Hammersmith Horror story
 

On 15/09/2020 21:07, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 01:35, Marland wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:35 on Mon, 14
Sep 2020, Marland remarked:

Given they've now banned pedestrians and cyclists from the bridge
one can
only assume its gone beyond needing repair and has moved into
dangerous
structure territory. I wonder what effect that'll have on river
traffic
beneath if they're worry bits are going to fall off.

All River traffic has been prohibited.

http://www.pla.co.uk/Local-authority...ersmith-Bridge


Unlike the roads where diversions though inconvenientÂ* exist the
alternatives for river users are far less.

Fewer, perhaps. Just the Regents Canal route I suspect.

And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the
Canal
Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I
know the
Boat Safety Certificate is now common between
CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit.

You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if you
had
a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboatÂ* conversion and the
navigational skillsÂ* accompanied by a suitable stomachÂ* it may be
possible
to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then around the
Coast but
the type of person who would want to undertake such an adventure would
probably be doing it regardless of the bridge closure.
Â* The specialisedÂ* sea going barge typeÂ* one of which featuredÂ*Â* the
Actor
Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit the Grand Union but is
just a
little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon .

How difficult/expensive is "put it on a lorry"? A friend who recently
bought a narrow boat apparently had it delivered by road to a yard
somewhere in west London then sailed it into central London.



Expensive, though it may be cheaper than moorings in Chelsea.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 15/09/2020 16:42, Recliner wrote:

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side.

Restaurants, surely. If the carriageway was electric vehicles only or
enclosed, you could have very pleasant terraces on the restaurant roofs
right across the river. The bridge is right in the middle of a curve so
it is perhaps the only London bridge which could be fairly opaque
without spoiling too many people's view.


Yes, restaurants would be good, and it would be sensible to restrict it to
electric-only vehicles and build a terrace over the carriageways.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


michael adams


.....

Hammersmith Horror story
 

michael adams wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion that the bridge be removed and replaced with an anonymous,
low key modern bridge.

Meanwhile, a solution is at hand: there is now a DfT task force in place!

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/hammersmith-bridge-task-force/

They're talking about £141m for repairs! I'm sure a decent, modern
replacement bridge with a long life would cost a fraction of that.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion that the bridge be removed and replaced with an anonymous,
low key modern bridge.

Meanwhile, a solution is at hand: there is now a DfT task force in place!

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/hammersmith-bridge-task-force/

They're talking about £141m for repairs! I'm sure a decent, modern
replacement bridge with a long life would cost a fraction of that.

The problem is apparently cracks in the castings which were already known
about and sensors fitted and the fact these opened up due to the warm weather.
Whether there is any real possibility of bits dropping off or the bridge
collapsing totally thus meriting total closure both above and below
rather than this being an arse covering exercise, is open to question
IMO. "Repairs" would presumably mean somehow removing the cast iron shell
and cables, installing modern internals, replacing the deck and putting the
cast iron back in place. Pre Covid, I used to walk past it once or twice
a week.

The problem is, the existing bridge, as might be expected links up with all
the roads and there is very little scope on either bank for alternative approaches
to either a temporary bridge, of which there have been a number of proposals or
a new bridge, while the old bridge remains in place.

One cheaper solution might be to remove the deck and cables and install a modern
deck,on legs to run inside but independent of, the existing towers and suspension
system. And painted to match in that execrable shade of puce green as indicated
on the original plans.


michael adams

....

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:26 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 15/09/2020 15:22, Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 10:38:13 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 15/09/2020 08:51, D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste
of time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to
full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical
replacement when you can put something useful there instead?


Because a visually identical replacement built to modern standards with
modern materials would be fit for purpose. The problem is the modern
habit of ignoring proper maintenance to save a shilling.

If we take that literally then I'm not convinced it would be fit for
purpose. It's a narrow two lane road with pedestrian walkways either
side. A fit for purpose bridge would have two wider lanes as well as
the pedestrian walkways. A truly fit for purpose would have 2 lanes
each way + pedestrian walkways. A compromise might be needed because
of road width immediately either side in which case three lanes with a
tidal flow system.


Then we come into whether a bridge that allows an increase in traffic is
desirable in this day and age. Though widening the carriageways slightly
wouldn't detract from the visual aspect enough to be a problem.

You're forgetting that by the time a replacement has been built we'll
all be "driving electric" so while there might be congestion there
won't be any of the nasty fumes around.

More seriously, the current bridge causes queues and congestion
heading towards Hammersmith but it's also true to say that Hammersmith
itself is a congestion spot so a wider bridge with more capacity is
going to provide some relief to Castlenau. Going the other way isn't
really an issue until you get to Barnes Common.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:09:50 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

On 15/09/2020 08:51, D A Stocks wrote:

Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical
replacement when you can put something useful there instead?

Because when that seemed a good idea in the post-war period, it led to a
whole load of structures which are liked only by architecture nerds who
don't have to look at them everyday?

There are plenty of modern bridges that have merit. You have to
remember that post-war Britain was a very different place to Britain
today.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

In message , at
21:07:12 on Tue, 15 Sep 2020, Arthur Figgis
remarked:
And the number of craft that are based on the Thames that can fit the Canal
Dimensions must be a fairly small percentage. At least as far as I know the
Boat Safety Certificate is now common between
CART and EA managed navigations, one time they differed a bit.

You would only want to do it doing for the sake of doing it but if
you had a suitable craft like an old ships lifeboat conversion and
the navigational skills accompanied by a suitable stomach it may be
possible to go Grand Union , Kennet and Avon ,Bristol Avon then
around the Coast but the type of person who would want to undertake
such an adventure would probably be doing it regardless of the bridge
closure. The specialised sea going barge type one of which
featured the Actor Timothy Spall going around the coast will fit
the Grand Union but is just a little too big for bits of the Kennet and Avon .

How difficult/expensive is "put it on a lorry"? A friend who recently
bought a narrow boat apparently had it delivered by road to a yard
somewhere in west London then sailed it into central London.

If it's too big to fit through the Regents Canal (73ft 4" x 13ft 10"),
it's probably too big to go on the back of a lorry.
--
Roland Perry

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On 15/09/2020 22:15, Recliner wrote:
michael adams wrote:

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
D A Stocks wrote:
"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:02:11 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

D A Stocks wrote:

It must be about time they dismantled the bridge for restoration and
preservation as an exhibit elsewhere (e.g. in a park) and built
something
more suitable for 21st century traffic in its place. Attempting to
repair
and maintain a structure that is barely fit for purpose is a waste of
time
and money.


Yes, that would probably be cheaper and quicker than restoring it to full
service. I wonder if they'd be allowed to build a modern, much stronger,
visually-identical replacement?

If you preserve the original why do you need a visually identical
replacement? Let's stop building faux-old buildings and structures and
build something modern.
Precisely. Why build a not fit for purpose visually identical replacement
when you can put something useful there instead?

The people in the area with river views would say any modern-looking,
award-winning, bridge was 'hideous'.

The only interesting bits are the truly extravagent cast iron mouldings at either end
where the cables end. Of which fibreglass replicas could probably be cast
from multiple moulds.

The pillars in the middle are nothing special and the deck of the bridge
doesn't form a pleasing single curve, but comprises four slightly curved
straight sections.

As it happens locals would probably welcome a more open view rather
than having their view obscured by the thick cables and pepper pot pillars,

IHMO while there are some truly outstanding bits, as a whole it doesn't
really add up to much.


There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion that the bridge be removed and replaced with an anonymous,
low key modern bridge.

Meanwhile, a solution is at hand: there is now a DfT task force in place!

https://www.swlondoner.co.uk/hammersmith-bridge-task-force/

They're talking about £141m for repairs! I'm sure a decent, modern
replacement bridge with a long life would cost a fraction of that.


You are joking, two planks of wood and some potted palms have already
cost more than that and the bridge was never built.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:42:02 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was deliberately built

to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge. And that's the one everyone
admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable. But
we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But that's
not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it. The real
issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued aesthetics
a
lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith bridge would almost
certainly be your standard concrete arch job with all the aesthetic appeal of

a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard, low
key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original London
Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys of
over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The top floor
could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing wide and strong,
and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

Nice idea, but given the garden bridge flop I doubt we'll see any kind of
unusual or beyond basic functional bridge anytime soon in london. I doubt
even the millenium bridge would get built in todays political climate even
ignoring covid and brexit.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:17:22 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:36, wrote:

Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.

Not really, other than a few cases like Luebeck. In many cases in
Germany there is the restored Dom, the Rathaus, the birthplace of
someone locally famous, and maybe one random building the RAF missed,
plus a lot of generic post-war buildings and concrete.

Cologne has some old churches and then modern stuff, Frankfurt has one
block of nice buildings and modern stuff, Dresden has one square and
modern stuff, Berlin had pretty much everything the C20th could throw at

Dresden had its cathedral rebuilt. We didn't bother with fripperies like
that here, instead putting up something that resembled a large toilet block
in its place.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 09:15:18PM -0000, Recliner wrote:

There's bound to be some noisy heritage lobby that would be up in arms at
any suggestion ...

Of course. It's a listed building for no apparent reason.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

In Victorian times, when every man wore a beard the size of a yew,
Britain ruled the world. In the early 20th century, when the beard
was trimmed to a moustache, we scraped through two world wars but
lost an empire. Today, when Mach3 Turbo multi-blades are the norm,
our national pride derives largely from beating the Swedes at
Olympic cycling.

Grow a beard. Your country needs you.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

Recliner wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was
deliberately built to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge.
And that's the one everyone admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable.
But we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But
that's not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it.
The real issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued
aesthetics a lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith
bridge would almost certainly be your standard concrete arch job
with all the aesthetic appeal of a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard,
low key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original
London Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys
of over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The
top floor could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing
wide and strong, and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On 16/09/2020 12:28, David Jones wrote:
Recliner wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:25:49 +0100
Graham Harrison wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 09:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:
There's only one faux old bridge on the Thames, that was
deliberately built to look much older than it was: Tower Bridge.
And that's the one everyone admires and wants in their pictures.

The brutalist architecture is generally agreed to be unacceptable.
But we've moved on. Is all modernistic architecture good? No. But
that's not to say there isn't some which has much to recommend it.
The real issue is the constant demand to build on the cheap.

And that won't change. Victorian grand project developers valued
aesthetics a lot more than 21st century ones. A modern hammersmith
bridge would almost certainly be your standard concrete arch job
with all the aesthetic appeal of a breeze block.

It's not a large bridge, so they could certainly knock up a standard,
low key modern concrete or steel bridge very quickly.

What might be fun is if they copied to the ideas of the original
London Bridge, Rialto or the Ponte Vecchio, with two or three storeys
of over-river ornate shops, offices and/or flats on each side. The
top floor could cover partly cover the bridge. Make the whole thing
wide and strong, and let the developer pay for the whole thing.

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.


East Peasy, run H&C trains through to either Wimbledon or Richmond.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On 16/09/2020 09:50, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:17:22 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:36, wrote:

Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out towns
are tourists attractions.

Not really, other than a few cases like Luebeck. In many cases in
Germany there is the restored Dom, the Rathaus, the birthplace of
someone locally famous, and maybe one random building the RAF missed,
plus a lot of generic post-war buildings and concrete.

Cologne has some old churches and then modern stuff, Frankfurt has one
block of nice buildings and modern stuff, Dresden has one square and
modern stuff, Berlin had pretty much everything the C20th could throw at

Dresden had its cathedral rebuilt.

Yes, but rebuilding another church which is not the cathedral (although
might be the building you are thinking of?) took a lot longer and was
quite controversial.

And Dresden lost its World Heritage listing because they built...
....a new bridge.


We didn't bother with fripperies like
that here, instead putting up something that resembled a large toilet block
in its place.

Were any cathedrals other than Coventry destroyed? As is often pointed
out, the problem with British towns was not what the Luftwaffe knocked
down, it was what British architects and planners put in its place.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Hammersmith Horror story
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 16/09/2020 12:28, David Jones wrote:

If you're contemplating grand schemes, you might as well include an
extension of the H&C Underground to south of the river.


East Peasy, run H&C trains through to either Wimbledon or Richmond.


For the Richmond route Met trains did use it at intervals in the 19th and
early 20th century using a connection via Hammersmith Grove Road which was
on the LSWR route from Kensington Addison to Richmond, the District Railway
later joined from its Hammersmith Station via Studland Road junction and
continued on its own metals after Turnham Green and using running powers to
Richmond. The LSWR later made it a four track formation in 1911 to cope
with the amount of DR trains but found its own patronage rapidly dwindled
so Grove Road closed in 1916, the former LSWR tracks lay abandoned until
1932 when the Piccadilly was extended westwards from Hammersmith(LER) .
Despite the owning company having left the section between Studland Road
Junction and Gunnersbury remained with the LSWR and was transferred to the
Southern and I remember the Bridge at Turnham Green still had Southern
Railway ownership plates on it up to the 1970’s and possibly later.
I wonder if the Southern ever ran an inspection train or was this a
Southern line never visited by a Southern train?
LT finally got ownership in 1948.
There is still some evidence of the old route, mainly the viaduct at
Hammersmith complete with repairs to WW2 bomb damage even though it was
long disused at the time though you now have to
imagine the curve around and where Grove Road Station was.

Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/Zgu29rveGfCa5sNj7

And the widened section of H+C viaduct where the spur came off is still
there.
Dropped pin

https://goo.gl/maps/bMmg3FeL5o4Hcq5C6

The LSWR route to Addison road and its Shepherds Bush station has been
well obliterated though one bridge parapet at the latter survives but
unrecognised.

https://goo.gl/maps/nN6kq6xmAmKNWuZs9

Grove road Station was to the West of Hammersmith H+C station and linked
by a walkway which is why there is a footbridge at the platform end of
this terminus station today,
it wasn’t built for passengers arriving by mistake to nip over to the
other platforms rather than go via the concourse to catch a train back out,
originally it lead through the wall to the walkway and to the LSWR station
which lay derelict to the 1950’s


GH

Hammersmith Horror story
 

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
...
On 16/09/2020 09:50, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:17:22 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 15/09/2020 10:36, wrote:

Meanwhile the germans and
french rebuilt like for like and now plenty of the formally bombed out
towns
are tourists attractions.

Not really, other than a few cases like Luebeck. In many cases in
Germany there is the restored Dom, the Rathaus, the birthplace of
someone locally famous, and maybe one random building the RAF missed,
plus a lot of generic post-war buildings and concrete.

Cologne has some old churches and then modern stuff, Frankfurt has one
block of nice buildings and modern stuff, Dresden has one square and
modern stuff, Berlin had pretty much everything the C20th could throw at

Dresden had its cathedral rebuilt.

Yes, but rebuilding another church which is not the cathedral (although
might be the building you are thinking of?) took a lot longer and was
quite controversial.

And Dresden lost its World Heritage listing because they built...
...a new bridge.


We didn't bother with fripperies like
that here, instead putting up something that resembled a large toilet
block
in its place.

Were any cathedrals other than Coventry destroyed? As is often pointed
out, the problem with British towns was not what the Luftwaffe knocked
down, it was what British architects and planners put in its place.


St George's, Southwark

--
DAS

Hammersmith Horror story
 

On 16 Sep 2020 23:44:37 GMT
Marland wrote:
There is still some evidence of the old route, mainly the viaduct at
Hammersmith complete with repairs to WW2 bomb damage even though it was
long disused at the time though you now have to
imagine the curve around and where Grove Road Station was.

It seems a very strange decision to remove that link. What possible
advantage could there be in NOT having it?

Hammersmith Horror story
 

wrote:
On 16 Sep 2020 23:44:37 GMT
Marland wrote:
There is still some evidence of the old route, mainly the viaduct at
Hammersmith complete with repairs to WW2 bomb damage even though it was
long disused at the time though you now have to
imagine the curve around and where Grove Road Station was.

It seems a very strange decision to remove that link. What possible
advantage could there be in NOT having it?



Well it was over a 100 years ago now so the decision makers are long gone
and in the 1900’s the Met and District and the GWR and LSWR were still
competitors in the main. Perhaps if it had survived into the LPTB era it
might have been a good link to get stock to Acton works and downgrade
Hammersmith Depot but you can’t really get away from the reason that the
LSWR route to Kensington was usurped by the District Railway taking the
more direct route from Earls Court via Hammersmith who once they connected
and started running to Richmond over the LSWR and building their own route
to Acton from TG westwards proved far more attractive to passengers who
preferred a District train to stations along the embankment to a LSWR one
that eventually via Kensington Addison road ,the West London line through
Battersea and a curve North took them to Waterloo on the wrong side of the
river.

The Met and GWR services that joined at Hammersmith had already dwindled in
the early 1900’s and after the H+C was electrified the steam services got
in the way.
These convoluted routes were also up against electric trams then running on
roads still relatively uncongested ,Londons first electric trams started
from the (still standing) Chiswick depot and power house in 1901 and
covered the same ground and were more convenient to use.

There was also the proposal that was seriously considered for quite a time
to extend the Central London from its Shepherds Bush terminus in tube
including a station at Turnham Green and then link on to the Richmond route
so it wasn’t worth the LSWR investing in a line whose traffic had died
away.
In the end its demise enabled the Piccadilly extension West from
Hammersmith with good cross platform interchange with the District for
Richmond bound passengers and the express service we know today heading for
Acton Town with a few periods where they stop at Turnham Green and the
Central went off with the help of the GWR to Ealing Broadway.
Grove Road was not the only railway casualty in the area ,there was also
the Hammersmith and Chiswick which gave up passengers in 1917 though as a
kid I remember it still used for coal up till the mid 60’s.
Hard to imagine now but there were still market gardens in operation until
the 1920’s around there and though around Chiswick and Turnham Green
streets of houses had been built from the 1880’s there was still a lot of
open land.
Once the the 4 tracks were altered for the Piccadilly to run grade
separated between the District at Hammersmith and Turnham Green bringing
trains off the viaduct would have been awkward and meant retaining flat
junctions with the conflict they would have brought as well and interfered
with the busy services of the District and Piccadilly lines , it was hard
enough to accommodate the LMS Coal trains which joined at Gunnersbury from
the North London line up through their own underpass onto the east bound
Piccadilly then into a refuge loop to the east of Turnham Green from where
they could be slotted onto the District to serve Coal Yards at West and
High Street Kensington stations an operation that lasted until the mid
1960’s. They took a lot of track occupancy as with a train of unfitted
wagons they could not follow an LT train too closely especially on the
gradient down into Hammersmith.

The abandoned stations site has some good info and pictures of the routes
including some of what the routes look like in recent times.

LSWR route.

http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/...rove_Road.html

Hammersmith and Chiswick

http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/..._Chiswick.html


GH

Boatstitution
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html

Boatstitution
 

On 18/09/2020 08:21, Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html


I would have thought they could have organised a proper ferry. Shouldn't
be that difficult.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Boatstitution
 

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/09/2020 08:21, Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html


I would have thought they could have organised a proper ferry. Shouldn't
be that difficult.


Agreed, I wonder why they haven't?

Boatstitution
 

Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html


Have to say that I’m surprised a small pedestrian ferry using a suitable
craft run by professionals
hasn’t been put in place , perhaps Hammersmith and Fulham should ring up
Isle of Wight County Council whose Cowes floating bridge is broken again
and has a passenger launch service instead for the operators phone number.

There appears to be a jetty that could quickly brought into use on the
North Bank depending on how cooperative owner of it is, or made to be
,South Bank may need a temporary structure .

Arn’t the Duck tours in London suspended at the moment due to loss of
launch facility?
There appears to be a bit of a ramp by the Southern end of the bridge pop
in there and come out on the ramp by Chiswick Eyot though the Russian
oligarchs who have bought most of the properties along there may object.

GH

Boatstitution
 

Recliner wrote on Fri Sep 18 2020 09:10:37 GMT+0100 (BST) ...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/09/2020 08:21, Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html


I would have thought they could have organised a proper ferry. Shouldn't
be that difficult.


Agreed, I wonder why they haven't?

It's not that easy. I don't think there's a suitable pier or landing stage on the Richmond/Barnes side ("Surrey bank"). Whatever you build has to cope with the tides which vary the water level by up to 6 metres. In fact the predicted spring tide tomorrow afternoon happens to be exactly 6 metres above the morning low tide at Hammersmith.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Boatstitution
 

On 18/09/2020 19:05, Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on Fri Sep 18 2020 09:10:37
GMT+0100 (BST) ...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/09/2020 08:21, Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html



I would have thought they could have organised a proper ferry. Shouldn't
be that difficult.


Agreed, I wonder why they haven't?

It's not that easy. I don't think there's a suitable pier or landing
stage on the Richmond/Barnes side ("Surrey bank"). Whatever you build
has to cope with the tides which vary the water level by up to 6
metres.Â* In fact the predicted spring tide tomorrow afternoon happens to
be exactly 6 metres above the morning low tide at Hammersmith.


How much would a temporary pontoon cost? Should be relatively easy for
the school to arrange. After all there's a load on unwanted pontoons at
Southampton right now!

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Boatstitution
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/09/2020 08:21, Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html


I would have thought they could have organised a proper ferry. Shouldn't
be that difficult.


Agreed, I wonder why they haven't?

The tide probably. On the southern St Pauls side there are steps leading up to their
boathouse. While on the Hammrsmith side at low tide there are steps down
to foreshore used by rowing clubs. Howver all such steps can be slippery
depending on when the tide went down.

michael adams

....

Boatstitution
 

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/09/2020 08:21, Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html


I would have thought they could have organised a proper ferry. Shouldn't
be that difficult.


Agreed, I wonder why they haven't?

The tide probably. On the southern St Pauls side there are steps leading up to their
boathouse. While on the Hammrsmith side at low tide there are steps down
to foreshore used by rowing clubs. Howver all such steps can be slippery
depending on when the tide went down.

Or if not steps ramps. But slippery nevertheless.


michael adams

....

michael adams

...

Boatstitution
 

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 18/09/2020 19:05, Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on Fri Sep 18 2020 09:10:37 GMT+0100 (BST)
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 18/09/2020 08:21, Recliner wrote:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8743169/Pupils-39-000-year-St-Pauls-School-ferried-Thames-BOATS-bridge-shuts.html


I would have thought they could have organised a proper ferry. Shouldn't
be that difficult.


Agreed, I wonder why they haven't?

It's not that easy. I don't think there's a suitable pier or landing stage on the
Richmond/Barnes side ("Surrey bank"). Whatever you build has to cope with the tides
which vary the water level by up to 6 metres. In fact the predicted spring tide
tomorrow afternoon happens to be exactly 6 metres above the morning low tide at
Hammersmith.


How much would a temporary pontoon cost? Should be relatively easy for the school to
arrange. After all there's a load on unwanted pontoons at Southampton right now!

At low tide the pontoons are sat on the mud of the foreshore on the
Hammersmith Bank and the same would apply on the other
bank, Basically all river users have to regulate their activities in
accordance with the tides whereas schools need to keep to regular
hours.

Quite possibly many of the ferried boys are already rowers themselves
so ferrying them across in this way is no hardship but rather a novelty.


michael adams

....