| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting,
boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. Rob |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote:
I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. As a matter of personal taste, I quite like the bland Victoria Line style. Euston could be worse. Some of the recent jobs (Highgate, Bethnal Green) are IMO pretty badly designed and executed, whilst Tower Hill now looks like a cross between the 1970s subway systems you get under major road intersections and a public convenience. IMO the current round of station "upgrades" (why can't they just use the correct term - refurbishment) will come to be deeply lamented. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote:
I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. And yet columns at Mile End station apparently weren't worthy of preservation - so old white+green tiling was replaced with ugly blue "wraps". |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 18:26, alex_t wrote:
It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. And yet columns at Mile End station apparently weren't worthy of preservation - so old white+green tiling was replaced with ugly blue "wraps". The blue things at Mile End are temporary, aren't they? -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
wrote in message oups.com... I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. Is the southbound escalator from the station concourse down to the underground ticket hall still cordoned off? It causees severe overcrowding in the morning peak. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 18:20, John B wrote:
On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote: I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. -- John Band john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new ( www.tubephotos.com ) , but not anything from that era. Rob |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:20:31 -0700, John B wrote:
The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. Agreed. I really like Euston Square in that way, though I think it will be a bit less impressive when alighting from the new stock rather than the classic A-Stock there. Perhaps one should look at Hamburg's U- and S-Bahn for how to upgrade the system and stations while retaining character... Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:20:31 -0700, John B wrote: The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. Agreed. I really like Euston Square in that way, though I think it will be a bit less impressive when alighting from the new stock rather than the classic A-Stock there. I don't quite see the connection between the stock you are alighting from and the look of the station. Will St Pancras be any less impressive because you're alighting from a modern Eurostar train? In any case the current A-stock ambience is that of the 1990s refurbishment. At least the S-stock won't have those noisy compressors clattering away, and hopefully will have given you a more comfortable ride. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:26:57 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: I don't quite see the connection between the stock you are alighting from and the look of the station. Because the stock gives the station a classic look. It might be '90s inside, but it looks '60s from the outside. Totally unconnected to this thread, I did alight from and look down a train of A-stock earlier this week at Euston Square, and it occurred to me that the scene was really no different from what it would have been 40 years ago, bar the lack of bowler hats! Will St Pancras be any less impressive because you're alighting from a modern Eurostar train? Compared to an HST? No, but compared to steam-hauled compartment stock, yes, without a doubt. In any case the current A-stock ambience is that of the 1990s refurbishment. At least the S-stock won't have those noisy compressors clattering away, and hopefully will have given you a more comfortable ride. But won't, I'm told, have as many seats. The Met is a nice way to travel on LUL, because you have a very good chance of a seat, and when you do get one people aren't pushing past you. The standard stock will be a waste of the extra-wide loading gauge, too. The A-stock is just about the only UK stock I've seen that's actually wide enough for 2+3 with all seats occupied. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
Toby wrote: wrote in message oups.com... I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. Is the southbound escalator from the station concourse down to the underground ticket hall still cordoned off? It causees severe overcrowding in the morning peak. Yep - pain, isn't it? Some time in November, I think the sign said. Of course, you can always avoid that scrum and go via the entrance down near the platforms (7&8?), but by the time you've walked over there, the time it takes is about the same. I go there every day from Tottenham Hale, which also now has its down escalator closed off, so queues both ways (at least they have a second staircase there). |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 18:20, John B wrote:
On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote: I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. -- John Band john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org I was taking about Euston mainline, not Euston Sqaure, I rather like that station. Much if was destroyed by a second world war domb, hence the mixture of old and new. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 19:03, wrote:
I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new (www.tubephotos.com) , but not anything from that era. Re your other post - yup, misread "Euston Station" as "Euston Square". The same point applies to Euston tube, though. Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the mainline station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a par with knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not only a brilliant piece of 1960s architecture but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well. Some refurbishment is on the cards, but the structure and key features are staying the same (or at least were on the last reports I saw). -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 23:30, John B wrote:
On 25 Oct, 19:03, wrote: I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new (www.tubephotos.com) , but not anything from that era. Re your other post - yup, misread "Euston Station" as "Euston Square". The same point applies to Euston tube, though. Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the mainline station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a par with knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not only a brilliant piece of 1960s architecture but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well. Some refurbishment is on the cards, but the structure and key features are staying the same (or at least were on the last reports I saw). -- John Band john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org I dont think it's clear at this stage what will happen, but the plans go way beyond a simple refurbishment. I have mixed feelings, I've traveled through the station 600+ times per year since April 1994 as I live in Tring and work in camden. I don't think it's as bad as people make out, and I know every square inch of the structure including the disused areas. I will miss it is turned into a shopping centre/ station. No one will give a crap if it's knocked down, it's not loved like the arch. http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3084568 http://www.franklinandrews.com/proje...=type&id=15580 I have some shots of the old station, shame I'm to young to have seen it! http://www.alamy.com/stock-photograp...+old&go=1&a=-1 |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
The blue things at Mile End are temporary, aren't they? Hopefully, but it seems that there are no planned closures of Mile End in the near future - so "temporary" ugliness may last for quite a while... |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
|
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Oct 26, 11:34 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Neil Williams" wrote in message ... On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:59:51 -0700, wrote: I dont think it's clear at this stage what will happen, but the plans go way beyond a simple refurbishment. I have mixed feelings, I've traveled through the station 600+ times per year since April 1994 as I live in Tring and work in camden. I don't think it's as bad as people make out, and I know every square inch of the structure including the disused areas. I will miss it is turned into a shopping centre/ station. If it was turned into a Manc Picc-a-like I wouldn't mind too much, but it is a prime example of how Birmingham New St needn't have been crap while still having a shopping centre over the platforms. That said, I don't think it would have been as good for a predominantly diesel operation. What disused areas are there, OOI? As built there was a huge area (5 acres) above the platforms which was designed for night use by parcels traffic, needless to say when built it coincided with the decline of this sort of business. One of the rail mags raised the possibilty of its use for night goods deliveries for London shops, didn't seem to likely to me though. I wonder if there is any scope for letting more light through? Railways archive has a brochure from the opening: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...Euston1968.pdf Paul- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The deck will be demolished and replaced with a shopping centre, we will find out what the plans will be hopfully in the next 12 months. The disused areas are discussed in this thread. http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...4c8131f7c0fe39 |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 26, 11:34 am, "Paul Scott" wrote: "Neil Williams" wrote in message ... What disused areas are there, OOI? As built there was a huge area (5 acres) above the platforms which was designed for night use by parcels traffic, needless to say when built it coincided with the decline of this sort of business. One of the rail mags raised the possibilty of its use for night goods deliveries for London shops, didn't seem to likely to me though. I wonder if there is any scope for letting more light through? Railways archive has a brochure from the opening: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/doc...Euston1968.pdf The deck will be demolished and replaced with a shopping centre, we will find out what the plans will be hopfully in the next 12 months. The disused areas are discussed in this thread. http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...4c8131f7c0fe39 I thought Neil meant disused areas of the mainline station, I can't see disused tunnels caused by various alterations of the deep level stations being relevant to a shopping centre above the mainline concourse? Paul |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
|
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, John B wrote:
Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the mainline station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a par with knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not only a brilliant piece of 1960s architecture You bloody what? It's horrible, and not in a remotely interesting way! but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well. This is true, though. tom -- I don't know kung fu, I AM kung fu. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 25 Oct, 19:03, wrote:
On 25 Oct, 18:20, John B wrote: On 25 Oct, 17:57, wrote: I was really pleased to see the removal of the bland, uninteresting, boring late 60's tiling, and was looking forward to walking through a station that doesn't cause clinical depression. So was great to see the new tiling was identical to the old, nice one tubelines. Would it really have been so hard to make the station look just a little bit modern. It's in line with LU's general policy of keeping stations visually the same unless rebuilt, in order to preserve its heritage - which is a good one. The 1960s feel at Euston Square is just as worthy of preservation as the 1930s tiles at Bethnal Green and the 1900s tiles at Arsenal, IMO. -- John Band john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org I suppose it's all down to personal opinion, after all the underground station will probably be rebuild when they demolish the mainline station above. I love the Tube architecture old and new (www.tubephotos.com) , but not anything from that era. Rob Unfortunately they aren't going to put the old Euston Arch back, or rebuild the Grand Hall (not even at right angles or on a larger scale). Its just going to be a slightly more modern version of the same ugly "international style" that its currently in. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
Incidentally, I don't think there are any plans to destroy the
mainline station - if they did, it would be an act of vandalism on a par with knocking the Arch down in the first place, since it's not only a brilliant piece of 1960s architecture but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well. Some refurbishment is on the cards, but the structure and key features are staying the same (or at least were on the last reports I saw). Its horrifically ugly. And its so badly designed that it naturally attracts druggies and tramps around the front, making it one of the least inviting stations to arrive at. And inside is hardly any better, so devoid of architectural quality that there is little to describe it except "large empty box with shops round the outside". |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
but also the only mainline terminus that Just Works Really Well.
This is true, though. You could still have that if you demolished the monster of a building that housed it, and put something nicer around the platforms. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:47:32 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: You bloody what? It's horrible, and not in a remotely interesting way! It is very practical, and works in a way that many stations don't, while still retaining the impressiveness of a high-ceilinged Great Hall. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
Its horrifically ugly. And its so badly designed that it naturally
attracts druggies and tramps around the front, making it one of the least inviting stations to arrive at. And inside is hardly any better, so devoid of architectural quality that there is little to describe it except "large empty box with shops round the outside". The inside of the station is very good - it has been allowed to become cluttered with island shops and some quite inappropriate frontages (eg the pub inside the station - The Britannia, is it called?) and some of the less commonly used areas are not kept clean. This is a shame, but the main hall is a very impressive piece of architecture and the station does work well (far better than, say, Victoria). The outside is something else though - it is ugly, shabby and hard to navigate: this is where the focus for any investment should be. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 5 Nov, 12:45, whos2091 wrote:
Its horrifically ugly. And its so badly designed that it naturally attracts druggies and tramps around the front, making it one of the least inviting stations to arrive at. And inside is hardly any better, so devoid of architectural quality that there is little to describe it except "large empty box with shops round the outside". The inside of the station is very good - it has been allowed to become cluttered with island shops and some quite inappropriate frontages (eg the pub inside the station - The Britannia, is it called?) and some of the less commonly used areas are not kept clean. This is a shame, but the main hall is a very impressive piece of architecture and the station does work well (far better than, say, Victoria). If you took the shops out of Victoria it would be a thousand times more impressive. Besides, impressiveness is worthless if it still leaves Euston at the intrinsically ugly monstrosity that it is. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:53:46 -0800, lonelytraveller
wrote: Besides, impressiveness is worthless if it still leaves Euston at the intrinsically ugly monstrosity that it is. Ugly it may be, but it is immensely practical - and the shops aren't a bad thing if you want to use them! Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 5 Nov, 20:57, (Neil Williams) wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:53:46 -0800, lonelytraveller wrote: Besides, impressiveness is worthless if it still leaves Euston at the intrinsically ugly monstrosity that it is. Ugly it may be, but it is immensely practical - and the shops aren't a bad thing if you want to use them! That's no excuse. That's no justification for it being designed the way it is rather than something more pleasant. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:17:09 -0800, lonelytraveller
wrote: That's no excuse. That's no justification for it being designed the way it is rather than something more pleasant. I'd rather it was like that than freezing, smelly (OK, that's the diesel) Paddington, for example. Neil -- Neil Williams Put my first name before the at to reply. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 6 Nov, 21:07, (Neil Williams) wrote:
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:17:09 -0800, lonelytraveller wrote: That's no excuse. That's no justification for it being designed the way it is rather than something more pleasant. I'd rather it was like that than freezing, smelly (OK, that's the diesel) Paddington, for example. The train shed in Euston is just as freezing and smelly. The "shops area" in paddington is no more freezing or smelly than the hall in Euston, and probably is actually warmer as its fully enclosed. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 7 Nov, 19:39, lonelytraveller
wrote: I'd rather it was like that than freezing, smelly (OK, that's the diesel) Paddington, for example. The train shed in Euston is just as freezing and smelly. The "shops area" in paddington is no more freezing or smelly than the hall in Euston, and probably is actually warmer as its fully enclosed. That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 7 Nov, 19:06, John B wrote:
On 7 Nov, 19:39, lonelytraveller wrote: I'd rather it was like that than freezing, smelly (OK, that's the diesel) Paddington, for example. The train shed in Euston is just as freezing and smelly. The "shops area" in paddington is no more freezing or smelly than the hall in Euston, and probably is actually warmer as its fully enclosed. That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Any more than people have to wait in the suburban platforms shed at Euston, even though they do. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 8 Nov, 09:18, lonelytraveller
