|
Overground down again
On 2015-03-07 21:25:52 +0000, Recliner said:
Paul Corfield wrote: On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 20:06:01 +0000, Mizter T wrote: Easy... we don't need to be like that on here. I don't see why posting about a failed train and the knock-on effects is out of scope of this newsgroup. I agree - I really don't understand what has triggered this bout of "posting rage" from two normally very "placid" and polite posters. Most odd. And no one has to reply to try to justify their respective positions as I don't want to read yet more backbiting. One question about the actual incident: do you know how long the ELL was completely shut down? If it was for just a matter of minutes, then it's not surprising they didn't reverse the services at a crossover, but if it was hours, then that's a different matter. I believe it was a few hours. I checked and it was at about three hours before the status changed to part-suspended. I flagged this up becuase I walked through Dalston Junction and found the station shut. E. |
Overground down again
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. E. |
Overground down again
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. |
Overground down again
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. E. |
Overground down again
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. |
Overground down again
On 2015\03\08 10:45, Recliner wrote:
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. Do you mean crossovers suffer failures which prevent them from being used as crossovers, or that they suffer failures which prevent the straight railway from being used at all? If the former, that is no reason to get rid of crossovers, no matter how often they fail. But here it seems the crossovers were all there, they just preferred to shut the whole railway rather than use them. |
Overground down again
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. E. |
Overground down again
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\03\08 10:45, Recliner wrote: 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. Do you mean crossovers suffer failures which prevent them from being used as crossovers, or that they suffer failures which prevent the straight railway from being used at all? If the former, that is no reason to get rid of crossovers, no matter how often they fail. They're more points to inspect, maintain, and which could wear and fail. At the least, they add to the capital and maintenance costs, and can lead to track failures. But here it seems the crossovers were all there, they just preferred to shut the whole railway rather than use them. The crossovers are on the old ELL, not the new Overground section between Whitechapel and Dalston Junction. And there aren't any reversing sidings on the new section, either, apart from the bays in Dalston Junction, even though there's room for them on the old Broad St line's wider embankment. |
Overground down again
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. |
Overground down again
In message 2015030817194448374-email@domaincom, at 17:19:44 on Sun, 8
Mar 2015, eastender remarked: 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. If Thameslink 2018 performs to spec (or even if it doesn't), it'll be a lot better than Holborn Viaduct for travellers south of the river. Or if we include the tube: King William St. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
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. The point about the sell-off of public space is also important. E. |
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
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. |
Overground down again
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. E. |
Overground down again
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. |
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
wrote:
In article , (Recliner) wrote: *Subject:* Overground down again *From:* Recliner *Date:* Sun, 8 Mar 2015 23:43:09 +0000 (UTC) eastender wrote: On 2015-03-08 21:56:50 +0000, Recliner said: eastender wrote: 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. It entirely depends on the walkways agreements negotiated by local authorities with the companies managing these spaces. We didn't let them go that far when I was involved but it is getting harder to fend them off sometimes. I must admit I wonder why they sometimes bother restricting photography, though I can fully understand why they don't welcome protestors or occupiers. |
Overground down again
In message
-septem ber.org, at 01:15:47 on Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Recliner remarked: It entirely depends on the walkways agreements negotiated by local authorities with the companies managing these spaces. We didn't let them go that far when I was involved but it is getting harder to fend them off sometimes. I must admit I wonder why they sometimes bother restricting photography, though I can fully understand why they don't welcome protestors or occupiers. I was taking some pictures outside the then very new M&S Simply Food in the "Circle" bit of St Pancras when the bouncer on the door (why would they need one?) got very aggressive and demanded I stop, and delete any photos I had already taken. He seemed to be suggesting that I was involved in industrial espionage. I must have had a pretty desperate client if they didn't already know what goes on inside an M&S SF. As luck would have it a BTP chap was nearby and I asked him if there was a ban on photography there and he chuckled a bit and said "of course not". ps Is that bit of St Pancras public or private - it belongs to LCR I suppose. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
Roland Perry wrote:
In message -septem ber.org, at 01:15:47 on Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Recliner remarked: It entirely depends on the walkways agreements negotiated by local authorities with the companies managing these spaces. We didn't let them go that far when I was involved but it is getting harder to fend them off sometimes. I must admit I wonder why they sometimes bother restricting photography, though I can fully understand why they don't welcome protestors or occupiers. I was taking some pictures outside the then very new M&S Simply Food in the "Circle" bit of St Pancras when the bouncer on the door (why would they need one?) got very aggressive and demanded I stop, and delete any photos I had already taken. He seemed to be suggesting that I was involved in industrial espionage. I must have had a pretty desperate client if they didn't already know what goes on inside an M&S SF. As luck would have it a BTP chap was nearby and I asked him if there was a ban on photography there and he chuckled a bit and said "of course not". ps Is that bit of St Pancras public or private - it belongs to LCR I suppose. I think the whole of all railway stations is private, owned by NR, LCR, TfL, etc. Ditto with enclosed shopping malls. And, of course, the shopping areas in St P are both. The southern embankment near the mayor's office is also private land. I went on a photography walk, and the guide said that, as a pro photographer, he knew exactly where he could set up a tripod unmolested, and other areas where he'd soon be evicted if he looked like a pro. I think the new Granary Square is the same. You can wander around taking pics to your heart's content with an amateur camera (I have), but set up a tripod or start taking videos with what looks like pro gear and the private security guards will soon approach you for a chat. |
Overground down again
In message
-septem ber.org, at 09:45:26 on Mon, 9 Mar 2015, Recliner remarked: I was taking some pictures outside the then very new M&S Simply Food in the "Circle" bit of St Pancras when the bouncer on the door (why would they need one?) got very aggressive and demanded I stop, and delete any photos I had already taken. He seemed to be suggesting that I was involved in industrial espionage. I must have had a pretty desperate client if they didn't already know what goes on inside an M&S SF. As luck would have it a BTP chap was nearby and I asked him if there was a ban on photography there and he chuckled a bit and said "of course not". ps Is that bit of St Pancras public or private - it belongs to LCR I suppose. I think the whole of all railway stations is private, owned by NR, LCR, TfL, etc. Modulo NR being a nationalised organisation and TfL being Local Authority owned. Ditto with enclosed shopping malls. And, of course, the shopping areas in St P are both. The southern embankment near the mayor's office is also private land. I went on a photography walk, and the guide said that, as a pro photographer, he knew exactly where he could set up a tripod unmolested, and other areas where he'd soon be evicted if he looked like a pro. I think the new Granary Square is the same. You can wander around taking pics to your heart's content with an amateur camera (I have), but set up a tripod or start taking videos with what looks like pro gear and the private security guards will soon approach you for a chat. It's these various lines in the sand which I object to when it comes to "public" spaces. After all, if you misbehave in numerous other ways the law will deem them to be public places. In the USA it's not uncommon for a Mall to have a dress-code. And that's not just "men must wear a shirt" but things like "no baseball hats". -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 12:36:54 +0000, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2015 21:56:50 +0000 (UTC), Recliner 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. Found ourselves with a couple of hours to spare before getting a booked train out on a London break that concluded with a visit to a relative at Finsbury Park last week. Caught the W3 up to Alexandra Palace and watched the Sun go down as the Moon came up and the lights come on over London . The modern buildings gave some interesting reflections of the setting sun. It is quite an exciting skyline and I think I prefer the modern London to the soot blackended fascades of the 60's From a different PoV, you can see many of the new buildings from this wide-angle shot I took from one of London's slightly older iconic buildings, Tower Bridge, also very controversial in its time: https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...4129/lightbox/ This is what some critics said of Tower Bridge when it was new: English architect and editor of ‘The Builder’ Henry Heathcote Statham attacked the bridge, saying “it represents the vice of tawdriness and pretentiousness, and of falsification of the actual facts of the structure" while the designer Frank Brangwyn declared that “a more absurd structure than the Tower Bridge was never thrown across a strategic river.” Likewise, so disgusted that they had to quote Shakespeare to express their fury, the Pall Mall Gazette said of the bridge “there certainly seems to be a subtle quality of ungainliness, a certain variegated ugliness, so to speak, that age can scarcely wither or custom stale, about this new bridge. It is excellently situated for our ugliest public work, straddling across our Thames, to the terror of the errant foreigner.” And apparently it was also unpopular with our four-legged friends. In August 1894, the Evening Telegraph described a dog who was so frightened by the hydraulic action of the bridge that “when the roadway had been restored to the horizontal it was more than the owner of the dog could accomplish to get him across.” From http://www.architecture.com/Explore/...buildings.aspx And here's cynical comments about some other controversial new projects (including two railways): http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/01/the...o-ruin-london/ |
Overground down again
On 2015-03-08 23:43:09 +0000, Recliner said:
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. Have a look at this report: http://www.annaminton.com/privatepublicspace.pdf I must say we are probably living in parallel universes - where you see only private good I see ordinary people priced out of housing, expensive housing lying empty, large 'spaces' patrolled by private security and gated (eg Canary Wharf), neglected neighbourhoods next to Canary Wharf, Excel, King's Cross etc, anodyne and expensive shopping centres (Westfields). See also http://www.newleftproject.org/index....s_and_for_whom E. |
Overground down again
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:29:40 +0000
eastender wrote: I must say we are probably living in parallel universes - where you see only private good I see ordinary people priced out of housing, Its funny isn't it how some people are so keen on uncontrolled immigration yet when the inveitable consequences occur - eg **** all housing available in london at a reasonable rent - its suddenly someone elses fault. And I'm not just talking about the lefties, we have idiots like Boris saying how wonderful it is that Londons population will rise above 9m by 2020. Yes, absolutely fantastic - so long as you're not a native (of whatever skin colour) who would like to be able to afford to live here and doesn't want to share some scummy little house with 5 strangers then commute in on overcrowded public transport at rip off prices for a zero hours job that pays so little due to immigrants pushing the wages down (and anyone who claims they haven't doesn't live in the real world I'm afraid). expensive housing lying empty, large 'spaces' patrolled by private security and gated (eg Canary Wharf), neglected neighbourhoods next to Canary Wharf, Excel, King's Cross etc, anodyne and expensive shopping centres (Westfields). If people didn't like shopping centres they'd go bust. You might not like them - and frankly neither do I - but most other people do. -- Spud |
Overground down again
wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:29:40 +0000 eastender wrote: I must say we are probably living in parallel universes - where you see only private good I see ordinary people priced out of housing, expensive housing lying empty, large 'spaces' patrolled by private security and gated (eg Canary Wharf), neglected neighbourhoods next to Canary Wharf, Excel, King's Cross etc, anodyne and expensive shopping centres (Westfields). If people didn't like shopping centres they'd go bust. You might not like them - and frankly neither do I - but most other people do. Yes, on that I think we three, and probably most others here, are agreed. I suspect that the Venn diagram of male railway newsgroup posters and avid mall shoppers has very little overlap. |
Overground down again
Yes, on that I think we three, and probably most others here, are
agreed. I suspect that the Venn diagram of male railway newsgroup posters and avid mall shoppers has very little overlap. I take it you dismiss the way Westfield Stratford has brought to nearby residents (including users of the of the NLL) much easier access to a decent M&S food hall and large Waitrose - both sources of good scoff irrespective of who actually does the shopping? That said, I'll accept being informed that *real* railway enthusiasts enthuse only about eggs, bacon and sausages cooked on a shovel :) -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
Overground down again
"Robin" wrote:
Yes, on that I think we three, and probably most others here, are agreed. I suspect that the Venn diagram of male railway newsgroup posters and avid mall shoppers has very little overlap. I take it you dismiss the way Westfield Stratford has brought to nearby residents (including users of the of the NLL) much easier access to a decent M&S food hall and large Waitrose - both sources of good scoff irrespective of who actually does the shopping? Can you go into either of those stores without having to pass through the dreaded enclosed mall area? |
Overground down again
Can you go into either of those stores without having to pass through
the dreaded enclosed mall area? I am not sure if "dreaded" applies to the whole "enclosed mall area" or just part of it - eg the bit where you tend to meet 4 femails walking in line abreast with stilletoes ready to deal with any obstacles. But FWIW both stores are at ends of the mall and so can be accesed with very, very little exposure to other stores. The M&S food hall is right by the Stratford's Northern ticket hall. You don't have to walk past any other store. Waitrose is at the far end of the mall from M&S. But from the Northern ticket hall you can walk along "the Street" which is not enclosed so you don't have inhale concentrated retail pheromones all the way. Or you could use Stratford International - although the shortest route from there does take you past a few other stores. I think you can use the same routes from either car park but the only one I can vouch for is car park A which is at the Waitrose end. -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
|
Overground down again
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:26:44 +0000
David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:52:35PM +0000, d wrote: Its funny isn't it how some people are so keen on uncontrolled immigration yet when the inveitable consequences occur - eg **** all housing available in london at a reasonable rent - its suddenly someone elses fault. You're right, it is someone else's fault. It's Clement Attlee's fault. Stupid Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and its successors. Without that, land owners would be able to far more easily build houses that people want to live in in places that people want to live. Oh , you mean that silly green belt thing? Yes, god forbid we should have some greenery around london and stop it ending up a sprawling mess like LA or Tokyo. After all, those sorts of places are Utopia, right? pushing the wages down (and anyone who claims they haven't doesn't live in the real world I'm afraid). The data disagrees. More statistics plucked out of someones arse for a Guardian story? You can keep them. Real world wages have been going down for a number of trades and thats not just heresay, its based on first hand knowledge of people who work in them. -- Spud |
Overground down again
In message , at 16:39:05 on Tue, 10 Mar
2015, d remarked: Real world wages have been going down for a number of trades and thats not just heresay I gather there's not much work for Concorde pilots at the moment. -- Roland Perry |
Overground down again
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 09:09:09 on Tue, 10 Mar 2015, d remarked: When I worked in London for a decade until 2011 I noted that most of the younger people I worked with came from every part of the UK except London, while born and bred Londoners like me had long ago departed for places like Crawley, Chelmsford and Cambridge. Chelmsford is quite nice, Cambridge gorgeous. But Crawley? You'd have to be pretty desperate to see that place as an improvement on London :) For Chelmsford and Crawley the main attraction is cheaper houses and the frequent rail service to London. Since all three places were the homes of colleagues commuting to where I worked in Westminster, that's the main point. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Overground down again
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:50:44 -0500
wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 09:09:09 on Tue, 10 Mar 2015, d remarked: When I worked in London for a decade until 2011 I noted that most of the younger people I worked with came from every part of the UK except London, while born and bred Londoners like me had long ago departed for places like Crawley, Chelmsford and Cambridge. Chelmsford is quite nice, Cambridge gorgeous. But Crawley? You'd have to be pretty desperate to see that place as an improvement on London :) For Chelmsford and Crawley the main attraction is cheaper houses and the frequent rail service to London. Since all three places were the homes of colleagues commuting to where I worked in Westminster, that's the main point. The main problem with these commuter towns is that most people don't live within walking distance of the one main station and so its not just a rail trip - they have a car, bus or bike trip first. Which all adds to commuting time and expense. -- Spud |
Overground down again
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:39:05PM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:26:44 +0000 David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:52:35PM +0000, d wrote: pushing the wages down (and anyone who claims they haven't doesn't live in the real world I'm afraid). The data disagrees. More statistics plucked out of someones arse for a Guardian story? No. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10075047.html You can keep them. Real world wages have been going down for a number of trades That could well be true. Doesn't mean that it's related to immigration. and thats not just heresay, its based on first hand knowledge of people who work in them. That's a beautiful sampling method you've chosen. It's pretty much the best way of getting data that doesn't match the reality of the whole population. -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic NANOG makes me want to unplug everything and hide under the bed -- brian d foy |
Overground down again
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 12:55:29 +0000
David Cantrell wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 04:39:05PM +0000, d wrote: On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:26:44 +0000 David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:52:35PM +0000, d wrote: pushing the wages down (and anyone who claims they haven't doesn't live in the real world I'm afraid). The data disagrees. More statistics plucked out of someones arse for a Guardian story? No. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ain-has-not-in reased-unemployment-or-reduced-wages-study-finds-10075047.html The Independent - the Guardians slightly stupid little brother in co-operation with the London Socialist Enclave. Yeah, that'll be unbiased. http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83 "collection of essays published recently by the IPPR underlined the role of Gordon Brown’s Treasury in this affair. A high level of immigration made economic growth look better and helped keep wages and, therefore, inflation down." You can keep them. Real world wages have been going down for a number of trades That could well be true. Doesn't mean that it's related to immigration. Well, climate change might not be related to man made CO2. But lets be honest, it probably is. Ditto above. and thats not just heresay, its based on first hand knowledge of people who work in them. That's a beautiful sampling method you've chosen. It's pretty much the best way of getting data that doesn't match the reality of the whole population. But I'm sure your social circle is a much more accurate reflection of society, right? -- Spud |
Overground down again
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 09:40:45AM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 12:50:44 -0500 wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: For Chelmsford and Crawley the main attraction is cheaper houses and the frequent rail service to London. Since all three places were the homes of colleagues commuting to where I worked in Westminster, that's the main point. The main problem with these commuter towns is that most people don't live within walking distance of the one main station and so its not just a rail trip I don't think you're right there. Most of Chelmsford is within a thirty minute walk of the station. From a quick look at a map, Crawley is similar - and it has three stations -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house. -- Robert A Heinlein |
Overground down again
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk