eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 21:56:50 +0000, Recliner said:

eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 17:24:22 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 15:02:01 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-08 10:45:02 +0000, Recliner said:
eastender wrote:
On 2015-03-07 23:38:01 +0000, Paul Corfield said:
I'm obviously guessing here but there are not many refuge sidings on
the ELL core section so you really need to get trains beyond Surrey
Quays to be able to hide them away somewhere.
I was wondering when watching it being built what they would do for
contingency - it seems very little. The elevated section down to
Shoreditch used to carry four tracks and one would have thought a siding
could have been put in there.
Yes, they used the wider embankment for the new stations, but could have
put a reversing siding between stations. But it does seem to be the modern
policy to keep tracks as simple as possible, as points and crossovers are
themselves vulnerable to failures. For this reason, I think many tube lines
now have fewer crossovers than before.
By extension, I was reading this piece in the Guardian the other day:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...y-into-the-air
The sell-off of Broad Street station and
space is one example
of
dreadfully short-sighted and cut price deals for developers. Imagine how
the railway would look now with a modern spur down to Broad Street.
I'd have though the Broadgate office development is far more usefu. And if
Broad St station was still open, the amazingly successful conversion of the
ELL to the Overground, with the link to H&I, would never have happened.
I think closing a London terminus given what we now know about population
growth and demand for travel was not a good decision. But you can say
that about a lot of railway closures.
The new Overground line adds a lot more capacity than was lost when that
little-used terminal finally closed.
Yes but this is with the benefit of hindsight - who knows what would have
been built around a Broad Street line by now.
There was no point keeping the almost disused, shabby old station open. The
re-established Richmond to Stratford route, and the busy new ELL Overground
routes are far more useful. The fortunate thing is that the old line's
disused viaduct was preserved for future railway use, while the redundant
station site was turned into something much more useful.
The point about the sell-off of public space is also important.
I don't agree at all. Only private sector money would have created the
wonderful new Kings Cross Granary Square developments, or restored St
Pancras Chambers into the magnificent new hotel. Ditto the Docklands area.
As for Broad St, the smart office buildings and privately-owned 'public'
spaces are a huge improvement over what was there before. The grand old
City buildings were always private developments.
Unlike that very left-wing Guardian polemic article, I've no problem with
privately owned land, or the way that London has sprouted various
curiously-shaped big buildings of late. I like the Gherkin, the Shard and
even the new Walkie Talkie (less so the bland Heron Tower). The new Canary
Wharf Crossrail station is also very promising. Let's hope OOC gets similar
developments.

You obviously have no problem then with privatisation of vast tracts of
cities where no one can protest or take pictures without permission, and
where the adjoining poor neighbourhoods are almost totally excluded from
investment. Instead what we get is space opimised for commerce and bland upmarket shopping.

Actually, you can take amateur pics in those areas without permission, and
I often do. I've never been involved a protest in my life, and as far as
I'm concerned, they're a nuisance that stops me from getting to places, not
something I welcome or would want to encourage.

As for the adjoining poor neighbourhoods, they tend to become much more
desirable places to live than they used to be, and money floods in (eg,
Hoxton). That's the opposite of them being excluded from investment. How
else would they attract investment?

So, yes, I'm all in favour of wealth creation, and governments spend money,
rather than creating wealth. By all means regulate and tax the private
sector, but don't think you can create wealth without it.