On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

And is there anywhere else in Greater London which is similarly
deserving of a brand new railway station on an existing line?

I suppose under that criteria my vote would go for a Brixton station on
the South London Line (which will hopefully play host to ELLX trains to
& from Clapham Jn in years to come) - but that would be an incredibly
difficult and expensive station to build, unlike Eastfield's
quick-and-cheapish new modular station. Is there anywhere else
deserving that's like Eastfields in London - somewhere where the line
is running more or less flat on the ground, not high up on an
embankment or viaduct or low in a cutting or even in a tunnel - i.e.
any *realistic* suggestions?

Oh you've wrecked the criteria! I was going to suggest St Ann's Road /
Seven Sisters Road on the GOBLIN

What, all of 2000 feet from South Tottenham station?

as well as Forest Road, Winchester Road and Chingford Hatch on the
Chingford - Liverpool St line. These extra stations would hugely
increase the catchment areas for these lines even though I recognise
they would slow overall journey times.

Chingford is currently eight stops from Liverpool Street (assuming that
trains skip Cambridge Heath and London Fields, which i think they still
do). Your stops would make it eleven. By comparison, Buckhurst Hill, the
station in the same zone on the Central line, is nine stops from Liverpool
Street, and Becontree, the first station in that zone on the District, is
13. Eleven seems alright really.

If Network Rail were feeling suitably insane they could build an
interchange station at Ferry Lane Estate where the GOBLIN cross the Lea
Valley line via Tottenham Hale. Obviously not every Lea Valley train
could stop as it's reduce line capacity but the locals to Hertford East
could possibly provide a half decent service.

Everyone's suggestions so far:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=...d 28a8d72cb01

Including one from me!

tom

--
102 FX 6 (goblins)

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:51:30 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

And is there anywhere else in Greater London which is similarly
deserving of a brand new railway station on an existing line?

I suppose under that criteria my vote would go for a Brixton station on
the South London Line (which will hopefully play host to ELLX trains to
& from Clapham Jn in years to come) - but that would be an incredibly
difficult and expensive station to build, unlike Eastfield's
quick-and-cheapish new modular station. Is there anywhere else
deserving that's like Eastfields in London - somewhere where the line
is running more or less flat on the ground, not high up on an
embankment or viaduct or low in a cutting or even in a tunnel - i.e.
any *realistic* suggestions?

Oh you've wrecked the criteria! I was going to suggest St Ann's Road /
Seven Sisters Road on the GOBLIN

What, all of 2000 feet from South Tottenham station?

Well yes. I'm sure a station used to exist here anyway and it's a big
catchment area which has no direct link to South Tottenham by bus. Yes
you can walk from the end of Seven Sisters Road but it just strikes me
as a very sensible location right at a crossroads with several frequent
bus services.

as well as Forest Road, Winchester Road and Chingford Hatch on the
Chingford - Liverpool St line. These extra stations would hugely
increase the catchment areas for these lines even though I recognise
they would slow overall journey times.

Chingford is currently eight stops from Liverpool Street (assuming that
trains skip Cambridge Heath and London Fields, which i think they still
do). Your stops would make it eleven. By comparison, Buckhurst Hill, the
station in the same zone on the Central line, is nine stops from Liverpool
Street, and Becontree, the first station in that zone on the District, is
13. Eleven seems alright really.

An interesting way of looking at it. Do people really count the number
of stops as some sort of quality measure of their rail journey or
commute?

I'm very much of the view that there are gaping holes on the Chingford
Line in terms of providing a convenient easy to use rail service. Trains
rattle back and forth every 15 mins conveniently not serving large areas
which are reliant on bus services that are often packed to capacity.
That just seems a nonsense to me when rail could easily provide
sufficient capacity for both local short journeys, railheading to
Walthamstow for the tube (and Overground if they ever build a link to
Queens Rd) as well as to Liverpool St for the traditional commute. I'd
prefer to convert it to tram style operation to give better acceleration
/ journey times and I'd also build the Coppermill Lane curve tomorrow
and provide a service to Stratford as a matter of urgency and reopen Lea
Bridge Station. All of this would give Waltham Forest a good, frequent
local rail service and allow some trimming of the bus network as people
transfer to rail. The only bit I struggle with is maintaining
sufficient capacity with a tram style vehicle for the commuter peaks
into Liverpool St - perhaps the Karlsruhe model offers some options?

Everyone's suggestions so far:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=...d 28a8d72cb01

Including one from me!

And you comment about me suggesting St Ann's Rd!?!?!
--
Paul C

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, wrote:

On 2 Jun, 19:58, Mizter T wrote:
On 2 Jun, 18:27, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 2 Jun, 17:51, Mizter T wrote:

I wonder what the delay was in opening the station - maybe it was just
to keep 'first train enthusiasts' on their toes! (Or maybe just allow
them a lie-in instead of a crack of dawn start...)

I went down there last night for a look just as the builders were
packing up (I wasn't expecting it to open as early as today). The only
things amiss were a few noticeboards hadn't been put up and one
segment of the down platform's canopy was missing.

The official line was that regulatory safety checks hadn't been done.

HMRI (if it was the HMRI) evidently don't do sunday inspections then!

When I passed by late on Friday I was half-hoping I might be able to
get a ticket machine to spew out the first ever Mitcham Eastfields
ticket - alas no, the place was still crawling with workmen!

Can anyone say exactly how long this station took to be built - i.e.
from the start the proper construction phase? It's certainly been
fairly rapid - well under a year.

And is there anywhere else in Greater London which is similarly
deserving of a brand new railway station on an existing line?

I suppose under that criteria my vote would go for a Brixton station
on the South London Line (which will hopefully play host to ELLX
trains to & from Clapham Jn in years to come) - but that would be an
incredibly difficult and expensive station to build, unlike
Eastfield's quick-and-cheapish new modular station. Is there anywhere
else deserving that's like Eastfields in London - somewhere where the
line is running more or less flat on the ground, not high up on an
embankment or viaduct or low in a cutting or even in a tunnel - i.e.
any *realistic* suggestions?

Stations at Walworth and Camberwell on the line into Blackfriars would
seem the obvious candidates.

Re-instating Junction Road/Tuffnel Park on the GOBLIN.

Barking Reach, on the Dagenham Dock line.

Ah, now i think what needs doing here is an entirely new bit of line
building, from Dagenham Dock, via what will be the Thames Gateway
development area and Canning Town, into the City. It could perhaps be a
more sensible route for the Docklands branch of Crossrail - after Isle of
Dogs, i'd go Canning Town, City Airport, Gallions Reach, Creekmouth,
Barking Reach, Dagenham Dock, and on to Grays. You could even slip in a
crafty tunnel and terminate the line at Northfleet International. Much
better than poxy Abbey Wood. I'll draw that on my map too. Note the
cunning position of the crossing at Tilbury - this allows easy addition of
a branch towards Hoo Junction, and so a route for Kent freight avoiding
south London.

tom

--
102 FX 6 (goblins)

On 3 Jun, 18:27, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
11:58:08 on Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Mizter T remarked:
Can anyone say exactly how long this station took to be built - i.e.
from the start the proper construction phase? It's certainly been
fairly rapid - well under a year.

It would be interesting to know. East Midlands Parkway, which is
supposed to be open in December, is currently just a load of mud. It
may have some foundations, or it may not, it's difficult to see,
through the mud.

Mr Thant's blog reckons about 5 months for the build phase?

http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...-from-tulse-hi...


OK, let's have a bash at this.

An August '07 press release from LB Merton states that the council's
"Planning Applications Committee [...] agreed the application [for
Eastfields station] on 22 August"
http://tinyurl.com/5fy249

In August Local councillor Martin Whelton said "work has commenced on
the station already" on the comments on this blog entry...
http://whelton.blogspot.com/2007/08/...head-from.html

It would seem that this was preliminary work as on the 5th of October
a uk.railway contributor posts that he noticed "a lot of clearance
work going on" when driving past recently:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....ff2c98ee22755/

In November Councillor Whelton passes on information from a Transport
Briefing article on his blog...
http://whelton.blogspot.com/2007/11/...struction.html

....which includes this paragraph:
"Civil engineering firm Dean Dyball is close to completing preliminary
works for the new Eastfields station near Mitcham in the London
borough of Merton. The station kit - which includes platform and
canopy modules - will then be assembled on site to allow the station
to open early in the New Year."

The predicted opening date was obviously a bit out!

Mr Thant picks up the story at the end of December (scroll down to the
bottom for the first post about Eastfields):
http://londonconnections.blogspot.co...bel/Eastfields

An early January press release from LB Merton...
http://tinyurl.com/6zv8bq
....states that "progress continues" on the new station before going on
to say that "The 170m (eight coaches) long platforms were constructed
in the traditional way, but the station building has been constructed
off-site and is being lifted into place in ready-constructed
sections."
Mr Thant's photos from the end of December do show the platforms were
partially in existence by this time, but they weren't yet finished
(they weren't long enough apart from anything else!).

So the 'build phase' would appear to have begun sometime in November
or December and hence took something like 6 or 7 months. Preliminary
works had apparently already started in late August but were
definitely up and running by early October.

On 3 Jun, 19:25, Tom Anderson wrote:
Ah, now i think what needs doing here is an entirely new bit of line
building, from Dagenham Dock, via what will be the Thames Gateway
development area and Canning Town, into the City. It could perhaps be a
more sensible route for the Docklands branch of Crossrail - after Isle of
Dogs, i'd go Canning Town, City Airport, Gallions Reach, Creekmouth,
Barking Reach, Dagenham Dock, and on to Grays.

You could maybe build this as a branch of the DLR.

U

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

In article ,
Paul Corfield wrote:
Oh you've wrecked the criteria! I was going to suggest St Ann's Road
/ Seven Sisters Road on the GOBLIN

What, all of 2000 feet from South Tottenham station?

Well yes. I'm sure a station used to exist here anyway and it's a big
catchment area which has no direct link to South Tottenham by bus. Yes
you can walk from the end of Seven Sisters Road but it just strikes me
as a very sensible location right at a crossroads with several frequent
bus services.

There was a station at St Ann's Road from October 2nd 1882 to August 9th
1942.

--
David Wild using RISC OS on broadband
www.davidhwild.me.uk

On Jun 3, 8:18 am, EE507 wrote:

This would be the dreadful CIS system

Yep ...

.... the rest of your paragraph is superfluous ... its just dreadful
(and not in the crankworthy sense).

I assume "...............................8" means the train is

Indeed.

Let us know if FCC have updated the system today...

ROFLOL.

It took them 3 months to get the two side by side summary screens
above the barrier line to not show the same list of trains ... for
those unfamiliar its two side by side in order to provide enough area
for a the list of trains ... for weeks and weeks we had 2 screens with
identical information of not enough lines to even show the next train
on 5 different platforms (because of the need to display buses from
outside).

On the platforms the rectangular TV-type flat sumarry screens show
different predictions to the individual platform indicators - usually
adrift by 1 minute. Even though a delay may increase or decrease, they
still show 1 minute apart. Mostly.

When I heard First had won the TL franchise I was dreading it based on
reports of certain other group TOCs. But in general they've been OK,
nothing to rave about but little to rant about either. The PIS is the
exception that proves the rule. Crap hardware, crap installation, and
currently crap information.

--
Nick

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jun, 19:25, Tom Anderson wrote:
Ah, now i think what needs doing here is an entirely new bit of line
building, from Dagenham Dock, via what will be the Thames Gateway
development area and Canning Town, into the City. It could perhaps be a
more sensible route for the Docklands branch of Crossrail - after Isle
of
Dogs, i'd go Canning Town, City Airport, Gallions Reach, Creekmouth,
Barking Reach, Dagenham Dock, and on to Grays.

You could maybe build this as a branch of the DLR.

DLR are applying, under Transport & Works Act, for powers to build a line
from Gallions via the Barking Riverside Development Area to Dagenham Dock.
http://developments.dlr.co.uk/pdf/ex...ham%20dock.pdf

Peter

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Mr Thant wrote:

On 3 Jun, 19:25, Tom Anderson wrote:
Ah, now i think what needs doing here is an entirely new bit of line
building, from Dagenham Dock, via what will be the Thames Gateway
development area and Canning Town, into the City. It could perhaps be a
more sensible route for the Docklands branch of Crossrail - after Isle of
Dogs, i'd go Canning Town, City Airport, Gallions Reach, Creekmouth,
Barking Reach, Dagenham Dock, and on to Grays.

You could maybe build this as a branch of the DLR.

Blimey, i mean, i've got quite a bit of meccano, but that's a bit of a big
job even for me.

tom

--
For me, thats just logic. OTOH, Spock went bananas several times using
logic. -- Pete, mfw

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Peter Masson wrote:

"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jun, 19:25, Tom Anderson wrote:

Ah, now i think what needs doing here is an entirely new bit of line
building, from Dagenham Dock, via what will be the Thames Gateway
development area and Canning Town, into the City. It could perhaps be
a more sensible route for the Docklands branch of Crossrail - after
Isle of Dogs, i'd go Canning Town, City Airport, Gallions Reach,
Creekmouth, Barking Reach, Dagenham Dock, and on to Grays.

You could maybe build this as a branch of the DLR.

DLR are applying, under Transport & Works Act, for powers to build a line
from Gallions via the Barking Riverside Development Area to Dagenham Dock.

Those route-stealing *******S! That was MY hare-brained scheme!

http://developments.dlr.co.uk/pdf/ex...ham%20dock.pdf

Okay, so they're going south of where i would have. I assume there are
good engineering reasons for this, because it puts the stations in less
useful locations.

I really wish this wasn't going to be a DLR scheme, though. Surely it's
now painfully obvious that the DLR, while a wonderful local service and a
crucial step in getting Docklands going in the first place, is just not up
to the job of moving huge numbers of commuters? Making the DLR the public
transport backbone of London's flagship development area is planning to
fail.

tom

--
For me, thats just logic. OTOH, Spock went bananas several times using
logic. -- Pete, mfw