On 7 Aug, 15:17, "Mortimer"
privacy.net> wrote:> "Paul Scott"
btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:JNCdneowG__ZcwfVnZ2dnUVZ8qfinZ2d@bt.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> On Aug 7, 1:48 am, "fjm...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com> wrote:>>>> On 6 Aug, 22:55, darkprince66
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>
>>>>> 10 minutes walk? To the nearest tube station? Gasps in horror... You
>>>>> poor darlings ;-)
>
>>>> I know, that was my reaction. If we weren't spoiled we wouldn't be so
>>>> worried. Chancery Lane, Holborn etc aren't far. By the standards of
>>>> many towns and cities, Waterloo isn't far.
>
>>>> Francis
>
>>> True, but it still makes you wonder how _necessary_ the closure really
>>> is. Â As far as I recall, the works are to extend the platforms (to the
>>> south bank) and create four through ones instead of two through and
>>> three bays - I'm sure someone _could_ work out a way to do this
>>> leaving one platform open each time (even if Northbound only or
>>> whatever).
>
>> Er.. you've completely missed the point here - the news is about the long
>> term closure (two and a half years) of the LU platforms, not the
>> Thameslink ones.
>
> Interesting: I'd thought that it was the Thameslink platforms as well.
>
> What are they doing to the LU platforms and access that will take 2½ years?
> Obviously it's not track related if trains can still run through non-stop.
Given what happened at Bank ...
I bet there's just one passageway closed or something, which the
dubious simulation software they must be using has calculated to
result in thousands of deaths through overcrowding unless they close
the whole station.
Let's hope that they don't apply the same simulations to stations that
aren't having any work done, or they might realise that they have to
close all of them.
