Recommendation
"The electrification engineer has advised that the cost of the
alteration would be prohibitive, due to the need for extensive
immunisation of the signalling equipment on the surrounding routes,
including the lines operated by London Underground. However, it is
understood that the Hammersmith & City line is due to be re-signalled
in 2013, and this may give the opportunity for the issue to be
revisited. "

The short-sightedness of the foregoing quote beggars belief!

OF COURSE the stop for the change-over North of Mitre Bridge "eats
paths". Indeed, I remember the less than enthusiastic response of
Railtrack to having new stations built at Shepherd's Bush and Imperial
Wharf (of which - still no sign whatsoever!) because of "capacity
issues", i.e. the additional stopping time would similarly "eat paths".

That being so, with the work now going on at Shepherd's Bush, and the
inevitable disruption that this will cause, NOW is the best time to
move the change-over point to that location, so that at least the net
loss will be minimised, with that station stop more-or-less equating to
the time saved by no longer having the Mitre Bridge delay,

And, surely it MUST be cheaper to do that work now, rather than in
several years' time when service paths will have beeen settled, and a
whole load of new disruption will be caused.

Why oh why must our railway masters be sh short-sighted and
mean-fisted? When compared to the mega costs of the nonsense at St.
Pancras, where millions of domestic passengers have been and will
continue to be inconvenienced by the move Northwards of the domestic
terminal, in favour of holidaymakers and businessmen who want to get to
or from Europe a few minutes faster than they already can via Waterloo,
the cost of moving the Mitre Bridge changeover location would be a mere
pimple.

And I do not understand what the hell resignalling of the Hammersmith
and City Line has to do with this at all!

End of rant!

Marc.