On 10 Oct, 15:24, "Paul Scott" wrote:

I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down', but I'm sure its the western side
platform that is the problem.

I think the line on the West side is 'down'. I seem to remember that
it was treated as being part of the LNWR system, so heading North,
towards Watford, is down, while heading South, towards Euston, or
Clapham Junction, Broad Street, Elephant and Castle, would be up. Not
sure about the Croxley Green and Rickmansworth branches; were they
measured from the junction? If so, which one, the North or South one,
in the days when there was a triangle there. Or were they measured
from Euston via the South side of the triangle, which would have been
non-existant during the later part of Croxley Green's life?

On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps to the wall solve the problem?

That is by far the most cost-effective and sensible solution to the
problem. Expect to see the "wall" torn down at a cost of £xx million
instead...

THC

On Oct 10, 7:56 am, James Farrar wrote:
The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

Further detail from today's Evening Standard
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...zed/article.do
quote
New railway station over budget...and undersized
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard
12.10.07
A new rail station needs millions of pounds worth of extra work -
because the platform is 18 inches too narrow.
The Shepherd's Bush station was built in preparation for the massive
shopping complex Westfield London, which will open next year.
The work cost £12 million but only when it was finished did developer
Westfield realise the station would be unable to cope with the
anticipated volume of passengers.
Lampposts had been installed and signs put up before it was discovered
the width of the platform posed a safety risk.
Now a wall will have to be knocked down so the western platform can be
widened - at a cost to the developer of another £7 million.
A source close to the development claimed planners had not taken into
account the number of passengers changing between the mainline station
and the Tube.
Workers also built the eastern platform wall in the wrong place.
The blunders have angered passengers on the route, which links Clapham
Junction to Willesden Junction. Mark Balaam, chairman of the West
London Line Group, said: "We are astounded at the delay in opening
what is a straightforward station when passengers are already crying
out to use it. We do not understand how any station is allowed to be
completed with insufficient space for passengers so that it cannot be
used.
"Maps have shown for many years the extensive Tube and rail
connections that Shepherd's Bush will now have, allowing it to mirror,
to a large extent, the Stratford interchange in east London.
"Our hope is that the Mayor will arrange for Transport for London to
open this station as soon as possible, ideally within the first few
weeks of the start of the new London Overground network next month.
"This station will provide significant improvements to public
transport in an area where they are particularly needed."
A spokesman for Westfield Shopping Town said: "We are working with
Network Rail to resolve the situation and are confident that we will
be able to do so."
Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager. It liaised with Network Rail,
the train operating companies and other stakeholders and provided an
on-site engineer to supervise the construction work. The company
refused to comment.
A spokesman for Network Rail said: "On any project of this size, it is
sometimes necessary to revisit original designs and in this case it
has been necessary to carry out further work to look at the projected
numbers of passengers using the station and redesigning the platforms
accordingly.
"We are working with the developer to address the situation in order
to see the station in use as soon as possible."
Westfield London, which will be spread over three floors, will have
boutiques, more than 40 restaurants, dozens of cafés and bars, a 14-
screen cinema complex, an atrium for the arts, a medical centre, a spa
and a citizens advice bureau. There are also plans for 200 affordable
homes, an overhaul of Shepherd's Bush Green and a £170million upgrade
of local transport links.
About 60 per cent of the tenancies for the shopping centre have
already been exchanged or agreed.
unquote

On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

Aha!

Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager.

Having worked for a Capita company, I think I can see where the cockup
happened.

On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:56 am, James Farrar wrote:

The new issue of Private Eye, out today, has the following interesting
section on the much-delayed Shepherd's Bush WLL station:

Further detail from today's Evening Standard
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-details/New+r...
quote
New railway station over budget...and undersized
Katharine Barney, Evening Standard
12.10.07
A new rail station needs millions of pounds worth of extra work -
because the platform is 18 inches too narrow.

The Standard has at least managed to talk of platform width, as
opposed to Private Eye talking of platform length.

However I'm certain that this Evening Standard article was completely
inspired by the piece in the Eye. The various news organisations that
are supposed to cover London (BBC London, ITN's ITV London news
division, Associated/Evening Standard and News Int'l's thelondonpaper)
have done a really bad job in failing to ask any questions, up until
now, about this new station and why it's opening kept on being
delayed.

James Farrar's post, with a transcription of the Eye article, was the
first I'd heard about this apparent muck-up about platform length
(though on a seperate uk.railway thread Paul Scott reports that this
was being discussed a few weeks ago on the RailwayScene internet
forum).


The Shepherd's Bush station was built in preparation for the massive
shopping complex Westfield London, which will open next year.
The work cost £12 million but only when it was finished did developer
Westfield realise the station would be unable to cope with the
anticipated volume of passengers.
Lampposts had been installed and signs put up before it was discovered
the width of the platform posed a safety risk.
Now a wall will have to be knocked down so the western platform can be
widened - at a cost to the developer of another £7 million.
A source close to the development claimed planners had not taken into
account the number of passengers changing between the mainline station
and the Tube.

This sounds like a bit of spin to cover up the fact that the platform
was seemingly built too narrow and hence doesn't comply with the
regulations.

Can anyone provide some more information here - does the platform
width regulations vary according to projected usage? Or is the
platform as is simply too narrow, regardless of the projected usage?


Workers also built the eastern platform wall in the wrong place.

Have they - can anyone elaborate on what the problems are with the
eastern platform?


The blunders have angered passengers on the route, which links Clapham
Junction to Willesden Junction. Mark Balaam, chairman of the West
London Line Group, said: [...]
"Our hope is that the Mayor will arrange for Transport for London to
open this station as soon as possible, ideally within the first few
weeks of the start of the new London Overground network next month."

I'd suggest it'd be highly unlikely for the non-regulation compliant
station to open anytime soon Mark! I think things will need to be
fixed first.


Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager. It liaised with Network Rail,
the train operating companies and other stakeholders and provided an
on-site engineer to supervise the construction work. The company
refused to comment.

Yeah, I wonder why! This appears to be a masterclass in how not to
manage a project.


A spokesman for Network Rail said: "On any project of this size, it is
sometimes necessary to revisit original designs and in this case it
has been necessary to carry out further work to look at the projected
numbers of passengers using the station and redesigning the platforms
accordingly."
"We are working with the developer to address the situation in order
to see the station in use as soon as possible."

Which just sounds like a load of waffle! The questions I posed above,
with regards to whether the platform width regulations vary according
to projected usage, stand.

On 12 Oct, 13:16, THC wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, "John Rowland"

wrote:
It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps to the
wall solve the problem?

There hasn't really been any suggestion that the lamps are the problem
- it would seem that the platform width, regardless of the lamps, is
at fault.


That is by far the most cost-effective and sensible solution to the
problem. Expect to see the "wall" torn down at a cost of £xx million
instead...

THC

Balls to that. If the developer is required to deliver a new station
as part of the agreement to gain planning permission, then they should
deliver a new station to the requirements. If they bodged it up they
should sort it out - and it would appear that this is exactly what is
going to happen.

On 12 Oct, 17:54, contrex wrote:
On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

Aha!

Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager.

Having worked for a Capita company, I think I can see where the cockup
happened.

Ho ho ho!

I'm surprised the Eye didn't mention this project management and
consultancy company, as they could again make use of their oft-
repeated but still delightful moniker for the group to which it
belongs - Crapita!

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:54:46 -0000, contrex
wrote:

On 12 Oct, 13:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

Aha!

Although the station was designed and funded by Westfield, Capita
Symonds was employed as project manager.

Having worked for a Capita company, I think I can see where the cockup
happened.


Interesting. I wonder which of my former colleagues will be carrying
the can for that?


--
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

On 12 Oct, 18:02, Mizter T wrote:
On 12 Oct, 13:16, THC wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps to the
wall solve the problem?

There hasn't really been any suggestion that the lamps are the problem
- it would seem that the platform width, regardless of the lamps, is
at fault.

That is by far the most cost-effective and sensible solution to the
problem. Expect to see the "wall" torn down at a cost of £xx million
instead...

Balls to that. If the developer is required to deliver a new station
as part of the agreement to gain planning permission, then they should
deliver a new station to the requirements. If they bodged it up they
should sort it out - and it would appear that this is exactly what is
going to happen.

As a SheBu resident I'd actually quite like to see this station open
in my lifetime (I'm 36) and so would be happy to see it open with the
minor modifications suggested by John rather than the major rebuild
you favour. I don't have access to the demand forecasts but, as a
regular WLL user, do have local knowledge and so I'd imagine that the
southbound origin passenger flows will be significantly heavier than
northbound origin flows, especially as Southern services to Watford
Junction will not serve the station. Widening the platform by
eighteen whole inches would therefore IMV seem to be a waste of money,
especially given the sum involved.

THC

On 12 Oct, 19:03, THC wrote:
On 12 Oct, 18:02, Mizter T wrote:



On 12 Oct, 13:16, THC wrote:
On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
It's not obvious why the posts are there at all. Wouldn't fixing the lamps to
the wall solve the problem?

There hasn't really been any suggestion that the lamps are the problem
- it would seem that the platform width, regardless of the lamps, is
at fault.

That is by far the most cost-effective and sensible solution to the
problem. Expect to see the "wall" torn down at a cost of £xx million
instead...

Balls to that. If the developer is required to deliver a new station
as part of the agreement to gain planning permission, then they should
deliver a new station to the requirements. If they bodged it up they
should sort it out - and it would appear that this is exactly what is
going to happen.

As a SheBu resident I'd actually quite like to see this station open
in my lifetime (I'm 36) and so would be happy to see it open with the
minor modifications suggested by John rather than the major rebuild
you favour. I don't have access to the demand forecasts but, as a
regular WLL user, do have local knowledge and so I'd imagine that the
southbound origin passenger flows will be significantly heavier than
northbound origin flows, especially as Southern services to Watford
Junction will not serve the station. Widening the platform by
eighteen whole inches would therefore IMV seem to be a waste of money,
especially given the sum involved.

THC


John's suggested modification - removing the lampposts - still doesn't
address the apparent issue, that the station platform was seemingly
not built to the regulation width. I'd like to know the precise
details, and without them then much of this discussion is speculation,
but the lampposts don't appear to be the fundamental problem.

If the station isn't built to regulations then, AIUI, it cannot open.
HMRI aren't going to grant a derogation for a brand new station.

And why should they - if they do, then this issue could occur again
and again and again, as developers promise a new station as part of x,
y or z new development and then deliver a substandard end product.

Yes, I can see why you'd say the demand flows southbound might be
heavier, though over time the northbound flows would likely increase -
given the likely traffic to/from points north to the new shopping
centre, also as commuters discovered a new interchange point, and
especially if the service became more frequent (which is a TfL
desire).

However, I think the passenger forecasts may be something of a red-
herring - regardless of the forecast number of passengers the new
platform appears not to be up to scratch. I think Westfield might be
introducing the "pax forecasts higher then we originally thought" line
as a way of deflecting attention from the fact that they messed it up.