|
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
With all the fuss being made, rightly, about the soon-to-depart 38TS on the Island Line, it occurred to me that SWR has
another Birmingham-built fleet due to retire soon, probably with no home to go to. Like the class 483s, these trains are being retired for a second time, but their total life may only be a quarter as long. I think both classes were even built in the same former MCCW factory, in Washwood Heath. Yes, I'm talking about the unloved class 458 fleet. I'd not travelled in them before, so I felt I should give them a try while they're still in service. I found that they're surprisingly comfortable — I wonder if Ian Walmsley managed to sneak comfortable seats in when the 458s and 460s were being refurbished to become the 458/5s? The other thing I was keen to catch up on was the rapidly-developing Manhattan-style canyon that's developing in Nine Elms. A few decades ago, these were railway lands, full of tracks, loco sheds and turntables. Then they because warehouses, the New Covent Garden Market a Royal Mail depot, courier firms and light industrial units. Now, they look like they're Manhattan transplanted. Anyone who's not travelled into Waterloo in the last couple of years might be amazed at what's erupting, with multiple blocks taller than the Walkie-Talkie. Soon, it won't be possible to see Battersea Power station except from the river, so hemmed-in will it be. I took some photos through a slightly grubby window of a moving class 458/5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157716527707158 |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 13:46:44 +0100
Recliner wrote: With all the fuss being made, rightly, about the soon-to-depart 38TS on the Island Line, it occurred to me that SWR has another Birmingham-built fleet due to retire soon, probably with no home to go to. Like the class 483s, these trains are being retired for a second time, but their total life may only be a quarter as long. I think both classes were even It strikes me a lot of money has being spent in buying new stock on the railways when the old stock is perfectly servicable which would be fine if money were growing on trees , but it wasn't even before covid. Binning trains built in 2000 (virtually brand new if it was on LU) just seems an absurd waste of resource. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
On 19/10/2020 13:46, Recliner wrote:
With all the fuss being made, rightly, about the soon-to-depart 38TS on the Island Line, it occurred to me that SWR has another Birmingham-built fleet due to retire soon, probably with no home to go to. Like the class 483s, these trains are being retired for a second time, but their total life may only be a quarter as long. I think both classes were even built in the same former MCCW factory, in Washwood Heath. Yes, I'm talking about the unloved class 458 fleet. I'd not travelled in them before, so I felt I should give them a try while they're still in service. I found that they're surprisingly comfortable — I wonder if Ian Walmsley managed to sneak comfortable seats in when the 458s and 460s were being refurbished to become the 458/5s? The other thing I was keen to catch up on was the rapidly-developing Manhattan-style canyon that's developing in Nine Elms. A few decades ago, these were railway lands, full of tracks, loco sheds and turntables. Then they because warehouses, the New Covent Garden Market a Royal Mail depot, courier firms and light industrial units. Now, they look like they're Manhattan transplanted. Anyone who's not travelled into Waterloo in the last couple of years might be amazed at what's erupting, with multiple blocks taller than the Walkie-Talkie. Soon, it won't be possible to see Battersea Power station except from the river, so hemmed-in will it be. I took some photos through a slightly grubby window of a moving class 458/5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157716527707158 They are making a similar mess of the Manchester skyline, blighted by enormous monstrosities, and leaving much of ground level in almost permanent shadow. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
|
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Recliner wrote:
while they're still in service. I found that they're surprisingly comfortable — I wonder if Ian Walmsley managed to sneak comfortable seats in when the 458s and 460s were being refurbished to become the 458/5s? The other thing I was keen to catch up on was the rapidly-developing Manhattan-style canyon that's developing in Nine Elms. A few decades ago, these were railway lands, full of tracks, loco sheds and turntables. Then they because warehouses, the New Covent Garden Market a Royal Mail depot, courier firms and light industrial units. Now, they look like they're Manhattan transplanted. Anyone who's not travelled into Waterloo in the last couple of years might be amazed at what's erupting, with multiple blocks taller than the Walkie-Talkie. Soon, it won't be possible to see Battersea Power station except from the river, so hemmed-in will it be. I took some photos through a slightly grubby window of a moving class 458/5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157716527707158 One of the nice things about the entry to Waterloo was the view of the River and the Palace of Westminster you once got and while for commuters it was something they were used to for those from further afield it could add to the atmosphere of a visit to the Capital. As you say it has been eroded in recent times and it is now just a boring view of glass and concrete apart from the odd glimpse along a couple of streets that penetrate the Pilkington Wall. Should make the inmates of the US Embassy feel at home though. GH |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
On 19/10/2020 13:46, Recliner wrote: I took some photos through a slightly grubby window of a moving class 458/5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157716527707158 I would have guessed they were taken from your Delorian, given the 2021 date in the album title. :) |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
On 19/10/2020 13:46, Recliner wrote: I took some photos through a slightly grubby window of a moving class 458/5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157716527707158 I would have guessed they were taken from your Delorian, given the 2021 date in the album title. :) Oops, thanks for the correction — I was obviously wishing 2020 to be over as soon as possible! |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Bevan Price wrote:
On 19/10/2020 13:46, Recliner wrote: With all the fuss being made, rightly, about the soon-to-depart 38TS on the Island Line, it occurred to me that SWR has another Birmingham-built fleet due to retire soon, probably with no home to go to. Like the class 483s, these trains are being retired for a second time, but their total life may only be a quarter as long. I think both classes were even built in the same former MCCW factory, in Washwood Heath. Yes, I'm talking about the unloved class 458 fleet. I'd not travelled in them before, so I felt I should give them a try while they're still in service. I found that they're surprisingly comfortable — I wonder if Ian Walmsley managed to sneak comfortable seats in when the 458s and 460s were being refurbished to become the 458/5s? The other thing I was keen to catch up on was the rapidly-developing Manhattan-style canyon that's developing in Nine Elms. A few decades ago, these were railway lands, full of tracks, loco sheds and turntables. Then they because warehouses, the New Covent Garden Market a Royal Mail depot, courier firms and light industrial units. Now, they look like they're Manhattan transplanted. Anyone who's not travelled into Waterloo in the last couple of years might be amazed at what's erupting, with multiple blocks taller than the Walkie-Talkie. Soon, it won't be possible to see Battersea Power station except from the river, so hemmed-in will it be. I took some photos through a slightly grubby window of a moving class 458/5: https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157716527707158 They are making a similar mess of the Manchester skyline, blighted by enormous monstrosities, and leaving much of ground level in almost permanent shadow. I was using an ultra-wide angle lens, which makes things look further away than they are. It hides just how close those expensive flats are to the busy railway. The trains are not running quickly, but they still make some noise. The blocks are also close to each other, so many of the flats look straight out on to the next block. That would be expected in cheap flats, but these aren't. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Recliner wrote:
I was using an ultra-wide angle lens, which makes things look further away than they are. It hides just how close those expensive flats are to the busy railway. The trains are not running quickly, but they still make some noise. The blocks are also close to each other, so many of the flats look straight out on to the next block. That would be expected in cheap flats, but these aren't. If they’re being used as investments/money laundering opportunties that may not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote:
not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Sam Wilson wrote:
Recliner wrote: I was using an ultra-wide angle lens, which makes things look further away than they are. It hides just how close those expensive flats are to the busy railway. The trains are not running quickly, but they still make some noise. The blocks are also close to each other, so many of the flats look straight out on to the next block. That would be expected in cheap flats, but these aren't. If they’re being used as investments/money laundering opportunties that may not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. Could be, though the prices of the ones I saw when researching the block names weren't stratospheric enough for them to be likely investment properties. Ones with a river view might come into that category. Of course, some could be pied-Ã*-terres for affluent London workers who might spend about half their time in them, and half in more agreeable surroundings out of town. Their proximity to the US embassy and the large planned Apple offices in the old power station may also be factors. I wonder if the embassy might lease some for visiting staff on short term assignments? I did wonder if any of the blocks had an underground link to the fortified embassy? |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
On 19/10/2020 22:00, Recliner wrote:
I did wonder if any of the blocks had an underground link to the fortified embassy? Encouraging large numbers of staff to live in a single building outside the compound seems like a security risk. -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to Towa Tei - 1999 - Last Century Modern |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Basil Jet wrote:
On 19/10/2020 22:00, Recliner wrote: I did wonder if any of the blocks had an underground link to the fortified embassy? Encouraging large numbers of staff to live in a single building outside the compound seems like a security risk. I was thinking more of the embassy possibly owning or leasing a whole block of flats, which might have enhanced security, plus US-style amenities. In any case, I assume the whole vicinity will have high security, not just the big cube inside its moat. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Arthur Figgis wrote:
I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? And of course ignores the benefits of unoccupied flats - i.e. although they still pay council tax on the full value of the property, they create zero polution or congestion and make no demand on services. I supose this is somewhat offset by the fact that they aren't spending any money in the area either. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Basil Jet wrote:
Encouraging large numbers of staff to live in a single building outside the compound seems like a security risk. Not exactly the same, but it depends on the country. I've seen expat/consulate compounds in a number of countries, including China. One with detatched homes in Beijing is overlooked by a Marriott. There's a company called DRC that has several towers in one of the embassy districts with flats for rent to expats. Arguably easier to provide security to a compound over individal residences. Whether it's mandatory to live in them (either by the host country, or embassy security), I could not say. A director in my company who moved her family to Shanghai chose such a location for access to schools and western social opportunities. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote: I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? And of course ignores the benefits of unoccupied flats - i.e. although they still pay council tax on the full value of the property, they create zero polution or congestion and make no demand on services. I supose this is somewhat offset by the fact that they aren't spending any money in the area either. If there's too many of them, they create very sterile areas, with few shops, pubs, restaurants or other local amenities. In fact, some of these foreign-oriented blocks are almost designed to do that: they're attached to a luxury hotel, that provides all services. The idea is that the foreign owners use them as holiday or guest homes, occupied for a few weeks or months a year, with the occasional occupants getting whatever they need from the host hotel. They probably never use the marble kitchen, fancy washing machine, etc. Just let the hotel know when they're arriving on a visit, and it organises limo transport from the airport, stocks the fridge as required, makes bookings in the hotel restaurants or gourmet room service, dry cleaning, and anything else the concierge can organise. And, of course, at the end of the visit, the hotel organises limo transport to the airport, and cleans up the flat to perfection. I think this is what what some rich parents of foreign students in Britain do. They can visit London for school/college holidays, and indulge in some shopping/shows/sporting events at the same time. And it's an essential bolthole if their home country has a coup or just an aggressive anti-corruption drive. In between, it's a fairly secure home for some of their dodgy wealth. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
On 20/10/2020 01:53, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? And of course ignores the benefits of unoccupied flats - i.e. although they still pay council tax on the full value of the property, they create zero polution or congestion and make no demand on services. I supose this is somewhat offset by the fact that they aren't spending any money in the area either. If there's too many of them, they create very sterile areas, with few shops, pubs, restaurants or other local amenities. No more so than the fully-occupied two-storey buildings in the suburbs. -- Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to The Monkees - 1969 - Instant Replay |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote: not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? 2017, so it may be out of date, and it’s the Guardian so some of our residents here may discount it, and occupancy is mentioned in pasing, though with a reference to an earlier report, but it does say: many London properties are foreign owned; some of them are rarely occupied. Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Sam Wilson wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote: On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote: not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? 2017, so it may be out of date, and it’s the Guardian so some of our residents here may discount it, and occupancy is mentioned in pasing, though with a reference to an earlier report, but it does say: many London properties are foreign owned; some of them are rarely occupied. There certainly are many investment properties that are little used, but I wonder what proportion of the flats in these new blocks along the Thames come into that category? Is it as low as 20% or as high as 80%? I simply don't know. Many of the Nine Elms projects are Asian-funded, and they may plan to market the properties first to people back home. Ironically, some of the skyscrapers overlooking the SIS building will be Chinese-owned. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
On 20/10/2020 11:52, Sam Wilson wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote: On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote: not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? 2017, so it may be out of date, and it’s the Guardian so some of our residents here may discount it, and occupancy is mentioned in pasing, though with a reference to an earlier report, but it does say: many London properties are foreign owned; some of them are rarely occupied. I would certainly be suspicious of a Guardian article if it didn't cite verifiable sources for something like that; "many" and "some" offer a lot of opportunities for creative handwaving. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/10/2020 11:52, Sam Wilson wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote: not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? 2017, so it may be out of date, and it’s the Guardian so some of our residents here may discount it, and occupancy is mentioned in pasing, though with a reference to an earlier report, but it does say: many London properties are foreign owned; some of them are rarely occupied. I would certainly be suspicious of a Guardian article if it didn't cite verifiable sources for something like that; "many" and "some" offer a lot of opportunities for creative handwaving. Sorry, missing link. You may or may not be able to follow up the references given in the text. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers Sam (the missing link) -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
In uk.railway Sam Wilson wrote:
Sorry, missing link. You may or may not be able to follow up the references given in the text. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers The report wasn't cited directly in the text, but a bit of googling key terms and I think this is it: https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngovm...a%20report.pdf Theo |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Theo wrote:
In uk.railway Sam Wilson wrote: Sorry, missing link. You may or may not be able to follow up the references given in the text. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-time-buyers The report wasn't cited directly in the text, but a bit of googling key terms and I think this is it: https://www.london.gov.uk/moderngovm...a%20report.pdf Thank you. “Conclusion The estimates show that the propensity to leave homes empty or under-used in some way is greater among properties of higher values, in prime areas of London and among overseas investors. These sales represent a smaller portion of London’s new build housing market, so in absolute terms UK and overseas owners hold similar numbers of homes that are under-used or under-occupied.†Sam -- The entity formerly known as Spit the dummy to reply |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 19/10/2020 21:27, Sam Wilson wrote: not matter, since many foreign-owned London flats are allegedly empty most of the time anyway. I know it is one of those things that "everyone knows", but has anyone ever looked into to the extent of this? Are there huge numbers of flats which could lower general property prices/reduce commuting/house the homeless/facilitate more immigration (delete accoording to taste), or it it one of those things which someone once suggested and it just stuck? Someone should write to R4 "More or Less " and ask them :) Anna Noyd-Dryver |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
"Recliner" wrote in message
... Yes, I'm talking about the unloved class 458 fleet. I'd not travelled in them before, so I felt I should give them a try while they're still in service. I found that they're surprisingly comfortable — I wonder if Ian Walmsley managed to sneak comfortable seats in when the 458s and 460s were being refurbished to become the 458/5s? I commuted on the 460s for a while when they were new. The seating was their only redeeming feature. Otherwise the interior lighting was very harsh, the announcements and door chimes stupidly loud, and the air-conditioning extremely noisy. At least the journey only lasted 30 minutes if you were lucky. I think the 458s were essentially the same train with another stupid cab end - the original end doors had to be locked OOU when units ran in multiple - and nasty high-density seating. I also used the latest version of the 458s fairly frequently for a while and, as far as I could tell, the 460 seating was retained when the cars were incorporated into the fleet so maybe you were just lucky. -- DAS |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
D A Stocks wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message ... Yes, I'm talking about the unloved class 458 fleet. I'd not travelled in them before, so I felt I should give them a try while they're still in service. I found that they're surprisingly comfortable — I wonder if Ian Walmsley managed to sneak comfortable seats in when the 458s and 460s were being refurbished to become the 458/5s? I commuted on the 460s for a while when they were new. The seating was their only redeeming feature. Otherwise the interior lighting was very harsh, the announcements and door chimes stupidly loud, and the air-conditioning extremely noisy. At least the journey only lasted 30 minutes if you were lucky. I think the 458s were essentially the same train with another stupid cab end - the original end doors had to be locked OOU when units ran in multiple - and nasty high-density seating. I also used the latest version of the 458s fairly frequently for a while and, as far as I could tell, the 460 seating was retained when the cars were incorporated into the fleet so maybe you were just lucky. Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I need to try them again, picking a carriage with different seating? Talking about GatEx trains, the current 387/2s have horrible, upright, hard seats, like most modern trains. |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
Recliner wrote:
D A Stocks wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... Yes, I'm talking about the unloved class 458 fleet. I'd not travelled in them before, so I felt I should give them a try while they're still in service. I found that they're surprisingly comfortable — I wonder if Ian Walmsley managed to sneak comfortable seats in when the 458s and 460s were being refurbished to become the 458/5s? I commuted on the 460s for a while when they were new. The seating was their only redeeming feature. Otherwise the interior lighting was very harsh, the announcements and door chimes stupidly loud, and the air-conditioning extremely noisy. At least the journey only lasted 30 minutes if you were lucky. I think the 458s were essentially the same train with another stupid cab end - the original end doors had to be locked OOU when units ran in multiple - and nasty high-density seating. I also used the latest version of the 458s fairly frequently for a while and, as far as I could tell, the 460 seating was retained when the cars were incorporated into the fleet so maybe you were just lucky. Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I need to try them again, picking a carriage with different seating? Some sets are mostly 458 with one ex-460 vehicle; IIRC some are entirely ex-460? You can tell the difference by the glazing; separately framed windows on the 458s, ribbon glazing on the ex 460 vehicles. Anna Noyd-Dryver |
Manhattan-on-Thames, Nine Elms
"Recliner" wrote in message
... D A Stocks wrote: "Recliner" wrote in message ... I also used the latest version of the 458s fairly frequently for a while and, as far as I could tell, the 460 seating was retained when the cars were incorporated into the fleet so maybe you were just lucky. Ah, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I need to try them again, picking a carriage with different seating? The ex. 460 cars also have different glazing, so they're fairly recognisable from the outside. It's possible some/all of the ex-460 cars may have been refitted since I was using them around 4-5 years ago. Talking about GatEx trains, the current 387/2s have horrible, upright, hard seats, like most modern trains. Yes, but the trains are otherwise fairly civilised: there is adequate legroom, power sockets and wifi unlike, e.g. the class 700s as built. I find these seats - with the legroom - are acceptable for a one hour journey, which is about as long as it gets on the Brighton Line. -- DAS |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk