Steve wrote:
Shepherds Bush won't be opening any time soon. Seems the platforms
are too narrow to allow for all the shoppers in the Westfield centre
and therefore looks like it might have to be demolished and rebuilt
before opening!

So what's their reason for not opening the other platform? South Greenford
operated as a one-way station for a year or two after one of the platforms
went bungee jumping, and the Sudbury Picc stations were both one-way for a
while during platform rebuilding. Not ideal, but better than a shut
station... unless they are concerned that a one-way station on the maps for
six months will bring a lot more embarrassing publicity than a shut station,
and feigning competence is more important than helping the public get
around.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:57:01 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Steve wrote:
Shepherds Bush won't be opening any time soon. Seems the platforms
are too narrow to allow for all the shoppers in the Westfield centre
and therefore looks like it might have to be demolished and rebuilt
before opening!

So what's their reason for not opening the other platform? South Greenford
operated as a one-way station for a year or two after one of the platforms
went bungee jumping, and the Sudbury Picc stations were both one-way for a
while during platform rebuilding. Not ideal, but better than a shut
station... unless they are concerned that a one-way station on the maps for
six months will bring a lot more embarrassing publicity than a shut station,
and feigning competence is more important than helping the public get
around.

I think the difference is that Shepherds Bush is a new station and must
meet mandated standards before Works, Plant and Equipment (statutory
safety) approval can be granted thus allowing public use. Let's be frank
- the platform width issue at SB is a right royal cock up by several
parties who have duties under Construction Design Management regulations
to design correctly or to seek assurance or to grant approvals. Quite
how three key activities were mucked up to this extent would make an
interesting story.

The other examples you quote are of places that effectively have
grandfather rights exemption from complying with current standards. The
use of one way systems at such sites are just a pragmatic way of
managing disruption while works are undertaken to repair damage or
replace worn out assets. These new works at existing locations would
have to demonstrate compliance with applicable rules (subject to any
concessions to standards that might have been granted).

--
Paul C

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:57:01 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Steve wrote:
Shepherds Bush won't be opening any time soon. Seems the platforms
are too narrow to allow for all the shoppers in the Westfield centre
and therefore looks like it might have to be demolished and rebuilt
before opening!

So what's their reason for not opening the other platform? South
Greenford operated as a one-way station for a year or two after one
of the platforms went bungee jumping, and the Sudbury Picc stations
were both one-way for a while during platform rebuilding. Not ideal,
but better than a shut station... unless they are concerned that a
one-way station on the maps for six months will bring a lot more
embarrassing publicity than a shut station, and feigning competence
is more important than helping the public get around.

I think the difference is that Shepherds Bush is a new station and
must meet mandated standards before Works, Plant and Equipment
(statutory safety) approval can be granted thus allowing public use.
Let's be frank - the platform width issue at SB is a right royal cock
up by several parties who have duties under Construction Design
Management regulations to design correctly or to seek assurance or to
grant approvals. Quite how three key activities were mucked up to
this extent would make an interesting story.

The other examples you quote are of places that effectively have
grandfather rights exemption from complying with current standards.
The use of one way systems at such sites are just a pragmatic way of
managing disruption while works are undertaken to repair damage or
replace worn out assets. These new works at existing locations would
have to demonstrate compliance with applicable rules (subject to any
concessions to standards that might have been granted).

I find it hard to believe that opening a new one-way station now and making
it two-way sixths months later would be illegal.

On 5 Dec, 21:25, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:57:01 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Steve wrote:
Shepherds Bush won't be opening any time soon. Seems the platforms
are too narrow to allow for all the shoppers in the Westfield centre
and therefore looks like it might have to be demolished and rebuilt
before opening!

So what's their reason for not opening the other platform? South
Greenford operated as a one-way station for a year or two after one
of the platforms went bungee jumping, and the Sudbury Picc stations
were both one-way for a while during platform rebuilding. Not ideal,
but better than a shut station... unless they are concerned that a
one-way station on the maps for six months will bring a lot more
embarrassing publicity than a shut station, and feigning competence
is more important than helping the public get around.

I think the difference is that Shepherds Bush is a new station and
must meet mandated standards before Works, Plant and Equipment
(statutory safety) approval can be granted thus allowing public use.
Let's be frank - the platform width issue at SB is a right royal cock
up by several parties who have duties under Construction Design
Management regulations to design correctly or to seek assurance or to
grant approvals. Quite how three key activities were mucked up to
this extent would make an interesting story.

The other examples you quote are of places that effectively have
grandfather rights exemption from complying with current standards.
The use of one way systems at such sites are just a pragmatic way of
managing disruption while works are undertaken to repair damage or
replace worn out assets. These new works at existing locations would
have to demonstrate compliance with applicable rules (subject to any
concessions to standards that might have been granted).

I find it hard to believe that opening a new one-way station now and making
it two-way sixths months later would be illegal.


Unlawful is probably the word you are looking for.

Regardless of the legal situation half opening a new station for one-
way travel only would cause a lot of confusion and annoyance -
passengers could get there, but not back again.

Mizter T wrote:
On 5 Dec, 21:25, "John Rowland"
wrote:

I find it hard to believe that opening a new one-way station now and
making it two-way sixths months later would be illegal.

Unlawful is probably the word you are looking for.

Regardless of the legal situation half opening a new station for one-
way travel only would cause a lot of confusion and annoyance -
passengers could get there, but not back again.

No, they'd just have to use the Central Line to get back. Their journey
would be more convenient in one direction than the other, whereas now it's
inconvenient in both directions. No-one would force them to use the new
platform, so they could take the long way around in both directions if that
annoyed them less.

Anyone who lives or works near a one-way system and uses buses might already
have a much more convenient journey in one direction than the other. The
best driving route from A to B in the morning is not that likely to be the
same as the best route back in the evening.

When I lived on an extremely steep hill in Sheffield, I used to walk down
the hill every morning to catch a single bus route to work. In the evening I
would catch the same bus route back as far as the town centre, where I would
change to a different route which would take me to the top of the hill so I
would walk down to my flat. Although all the bus routes were two-way, my
route was a lot less effort than doing the same route in both directions. It
didn't confuse or annoy me.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:25:46 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:57:01 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Steve wrote:
Shepherds Bush won't be opening any time soon. Seems the platforms
are too narrow to allow for all the shoppers in the Westfield centre
and therefore looks like it might have to be demolished and rebuilt
before opening!

So what's their reason for not opening the other platform? South
Greenford operated as a one-way station for a year or two after one
of the platforms went bungee jumping, and the Sudbury Picc stations
were both one-way for a while during platform rebuilding. Not ideal,
but better than a shut station... unless they are concerned that a
one-way station on the maps for six months will bring a lot more
embarrassing publicity than a shut station, and feigning competence
is more important than helping the public get around.

I think the difference is that Shepherds Bush is a new station and
must meet mandated standards before Works, Plant and Equipment
(statutory safety) approval can be granted thus allowing public use.
Let's be frank - the platform width issue at SB is a right royal cock
up by several parties who have duties under Construction Design
Management regulations to design correctly or to seek assurance or to
grant approvals. Quite how three key activities were mucked up to
this extent would make an interesting story.

The other examples you quote are of places that effectively have
grandfather rights exemption from complying with current standards.
The use of one way systems at such sites are just a pragmatic way of
managing disruption while works are undertaken to repair damage or
replace worn out assets. These new works at existing locations would
have to demonstrate compliance with applicable rules (subject to any
concessions to standards that might have been granted).

I find it hard to believe that opening a new one-way station now and making
it two-way sixths months later would be illegal.

With the present (overground) timetable could they not open the
eastern platform as a bidirectional one, if the Southern trains did
not stop?

--
Peter Lawrence

"Peter Lawrence" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:25:46 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:


I find it hard to believe that opening a new one-way station now and
making
it two-way sixths months later would be illegal.

With the present (overground) timetable could they not open the
eastern platform as a bidirectional one, if the Southern trains did
not stop?


I thought the current NR timetable allows for trains stopping at Shepherds
Bush, as announced back in May or so, in the expectation the station would
open.

I can't quite see why Southern not stopping would affect matters though...

Paul S

With the present (overground) timetable could they not open the
eastern platform as a bidirectional one, if the Southern trains did
not stop?

Alternatively, open it as an alighting-only station for a limited
period (which TfL seem quite happy to do at certain times with busy
Underground stations), monitor the way people move around the
platforms and use that information to establish exactly what needs
doing.

On Dec 5, 8:46 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:57:01 -0000, "John Rowland"

I think the difference is that Shepherds Bush is a new station and must
meet mandated standards before Works, Plant and Equipment (statutory
safety) approval can be granted thus allowing public use. Let's be frank
- the platform width issue at SB is a right royal cock up by several
parties who have duties under Construction Design Management regulations
to design correctly or to seek assurance or to grant approvals.

Too right! I went through SB on a Harrow to West brompton train and I
could see that the platforms were quite laughably small. I could SEE
it in one second - anyone could. How engineers in a country with 200
years of station-building experience thought it would be all right
is ... it's just weird, I suppose... freaky. Mental would be another
good word.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 00:55:18 -0800 (PST), Offramp
wrote:

On Dec 5, 8:46 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:57:01 -0000, "John Rowland"

I think the difference is that Shepherds Bush is a new station and must
meet mandated standards before Works, Plant and Equipment (statutory
safety) approval can be granted thus allowing public use. Let's be frank
- the platform width issue at SB is a right royal cock up by several
parties who have duties under Construction Design Management regulations
to design correctly or to seek assurance or to grant approvals.

Too right! I went through SB on a Harrow to West brompton train and I
could see that the platforms were quite laughably small. I could SEE
it in one second - anyone could. How engineers in a country with 200
years of station-building experience thought it would be all right
is ... it's just weird, I suppose... freaky. Mental would be another
good word.

Someone probably scaled from drawings rather than using figured
dimensions!