Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

Having not been to London since it opened. I was wondering how on a
day to day basis the new transport infrastructure is holding up. Are
there incidents of trains being PIXC? Is the WLL station large enough
to cope with the real passenger flow?

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:

Having not been to London since it opened.

Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you?

Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind.

tom

--
There are many ways of going crazy, but the most valuable of them is
this one which makes a genius out of an ordinary man. -- Claudio Grondi

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

On Dec 5, 3:11 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:
Having not been to London since it opened.

Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you?

Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind.


And I assumed Mumbles was out the other side of Swansea and didn't
make it to the smoke too often (wise man).

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

On 5 Dec, 22:49, TimB wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:11 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:
Having not been to London since it opened.

Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you?

Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind.

And I assumed Mumbles was out the other side of Swansea and didn't
make it to the smoke too often (wise man).

I was there on the Sunday after it opened, and in the evening there
was one train an hour, there must have been 250 people on the
southbound side. The 313 was as busy as you have ever seen one. On the
northbound there were a lot of people, all of us wondering how a new
station could be built with no canopies whatsoever, its a horrible
windy and miserable place

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

On Dec 6, 1:27*am, wrote:
On 5 Dec, 22:49, TimB wrote:

On Dec 5, 3:11 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:
Having not been to London since it opened.

Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you?

Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind.

And I assumed Mumbles was out the other side of Swansea and didn't
make it to the smoke too often (wise man).

I was there on the Sunday after it opened, and in the evening there
was one train an hour, there must have been 250 people on the
southbound side. The 313 was as busy as you have ever seen one. On the
northbound there were a lot of people, all of us wondering how a new
station could be built with no canopies whatsoever, its a horrible
windy and miserable place

Like I was saying in another thread, I bet the attraction of an
interchange to the Central Line is a far bigger draw than Westfield.

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

wrote:
On 5 Dec, 22:49, TimB wrote:
On Dec 5, 3:11 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008, Mwmbwls wrote:
Having not been to London since it opened.
Crumbs. That was quite a while ago, you know. Been busy, have you?
Oh, since *Westfield* opened. Gotcha. Nevermind.


I was there on the Sunday after it opened, and in the evening there
was one train an hour, there must have been 250 people on the
southbound side. The 313 was as busy as you have ever seen one. On the
northbound there were a lot of people, all of us wondering how a new
station could be built with no canopies whatsoever, its a horrible
windy and miserable place

Indeed. If this is the future of retail then it's a future in a very
different climate.

http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...7608819610397/

Though it would appear that on the southbound platform there is a hidden
shelter.

http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...7608819610397/

It's not a good sign that the central line station had to be closed on
the opening Saturday due to overcrowding, it would appear that whilst
the upper levels of the station are well designed for coping with the
crowds, having only two escalators and having all access to the
platforms via what is essentially access at one end of an island is not
enabling high throughput.

Would it have been possible to move the whole station further into the
shopping centre boundary and rebuild it totally, or are the curves a
problem that negates such useful planning?

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

On 6 Dec, 12:32, Alex Ingram wrote:
Indeed. If this is the future of retail then it's a future in a very
different climate.

http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...72157608819610...

The glass building at the bottom of the stairs was designed (and
originally built) as a waiting room, with the entrance facing the
camera. That's why the steelwork on the left is so ugly, as it was put
in when the end wall was removed.

Would it have been possible to move the whole station further into the
shopping centre boundary and rebuild it totally, or are the curves a
problem that negates such useful planning?

I think wonga is the thing that negates it or anything like it. TfL
were meant to dig some passages underground to spread passengers along
the platform, but didn't want to pay for it.

U

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

Mr Thant wrote:
On 6 Dec, 12:32, Alex Ingram wrote:
Indeed. If this is the future of retail then it's a future in a very
different climate.

http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...72157608819610...

The glass building at the bottom of the stairs was designed (and
originally built) as a waiting room, with the entrance facing the
camera. That's why the steelwork on the left is so ugly, as it was put
in when the end wall was removed.

Would it have been possible to move the whole station further into
the shopping centre boundary and rebuild it totally, or are the
curves a problem that negates such useful planning?

I think wonga is the thing that negates it or anything like it. TfL
were meant to dig some passages underground to spread passengers along
the platform, but didn't want to pay for it.

It doesn't need "passages underground". It just needs some canopies over
the open platforms to keep the rain off. It beggars belief that a new urban
station has been built to the standards of a 19th century rural halt, with
no protection from the weather apart from the small area at the foot of the
stairs.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

Richard J. wrote:
Mr Thant wrote:
On 6 Dec, 12:32, Alex Ingram wrote:
Indeed. If this is the future of retail then it's a future in a very
different climate.

http://flickr.com/photos/nuttyxander...72157608819610...

The glass building at the bottom of the stairs was designed (and
originally built) as a waiting room, with the entrance facing the
camera. That's why the steelwork on the left is so ugly, as it was
put in when the end wall was removed.

Would it have been possible to move the whole station further into
the shopping centre boundary and rebuild it totally, or are the
curves a problem that negates such useful planning?

I think wonga is the thing that negates it or anything like it. TfL
were meant to dig some passages underground to spread passengers
along the platform, but didn't want to pay for it.

It doesn't need "passages underground". It just needs some canopies
over the open platforms to keep the rain off. It beggars belief that
a new urban station has been built to the standards of a 19th century
rural halt, with no protection from the weather apart from the small
area at the foot of the stairs.

Sorry, just realised that the para I replied to relates to the Central Line
station. My comment relates to the Overground station.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Westfield Shepherd's Bush
 

On 8 Dec, 01:11, "Richard J." wrote:
*It just needs some canopies over
the open platforms to keep the rain off. *It beggars belief that a new urban
station has been built to the standards of a 19th century rural halt, with
no protection from the weather apart from the small area at the foot of the
stairs.

It was originally designed with canopies, but that assumed they'd be
allowed to move the signals. When they were told it would cost £20-30m
as the changes they wanted to make required resignalling the whole
area, they hastily deleted the planned canopies (which would be in the
way) and came up with the waiting room at the bottom of the stairs
idea, which provided the minimum amount of coverage required.

(Interestingly the planning document only discusses minimum allowable
amounts of canopy, not providing an adequate amount for likely
predicted usage, which is why they didn't design a new canopy in the
area north of the stairs on the southbound platform, where surely one
will appear in years to come)

U