In message
Mwmbwls wrote:

[snip]

The rebuilding of Waterloo is now scheduled in the mid term,
(including the reintegration of the Waterloo International Platforms,
much discussed here). , Airtrack will be obliged to happen if the BAA
get their evil way and expand Heathrow as part of the horse-trading
that will take place on the surface access strategy. Indeed it might
just happen anyway without the expansion IIRC I understand that BAA
are preparing the TWA application documentation less the newly re-
elected Kenneth Robert(he whose name cannot be mentioned) creates a
third congestion zone round the airport.

[snip]

I like that idea!

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On Jan 24, 10:21*am, Old Central wrote:
Thanks for you responses on air rights but Mwmbwls is getting me
confused!

I attended a meeting last year where the subject of air rights in
London was raised and it was considered too costly - Fennell Report,
possession requirements, etc.

Are we talking about air rights for developments adjacent to or over
the railway?

Based on the Victoria and Charing Cross precedents, I was thinking
about both but please elaborate about the points raised at the meeting
you attended. I would have thought Fennelll Report constraints could
be built accomodated in intelligent design.

regards
Mwmbwls

Trying to cope with Fennell requirements means replacing miles of
cabling, etc and other building materials. As track in platforms are
red zones this is not an easy task in engineering hours (or shoudl
that be hour) with trains like GATEX running for very long hours.

AFAICS from the present proposals they relate to land off the railway
so I don't see this as a NR track realignment scheme. I would welcome
being corrected!

OC

On 24 Jan, 11:06, Old Central wrote:
AFAICS from the present proposals they relate to land off the railway
so I don't see this as a NR track realignment scheme.

They plan to do some upgrading of the station at the same time (lifts
and new stairs on the footbridge, mainly), but the development itself
is entirely south of the tracks. The man I spoke to at the exhibition
said there's a reasonable possibility of Network Rail taking some land
from the development site so the southernmost platforms can be
straightened.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Jan 23, 5:34*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 23 Jan, 17:23, "Paul Scott" wrote:

That's notable in that it doesn't actually include anything above the tracks
or platforms, which was suggested by the Wandsworth planning page I linked
to...

They appear to be different areas. The "Heart of Battersea" plan is
for the area east of the footbridge and south of the tracks (i.e. the
shopping centre).

U

--http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Is there any connection between the two proposals - the same developer
perhaps? Plotting them on a map it would appear that they are not
mutually exclusive and both could happen.

On 25 Jan, 09:59, Mwmbwls wrote:
Is there any connection between the two proposals - the same developer
perhaps? Plotting them on a map it would appear that they are not
mutually exclusive and both could happen.

Isn't the west proposal just an idea being floated by the council? I
doesn't seem to have a developer attached, and the Internet Archive
says the page has been sitting there unchanged since at least
September 2006. And it's even less attractive if other proposal
happens next door.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

Even an air rights scheme needs to take account of future needs at platform
level. Unless there is intention to use skyhooks technology someone needs to
decide where to put the columns which will hold the buildings up.
I thought one option for Crossrail 2 was to run Wimbledon - East Putney -
Wandsworth Town - Clapham Junction before tunnelling to Chelsea and on to
Hackney, and I hadn't heard that this option had been abandoned.
Crossrail 2 seems to have been abandoned as a crossrail type of
connection; if it had gone ahead as a crossrail thing it would have
been clapham junction-victoria-kings cross-dalston junction,
without any other stops.

But the chelsea-hackney ("chelnea") tube line still seems to be
regarded as planned to go ahead once the funding arrives. There were
three alternative routes being suggested; all the routes go from
Wimbledon to Victoria (and then off to the central line beyond
Leytonstone via Angel, Dalston, and the Hackney Marshes), but they
differ in how they go from wimbledon to victoria.

All three routes go from East Putney to Wimbledon. From East Putney to
Victoria the three options a
-(right angle) via Parsons Green, Kings Road (Chelsea), and Sloane
Square
-(straight line) via Clapham Junction and Battersea Park (East)
-(S bend) via Clapham Junction, Battersea (West), Kings Road
(Chelsea), and Sloane Square

the first of these (right angle) was the original option, but the last
of these (the S bend) is the one preferred by Kensington & Chelsea
council

On 26 Jan, 00:26, lonelytraveller
wrote:
But the chelsea-hackney ("chelnea") tube line still seems to be
regarded as planned to go ahead once the funding arrives.

Not really. I think it's more that the Crossrail people have abandoned
their planned use and we're back to where we were 10 years ago, with
the Chelney route safeguarded but no real plan on how to use it.

All three routes go from East Putney to Wimbledon. From East Putney to
Victoria the three options a
-(right angle) via Parsons Green, Kings Road (Chelsea), and Sloane
Square

This route is safeguarded, though without a station at Sloane Square.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Jan 26, 1:00*am, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 26 Jan, 00:26, lonelytraveller

wrote:
But the chelsea-hackney ("chelnea") tube line still seems to be
regarded as planned to go ahead once the funding arrives.

Not really. I think it's more that theCrossrailpeople have abandoned
their planned use and we're back to where we were 10 years ago, with
the Chelney route safeguarded but no real plan on how to use it.

All three routes go from East Putney to Wimbledon. From East Putney to
Victoria the three options a
-(right angle) via Parsons Green, Kings Road (Chelsea), and Sloane
Square

This route is safeguarded, though without a station at Sloane Square.

U

The story moves on:

http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4686
quote

DfT reinstates Crossrail 2 Sloane Square station
Filed 28/01/08

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has claimed a victory in
its campaign to have two new stations built in the borough.

Plans for Crossrail 2, also known as the Chelsea-Hackney Line, have
historically included proposals for new stations at Sloane Square and
King's Road, Chelsea.

However, in a government consultation on plans to safeguard the route
against future building work (Transport Briefing 16/04/07), the
Department for Transport said it was not including proposals to build
the Sloane Square station.

Now, following discussions between the local authority and the DfT,
the government has said it will keep all options open for the station.

"We made it absolutely clear to the government we wanted the station
back on the agenda," said the borough council's deputy leader Cllr
Daniel Moylan. "We are keen to see the scheme taken forward as soon as
possible and think it would transform the public transport options
available to Chelsea residents and help assure the area's continued
economic viability. We are very relieved the government has listened
to us and decided to keep all options open."

Crossrail 2 is planned to link the northern Epping branch of the
London Underground Central line to the southern Wimbledon branch of
the District line with a new build tunnel across central London. Last
year the government described it as "very much in the long-term
planning stage" with "completion unlikely to be before 2025". A small
team within Cross London Rail Links, the Transport for London company
charged with developing the east-west Crossrail 1 project, works
solely on the Crossrail 2 scheme

unquote.

No doubt the lessons of Woolwich have been absorbed.

On 28 Jan, 09:57, Mwmbwls wrote:
No doubt the lessons of Woolwich have been absorbed.

Except the line is only a placeholder for a real project, so there's
no reason for the DfT to not say stations for everyone (although the
proposed safeguarded route no longer goes under Sloane Square, so I'm
not sure what they're promising). When active development of a project
on the route begins, they can easily come up with a reason not to
include it.

Plus if the line gets built on the same scale as Crossrail, a station
at Victoria could easily have a western exit near Sloane Square.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London