On 22/12/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10ib7d0$3eckh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:44 on Mon, 22 Dec
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
-aMethinks you've never really taken time to observe what happens in
practice (by the way, floating bus stops are claimed to exist to
allow free passage of cyclists - and nowadays escooters - by
providing a permanent lane for the overtake stationary buses on the
inside).
A stunning piece of design where passengers boarding and alighting
cross the path of hurtling e-scooters, delaying the bus even further
even if neither party ends up lying on the floor.
If neither party is on the floor, what's the problem?
I think we're agreed that buses can occupy, or at least render
unusable, an awful lot of road space.
Indeed they can. Not least because "bus stations" seem like a thing of
the past, so buses going-nowhere are often abandoned at the kerbside,
causing a blockage to passing traffic.
The owners of some bus companies made fortunes by selling bus station
sites to property developers after bus privatisation & deregulation.
"bus stations" seem like a thing of the past, so buses going-nowhere >>>are often abandoned at the kerbside, causing a blockage to passing >>>traffic.
The owners of some bus companies made fortunes by selling bus
station sites to property developers after bus privatisation & >>deregulation.
Asset stripping. That goodness it is too difficult to do the same with >railway stations otherwise Liverpool street would have been moved to >Stratford and so on.
On 22/12/2025 18:55, Bevan Price wrote:
On 22/12/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10ib7d0$3eckh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:44 on Mon, 22 Dec
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
-aMethinks you've never really taken time to observe what happens in >>>>> practice (by the way, floating bus stops are claimed to exist to
allow free passage of cyclists - and nowadays escooters - by
providing a permanent lane for the overtake stationary buses on the >>>>> inside).
A stunning piece of design where passengers boarding and alighting
cross the path of hurtling e-scooters, delaying the bus even further
even if neither party ends up lying on the floor.
If neither party is on the floor, what's the problem?
I think we're agreed that buses can occupy, or at least render
unusable, an awful lot of road space.
Indeed they can. Not least because "bus stations" seem like a thing of
the past, so buses going-nowhere are often abandoned at the kerbside,
causing a blockage to passing traffic.
The owners of some bus companies made fortunes by selling bus station
sites to property developers after bus privatisation & deregulation.
Asset stripping. That goodness it is too difficult to do the same with railway stations otherwise Liverpool street would have been moved to Stratford and so on.
That goodness it is too difficult to do the same with railway stations otherwise Liverpool street would have been moved to Stratford and so on.
In message <10jjc2r$3ugug$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:08:58 on Tue, 6 Jan
2026, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
"bus stations" seem like a thing of the past, so buses going-nowhere >>>> are often abandoned at the kerbside, causing a blockage to passing
traffic.
The owners of some bus companies made fortunes by selling bus
station sites to property developers after bus privatisation &
deregulation.
Asset stripping. That goodness it is too difficult to do the same with
railway stations otherwise Liverpool street would have been moved to
Stratford and so on.
They did something different at Liverpool St (and Victoria) which was to build offices above the platforms. Moving the stations probably wouldn't have made sense, because of the many onward travel opportunities (bus,
tube etc) at the original site.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:21:26 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
Historic rail bridge collapses into River Spey
Beautiful Former Railway Bridge of the Silv'ry Spey!
Alas! I am very sorry to say
That bits appear to have fallen away
On a Sabbath day in 2025
Tho' fortunately none have been made unalive
Mark
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> posted:
On 21/12/2025 09:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10i8b32$2jhrq$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:28:18 on Sun, 21 Dec >>>> 2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
It must be quite a challenge to-a jointly administer two sites over an >>>>>> hour apart by car and two hours by-a train via Liverpool St (or a bus, >>>>>> change at Stansted airport, is also-a 2hrs.)
These days they cope with two campuses a continent apart so a mere
hour by car is easy :-)
I wonder if the plural is Campi?
Campari?
You might write 'campusses'.
rCLCampussiesrCY?
Sam
On 22/12/2025 18:55, Bevan Price wrote:
On 22/12/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10ib7d0$3eckh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:44 on Mon, 22 Dec
2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
-aMethinks you've never really taken time to observe what happens in >>>>> practice (by the way, floating bus stops are claimed to exist to
allow free passage of cyclists - and nowadays escooters - by
providing a permanent lane for the overtake stationary buses on the >>>>> inside).
A stunning piece of design where passengers boarding and alighting
cross the path of hurtling e-scooters, delaying the bus even further
even if neither party ends up lying on the floor.
If neither party is on the floor, what's the problem?
I think we're agreed that buses can occupy, or at least render
unusable, an awful lot of road space.
Indeed they can. Not least because "bus stations" seem like a thing of
the past, so buses going-nowhere are often abandoned at the kerbside,
causing a blockage to passing traffic.
The owners of some bus companies made fortunes by selling bus station
sites to property developers after bus privatisation & deregulation.
Asset stripping. That goodness it is too difficult to do the same with railway stations otherwise Liverpool street would have been moved to Stratford and so on.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
They did something different at Liverpool St (and Victoria) which was to
build offices above the platforms. Moving the stations probably wouldn't
have made sense, because of the many onward travel opportunities (bus,
tube etc) at the original site.
Many London stations have had over-station developments. Generally, they
help fund station redevelopment or modernisation projects. Several more are planned, including
Paddington: A 19-storey, 235,000 sq ft office building with retail at the canal-side entrance.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 22/12/2025 18:55, Bevan Price wrote:
On 22/12/2025 11:11, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10ib7d0$3eckh$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:43:44 on Mon, 22 Dec >>>> 2025, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
-aMethinks you've never really taken time to observe what happens in >>>>>> practice (by the way, floating bus stops are claimed to exist to
allow free passage of cyclists - and nowadays escooters - by
providing a permanent lane for the overtake stationary buses on the >>>>>> inside).
A stunning piece of design where passengers boarding and alighting
cross the path of hurtling e-scooters, delaying the bus even further >>>>> even if neither party ends up lying on the floor.
If neither party is on the floor, what's the problem?
I think we're agreed that buses can occupy, or at least render
unusable, an awful lot of road space.
Indeed they can. Not least because "bus stations" seem like a thing of >>>> the past, so buses going-nowhere are often abandoned at the kerbside,
causing a blockage to passing traffic.
The owners of some bus companies made fortunes by selling bus station
sites to property developers after bus privatisation & deregulation.
Asset stripping. That goodness it is too difficult to do the same with
railway stations otherwise Liverpool street would have been moved to
Stratford and so on.
Wrexham, Morecambe, Bradford and Fort William might disagree.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
They did something different at Liverpool St (and Victoria) which was to >>> build offices above the platforms. Moving the stations probably wouldn't >>> have made sense, because of the many onward travel opportunities (bus,
tube etc) at the original site.
Many London stations have had over-station developments. Generally, they
help fund station redevelopment or modernisation projects. Several more are >> planned, including
Paddington: A 19-storey, 235,000 sq ft office building with retail at the
canal-side entrance.
Do you have a link for that one please?
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 17:49:32 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
They did something different at Liverpool St (and Victoria) which was to >>>> build offices above the platforms. Moving the stations probably wouldn't >>>> have made sense, because of the many onward travel opportunities (bus, >>>> tube etc) at the original site.
Many London stations have had over-station developments. Generally, they >>> help fund station redevelopment or modernisation projects. Several more are >>> planned, including
Paddington: A 19-storey, 235,000 sq ft office building with retail at the >>> canal-side entrance.
Do you have a link for that one please?
https://grimshaw.global/projects/workplace/paddington-over-site-development/
https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2025/07/17/mace-confirmed-for-200m-paddington-overstation-job/
https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/mace-accelerates-paddington-over-station-development
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 17:57:55 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,414 |
| Posted today: | 1 |