Bakerloo Line
Northern Line
Jubilee Line
Waterloo International

First and last are physically in the same building but were operated as
two seperate stations.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Feb 24, 12:25*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:57, Andy wrote:





On Feb 24, 11:17 am, Graeme *wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:01, Andy wrote:

On Feb 24, 9:39 am, Graeme * *wrote:
On 24/02/2012 01:33, Andy wrote:

On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, * * *wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, * * *wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:59 am, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

"Peter * * *wrote:
* * *wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.

And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. *I guess it would be
Edgeware?

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:00:22 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
Waterloo Underground.

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

"Normals"?

*boggle*

B2003

On 24/02/2012 14:01, Andy wrote:
On Feb 24, 12:25 pm, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:57, Andy wrote:





On Feb 24, 11:17 am, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 11:01, Andy wrote:

On Feb 24, 9:39 am, Graeme wrote:
On 24/02/2012 01:33, Andy wrote:

On Feb 23, 10:09 pm, Charles
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:22:59 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 23, 5:38 pm, wrote:
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, wrote:

On Feb 23, 11:59 am, wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:14:47 -0000

"Peter wrote:
wrote

Plans to start Croxley Rail Link services in 2016

The formal (Railways Act 2005) closure notice for Watford LUL station has
now been published. Any objections must be in by 12 April, though actual
closure will not take place until the Croxley Link is open, expected in
2016.

I expect the residents of the new estate next to the station who no doubt
BOUGHT BAsed on proximity to the tube are going to be mightily miffed.

And even more miffed with their solicitors, if the plans for the
existing station to close were not bought to their attention before
buying?

The nearest tube station is quite some distance. I guess it would be
Edgeware?

Not that I mentioned tube stations but, if you are going to be
pedantic, it would help if you could get the name Edgware correct!!
Stanmore is closer to Watford Met anyway.

But while generally frequented by tube trains is not a tube station.

Of course, if we are going to get silly, then not too far from Watford
Met, on the north curve from Croxley to Rickmansworth, there is the
only tunnel with tube like construction on the Met.

Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even in central London, as
the running tunnel has often been opened out to form the platforms.

Often still a tube though, just a larger diameter than the running tunnels

Although the proportion has been getting less, due to the new Jubilee
stations being large concrete boxes and other stations having larger
platforms built in new tunnels. How many holes is the tube allowed to
have before it is no longer a tube?

The running tunnels are still tubes (or pipes, pace the Bellets ). I
would also dispute the statement that very few stations on tube lines in
central London are tubes.

Who said that?

Err, you did.

I said that very few stations are tube stations, even

in central London.

You said it again

My original quote: "Very few stations are tube stations anyway, even
in central London". In Central London, pure tube stations are less
than half of the number, taking into account the Sub Surface lines
plus the Victoria and Jubilee lines. Sure in Central London there will
be a higher proportion as everything is underground, but still not the
majority. If you are talking platforms then that is a different
matter.


Taken over the whole system, stations in a tube are
in a definite minority

I wasn't disputing that. Hence the emphasis on /central/ London.

and a large proportion of the Tube stations in
central London are on the subsurface lines

A proportion...

and, of the rest, there are
not many of the Lancaster Gate / Queensway / Goodge Street design
remaining where the old station tunnels are still obviously tubes for
all the platforms.

Aren't there?


No, if you don't believe me, go and have a look. Many Central London
stations and their platforms have changed a great deal since the first
line arrived at the location. As I said, when is a 'tube' no longer a
tube? How many holes are needed, or additional sections added to the
ends to a different design?



Despite rebuilding at a few major points, the majority are still tubes.

Are you talking about individual platforms or whole stations?

Well some stations have a mix of subsurface and tube construction. But
for the purposes of this arguement I would count them as different
stations. eg Earls Court/Gloucester Road/ South Ken where the District
station is a cut and cover/cutting but the Picc station is in tubes.

So double counting the stations to inflate the numbers?

No they are still tube stations, even if they are part of the same
complex as a sub-surface station. Otherwise one could just as easily
claim they weren't sub-surface stations as they were cosited with a tube
station.



There are very few stations where one platform will be in tube and the
other not. Off hand I can't think of many. The Victoria line
interchanges come to mind, principally Oxford Circus. Otherwise?


The rebuilt stations such as London Bridge as well?

Pass, I seldom use it and can't remember the subterranean setails.

What about the
construction style of the interchange passages between the platform
tunnels, does that count in the definition?

A lot of those are classic tube construction as well, but no I wasn't
counting them in or out of the definition.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 24/02/2012 14:03, d wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:00:22 +0000
Graeme wrote:
Define "Station". In my mind Waterloo is one station. I catch
trains, from platforms, there. However, Network Rail and TfL define
it as at least three stations, Waterloo Main, Waterloo East, and
Waterloo Underground.

Even normals would tend to differentiate Waterloo and Waterloo East.

"Normals"?

*boggle*


You are obviously out of touch. Don't worry, no-one would ever apply
the term to you.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail