Monday’s Friday Reads – 21 October 2019

1. No apparent mention in the Surrey Canal article of the fate of much of the Croydon Canal – turned into a railway, in fact, apart from a couple of very small remnants. [ Most of: New Cross Gate – W Croydon, IIRC ]

   Is it actually possible to read the article on Great Yarmouth?
   I get a pop-up, that refuses to allow reading of the actual material … & even going to “issue 106” doesn’t cure the problem

2. I believe the article on Great Yarmouth is now behind a paywall. I was able to read it initially. It’s an interesting website of regenerated and restored infrastructure.

3. The U9 is good news, but for those familiar with the network, looking at the proposed service patterns, it may as well be called the U6 if the M-Freiheit-Marienplatz corridor becomes exclusively U3. Then they wouldn’t have a missing number, and they wouldn’t have to re-number the outlying sections.

   In other expansion news, the HydeParkNow report showing tangible evidence in baked enamel of a possible re-think of the initial Purple line phasing is worth a look.

4. Nickbxn
   Do you mean THIS article? Or something else?

5. @ Greg T 09:09 – The canal article does mention the railway: “The [Croydon] canal was dead by 1836, the first in the country to be closed by parliament. The land was purchased by the London And Croydon Railway, who built their line largely alongside the old canal and turned the basin into West Croydon station.”

   As an aside, my mother, born in 1917, told me that the Surrey Canal provided her with her ‘country walks’ when she was a girl.

   The article also refers to: “a park reclaimed from the old Russia Dock in Surrey Quays, a large amount of quayside.” Of course, Surrey Quays should be called Surrey Docks, as indeed the area was so named until comparatively recently. In it was Russia Yard (not Russia Dock) and it had a dockside, not quayside.

6. Greg 14:12 – Yes, it’s that one. It’s not exactly bargain basement quality signage for what ought to be there for only up to couple of years – I wonder why they haven’t put the whole route up and blanked off the core section and beyond with a durable piece of vinyl. The conclusions drawn by the author on the Canary Wharf branch opening before the core section look very plausible, and I haven’t caught heard of this from any other sources.

7. @Nickbxn There is now an update to the story and the sign. Covered over as far too early to have been posted. The author considers inconsistent application of standards across the line.

8. Another oddity is the sign shown in the article displayed at Forest Gate, which has the Northern Line connection (thereby implying Liverpool Street Low Level) but no space for Whitechapel (which the route to LStLL would pass through)

9. Interchange from Liverpool Street to Northern line suggests it has been brought closer, but just as far to walk to Moorgate with the promise of undercover walkway!

10. Looking at the later article, it all looks such a mess that I would conclude that it was a mistake. Despite the well known efforts to sort out management of the project – notwithstanding all the earlier debate about identity and distinguishing the transport modes – this looks like the clueless leading the clueless.

    One hopes LR Towers might get some insider information…

11. Signage… I was atTottenham Court Road yesterday. Covered-over but still legible Crossrail branded direction signage in the station. Interesting example of a line producing historical artifacts before it even goes live.

    The new TCR tube entrance already looks new-but-shabby with misleading signage: Exit 4 for Charing Cross Road does nothing of the sort: it leads to a massive puddle and a blocked-off building site. You need to walk back to the TCR/Oxford Street junction, cross over, pass another tube exit, then you’re on CCR. No wonder the tourists clustered around exit four looked hungry and, yesterday, very wet.

Comments are closed.