On 16 May, 02:04, Tom Anderson wrote:
Wow. I didn't realise it was going to grow out of the water like that. How
is it connected to dry land on the side we can't see? Two little bridges
like on the side we can, or more? The bridges on this side don't seem like
a lot of capacity for such a major station.

I've had a dig through the planning documents. The arrangements a

North side, west end:
- Lifting pedestrian bridge (upper level) - in white in the photo
- Lifting pedestrian bridge (ground level) - in brown in the photo

(why yes sir, a double decker draw bridge)

North side, east end:
- Lifting road bridge (upper level)

South side, west end (the main entrance):
- Fixed pedestrian ramp leading all the way to North Colonnade (upper
level)
- Fixed pedestrian bridge (ground level)

South side, middle:
- Fixed pedestrian bridge (ground level)

South side, east end:
- Fixed road bridge with pedestrian access (upper level)
- Very wide fixed pedestrian area above dock (ground level)

Diagram he
http://tinyurl.com/ojt5nc

Also, the whole roof lattice is made out of WOOD!

Can it be a colonnade if it's trees? I'm sure there's a word for this -
i've looked it up and found 'allee', but that's not what i was thinking
of.

The roads either side of Canada Square and Canary Wharf DLR are called
North and South Colonnade, despite having no discernible colonnisity
that I've noticed. I've decided everything gets to be a colonnade
around here.

U

In message
, at
03:06:34 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Mr Thant
remarked:
Wow. I didn't realise it was going to grow out of the water like that. How
is it connected to dry land on the side we can't see? Two little bridges
like on the side we can, or more? The bridges on this side don't seem like
a lot of capacity for such a major station.

Diagram he
http://tinyurl.com/ojt5nc

And the railway lines - deep underground I suppose (below the docks).
--
Roland Perry

On 16 May, 11:52, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
03:06:34 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Mr Thant
And the railway lines - deep underground I suppose (below the docks).

Yes:
http://tinyurl.com/q8spkt

U

In message
, at
06:24:04 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Mr Thant
remarked:
And the railway lines - deep underground I suppose (below the docks).

Yes:
http://tinyurl.com/q8spkt

Very revealing. Four floors of retail, then ticket hall below that and
the platforms below that.

I was wondering why they needed such a long building if the trains were
below the surface. RETAIL!
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
,
at 06:24:04 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Mr Thant
remarked:
And the railway lines - deep underground I suppose (below the
docks).

Yes:
http://tinyurl.com/q8spkt

Very revealing. Four floors of retail, then ticket hall below that and
the platforms below that.

I was wondering why they needed such a long building if the trains
were below the surface. RETAIL!

Maybe they wouldn't be allowed to have platforms below water.

In message , at 15:04:13 on Sat, 16
May 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/q8spkt

Very revealing. Four floors of retail, then ticket hall below that and
the platforms below that.

I was wondering why they needed such a long building if the trains
were below the surface. RETAIL!

Maybe they wouldn't be allowed to have platforms below water.

They are below water, just like the Jubilee line station.

Having built on every scrap of land they are now building on the old
docks - so inconsiderate for someone to have dug them in the first
place.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:13 on Sat,
16 May 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/q8spkt

Very revealing. Four floors of retail, then ticket hall below that
and the platforms below that.

I was wondering why they needed such a long building if the trains
were below the surface. RETAIL!

Maybe they wouldn't be allowed to have platforms below water.

They are below water, just like the Jubilee line station.

The Jubilee Line station looks like it's entirely below ex-water to me.

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 15:04:13 on
Sat, 16 May 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
http://tinyurl.com/q8spkt

Very revealing. Four floors of retail, then ticket hall below that
and the platforms below that.

I was wondering why they needed such a long building if the trains
were below the surface. RETAIL!

Maybe they wouldn't be allowed to have platforms below water.

They are below water, just like the Jubilee line station.

Having built on every scrap of land they are now building on the
old docks - so inconsiderate for someone to have dug them in the
first place.

Why? It's not as if the docks are required for shipping any more.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 16 May, 16:24, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:13 on Sat, 16
May 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
Maybe they wouldn't be allowed to have platforms below water.

Not so. If it weren't for the last-minute addition of the retail
component, the station would have been built with exactly the same
layout, only with water where the retail will be.

Having built on every scrap of land they are now building on the old
docks - so inconsiderate for someone to have dug them in the first
place.

There's no other reason for it being built so much earlier than the
rest of the line. The Canary Wharf Group (or whatever they're called)
must be very keen to get those shops open.

U