Re: Sir Terry Farrell backs Euston as venue for London high speed rail hub
E27002
wrote:
> Presumably this would be the existing Euston station not a new one.
>
> Building a new station when a perfectly good one exists already
> strikes me as an outrageous, though not entirely untypical, big state
> Labour idea.
>
> A preference for bullshit over engineering elegance always has been a
> notoriety of the big state socialist way of thinking.
>
> As for integration, surely Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross are
> already close enough together to be considered as one station.
>
> All it would take would be a few travelators, perhaps underground; to
> sell the idea of one integrated station.
>
> It would certainly be no worse than most airports.
IMHO it is a bit of a stretch from Euston to Kings Cross/St P.
However, Euston would be improved by having better integration with
Euston Square station. Perhaps a now subsurface ticket hall in front
of the mainline station with links to the Northern, Victoria and H&C/
Circle Lines.
Mr.G
wrote:
>However, Euston would be improved by having better integration with
>Euston Square station. Perhaps a now subsurface ticket hall in front
>of the mainline station with links to the Northern, Victoria and H&C/
>Circle Lines.
Yes, and a large arch at the entrance.
[Coat already on]
Tom Barry
Agreed. An arch would be much better than that fugly propylaeum they
used to have there that the crusties and nostalgia freaks won't shut up
about.
[flame-proof overalls standing by]
Tom
Basil Jet
Since Euston/St Pancras is to be the gateway to The North and the gateway to
The Continent, how about a Wembley-style arch stretching from Euston to St
Pancras, with gondolas hanging from it? That would show them uppity
Wuppertalers, and I think it might be cheaper than a subterranean
travelator.
--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.
Bruce
Until I read your post, I doubted that it would have been possible for
anyone to come up with an even more tacky idea for Euston Road than a
21st century restaurant-and-nightclub-housing semi-replica of a
grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
It now appears that I was wrong. ;-)
Tom Anderson
But it could be held up by fibreglass replica caryatids! Perhaps modelled
after the celebrated Ms Katie Price?
tom
--
A hypothesis or theory is clear, decisive, and positive, but it is
believed by no one but the man who created it. Experimental findings,
on the other hand, are messy, inexact things, which are believed by
everyone except the man who did that work. -- Harlow Shapley
Bruce
<tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:09:54 -0000, "Basil Jet"
>> <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Since Euston/St Pancras is to be the gateway to The North and the gateway to
>>> The Continent, how about a Wembley-style arch stretching from Euston to St
>>> Pancras, with gondolas hanging from it? That would show them uppity
>>> Wuppertalers, and I think it might be cheaper than a subterranean
>>> travelator.
>>
>> Until I read your post, I doubted that it would have been possible for
>> anyone to come up with an even more tacky idea for Euston Road than a
>> 21st century restaurant-and-nightclub-housing semi-replica of a
>> grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
>>
>> It now appears that I was wrong. ;-)
>
>But it could be held up by fibreglass replica caryatids! Perhaps modelled
>after the celebrated Ms Katie Price?
Oh, joy. Not. :-(
Miles Bader
> grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
What's wrong with propylaea (no idea how one is supposed to form the
plural...) anyway? They look kinda cool...
Always liked nice chunky gates.
-Miles
--
Resign, v. A good thing to do when you are going to be kicked out.
Bruce
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:
>> grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
>
>What's wrong with propylaea (no idea how one is supposed to form the
>plural...) anyway?
What is wrong with anything that is completely pointless?
The original served no useful purpose. It was purely a marketing
tool. It made a statement about the railway company that commissioned
it. And that's it.
Admittedly, it was a massive statement. The "Arch" became a familiar,
but ultimately pointless landmark. Then, in the 1960s, it got in the
way of turning a horrible mess of a railway station into something
that was truly fit for purpose.
It is notable that the proposal to rebuild the "Arch" includes a
nightclub and a restaurant, so the new one (if it is ever built) would
at least have some purpose. However, its heritage value will be very
limited, as to fulfil its purpose, it will almost certainly need to
have a slender structural frame clad with thin, light panels of
reconstituted stone.
The massive stone structure of the original would be ruled out on
practical and cost grounds, and only very few of the salvaged pieces
could be included. So the new one would hardly be a replica, more
like pastiche.
I doubt that it will ever happen.
MIG
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:42:45 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
>
> >What's wrong with propylaea (no idea how one is supposed to form the
> >plural...) anyway?
>
> What is wrong with anything that is completely pointless?
>
> The original served no useful purpose. It was purely a marketing
> tool. It made a statement about the railway company that commissioned
> it. And that's it.
>
> Admittedly, it was a massive statement. The "Arch" became a familiar,
> but ultimately pointless landmark.
I've always felt the same about Canary Wharf Jubilee station, which
everyone but me seems to rave over, but which I would consider to be
an ostentatious sculpture rather than architecture.
It's a rectangular concrete hole, probably created by pumping water
out of a dock, and fails to protect its occupants from the cold in
winter. Putting a sculpture on top of it doesn't make it more fit for
purpose.
Bruce
Yes, I agree. It is a fine structure and a very impressive piece of
architecture. But totally unnecessary for a Tube station. Those tiny
Tube trains seem so out of place in such a grand design.
Another is Westminster, on the same Jubilee line. As a civil
engineer, I find it a most impressive monument to below-ground civil
engineering, almost on a par with a major bridge. But I do wonder
whether such a huge (and hugely expensive) hole in the ground was
absolutely necessary.
Basil Jet
>
> Another is Westminster, on the same Jubilee line. As a civil
> engineer, I find it a most impressive monument to below-ground civil
> engineering, almost on a par with a major bridge. But I do wonder
> whether such a huge (and hugely expensive) hole in the ground was
> absolutely necessary.
It's supposed to be particularly bomb-proof, so maybe it is neccessary. I
imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground stations
where a bomb could go off without even permanently deafening everyone on the
same platform.
Bruce
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Another is Westminster, on the same Jubilee line. As a civil
>> engineer, I find it a most impressive monument to below-ground civil
>> engineering, almost on a par with a major bridge. But I do wonder
>> whether such a huge (and hugely expensive) hole in the ground was
>> absolutely necessary.
>
>It's supposed to be particularly bomb-proof, so maybe it is neccessary.
Interesting. Not mentioned in any of the technical articles I have
read, but that's hardly surprising.
>I imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground stations
>where a bomb could go off without even permanently deafening everyone on the
>same platform.
I'm sure you're right. But if all Tube stations had to be built in
that way, we could afford only a very few of them.
Basil Jet
>
>> I imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground
>> stations where a bomb could go off without even permanently
>> deafening everyone on the same platform.
>
> I'm sure you're right. But if all Tube stations had to be built in
> that way, we could afford only a very few of them.
Westminster station has MP's offices on top of it.
Bruce
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> I imagine Westminster and Canary Wharf to be the only underground
>>> stations where a bomb could go off without even permanently
>>> deafening everyone on the same platform.
>>
>> I'm sure you're right. But if all Tube stations had to be built in
>> that way, we could afford only a very few of them.
>
>Westminster station has MP's offices on top of it.
Yes, I realise that. I still wonder whether the expense of such a
grand structure for the station was justifiable.
Martin Edwards
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:57 +0000, Tom Anderson
> <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:09:54 -0000, "Basil Jet"
>>> <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Since Euston/St Pancras is to be the gateway to The North and the gateway to
>>>> The Continent, how about a Wembley-style arch stretching from Euston to St
>>>> Pancras, with gondolas hanging from it? That would show them uppity
>>>> Wuppertalers, and I think it might be cheaper than a subterranean
>>>> travelator.
>>> Until I read your post, I doubted that it would have been possible for
>>> anyone to come up with an even more tacky idea for Euston Road than a
>>> 21st century restaurant-and-nightclub-housing semi-replica of a
>>> grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
>>>
>>> It now appears that I was wrong. ;-)
>> But it could be held up by fibreglass replica caryatids! Perhaps modelled
>> after the celebrated Ms Katie Price?
>
>
> Oh, joy. Not. :-(
>
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Graeme
Martin Edwards <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:57 +0000, Tom Anderson
> > <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:09:54 -0000, "Basil Jet"
> >>> <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Since Euston/St Pancras is to be the gateway to The North and the gateway to
> >>>> The Continent, how about a Wembley-style arch stretching from Euston to St
> >>>> Pancras, with gondolas hanging from it? That would show them uppity
> >>>> Wuppertalers, and I think it might be cheaper than a subterranean
> >>>> travelator.
> >>> Until I read your post, I doubted that it would have been possible for
> >>> anyone to come up with an even more tacky idea for Euston Road than a
> >>> 21st century restaurant-and-nightclub-housing semi-replica of a
> >>> grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
> >>>
> >>> It now appears that I was wrong. ;-)
> >> But it could be held up by fibreglass replica caryatids! Perhaps modelled
> >> after the celebrated Ms Katie Price?
> >
> >
> > Oh, joy. Not. :-(
> >
> Someone remind me what she is famous for, apart from being famous.
>
Big tits
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Bruce
<big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bruce wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:17:57 +0000, Tom Anderson
>> <tw...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:09:54 -0000, "Basil Jet"
>>>> <jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Since Euston/St Pancras is to be the gateway to The North and the gateway to
>>>>> The Continent, how about a Wembley-style arch stretching from Euston to St
>>>>> Pancras, with gondolas hanging from it? That would show them uppity
>>>>> Wuppertalers, and I think it might be cheaper than a subterranean
>>>>> travelator.
>>>> Until I read your post, I doubted that it would have been possible for
>>>> anyone to come up with an even more tacky idea for Euston Road than a
>>>> 21st century restaurant-and-nightclub-housing semi-replica of a
>>>> grotesque and entirely pointless 19th century propylaeum.
>>>>
>>>> It now appears that I was wrong. ;-)
>>> But it could be held up by fibreglass replica caryatids! Perhaps modelled
>>> after the celebrated Ms Katie Price?
>>
>>
>> Oh, joy. Not. :-(
>>
>Someone remind me what she is famous for, apart from being famous.
Acting as though she was the Queen of Chavs?