Oyster Pre-Pay and Stratford Station
 

Robin May wrote:

The closure of the subway to the station from the shopping centre is
the only part of the design that I don't like. It's a shame they had to
do that although I suppose it's much better than keeping the original
entrance which was not nice at all.

I find that it effects an active darwinian selection mechansim - the odd
hurried fleet-footed people seem to cross whenever there's a slight gap in
the traffic, and about 50 dazed shopping-laden people barely consciously
follow like sheep into the slaughter, irrespective of the state of the not
very visible green person.

--
Ian Tindale

Oyster Pre-Pay and Stratford Station
 

In article , Robin
May wrote:
John Haines wrote the following in:


Originally there was only funding (from LUL) for the western half -
approximately the western 2/3rds of the current Concourse. The
Jubilee line gateline was part of this scheme but it would not have
provided a new entrance. The old entrance and linking tunnel from
the shopping centre, which looked a bit like entering a public
toilet (mostly subterranean and white tiled) would have stayed.

The closure of the subway to the station from the shopping centre is
the only part of the design that I don't like. It's a shame they had
to do that although I suppose it's much better than keeping the
original entrance which was not nice at all.

It blocked access to what is now the taxi area at the eastern end of
the Concourse.
It was also regarded as a security problem.

John Haines

Oyster Pre-Pay and Stratford Station
 

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, John Haines wrote:

In article , umpston
wrote:
John Haines wrote in message
...

Don't get me started about the glass.

Glad to hear there is nothing wrong with the glass (sorry if I'm
getting you started)

Glass - yes you have got me started.

To summarise, there are two basic types of safety glass, laminated and
toughened.

Could one not have used some sort of plastic?

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

tom

--
A plug on its back, straining to suck voltage from the sky

Oyster Pre-Pay and Stratford Station
 

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, John Haines wrote:

In article ,
umpston wrote:
John Haines wrote in message
...

Don't get me started about the glass.

Glad to hear there is nothing wrong with the glass (sorry if I'm
getting you started)

Glass - yes you have got me started.

To summarise, there are two basic types of safety glass, laminated
and toughened.

Could one not have used some sort of plastic?

Sorry if this is a stupid question.

We didn't look at plastic in any detail but these are the sort of
reasons why glass is still widely used.

Most plastic is much less resistant to surface abrasion, it would go
cloudy.
There would be the same problems of load transfer as laminated glass -
yes, it would be lighter but not enough to avoid serious injury if a 2m
x 3.3m sheet hit you.
There would probably be a problem with ageing under natural light.
A certain amount of strength and rigidity is required, glass is more
rigid than plastic.
A plastic which would overcome these problems sufficiently
(polycarbonate?) would probably be more expensive than glass.

John Haines

Oyster Pre-Pay and Stratford Station