wrote: That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Any more than people have to wait in the suburban platforms shed at Euston, even though they do. Yes there is - it's where you are, and it's where the departures board is. (presumably the people waiting in the suburban shed at Euston are doing so because it's the only way they can guarantee a seat when the next train arrives. the suburban bit of Euston is the least well- designed IMO) -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 8 Nov, 08:37, John B wrote:
On 8 Nov, 09:18, lonelytraveller wrote: That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Any more than people have to wait in the suburban platforms shed at Euston, even though they do. Yes there is - it's where you are, and it's where the departures board is. I agree. Euston is nice because it doesn't feel like a station while you wait. The trains are kept out of the way, and the whole place feels more like a shopping mall. (presumably the people waiting in the suburban shed at Euston are doing so because it's the only way they can guarantee a seat when the next train arrives. the suburban bit of Euston is the least well- designed IMO) Still better designed than the suburban platforms at Paddington. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:18:08 -0800, lonelytraveller wrote:
On 7 Nov, 19:06, John B wrote: On 7 Nov, 19:39, lonelytraveller wrote: I'd rather it was like that than freezing, smelly (OK, that's the diesel) Paddington, for example. The train shed in Euston is just as freezing and smelly. The "shops area" in paddington is no more freezing or smelly than the hall in Euston, and probably is actually warmer as its fully enclosed. That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Didn't you just say one side was freezing and smelly? |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 8 Nov, 18:41, asdf wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:18:08 -0800, lonelytraveller wrote: On 7 Nov, 19:06, John B wrote: On 7 Nov, 19:39, lonelytraveller wrote: I'd rather it was like that than freezing, smelly (OK, that's the diesel) Paddington, for example. The train shed in Euston is just as freezing and smelly. The "shops area" in paddington is no more freezing or smelly than the hall in Euston, and probably is actually warmer as its fully enclosed. That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Didn't you just say one side was freezing and smelly? I never described either side as freezing or smelly. Even if the train side was freezing and smelly, that wouldn't exactly justify not being on the other side of the glass wall. |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On 8 Nov, 12:06, "
wrote: On 8 Nov, 08:37, John B wrote: On 8 Nov, 09:18, lonelytraveller wrote: That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Any more than people have to wait in the suburban platforms shed at Euston, even though they do. Yes there is - it's where you are, and it's where the departures board is. I agree. Euston is nice because it doesn't feel like a station while you wait. The trains are kept out of the way, and the whole place feels more like a shopping mall. It feels like a carpark. What's so good about feeling like a shopping mall anyway? when did they become the height of culture. (presumably the people waiting in the suburban shed at Euston are doing so because it's the only way they can guarantee a seat when the next train arrives. the suburban bit of Euston is the least well- designed IMO) Still better designed than the suburban platforms at Paddington. You mean the ones that crossrail will render redundant? |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Any more than people have to wait in the suburban platforms shed at Euston, even though they do. Yes there is - it's where you are, and it's where the departures board is. Are you trying to claim that you can't see through clear glass? |
Euston Station Underground upgrade a joke.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:37:21 -0800, John B wrote:
On 8 Nov, 09:18, lonelytraveller wrote: That's a disingenuous argument. If someone goes to Paddington, buys a ticket and waits for a train, they end up spending their time in the freezing, smelly train shed - unless they make a particular effort not to. If someone goes to Euston and does the same, they will end up waiting on the unfreezing, unsmelly concourse [which is also fully enclosed], and will only have to enter the train shed when they're already walking to their train. No, that's a disingenuous argument. There's no particular reason to wait on one side of the glass wall than the other. Any more than people have to wait in the suburban platforms shed at Euston, even though they do. Yes there is - it's where you are, and it's where the departures board is. There are departures screens on the other side of the glass wall. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:22 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk