London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old June 6th 21, 04:29 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2013
Posts: 75
Default Barking Reach

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:08:07 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of a
problem for cut and cover.


I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be built on top
of


Gerrard's Cross?


Anna Noyd-Dryver


GX my home territory. Just in case anyone does not know all about it,
there is lots of stuff on my website at www.meadwaypark.co.uk. I
apologise for its technical simplicity, which I have been told about
by many experts.

Guy Gorton

  #12   Report Post  
Old June 6th 21, 06:42 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,715
Default Barking Reach

On 06/06/2021 17:29, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:08:07 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of a
problem for cut and cover.

I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be built on top
of


Gerrard's Cross?


Anna Noyd-Dryver


GX my home territory. Just in case anyone does not know all about it,
there is lots of stuff on my website at www.meadwaypark.co.uk. I
apologise for its technical simplicity, which I have been told about
by many experts.


Does the job! My only comment is that one shot on the west side of
Packhorse Road is the wrong aspect ratio, the one of Brox.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

  #13   Report Post  
Old June 8th 21, 06:11 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2020
Posts: 63
Default Barking Reach



"Anna Noyd-Dryver" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a
viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of a
problem for cut and cover.


I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be built on
top
of


Gerrard's Cross?


Yes I know that there's *one" example

If it's such a cost effective idea, why aren't there others?



  #14   Report Post  
Old June 8th 21, 06:15 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2020
Posts: 63
Default Barking Reach



"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:08:07 on Sat, 5 Jun 2021,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a
viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that
would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of a
problem for cut and cover.

I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted
access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for
housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be built on
top
of


Gerrard's Cross?


Several London stations, of which Victoria and Liverpool St are probably
the best known. Birmingham New St?


I don't think that the building of shops above a railway station concourse
(or even above the tracks), which are commercially enhanced by the value of
the footfall through the station, creates a valid economic comparison with:

releasing the land above a railway for building domestic property



  #15   Report Post  
Old June 8th 21, 12:38 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,125
Default Barking Reach

In message , at 07:15:26 on Tue, 8 Jun 2021,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:08:07 on Sat, 5 Jun
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a
viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that
would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of a
problem for cut and cover.

I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted
access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for
housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be
built on top
of

Gerrard's Cross?


Several London stations, of which Victoria and Liverpool St are
probably the best known. Birmingham New St?


I don't think that the building of shops above a railway station
concourse (or even above the tracks), which are commercially enhanced
by the value of the footfall through the station,


You may have forgotten that the developments above London Victoria,
Liverpool St and Cannon St, to name but a few, are mainly offices.

--
Roland Perry


  #16   Report Post  
Old June 8th 21, 02:26 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2020
Posts: 63
Default Barking Reach



"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 07:15:26 on Tue, 8 Jun 2021,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 18:08:07 on Sat, 5 Jun 2021,
Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a
viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that
would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of
a
problem for cut and cover.

I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted
access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for
housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be built
on top
of

Gerrard's Cross?

Several London stations, of which Victoria and Liverpool St are probably
the best known. Birmingham New St?


I don't think that the building of shops above a railway station concourse
(or even above the tracks), which are commercially enhanced by the value
of the footfall through the station,


You may have forgotten that the developments above London Victoria,
Liverpool St and Cannon St, to name but a few, are mainly offices.


Central London termini are still a fringe condition compared with suburban
rail lines (and roads, which is where we started)





  #17   Report Post  
Old June 8th 21, 06:39 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Oct 2013
Posts: 75
Default Barking Reach

On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 19:42:28 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 17:29, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:08:07 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of a
problem for cut and cover.

I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be built on top
of


Gerrard's Cross?


Anna Noyd-Dryver


GX my home territory. Just in case anyone does not know all about it,
there is lots of stuff on my website at www.meadwaypark.co.uk. I
apologise for its technical simplicity, which I have been told about
by many experts.


Does the job! My only comment is that one shot on the west side of
Packhorse Road is the wrong aspect ratio, the one of Brox.


How right you are. Definitely compressed horizontally. Sorry about
that.
Why does Brox excite you ?

Guy Gorton
  #18   Report Post  
Old June 8th 21, 06:57 PM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,715
Default Barking Reach

On 08/06/2021 19:39, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2021 19:42:28 +0100, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 06/06/2021 17:29, Guy Gorton wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 18:08:07 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a viaduct.
They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while that would
create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it would be too much of a
problem for cut and cover.

I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a restricted access
highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of releasing land for housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be built on top
of


Gerrard's Cross?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

GX my home territory. Just in case anyone does not know all about it,
there is lots of stuff on my website at www.meadwaypark.co.uk. I
apologise for its technical simplicity, which I have been told about
by many experts.


Does the job! My only comment is that one shot on the west side of
Packhorse Road is the wrong aspect ratio, the one of Brox.


How right you are. Definitely compressed horizontally. Sorry about
that.
Why does Brox excite you ?


Not at all :-0 just happened to notice the aspect ratio, professional
interest.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

  #19   Report Post  
Old June 9th 21, 06:22 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,125
Default Barking Reach

In message , at 15:26:21 on Tue, 8 Jun 2021,
tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message news:BflpGsSGT2vgF
...
In message , at 07:15:26 on Tue, 8 Jun
2021, tim... remarked:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message news:8v3mqASOlGv
...
In message , at 18:08:07 on Sat, 5 Jun
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
tim... wrote:


"Basil Jet" wrote in message
...

According to the new Modern Railways, the existing A13 is going to be
buried as it goes near Barking Reach to create room for more housing.
Meanwhile, the entire new railway to Barking Reach is built on a
viaduct.


They say that the water table is pretty high there, but while
that would create problems for tunnelling, I don't think it
would be too much of a problem for cut and cover.

I find it incredible that someone thinks that putting a
restricted access highway in a tunnel is a cost effective way of
releasing land for housing

if it was every restricted access road in London could be so re-sited.

But I don't see anyone suggesting that we do this with other roads.

Or even with us putting railways in tunnels so that they can be
built on top of

Gerrard's Cross?

Several London stations, of which Victoria and Liverpool St are
probably the best known. Birmingham New St?

I don't think that the building of shops above a railway station
concourse (or even above the tracks), which are commercially enhanced
by the value of the footfall through the station,


You may have forgotten that the developments above London Victoria,
Liverpool St and Cannon St, to name but a few, are mainly offices.


Central London termini are still a fringe condition compared with
suburban rail lines (and roads, which is where we started)


Although the project has been mis-represented (or at very least
mis-understood). The new houses are "adjacent" to the tunnel, and the
main reason for the tunnel isn't to merely gain some square footage (for
5,000 homes initially, and another 28,000 later) but mainly to segregate
the long distance traffic from the local neighbourhood which is
currently "severed".

Therefore your incredulity (expressed above) concerns something that's
not even the gist of the proposal.

"Routing the A13 underground will remove a significant physical
barrier to people moving between the north and south of the
borough. This will make other brownfield sites in the borough
more attractive to developers, including Barking Riverside
(10,800 homes), Creekmouth (3,000 homes), Thames Road (2,000
homes), Barking town centre (5,000 homes) and Beam Park and Ford
Stamping Plant (3,500 homes). The tunnel would also act as a
catalyst for regeneration across the whole of this part of east
London, including the potential for 4,000 homes at Beam Park and
Rainham in Havering"
--
Roland Perry
  #20   Report Post  
Old June 9th 21, 08:10 AM posted to uk.transport.london
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,385
Default Barking Reach

On 09/06/2021 07:22, Roland Perry wrote:

Although the project has been mis-represented (or at very least
mis-understood). The new houses are "adjacent" to the tunnel, and the
main reason for the tunnel isn't to merely gain some square footage (for
5,000 homes initially, and another 28,000 later) but mainly to segregate
the long distance traffic from the local neighbourhood which is
currently "severed".

Therefore your incredulity (expressed above) concerns something that's
not even the gist of the proposal.

"Routing the A13 underground will remove a significant physical
barrier to people moving between the north and south of the
borough. This will make other brownfield sites in the borough
more attractive to developers, including Barking Riverside
(10,800 homes), Creekmouth (3,000 homes), Thames Road (2,000
homes), Barking town centre (5,000 homes) and Beam Park and Ford
Stamping Plant (3,500 homes). The tunnel would also act as a
catalyst for regeneration across the whole of this part of east
London, including the potential for 4,000 homes at Beam Park and
Rainham in Havering"


A tunnel under the Thames would do all of that a lot better!

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
1991 - Laughter & Lust - Joe Jackson


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When will the 700s reach moorgate? [email protected] London Transport 16 March 31st 18 11:46 PM
How can I reach Z374. Black London Transport 11 September 14th 07 08:57 PM
Barking-Greenford? PaulBowery London Transport 142 March 11th 05 11:24 PM
Stansted to Barking Jiminy London Transport 42 October 26th 04 12:25 PM
Gospel Oak - Barking Slim London Transport 1 July 21st 04 12:26 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 London Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about London Transport"

 

Copyright © 2017