| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
The Mayor's press release trumpets the long term 6 year funding
settlement from the Treasury. http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2013/06/mayor-secures-unprecedented-transport-settlement-for-london-to |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trains to be devolved to TfL control
Mizter T wrote:
The Mayor's press release trumpets the long term 6 year funding settlement from the Treasury. http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2013/06/mayor-secures-unprecedented-transport-settlement-for-london-to I'm surprised no-one commented on the Goblin electrification and WA news in this and my previous piston the same topic. |
Quote:
done so cheaply, why wasn't it done sooner? I'm puzzled by his plans for housing in Tottenham. Where are these houses going to be built? . . . and, of course, I am alarmed by the threat of "improvements" to the roads . . . . |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:01:33 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:15:10 +0200, Robin9 wrote: 'Recliner[_2_ Wrote: ;137694']Mizter T wrote:- The Mayor's press release trumpets the long term 6 year funding settlement from the Treasury. http://tinyurl.com/nqgocgr- I'm surprised no-one commented on the Goblin electrification and WA news in this and my previous piston the same topic. I'm surprised the Goblin electrification comes in at only £90 million. If it can be done so cheaply, why wasn't it done sooner? TfL have been arguing it can be done for far *less* than £90m. Network Rail are doing detailed surveys and costings to try to get a firm estimate and achieveable methodology for doing the work. TfL have also suggested that any "compensation payments" that would to go LOROL when the line is closed for improvements could be waived to get the costs down. I am delighted we have got the go ahead - the extra capacity is urgently needed. The only worry is that work will probably not start until 2015/16 (a guess on my part btw). I've lost track of what length 378s would be used on this route: 3, 4 or 5 car trains? |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
In message , at 11:01:33 on
Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: I'm puzzled by his plans for housing in Tottenham. Where are these houses going to be built? In the area south of the A406 and east of the Lea Valley rail corridor. I drove down the Lea Valley last weekend (en route to the Tottenham IKEA) and it's pretty sparsely built up round there. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:13:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:01:33 on Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: I'm puzzled by his plans for housing in Tottenham. Where are these houses going to be built? In the area south of the A406 and east of the Lea Valley rail corridor. I drove down the Lea Valley last weekend (en route to the Tottenham IKEA) and it's pretty sparsely built up round there. IIRC its mostly railway line, malls and industrial estates. Can't see where they'd fit in more housing unless they plonk it on what little green space is left. And that won't be popular. -- Spud |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
Paul Corfield wrote:
I'm surprised no-one commented on the Goblin electrification and WA news in this and my previous piston the same topic. I'm surprised the Goblin electrification comes in at only £90 million. If it can be done so cheaply, why wasn't it done sooner? TfL have been arguing it can be done for far *less* than £90m. Network Rail are doing detailed surveys and costings to try to get a firm estimate and achieveable methodology for doing the work. TfL have also suggested that any "compensation payments" that would to go LOROL when the line is closed for improvements could be waived to get the costs down. I am delighted we have got the go ahead - the extra capacity is urgently needed. The only worry is that work will probably not start until 2015/16 (a guess on my part btw). This leaves the issues of no through platforms at Gospel Oak and the platform length at South Tottenham - have there been any feasibility studies on either of these? -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
In message , at 12:59:20 on Thu, 27 Jun
2013, d remarked: I drove down the Lea Valley last weekend (en route to the Tottenham IKEA) and it's pretty sparsely built up round there. IIRC its mostly railway line, malls and industrial estates. Can't see where they'd fit in more housing unless they plonk it on what little green space is left. And that won't be popular. Brown-site ex-industrial estates perhaps. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
|
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
wrote:
In article , (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote: Paul Corfield wrote: I'm surprised no-one commented on the Goblin electrification and WA news in this and my previous piston the same topic. [snip] I am delighted we have got the go ahead - the extra capacity is urgently needed. The only worry is that work will probably not start until 2015/16 (a guess on my part btw). This leaves the issues of no through platforms at Gospel Oak and the platform length at South Tottenham - have there been any feasibility studies on either of these? Are they planning to run west of Gospel Oak anyway? Once they have a common fleet, it's at least a possibility, so worth considering. Lots of passengers interchange at Gospel Oak, so they'd presumably welcome through trains (particularly those heading west -- it's a lot of stairs down and up). |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 18:26:29 -0500, wrote: In article , (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote: Paul Corfield wrote: I'm surprised no-one commented on the Goblin electrification and WA news in this and my previous piston the same topic. [snip] I am delighted we have got the go ahead - the extra capacity is urgently needed. The only worry is that work will probably not start until 2015/16 (a guess on my part btw). This leaves the issues of no through platforms at Gospel Oak and the platform length at South Tottenham - have there been any feasibility studies on either of these? Are they planning to run west of Gospel Oak anyway? I agree South Tottenham could be a problem,. I presume the 378s do SDO? I have seen nothing rumoured or hinted at about running beyond Gospel Oak. The problem is train paths. TfL have said they are trying to get unused but historic freight paths surrendered on the NLL but I doubt they would want to have NLL paths released but only use from Gospel Oak westwards. They'd want to use them from Stratford to take pressure off on the heavily loaded eastern section as well as the western bit. Now that the Olympics are out of the way, why is the eastern section still packed? is it all down to Westfield? |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In article
, (Recliner) wrote: wrote: In article , (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote: Paul Corfield wrote: I'm surprised no-one commented on the Goblin electrification and WA news in this and my previous piston the same topic. [snip] I am delighted we have got the go ahead - the extra capacity is urgently needed. The only worry is that work will probably not start until 2015/16 (a guess on my part btw). This leaves the issues of no through platforms at Gospel Oak and the platform length at South Tottenham - have there been any feasibility studies on either of these? Are they planning to run west of Gospel Oak anyway? Once they have a common fleet, it's at least a possibility, so worth considering. Lots of passengers interchange at Gospel Oak, so they'd presumably welcome through trains (particularly those heading west -- it's a lot of stairs down and up). I suppose so, but it would be quite a rebuild to get through services. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Angliatrainsto be de
In article ,
Recliner wrote: Now that the Olympics are out of the way, why is the eastern section still packed? is it all down to Westfield? Stratford is a major interchange. I expect a fair portion of the traffic heads to docklands via the Jubilee/DLR; but I'm sure that TfL can see the flows via oyster. -- Mike Bristow |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:28:17 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 19:20:05 -0500, Recliner wrote: Now that the Olympics are out of the way, why is the eastern section still packed? is it all down to Westfield? Well there is still massive construction work going on at the Olympic site so plenty of construction workers travelling. Westfield is a draw but loads of people catch trains at Hackney Central and Homerton. The hospital is one source of demand but there is plenty of housing and Overground fares are only 20p more than the bus for PAYG and for a longish distance that makes it cheap. Not that many buses from Hackney to Stratford or Highbury for connections to other tubes and trains without a fare penalty. Stratford is now one of the busiest stations in London - Diamond Geezer had the numbers on his blog the other day - so no surprise that the connectivity offered there will pull people on to Overground services. Whenever I've used Stratford there is a constant stream of people to / from the Overground platforms. Yes, same here, though I expected it to drop after the Games. It's very different to the old Silverlink service from the low level (now DLR) platforms. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Once they have a common fleet, it's at least a possibility, so worth considering. Lots of passengers interchange at Gospel Oak, so they'd presumably welcome through trains (particularly those heading west -- it's a lot of stairs down and up). Or use the recently-installed lifts. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
"Stephen Furley" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Once they have a common fleet, it's at least a possibility, so worth considering. Lots of passengers interchange at Gospel Oak, so they'd presumably welcome through trains (particularly those heading west -- it's a lot of stairs down and up). Or use the recently-installed lifts. Despite them, I've seen young mothers dragging push chairs down and up the many stairs. I think able bodied people don't want to be seen using lifts unless they have heavy luggage, etc. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 22:13:14 on
Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: Quite why a sign and "straight ahead" arrow has not been shown on the sign which points you to the stairs I don't know. Often this sort of situation (and not especially rail-related) is because they don't actually want people to use the lifts (they'll wear out faster, and people will complain if they break), the installation being merely to tick a box on a form somewhere. A lot of cycling "facilities" are in the same category. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... I have seen nothing rumoured or hinted at about running beyond Gospel Oak. The problem is train paths. TfL have said they are trying to get unused but historic freight paths surrendered on the NLL but I doubt they would want to have NLL paths released but only use from Gospel Oak westwards. They'd want to use them from Stratford to take pressure off on the heavily loaded eastern section as well as the western bit. If the curve towards Kentish Town and St. Pancras hadn't been obliterated could any case have been made for a service via that route to somewhere on the Southern. South to East travel in London often seems to be poorly catered for. That curve could not now be re-instated. The curve from South Tottenham towards Tottenham Hale could be re-instated I think; at least the route was still unobstructed when I last looked, a couple of years ago. Could there be any case for a service that way; maybe Stanstead to somewhere if the airport is expanded? It's not so long ago that a passenger service on the North London East of Dalston didn't exist, but look at it now. |
Quote:
seems that once there were two leading off from between Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak going towards Kentish Town. Are they both closed and unrestorable? Long, long ago I occasionally travelled from Leyton Midland to St. Pancras. From Upper Holloway, we took the descending line which is still used by freight trains. We came to a junction immediately prior to tunnels. One tunnel lead to Kentish Town and St. Pancras and the other lead to the Midland Line going towards Cricklewood. I've often wondered if the route towards St. Pancras is still navigable. As, in order to maximise utilisation of the Thames Link route, several improbable services have been suggested, it seems to me that a Barking/Upper Holloway/St Pancras International/South London service might not be a bad idea. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
"Robin9" wrote in message ... 'Stephen Furley[_2_ Wrote: If the curve towards Kentish Town and St. Pancras hadn't been obliterated could any case have been made for a service via that route to somewhere on the Southern. South to East travel in London often seems to be poorly catered for. That curve could not now be re-instated. Which curve are you referring to? Scanning an old Ian Allen gazetteer, it seems that once there were two leading off from between Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak going towards Kentish Town. Are they both closed and unrestorable? Yes. Long, long ago I occasionally travelled from Leyton Midland to St. Pancras. From Upper Holloway, we took the descending line which is still used by freight trains. We came to a junction immediately prior to tunnels. One tunnel lead to Kentish Town and St. Pancras and the other lead to the Midland Line going towards Cricklewood. I've often wondered if the route towards St. Pancras is still navigable. As, in order to maximise utilisation of the Thames Link route, several improbable services have been suggested, it seems to me that a Barking/Upper Holloway/St Pancras International/South London service might not be a bad idea. The freight line leaves the route to Gospel Oak at Junction Road Junction, and joins the route towards Cricklewood at Carlton Road Junction. There used to be a triangle here with the third side leading to Kentish Town and St. Pancras. I think the other two junctions were Engine Shed Junction and Mortimer Street Junction. The Barking service was cut back from St. Pancras to Kentish Town long ago; I don't know when. At some time, probably in the late '70s or early '80s the service was diverted into Gospel Oak, as a connection with the North London was thought to be more useful than terminating at Kentish Town. The third side of the triangle was lifted and filled in. I'm not sure what the other route to Kentish town was used for; depot access? I've only seen it on old maps. |
Quote:
time. I seem to recall a straightforward junction. If the route towards Kentish Town was filled in, can that be reversed or has the land been built on/put to other use? Presumably the tunnel was not filled in even though, I imagine, the entrances were bricked up. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainstobe devolved to TfL control
On 01/07/2013 18:09, Robin9 wrote:
'Stephen Furley[_2_ Wrote: ;137762']"Robin9" wrote in message ... 'Stephen Furley[_2_ Wrote:-- If the curve towards Kentish Town and St. Pancras hadn't been obliterated could any case have been made for a service via that route to somewhere on the Southern. South to East travel in London often seems to be poorly catered for. That curve could not now be re-instated.-- - Which curve are you referring to? Scanning an old Ian Allen gazetteer, it seems that once there were two leading off from between Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak going towards Kentish Town. Are they both closed and unrestorable?- Yes. - Long, long ago I occasionally travelled from Leyton Midland to St. Pancras. From Upper Holloway, we took the descending line which is still used by- - freight trains. We came to a junction immediately prior to tunnels. One tunnel lead to Kentish Town and St. Pancras and the other lead to the Midland Line going towards Cricklewood.- - I've often wondered if the route towards St. Pancras is still navigable. As, in order to maximise utilisation of the Thames Link route, several improbable services have been suggested, it seems to me that a Barking/Upper Holloway/St Pancras International/South London service might not be a bad idea.- The freight line leaves the route to Gospel Oak at Junction Road Junction, and joins the route towards Cricklewood at Carlton Road Junction. There used to be a triangle here with the third side leading to Kentish Town and St. Pancras. I think the other two junctions were Engine Shed Junction and Mortimer Street Junction. The Barking service was cut back from St. Pancras to Kentish Town long ago; I don't know when. At some time, probably in the late '70s or early '80s the service was diverted into Gospel Oak, as a connection with the North London was thought to be more useful than terminating at Kentish Town. The third side of the triangle was lifted and filled in. I'm not sure what the other route to Kentish town was used for; depot access? I've only seen it on old maps. I don't remember the triangular arrangement. That may have been before my time. I seem to recall a straightforward junction. If the route towards Kentish Town was filled in, can that be reversed or has the land been built on/put to other use? Presumably the tunnel was not filled in even though, I imagine, the entrances were bricked up. The line used by the Kentish Town - Barking trains ran across what is now a builders depot to reach Mortiner Street junction. Reinstating the route would split the depot in two, leaving half of it rail-locked, and is probably not feasible. (The depot incorporates some of the former Kentish Town engine shed.) Incidentally there was a second route from Kentish Town eastwards. It left the Midland line on its west side and then crossed it on a bridge to reach a junction east of Gospel Oak. The route may still exist but is useless for sering Thameslink! (The line was used mainly by St Pancrasd - Tilbury boat trains.) |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message eb.com... On 01/07/2013 18:09, Robin9 wrote: I don't remember the triangular arrangement. That may have been before my time. I seem to recall a straightforward junction. If the route towards Kentish Town was filled in, can that be reversed or has the land been built on/put to other use? Presumably the tunnel was not filled in even though, I imagine, the entrances were bricked up. The line used by the Kentish Town - Barking trains ran across what is now a builders depot to reach Mortiner Street junction. Reinstating the route would split the depot in two, leaving half of it rail-locked, and is probably not feasible. (The depot incorporates some of the former Kentish Town engine shed.) I'm somewhat puzzled by what Robin9 wrote. There doesn't seem to have been any tunnel on the closed section of route. Was he possibly thinking of the other route to St. Pancras? I don't know if there was a tunnel on that. The route taken by the Kentish Town - Barking trains can be clearly seen on Google Earth, though it's clearer on the 2002 images than on the latest ones. While correct, your description of the area as a 'builders depot' could be somewhat misleading to somebody who hasn't seen it. It suggests a small area of land, with something like a couple of JCBs and a concrete mixer on it. Murphy's yard is huge, and has some very large plant on it. It would be difficult to find somewhere to re-locate that. Pre-Olympics Stratford might have been a possibility, but not now. The missing section of line was very short, but tightly curved. If I remember correctly it was in shallow cutting, which has now been filled in. Google Earth shows several strange looking buildings on the East side of the line, including a large square one which seems to have one corner cut, where the line would have been. There's also a small square building which I think may have been built partly on the alignment of the trackbed. I cannot see Murphy wanting to move; it might be possible to excavate the cutting to a greater depth (give the contract to Murphy?) and then cover it over to restore access to the South Eastern part of the site, but it would be very expensive, and probably very unpopular. There's also the problem that with today's fragmented railway the Thameslink and Goblin routes are operated by two completely different companies. I don't know if there would be enough demand to make say a Southend to somewhere on the Southern viable, but if the route had remained in a state where it could have been re-instated, and Network South East still existed then it might have been worth investigating the possibility. if the South Tottenham - Tottenham Hale curve was also re-instated then it would have been possible for Thameslink to serve Stanstead in addition to Luton and Gatwick. Again, I don't know if the demand would have made it worthwhile. Incidentally there was a second route from Kentish Town eastwards. It left the Midland line on its west side and then crossed it on a bridge to reach a junction east of Gospel Oak. The route may still exist but is useless for sering Thameslink! (The line was used mainly by St Pancrasd - Tilbury boat trains.) I can't remember exactly where this route was; I think it's long gone, but if it still existed why couldn't it have served Thameslink if it went to Kentish Town? |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainstobe devolved to TfL control
On 03/07/2013 01:28, Stephen Furley wrote:
"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message eb.com... On 01/07/2013 18:09, Robin9 wrote: I don't remember the triangular arrangement. That may have been before my time. I seem to recall a straightforward junction. If the route towards Kentish Town was filled in, can that be reversed or has the land been built on/put to other use? Presumably the tunnel was not filled in even though, I imagine, the entrances were bricked up. The line used by the Kentish Town - Barking trains ran across what is now a builders depot to reach Mortiner Street junction. Reinstating the route would split the depot in two, leaving half of it rail-locked, and is probably not feasible. (The depot incorporates some of the former Kentish Town engine shed.) I'm somewhat puzzled by what Robin9 wrote. There doesn't seem to have been any tunnel on the closed section of route. Was he possibly thinking of the other route to St. Pancras? I don't know if there was a tunnel on that. The route taken by the Kentish Town - Barking trains can be clearly seen on Google Earth, though it's clearer on the 2002 images than on the latest ones. While correct, your description of the area as a 'builders depot' could be somewhat misleading to somebody who hasn't seen it. It suggests a small area of land, with something like a couple of JCBs and a concrete mixer on it. Murphy's yard is huge, and has some very large plant on it. It would be difficult to find somewhere to re-locate that. Pre-Olympics Stratford might have been a possibility, but not now. The missing section of line was very short, but tightly curved. If I remember correctly it was in shallow cutting, which has now been filled in. Google Earth shows several strange looking buildings on the East side of the line, including a large square one which seems to have one corner cut, where the line would have been. There's also a small square building which I think may have been built partly on the alignment of the trackbed. I cannot see Murphy wanting to move; it might be possible to excavate the cutting to a greater depth (give the contract to Murphy?) and then cover it over to restore access to the South Eastern part of the site, but it would be very expensive, and probably very unpopular. There's also the problem that with today's fragmented railway the Thameslink and Goblin routes are operated by two completely different companies. I don't know if there would be enough demand to make say a Southend to somewhere on the Southern viable, but if the route had remained in a state where it could have been re-instated, and Network South East still existed then it might have been worth investigating the possibility. if the South Tottenham - Tottenham Hale curve was also re-instated then it would have been possible for Thameslink to serve Stanstead in addition to Luton and Gatwick. Again, I don't know if the demand would have made it worthwhile. Incidentally there was a second route from Kentish Town eastwards. It left the Midland line on its west side and then crossed it on a bridge to reach a junction east of Gospel Oak. The route may still exist but is useless for sering Thameslink! (The line was used mainly by St Pancrasd - Tilbury boat trains.) I can't remember exactly where this route was; I think it's long gone, but if it still existed why couldn't it have served Thameslink if it went to Kentish Town? Using the route as it was, all trains between TL and GOBLIN would have to cross the line into St Pancras on the level which seems unacceptable. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message eb.com... Using the route as it was, all trains between TL and GOBLIN would have to cross the line into St Pancras on the level which seems unacceptable. I see, thank you. Do you know when, and why, the St. Pancras boat trains ended? |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
|
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 18:41:21 on
Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: Quite why a sign and "straight ahead" arrow has not been shown on the sign which points you to the stairs I don't know. Often this sort of situation (and not especially rail-related) is because they don't actually want people to use the lifts (they'll wear out faster, and people will complain if they break), the installation being merely to tick a box on a form somewhere. A lot of cycling "facilities" are in the same category. I hardly think TfL and LOROL would have gone to the time and trouble of seeking Access for All funding in order to install lifts so no one can use them. There is a pretty obvious programme of improving disabled access on the Overground given the number of stations that have received funding and had work done. It's pretty clear that people value having easier access at railway stations and on to trains just as they do with low floor buses. If the value that reflects upon TfL/LOROL is mainly to do with getting more stations having their boxes ticked, that doesn't necessarily percolate through to getting those facilities used. And if the money is there, people will apply for it. Keeps the people applying, and issuing, the money in a job. I do not think cycling facilities are comparable. The big issue with cycling facilities, by which I assume you mean racks and lockers, is whether they are in a safe position with some level of security coverage. The biggest dread with cycling is returning to where you parked your bike and finding it has disappeared. I was thinking mainly about various schemes for cycle lanes, where the major motivation is often "we need to add another mile of cycle lanes" whether or not they are of any practical use. And sometimes they can even be counter productive. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 21:08:54 on
Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: Well done for being more cynical than me and that takes some doing! There is plenty of practical pressure from commuters, older people, parents with young kids and those in wheelchairs who would like to use the rail network with less hassle than they currently encounter. I have yet to see lifts or ramps anywhere on LU, Overground or DLR rotting away through underuse. Usually there are queues of people waiting to use the facilities! Getting back to the original question, they do need adequate signage. Every time I go to KX/StP (tube) I end up helping direct someone who finds the Byzantine system of lifts and corridors there too much to cope with. Plot a stepless route from the Circle to the Victoria Line... And if the money is there, people will apply for it. Keeps the people applying, and issuing, the money in a job. So the Roland Perry solution is what exactly? It's really difficult. Over the past decade the competition for funding in the charitable sector has spiralled out of control, to the extent that many charities have as their prime driving force "getting money in". Of course they can't survive without funds, but it has often come to obscure the 'good cause' they were originally set up for. The same effect has permeated large parts of the public sector. I'm making an assumption that you are reasonably fit and able bodied. You must have missed the posting I used to make about 'getting across London stepless'. That was a result of back problems (now OK fingers crossed) and lugging 50Kg of airline baggage. Maybe one day you won't be and then you may view these facilities as something beneficial. I do, -- Roland Perry |
Quote:
Gospel Oak, immediately after the line crosses Highgate Road. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be devolved to TfL control
"Robin9" wrote in message ... You can see the tunnels when you travel between Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak, immediately after the line crosses Highgate Road. Robin9, If you're talking about the tunnels which I think you are from what you wrote in your post above, they are not on the closed route. I have in front of me an old (paper) map from before the closure, the streetmap.com version of the area today, the current Baker rail atlas, and the Google Earth view of the area. The old map does not show a tunnel on the now closed section. I have older rail atlases from before the closure, but they are in store, and not readily accessible at the moment. Google Earth has nothing between 1945 and 1999. By 1999 the line was closed; I think I can see track on the closed route in the 1945 view, which would mean that it was not in tunnel, but the quality of the image is very poor when zoomed in, and I cannot be certain about this. The whole of the route between Upper Holloway and Gospel Oak/Kentish town can be seen on streetmap.com at 1:5000. From Upper Holloway the line runs South West until it passes under Junction Road just to the North of it's junction with Station Road, presumably the location of the closed Junction Road station. (Too many junctions around here!) It then reaches Junction Road Junction where the routes to Gospel Oak and the the Midland line diverge, but then run parallel to each other for a while. Both sets of lines pass through Covered Way, but then the Midland route only, which is at a lower level passes through two short tunnels, Tottenham North Curve Nos. 3 and 2, before passing under Highgate Road. The Gospel Oak route passes over the road, and then joins the North London just beyond the station. The now freight only Midland route turns South, and then West before passing under the North London, and joining the midland line towards West Hampstead at Carlton Road Junction.. Most of this curve to the West is in tunnel, Tottenham North Curve No. 1; from your description, I think this is the tunnel you are talking about; it is still open for freight. Just to the North of this tunnel, at Engine Shed Junction, the route towards Kentish Town diverged, crossing what is now Murphy's yard, before joining the main line at Mortimer Street Junction. The yard extends over the tunnel. There are buildings to the East/North of the closed curve, several of which seem to have corners 'cut' to avoid the route of the tracks; one small building does seem to have been built partly on the line of the route. I don't know whether the large buildings pre-date the closure of the line, or were built later to avoid it. I think the route was in shallow cutting which has been filled in. If the route had been in tunnel, then re-instating it would probably be easy, but as somebody else has stated, it would now bisect Murphy's yard, and render a large part of it inaccessible. It seems highly unlikely that this route will ever re-open, but with the development of Thameslink it could possibly have been useful. combined with the re-instatement of the South Tottenham to Tottenham Hale line it could also have enabled through services to Stanstead, which might have been useful if the airport is expanded in the future; Stanstead Airport is a pain to reach from South London and beyond at present. It's a pity that such a short section of line at Kentish Town was lost, but selling it off for other use was probably a reasonable decision at the time. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 21:08:54 on
Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: There is plenty of practical pressure from commuters, older people, parents with young kids and those in wheelchairs who would like to use the rail network with less hassle than they currently encounter. Here's a good example: I've complained in the past about the lack of stepless entry to Camden Town tube station. Although one of the two doorways is level with the pavement it seems exclusively for exit, leaving passengers entering with several steps to negotiate. Today, I see that it's gone completely mad. The only way to the platforms is down the 116-step spiral staircase! And that's after a neat trick from the Northern Line - all trains from Kings Cross were going to Hampstead, but I was going to Archway. I can't see a stepless way of doing the change (there's two flights of stairs at Camden Town) without going via whatever the first remaining island-platform station is in the Clapham area. Unless there's a same-level interchange at Euston, of course, but they were telling people to change at Camden. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 15:00:36 on
Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:38:42 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 21:08:54 on Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: There is plenty of practical pressure from commuters, older people, parents with young kids and those in wheelchairs who would like to use the rail network with less hassle than they currently encounter. Here's a good example: I've complained in the past about the lack of stepless entry to Camden Town tube station. Although one of the two doorways is level with the pavement it seems exclusively for exit, leaving passengers entering with several steps to negotiate. Yes and Kentish Town Road is at a slightly lower level than Chalk Farm Road. You'll have to explain to me how TfL could provide a ramped entrance, within their own property delineation, which doesn't cause a massive trip hazard on the pavement or else be so steep that it was unusable to someone in a wheelchair. They don't need to provide a ramp up the steps, just allow people to *enter* on the other side, on the level, through the most southerly gate, which is wide and somewhat disjoint from the rest of that gateline. Today, I see that it's gone completely mad. The only way to the platforms is down the 116-step spiral staircase! Happens every weekend because at certain times the exit flow far exceeds the entry flow. Camden Town station is simply inadequate for the demand. The only answer is to rebuild the place but there is not the land or planning permission that can do this without harming the market. Camden Council appear to place retention of the market above the provision of a safe accessible tube station that would allow more people to reach Camden by tube. I don't understand that at all. It's on a massive road junction - they could put a ticket concourse underneath (like at Oxford Circus). There appears to be no viable solution to expanding Camden Town station which would also include step free access from platform to street. The current site of the booking office could be the accessible entrance. And that's after a neat trick from the Northern Line - all trains from Kings Cross were going to Hampstead, but I was going to Archway. I can't see a stepless way of doing the change (there's two flights of stairs at Camden Town) without going via whatever the first remaining island-platform station is in the Clapham area. Unless there's a same-level interchange at Euston, of course, but they were telling people to change at Camden. That will be because there is engineering work associated with testing of the new signalling on the Edgware branch. I can understand that stopping the trains from going north of Hampstead, by why does it stop Bank-branch trains going via Archway? There is no step free interchange between N Line branches at Euston. I somehow thought there wouldn't be. If you wanted Archway and wanted a step free journey take the 390 bus - it's pretty fast given it goes up York Way and avoids the more seriously congested roads in the corridor from KX to Archway. I don't really understand your overall comment though. Today you're moaning about a lack of step free routes and the other day you were saying provision of lifts and ramps was a "box ticking" exercise and that the assets were then left to rot because no one used them. Make your mind up! My comments are about how dedicated TfL seems to be when it comes to providing step-free access. Where there's the slightest problem - forget it. If it's easy, grab the money and tick some boxes! (Even if it's somewhere with little demand) ps I know it's Network Rail rather than TfL, but I was somewhat amused to see gleaming new LCD displays at Kings Cross's brand new concourse showing "Windows XP" error messages this afternoon. It's only six years out of date. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainstobe de
On 2013\07\06 18:21, Roland Perry wrote:
ps I know it's Network Rail rather than TfL, but I was somewhat amused to see gleaming new LCD displays at Kings Cross's brand new concourse showing "Windows XP" error messages this afternoon. It's only six years out of date. Just because the displays are new does not prove that the computer controlling them is new. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 19:25:30 on
Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Basil Jet remarked: ps I know it's Network Rail rather than TfL, but I was somewhat amused to see gleaming new LCD displays at Kings Cross's brand new concourse showing "Windows XP" error messages this afternoon. It's only six years out of date. Just because the displays are new does not prove that the computer controlling them is new. The display in question is at least 100 cable-ft from somewhere you might put a computer, if not inside the back of the display. In any event, given how new and shiny the place is, why install six year old computers in the back office. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainstobe de
On 2013\07\06 21:29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:25:30 on Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Basil Jet remarked: ps I know it's Network Rail rather than TfL, but I was somewhat amused to see gleaming new LCD displays at Kings Cross's brand new concourse showing "Windows XP" error messages this afternoon. It's only six years out of date. Just because the displays are new does not prove that the computer controlling them is new. The display in question is at least 100 cable-ft from somewhere you might put a computer, if not inside the back of the display. In any event, given how new and shiny the place is, why install six year old computers in the back office. LOL. I wasn't suggesting that they recently bought 6yo computers, merely that the new LCDs were added to a system that was installed 6 years ago. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... The display in question is at least 100 cable-ft from somewhere you might put a computer, if not inside the back of the display. In any event, given how new and shiny the place is, why install six year old computers in the back office. I don't know about this installation, but what is basically a pc on the back of the monitor is quite common, mainly because a simple copper Ethernet connection can go 100 m from a network switch, and the source of the data can be another 100 m away from the switch in a different direction, whereas VGA, DVI, HDMI, Displayport etc. are generally limited to much shorter distances without special hardware at each end of the link. A few years ago I was at terminal C at Newark airport. They had recently installed lots of nice Samsung flatscreen displays since my previous visit, but they were being driven by actual PCs behind them, Dell if I remember correctly, rather than a purpose built device mounted on each monitor. They looked like old ones which had been used with the previous displays. We have some tills at work which run Windows 2000, which certainly wasn't the current version when they were new, and things like cash machines and supermarket checkouts often run old versions of software. I saw a cash machine a few years ago which was running OS/2. I suppose the old version has been tested and proven to work, and if it's not broken don't fix it. These sort of applications seldom need features which weren't available in the older versions, and in the case of PIDs even security patches probably wouldn't be needed. |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Angliatrainsto be de
On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 13:38:42 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
And that's after a neat trick from the Northern Line - all trains from Kings Cross were going to Hampstead, but I was going to Archway. I can't see a stepless way of doing the change (there's two flights of stairs at Camden Town) I thought the stairs were only between the southbound platforms with the northbound platforms both being on the same level as the bottom of the escalators (ignoring the passageways at the south of the platforms where the spiral stairs are)? |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 22:33:56 on
Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Basil Jet remarked: ps I know it's Network Rail rather than TfL, but I was somewhat amused to see gleaming new LCD displays at Kings Cross's brand new concourse showing "Windows XP" error messages this afternoon. It's only six years out of date. Just because the displays are new does not prove that the computer controlling them is new. The display in question is at least 100 cable-ft from somewhere you might put a computer, if not inside the back of the display. In any event, given how new and shiny the place is, why install six year old computers in the back office. LOL. I wasn't suggesting that they recently bought 6yo computers, merely that the new LCDs were added to a system that was installed 6 years ago. Ahem, the entire station has been rebuilt, and re-opened only a year ago. The screen in question is in the new part. -- Roland Perry |
8.5% cut in central govt grant to TfL; suburban West Anglia trainsto be de
In message , at 22:20:54 on
Sat, 6 Jul 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: They don't need to provide a ramp up the steps, just allow people to *enter* on the other side, on the level, through the most southerly gate, which is wide and somewhat disjoint from the rest of that gateline. sigh Thereby instanly creating a crossflow and potential congestion behind the gates. They actually need to keep flows apart as far as possible given the tiny amount of space in the ticket hall. Camden Town was one of the most difficult places to put in a gateline. In fact, the gate I'm talking about, being at the apex of the triangular space, would not crate a crossflow at all. The flow would be all-inward (up the steps and past the ticket machines, plus that one gate at the Apex). And all-outward on the remaining stepless gates. The problem is that if you allow it at quiet times people will demand it when the place is heaving full with people trying to exit. People "demanding to use" the down escalators yesterday weren't getting very far. I'd probably agree with you at a quiet location but Camden Town is just far too busy. Today, I see that it's gone completely mad. The only way to the platforms is down the 116-step spiral staircase! Happens every weekend because at certain times the exit flow far exceeds the entry flow. Camden Town station is simply inadequate for the demand. The only answer is to rebuild the place but there is not the land or planning permission that can do this without harming the market. Camden Council appear to place retention of the market above the provision of a safe accessible tube station that would allow more people to reach Camden by tube. I don't understand that at all. It's on a massive road junction - they could put a ticket concourse underneath (like at Oxford Circus). My understanding is that that is not feasible given the need to add extra escalator and lift capacity but within the broad envelope of where the platforms are. The plan has always been to reconstruct on the site north of the main road junction. There appears to be no viable solution to expanding Camden Town station which would also include step free access from platform to street. The current site of the booking office could be the accessible entrance. So where do you put the booking office? In the large space you dig below the road surface. And that's also where you put the top of any extra escalators. And that's after a neat trick from the Northern Line - all trains from Kings Cross were going to Hampstead, but I was going to Archway. I can't see a stepless way of doing the change (there's two flights of stairs at Camden Town) without going via whatever the first remaining island-platform station is in the Clapham area. Unless there's a same-level interchange at Euston, of course, but they were telling people to change at Camden. That will be because there is engineering work associated with testing of the new signalling on the Edgware branch. I can understand that stopping the trains from going north of Hampstead, by why does it stop Bank-branch trains going via Archway? I assume that they adopted a fixed service pattern given constraints on the number of trains as I expect Golders Green depot and Edgware sidings were inaccessible. They had enough trains to run a regular service on both branches. I don't really understand your overall comment though. Today you're moaning about a lack of step free routes and the other day you were saying provision of lifts and ramps was a "box ticking" exercise and that the assets were then left to rot because no one used them. Make your mind up! My comments are about how dedicated TfL seems to be when it comes to providing step-free access. Where there's the slightest problem - forget it. If it's easy, grab the money and tick some boxes! (Even if it's somewhere with little demand) You do seem to be very selective in where you expect the authorities to do things - usually where it benefits you! I'm usually looking at the benefits for a wider community. I'm certainly not the only person in London wanting step-free access, or shorter queues at ticket offices, for example. You also seem to be very unwilling to see that there might be other reasons as to why things are done the way they are. Things are normally "done the way the are", because that's the easiest. I'm always looking for ways to improve, even if it means a bit more effort (so much could be done by better management, rather than more civil engineering). -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk