According to section 6.3 of
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/...ing-report.pdf
the proposal to close Wapping station is just a cost saving measure, and if
they can't find a way of retaining it under the current safety regulations
they could build a replacement on LU owned land just N of its existing
location.

Firstly, is this true?
Secondly, is that the reason why LU owns that land?
Thirdly, why isn't the plan to retain the station better publicised?

Aidan Stanger wrote:
According to section 6.3 of

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/...ing-report.pdf
the proposal to close Wapping station is just a cost saving measure,
and if
they can't find a way of retaining it under the current safety
regulations
they could build a replacement on LU owned land just N of its
existing
location.

Firstly, is this true?
Secondly, is that the reason why LU owns that land?
Thirdly, why isn't the plan to retain the station better publicised?

The Tower Hamlets report is dated March 2004. It seems their campaign
succeeded since in August, when TfL took over the ELL project from the
Strategic Snail Authority, it was announced that Wapping will not be
closed. I don't know, however, what solution they have found to the
technical problems at this site which led them to consider closure.

wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:

According to section 6.3 of
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/...ing-report.pdf
the proposal to close Wapping station is just a cost saving measure,
and if they can't find a way of retaining it under the current safety
regulations they could build a replacement on LU owned land just N of its
existing location.

Firstly, is this true?
Secondly, is that the reason why LU owns that land?
Thirdly, why isn't the plan to retain the station better publicised?


The Tower Hamlets report is dated March 2004. It seems their campaign
succeeded since in August, when TfL took over the ELL project from the
Strategic Snail Authority, it was announced that Wapping will not be
closed. I don't know, however, what solution they have found to the
technical problems at this site which led them to consider closure.

The "solution" is that the ELLP is being progressed as two phases. The
first phase, with the northern extension to Dalston Junction and the
southern extensions to West Croydon and Crystal Palace, will still only
use 4-car trains which can fit into the short platforms at Wapping,
Rotherhithe and Canada Water, earning them a reprieve for the time being.

Phase two to Caledonian Road & Barnsbury and Clapham Junction requires
8-car trains, bringing the future of Wapping and Rotherhithe back into
question. Canada Water would never close but would be expensive to
extend as it is on a slope and uses special safety equipment to stop
trains running away. Rotherhithe could close as a new northern exit
could be constructed at Canada Water.

As for Wapping, the expense of extending the platforms could jeopardise
the whole of Phase 2; I wonder whether TfL would rather try to negotiate
with the HMRI or whoever to allow long trains to serve the short
platforms there ("For Wapping, use front 4 cars only").

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:


As for Wapping, the expense of extending the platforms could
jeopardise the whole of Phase 2; I wonder whether TfL would
rather try to negotiate with the HMRI or whoever to allow long
trains to serve the short platforms there ("For Wapping, use
front 4 cars only").


If common sense prevails, perhaps there will be an electronic door
control system that allows a driver to flip switches to selectively
isolate doors on individual units. This would allow _any_ four cars of
a train to be used at Wapping.

How much would it actually cost to extend the platforms by four cars
and additionally widen them if the H&S mafia decree it?

TheOneKEA wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:


As for Wapping, the expense of extending the platforms could
jeopardise the whole of Phase 2; I wonder whether TfL would
rather try to negotiate with the HMRI or whoever to allow long
trains to serve the short platforms there ("For Wapping, use
front 4 cars only").



If common sense prevails, perhaps there will be an electronic door
control system that allows a driver to flip switches to selectively
isolate doors on individual units. This would allow _any_ four cars of
a train to be used at Wapping.

How much would it actually cost to extend the platforms by four cars
and additionally widen them if the H&S mafia decree it?

Bringing the station up to the required standards would cost a Wapping
£100m.

It's not just platform extension/widening, there are other "safety"
issues as well... apparently Wapping already doesn't satisfy a number of
safety issues. It is on both a gradient *and* a curve (shock horror),
and has no secondary means of escape in the event of an evacuation.

It's also difficult to perform any construction works to rebuild the
station, as the ground is quite waterlogged and the works involved would
cause the station to rise by 220mm, so further works are required to
prevent risks such as "flooding, movement, cracking and movement in
adjacent buildings, the possible collapse of the existing railway tunnel
because of ground movement or arch collapse and a prolonged construction
duration, which would close the site for one year".

The £100m = £54m costs + £13m to prevent "lifting" of the station + £33m
Treasury budget risk.

I unearthed the following Hansard Debate from Google:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1BC2181A

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Aidan Stanger wrote:

According to section 6.3 of
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/...ing-report.pdf
the proposal to close Wapping station is just a cost saving measure, and
if they can't find a way of retaining it under the current safety
regulations they could build a replacement on LU owned land just N of its
existing location.

Firstly, is this true?
Secondly, is that the reason why LU owns that land?
Thirdly, why isn't the plan to retain the station better publicised?


The Tower Hamlets report is dated March 2004. It seems their campaign
succeeded since in August, when TfL took over the ELL project from the
Strategic Snail Authority, it was announced that Wapping will not be
closed. I don't know, however, what solution they have found to the
technical problems at this site which led them to consider closure.

The "solution" is that the ELLP is being progressed as two phases. The
first phase, with the northern extension to Dalston Junction and the
southern extensions to West Croydon and Crystal Palace, will still only
use 4-car trains which can fit into the short platforms at Wapping,
Rotherhithe and Canada Water, earning them a reprieve for the time being.

Phase two to Caledonian Road & Barnsbury and Clapham Junction requires
8-car trains, bringing the future of Wapping and Rotherhithe back into
question. Canada Water would never close but would be expensive to extend
as it is on a slope and uses special safety equipment to stop trains
running away. Rotherhithe could close as a new northern exit could be
constructed at Canada Water.

As for Wapping, the expense of extending the platforms could jeopardise
the whole of Phase 2; I wonder whether TfL would rather try to negotiate
with the HMRI or whoever to allow long trains to serve the short platforms
there ("For Wapping, use front 4 cars only").

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - transport projects in London

This working practice is widely in use on the mainline railway, even more so
here on SWT now the new Desiros are in operation (e.g. Kew Bridgew,
Isleworth).

The difference on the mainline is that you can walk between carriages if you
find yourself in the wrong half of the train. This cannot be done safely on
current tube stock, and often tube trains are too packed to be able to walk
through anyway.

Colin wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

According to section 6.3 of
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/data/...ing-report.pdf

the proposal to close Wapping station is just a cost saving measure,
and if they can't find a way of retaining it under the current
safety regulations they could build a replacement on LU owned land
just N of its existing location.

Firstly, is this true?
Secondly, is that the reason why LU owns that land?
Thirdly, why isn't the plan to retain the station better publicised?



The Tower Hamlets report is dated March 2004. It seems their campaign
succeeded since in August, when TfL took over the ELL project from the
Strategic Snail Authority, it was announced that Wapping will not be
closed. I don't know, however, what solution they have found to the
technical problems at this site which led them to consider closure.


The "solution" is that the ELLP is being progressed as two phases. The
first phase, with the northern extension to Dalston Junction and the
southern extensions to West Croydon and Crystal Palace, will still
only use 4-car trains which can fit into the short platforms at
Wapping, Rotherhithe and Canada Water, earning them a reprieve for the
time being.

Phase two to Caledonian Road & Barnsbury and Clapham Junction requires
8-car trains, bringing the future of Wapping and Rotherhithe back into
question. Canada Water would never close but would be expensive to
extend as it is on a slope and uses special safety equipment to stop
trains running away. Rotherhithe could close as a new northern exit
could be constructed at Canada Water.

As for Wapping, the expense of extending the platforms could
jeopardise the whole of Phase 2; I wonder whether TfL would rather try
to negotiate with the HMRI or whoever to allow long trains to serve
the short platforms there ("For Wapping, use front 4 cars only").

This working practice is widely in use on the mainline railway, even
more so here on SWT now the new Desiros are in operation (e.g. Kew
Bridgew, Isleworth).

The difference on the mainline is that you can walk between carriages if
you find yourself in the wrong half of the train. This cannot be done
safely on current tube stock, and often tube trains are too packed to be
able to walk through anyway.

The new ELL stock will be mainline stock as the whole route is to
mainline gauge.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Colin" wrote in message
...

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

As for Wapping, the expense of extending the platforms could jeopardise
the whole of Phase 2; I wonder whether TfL would rather try to negotiate
with the HMRI or whoever to allow long trains to serve the short
platforms
there ("For Wapping, use front 4 cars only").


This working practice is widely in use on the mainline railway, even more
so
here on SWT now the new Desiros are in operation (e.g. Kew Bridgew,
Isleworth).

The difference on the mainline is that you can walk between carriages if
you
find yourself in the wrong half of the train. This cannot be done safely
on
current tube stock, and often tube trains are too packed to be able to
walk
through anyway.


Isn't the ELLX going to use networkers? Surely that would solve the problem,
if the trains could be stopped with the middle four carriages in platform
and announcements made clearly in about three different forms (e.g. on
in-carriage line maps, on the tube maps, before the train leaves Canada
Water or Shadwell).

Jonn

[x-posted to uk.railway]

Jonn Elledge wrote:

Isn't the ELLX going to use networkers? Surely that would solve the
problem,
if the trains could be stopped with the middle four carriages in
platform
and announcements made clearly in about three different forms (e.g.
on
in-carriage line maps, on the tube maps, before the train leaves
Canada
Water or Shadwell).

The current rumour (according to several reliable sources) is that the
Class 458 Junipers will be used - they're due to come off lease with
SWT next year and will probably be stored until the ELLX opens. The
Junipers can easily be made into dual-voltage units (by sticking a
pantograph in the space on top), so could operate on the non-3rd rail
bits of the NLL (unlike the Networkers which AFAIK were only ever built
as DC units. Yes, I know about the 365s.)

Class 458 won't be an option. But Class 375/376/377 in Metro variant
is a very strong possiblity. Designed to be dual voltage and there
could be surplus units in 2007 if the new SET franchise goes ahead
with the ludicrous plan to run trains on the CTRL to St Pancras, using
Bullet Trains, and remove the present Cannon Street mainliners!!


On 2 Jan 2005 02:11:31 -0800, "Rupert Candy"
wrote:

[x-posted to uk.railway]

Jonn Elledge wrote:

Isn't the ELLX going to use networkers? Surely that would solve the
problem,
if the trains could be stopped with the middle four carriages in
platform
and announcements made clearly in about three different forms (e.g.
on
in-carriage line maps, on the tube maps, before the train leaves
Canada
Water or Shadwell).

The current rumour (according to several reliable sources) is that the
Class 458 Junipers will be used - they're due to come off lease with
SWT next year and will probably be stored until the ELLX opens. The
Junipers can easily be made into dual-voltage units (by sticking a
pantograph in the space on top), so could operate on the non-3rd rail
bits of the NLL (unlike the Networkers which AFAIK were only ever built
as DC units. Yes, I know about the 365s.)


Life without sex just isn't life.
Make love not war!