On May 14, 9:50 pm, Adrian wrote:
On May 12, 11:58 pm, "Yokel" wrote:



However, Clapham Junction is no less than four separate stations according
to the Train Service Data Base [P2; P3-6; P7-11; P12-17], and it is possible
that this information could be used. But you must remember that the Journey

When one thinks about this, it does have a certain logic. Clapham
Junction probably covers considerably more acreage than the three West
Hampsteads, including the space between them.



It's not just the size, it's also the lack of physical "junction"
opportunities between the separate bits.

The thing that makes it a single station is the shared ticket office.

On May 7, 5:12�pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Eric" wrote in message

... Does anybody know the reason that the Willsden Junction- Clapham Junction
train takes so long? *I know there is a voltage change between Willesden &
Olympia, but the train crawls on this section & often stops two or three
times. Between Olympia & West Brompton the speed is reasonable but after
that the train crawls to Clapham Junction, the other day a jackdaw
overtook the train & it was walking beside the track.
Also was there a plan to build a station at Chelsea Harbour at one time?

The new station is going to be called Imperial Wharf - it actually made it
onto the maps in 2005, but has since gone again - I believe its all tied in
with ongoing planning permissions for the housing *which will allow it to be
paid for by the developer...

Paul


I still don't understand this reference to ongoing planning permission
for housing.

When the crooked (I use the term advisedly, since there can be no
other explanation for London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham's volte
farce over planning consent) St. George developers obtained planning
consent for their Las Vegas-style over-development of the Fulham
Gasworks site, they GUARANTEED (I was at the public meeting) that the
money for the new station at Chelsea Harbour (now mooted to be called
Imperial Wharf) was ring-fenced and available, and the ONLY reason
that the station was not being built immediately was because of
reluctance on the part of Railtrack in slowing up operation of the
line (the more stations the slower the paths, presumably), especially
with Eurostar and freight movements.

Some ten years on, still not a scintilla of a sight of that much-
fabled station - as I said would be the case at that same public
meeting. So, the long-suffering traffic-jammed residents of Fulham who
daily incur more traffic and jams as the developers' properties come
on stream, have been thoroughly conned, cheated and treated with
contempt. Just as I predicted at the meeting at which the St. George
crooks somehow swindled councillors and others into their dishonest
pockets.

Marc.

On May 14, 11:49 pm, " wrote:
Some ten years on, still not a scintilla of a sight of that much-
fabled station - as I said would be the case at that same public
meeting. So, the long-suffering traffic-jammed residents of Fulham who
daily incur more traffic and jams as the developers' properties come
on stream, have been thoroughly conned, cheated and treated with
contempt. Just as I predicted at the meeting at which the St. George
crooks somehow swindled councillors and others into their dishonest
pockets.

St George's contribution was only ever going to cover half the
construction costs, and according to the GLA, "The West London Line
station contribution has been received":
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/plann...c&h_report.pdf

The other half of the cost is meant to be met by another developer
(Circadian) if their development goes ahead.

U

On May 15, 12:29?am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On May 14, 11:49 pm, " wrote:

Some ten years on, still not a scintilla of a sight of that much-
fabled station - as I said would be the case at that same public
meeting. So, the long-suffering traffic-jammed residents of Fulham who
daily incur more traffic and jams as the developers' properties come
on stream, have been thoroughly conned, cheated and treated with
contempt. Just as I predicted at the meeting at which the St. George
crooks somehow swindled councillors and others into their dishonest
pockets.

St George's contribution was only ever going to cover half the
construction costs, and according to the GLA, "The West London Line
station contribution has been received":http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/plann...egic_dev/2005/...

The other half of the cost is meant to be met by another developer
(Circadian) if their development goes ahead.

U

U,

Many thanks for that.

This is certainly NOT what either St. George or the local authority
said AT THE TIME PLANNING CONSENT WAS GRANTED. They had us believe
that the money for the station was ringfenced and the ONLY obstruction
was Railtrack.

At that time, the other development (Lots Road Power Station) was not
even being considered, Lots Road Power Station was still in operation,
no development plans let alone developers were on the table and, in
any event, that land is outside Hammersmith & Fulham's jurisdiction
anyway, so they could have had no say in demanding money from those
(yet to be appointed) developers for money towards a station.

Marc.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 15, 12:29?am, Mr Thant

St George's contribution was only ever going to cover half the
construction costs, and according to the GLA, "The West London Line
station contribution has been
received":http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/plann...egic_dev/2005/...

The other half of the cost is meant to be met by another developer
(Circadian) if their development goes ahead.

U

Many thanks for that.

This is certainly NOT what either St. George or the local authority
said AT THE TIME PLANNING CONSENT WAS GRANTED. They had us believe
that the money for the station was ringfenced and the ONLY obstruction
was Railtrack.

At that time, the other development (Lots Road Power Station) was not
even being considered, Lots Road Power Station was still in operation,
no development plans let alone developers were on the table and, in
any event, that land is outside Hammersmith & Fulham's jurisdiction
anyway, so they could have had no say in demanding money from those
(yet to be appointed) developers for money towards a station.


I wonder if its simply that the original amount ringfenced didn't ever
account for 'railway inflation' during the intervening period - Railtrack
were apparently quite optimistic on project costs - and now the local
authority & St George are trying to collectively flannel their way round the
issue, by attempting to offload it onto the newer development? Its not too
easy to find anything concrete on the H&F web site...

Paul

On Thu, 17 May 2007 11:57:02 +0100 someone who may be "Paul Scott"
wrote this:-

I wonder if its simply that the original amount ringfenced didn't ever
account for 'railway inflation' during the intervening period

The first railway station built after privatisation was the halt at
Dalgety Bay. A fixed sum contribution that would cover the vast
majority of the estimated cost was part of the planning consent, on
the condition that work started within a time period (5 or 10 years
I imagine).

Work did start within the time period, on the last day that it could
before the contribution was lost. However, by that time general and
railway inflation meant that the contribution was only a small part
of the total cost.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54