On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I'd imagine the power systems on the northern part of the ELL are all brand
new so I wouldn't have thought so. But who knows these days, cost cutting
seems
to be the #1 priority.

There wouldn't be an Overground service at all if that was the case.

You've never heard the phrase "on the cheap" I take it? Because with the ELL
thats certainly what I have coming to mind in 10 foot high flashing neon
lights.

Would you say Shoreditch High St was done "on the cheap"? But if you

Well lets see - its 300m from liverpool street but they put the single
entrance on the other side to add another 100m onto the walk. The line can't
take 5 car trains at some stops - and don't tell me they couldn't have
enlarged station tunnels - the trains were indequate from the start and the
service frequency is poor.

sparse service, which you'd never have used, and therefore never have
complained about.

If they'd simply built the section north from whitechapel and instead of the
idiotic decision to stop at H&I instead of finsbury which would have
provided an interchange with the ECML it would have been a much more useful
line and cheaper. There was no need to co-opt pre existing sound london lines
since they were already perfectly well served.

I seem to recall that you've also criticised the original DLR for bing
built on the cheap, which it certainly was. But if you think anyone could
have found the budget back then to build something resembling today's much
extended DLR, you obviously would like to pay a lot more in taxes.

You don't think we payed for it in taxes anyway?

--
Spud