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

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

On 10 Oct, 07:56, 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:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Can they not just use platform edge doors?

On Oct 10, 8:20 am, lonelytraveller
wrote:
On 10 Oct, 07:56, 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:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Can they not just use platform edge doors?

Sensible suggestion but will it work with variable train lengths and
differing stock types with differing door spacing. It works on the
Jubilee because of uniform stock types and lengths ?- remember the
insertion of extra coaches could only be done on a block closure
basis.

On 10 Oct, 07:56, 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:

---

At the heart of the new £1.6bn mega-development in London, just north
of Shepherd's Bush, there is to be a new railway station on the West
London line. It is a key part of the plan to ensure good public access
to the 300 shops, 14-screen cinema and all the rest of this huge
scheme. All very Green.

The station is virtually complete but surprisingly there is no
announcement about when it will open. Although it should have been
handed over to operators Silverlink at the end of August, the handover
has now been postponed indefinitely. That's because one of the
platforms is 18 inches shorter than the minimum specified by the
Railway Inspectorate. This might not sound like much, but with the
numbers expected to use the station, it is enough to pose a genuine
safety risk.

It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.


Wow!

If this is the case it would explain a lot. Though if this is the case
a lot of explaining needs to be done as well.

On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
....
It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John B" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
....
It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.


Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle of
the platform...

Paul

On Oct 10, 11:42 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"John B" wrote in message

ps.com...
On 10 Oct, 07:56, James Farrar wrote:
... It might sound simple to resolve, too, with a bit of extra concrete,
but unfortunately there is a huge wall in the way and the estimated
cost is a staggering £7n. The issue is now the subject of a major
dispute between all the players - developer Westfield, Transport for
London and the safety inspectors. There seems no easy resolution, but
someone is going to have to cough up £7m for what will be the most
expensive 18 inches of railway platform in the world.

Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.



Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle of
the platform...

Paul

Does Clapham Common meet those standards? I've always thought that
must be terrifying during the rush hour.

Jonn

On 10 Oct, 11:55, wrote:
Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.

Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle of
the platform...

That's slightly saner - the '18 inches of length' point as reported in
the Eye made no sense whatsoever, but I can see that adding 45cm of
width to a full-length platform could be an expensive undertaking, and
that a narrow platform might actually be dangerous (whereas a short
platform can be dealt with by SDO). In which case, somebody involved
with the design needs shot.

Does Clapham Common meet those standards? I've always thought that
must be terrifying during the rush hour.

Most definitely not, and most definitely yes - but there's a concept
called "grandfather rights" which effectively means that the railways
are allowed to do dangerous things they've always done, but not to
start doing new dangerous things.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

"John B" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 10 Oct, 11:55, wrote:
Sounds like utter ********, which wouldn't be surprising given the
general ****poor quality of the Eye's railway reporting. A fiver says
it opens with LO branding and the current platform length on November
11.

Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the
mo,
and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the
middle of
the platform...

That's slightly saner - the '18 inches of length' point as reported in
the Eye made no sense whatsoever, but I can see that adding 45cm of
width to a full-length platform could be an expensive undertaking, and
that a narrow platform might actually be dangerous (whereas a short
platform can be dealt with by SDO). In which case, somebody involved
with the design needs shot.


I'm not sure which is 'up' or 'down', but I'm sure its the western side
platform that is the problem. The bit where the stairs and lifts come down
is quite deep, possibly for about a coach length, but to the north of that
it is quite narrow, and the back wall is quite substantial, I wonder if it
is supporting the higher ground of the bus station?

Dave Arquati's site links to some photos, which seem to predate the
retaining wall going in:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davearq...7594243368848/

Paul

On 10 Oct, 15:00, John B wrote:

Its been mentioned somewhere a few weeks ago which I can't find at the
mo, and it isn't the length, its the width, the yellow line is in the middle
of the platform...

That's slightly saner - the '18 inches of length' point as reported in
the Eye made no sense whatsoever, but I can see that adding 45cm of
width to a full-length platform could be an expensive undertaking, and
that a narrow platform might actually be dangerous (whereas a short
platform can be dealt with by SDO). In which case, somebody involved
with the design needs shot.


Yes, the Eye's railway reporting is sometimes a little confused, but I
can't quite see how they've totally fabricated this story - it seems
likely there's something in this story, and Paul Scott's comments
appear to suggest it is a platform width issue.

Is this a salutary lesson in how one should not let developers (in
this case Westfield) build stations by themselves.

I've got a horrible feeling that the thrust of the Eye piece is true,
and this is an almighty screw up of the first order.

It'd also explain the ghostly silence that has surrounded the (non)
opening of the station.