On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 21:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Fat richard wrote:
On 28 Dec, 20:34, wrote:
Notting Hill in london started out as an upmarket Georgian area, then went
downmarket when all the immigrants moved in, now they're slowly buggering off
to turn somewhere else into a slum and the area had been going back upmarket
again since the 90s.

B2003

Slowly buggering off because the resident landlords are unable to
exploit them as much as they can the people with deeper pockets.

Happy New year to you as well. NOT.

Oh boo hoo sob sniffle, where's my hanky when I need it? Yes, I'm sure the
landlords were entirely responsbile for the crime around that area. NOT.
Scum are scum and they'll always be scum.

B2003

On 29 Dec, 05:14, Fat richard wrote:
On 28 Dec, 20:34, wrote:





On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:42:12 +0000
The Real Doctor wrote:

On 28/12/12 12:31, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

So is much of north of the Thames. Places like Knightsbridge. Kensington
was a place that was difficult to get to because of the state of the
roads. When I was young West Ham was one of the largest towns in Essex.
Hammersmith was a place that rich stockbrokers lived because they liked
to be out in the country - why do you think *three* railways built lines
there from London?

The Gorbals was originally developed as an upmarket residential area for
rich Glaswegians who wanted to move out of the city centre.

Notting Hill in london started out as an upmarket Georgian area, then went
downmarket when all the immigrants moved in, now they're slowly buggering off
to turn somewhere else into a slum and the area had been going back upmarket
again since the 90s.

B2003

Slowly buggering off because the resident landlords are unable to
exploit them as much as they can the people with deeper pockets.

Happy New year to you as well. NOT.- Hide quoted text -

Ah, do I sense the warm glow of tolerance from the left?

On 31 Dec, 14:12, THC wrote:
On Monday, December 31, 2012 12:46:08 PM UTC, 77002 wrote:
Ah, do I sense the warm glow of tolerance from the left?

Or indeed the condoning of casual racism from the right for that matter.

Please, just drop the reductionist nonsense and/or constant sniping at others with political views different to your own. *It's really rather boring.

Hey SoB the conservatives here are almost always on the receiving end
of this garbage. So tough dumbass.

I'm not sure who posted that bit about condoning racism and then demanding
that others should stop their "reductionist nonsense". Did he delete his own
post?

I don't find it boring when other people's political and social views are
expressed. If this forum were almost entirely a platform for political ranting it
might be different, but a few jibes and barbs here and there do no harm at all.

On 31 Dec, 14:12, THC wrote:
On Monday, December 31, 2012 12:46:08 PM UTC, 77002 wrote:
Ah, do I sense the warm glow of tolerance from the left?

Or indeed the condoning of casual racism from the right for that matter.

Please, just drop the reductionist nonsense and/or constant sniping at others with political views different to your own. *It's really rather boring.

A bored hypocrite, how sad.

Robin9 wrote:
Last Saturday Peter Hendy was one of the guests on Ken Livingstone's LBC
programme.
HS2 was discussed and Hendy said he believed it would go ahead but that

Crossrail 2 would be essential to cope with the number of passengers at
Euston.

Now, first I'm not sure that HS2 will massively increase the number of
passengers alighting at Euston. How many trains an hour are going to
arrive at
Euston? Does anyone have any ideas about this?

Second, this was the first I had heard about Crossrail 2. It seems this
is the old
Hackney/Chelsea line idea but changed from being a tube line to a full
size
railway. Will that not greatly increase the costs? How far advanced is
this idea
and are there any plans to extend the line beyond either Hackney or
Chelsea?

Extending 'Chelney' as a ne/sw heavy rail link taking over parts of the
existing SWT and GA inner suburban routes and hence known as Crossrail 2 is
covered at length in a number of reports published by both TfL and NR. I'd
estimate it has been public domain for at least a couple of years, probably
longer.

I'd have difficulty providing up to date web links from my mobile device,
but if you can find the NR London and SE RUS online it would be a good
starting point.

When considering HS2 don't forget that the full Y-route is intended to
consolidate a lot of flows into Euston that currently arrive at St Pancras
and Kings Cross.

Paul

On 31 Dec 2012, 16:54, Robin9
wrote:
Last Saturday Peter Hendy was one of the guests on Ken Livingstone's LBC
programme.
HS2 was discussed and Hendy said he believed it would go ahead but that

Crossrail 2 would be essential to cope with the number of passengers at
Euston.

Now, first I'm not sure that HS2 will massively increase the number of
passengers alighting at Euston. How many trains an hour are going to
arrive at
Euston? Does anyone have any ideas about this?

Second, this was the first I had heard about Crossrail 2. It seems this
is the old
Hackney/Chelsea line idea but changed from being a tube line to a full
size
railway. Will that not greatly increase the costs? How far advanced is
this idea
and are there any plans to extend the line beyond either Hackney or
Chelsea?

Basically: Yes. July Modern Railways ran an article on Crossrail. It
covered Crossrail 2. There are numerous options extending Crossrail 2
from the central, Chelsea to Hackney Core.

IMHO, there are so many options that Crossrail 2 could usefully be
constructed as two lines. One would be a main line gauge classic
Chelsea to Hackney route taking over one branch of the Central Line to
Essex and linking it to the infrastructure of the District Line to
Wimbledon. IMHO it should take over the Wimbledon Branch from West
Brompton. This would maintain the interchange with the Overground.
Although this option is not in any of the formal plans. They show the
“join” at Parsons Green.

The "other" Crossrail 2 should be a Network Rail operation taking
trains from Hertford East, thru Angel, Kings Cross, and Euston. It
would then follow the WWII express Northern Line route thru Waterloo
Underground to South Wimbledon, and then cut across to Raynes Park.
From there it would take over the lines passing thru Motspur Park.

How much of this a bankrupt country can actually afford is a different
question, especially in time of war. Then again London and the UK's
future depend on a radical London mobility upgrade.

Selah.

On 1 Jan, 14:22, wrote:
The larger scheme now being looked at is probably the most likely to go ahead - the extra expense but is more than compensated by the far greater benefits especially to the SWML.

That is probably the better choice. At the moment, as I read the
Modern Railways article, they have not narrowed down the service
groups on the SWML. Taking on too many is a recipe for poor
timekeeping.

This is why proposals for taking over the Wimbledon branch are now looking unlikely as the tunnel will probably need to extend at least as far south as Wimbledon to allow certain services to be diverted off the mainline.

That said; the subsurface network badly needs simplification.

On 2013\01\01 15:34, e27002 wrote:
On 1 Jan, 14:22, wrote:
The larger scheme now being looked at is probably the most likely to go ahead - the extra expense but is more than compensated by the far greater benefits especially to the SWML.

That is probably the better choice. At the moment, as I read the
Modern Railways article, they have not narrowed down the service
groups on the SWML. Taking on too many is a recipe for poor
timekeeping.

This is why proposals for taking over the Wimbledon branch are now looking unlikely as the tunnel will probably need to extend at least as far south as Wimbledon to allow certain services to be diverted off the mainline.

That said; the subsurface network badly needs simplification.

I'm guessing that Earls Court to Parsons Green would become Wimbleware
only, so that there would no longer be any shared track between the
District and Wimbleware, and they would probably be advertised as
separate lines.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2013\01\01 15:34, e27002 wrote:
On 1 Jan, 14:22, wrote:
The larger scheme now being looked at is probably the most likely to go
ahead - the extra expense but is more than compensated by the far
greater benefits especially to the SWML.

That is probably the better choice. At the moment, as I read the
Modern Railways article, they have not narrowed down the service
groups on the SWML. Taking on too many is a recipe for poor
timekeeping.

This is why proposals for taking over the Wimbledon branch are now
looking unlikely as the tunnel will probably need to extend at least as
far south as Wimbledon to allow certain services to be diverted off the mainline.

That said; the subsurface network badly needs simplification.

I'm guessing that Earls Court to Parsons Green would become Wimbleware
only, so that there would no longer be any shared track between the
District and Wimbleware, and they would probably be advertised as separate lines.

But that doesn't get rid of all the flat junctions around the Circle,
causes the problems.