On Jul 16, 6:29*am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

"John B" wrote:

An acquaintance has just been briefed on progress on the Battersea
Power Stations Northern Line extension:http://bit.ly/riSsr

Semi-off-the-record-ly, he's been told that the feasibility studies
are done, that TfL, LU, the GLA, LB Wandsworth and LB Lambeth are all
in favour of the project, that (entirely private) finance is almost
complete, that a provisional route from Kennington to Battersea via
Nine Elms has been earmarked, and that RFPs for project managers,
engineers and lead contractors will go out shortly.

Meanwhile LU will look at funding options to extend the work to
Clapham Junction at public expense.

The more I read this discussion the more I find myself asking if this is the
correct solution to "the problem". * Mind you, what is "the problem"? * For
the sake of argument we'll say a significant new traffic generator on the
site of Battersea Power Station. * Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea-Hackney_line
would the private money be better spent as seed money for a completely
new route?

Ha ha ha, very funny, you got any more like that?

A Chelsea to Hackney line (aka "Chelney", aka Crossrail 2}, would be a
*massively* expensive endeavour. Given the epic struggle Crossrail has
had in getting funding - which aren't necessarily over either (it's
going to have to prove itself in Cameron and Osbourne's comprehensive
spending review), and bearing in mind the *huge* cost - £16 billion -
the idea that a little contribution from a developer could somehow
kick start it is just somewhat incredulous (sorry to come across in
such a blunt manner, but I think it's justified).

This proposal meanwhile is on a completely different scale. Apparently
the developers really think they can fund the relatively short
extension of the Northern line with private dosh - at least as far as
the Battersea Power station site, via a new station at Nine Elms. The
reasoning here is that both the Battersea Power station site, and also
a large site just down Nine Elms Lane - the Nine Elms site itself -
are to be redeveloped in a big way. The saga of the fate of the
Battersea Power station site is of course an epic, long running one,
but the Nine Elms redevelopment is a relatively new proposal - see the
recent announcement by the US Embassy that they were to move to a new
(more secure, more practical etc) home at Nine Elms as part of this
overall redevelopment.

This is what's generating the prospective "need" for these stations.
No way could this extension be justified, or would even be proposed,
without them. At the moment, people wanting to access the Tube from
Nine Elms Lane or Wandsworth Road can do so without too much hassle by
either taking the bus up to Vauxhall (for the Victoria line), or
otherwise catching a mainline train to Victoria from Battersea Park
(frequent service). The developers however obviously don't feel that
this would suffice for what they are planning - and of course the very
question of transport links is instrumental to any new development
such as this.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Jul 16, 6:29 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

"John B" wrote:

An acquaintance has just been briefed on progress on the Battersea
Power Stations Northern Line extension:http://bit.ly/riSsr

Semi-off-the-record-ly, he's been told that the feasibility studies
are done, that TfL, LU, the GLA, LB Wandsworth and LB Lambeth are all
in favour of the project, that (entirely private) finance is almost
complete, that a provisional route from Kennington to Battersea via
Nine Elms has been earmarked, and that RFPs for project managers,
engineers and lead contractors will go out shortly.

Meanwhile LU will look at funding options to extend the work to
Clapham Junction at public expense.

The more I read this discussion the more I find myself asking if this is
the
correct solution to "the problem". Mind you, what is "the problem"? For
the sake of argument we'll say a significant new traffic generator on the
site of Battersea Power Station. Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea-Hackney_line
would the private money be better spent as seed money for a completely
new route?

Ha ha ha, very funny, you got any more like that?

A Chelsea to Hackney line (aka "Chelney", aka Crossrail 2}, would be a
*massively* expensive endeavour. Given the epic struggle Crossrail has
had in getting funding - which aren't necessarily over either (it's
going to have to prove itself in Cameron and Osbourne's comprehensive
spending review), and bearing in mind the *huge* cost - £16 billion -
the idea that a little contribution from a developer could somehow
kick start it is just somewhat incredulous (sorry to come across in
such a blunt manner, but I think it's justified).

This proposal meanwhile is on a completely different scale. Apparently
the developers really think they can fund the relatively short
extension of the Northern line with private dosh - at least as far as
the Battersea Power station site, via a new station at Nine Elms. The
reasoning here is that both the Battersea Power station site, and also
a large site just down Nine Elms Lane - the Nine Elms site itself -
are to be redeveloped in a big way. The saga of the fate of the
Battersea Power station site is of course an epic, long running one,
but the Nine Elms redevelopment is a relatively new proposal - see the
recent announcement by the US Embassy that they were to move to a new
(more secure, more practical etc) home at Nine Elms as part of this
overall redevelopment.

This is what's generating the prospective "need" for these stations.
No way could this extension be justified, or would even be proposed,
without them. At the moment, people wanting to access the Tube from
Nine Elms Lane or Wandsworth Road can do so without too much hassle by
either taking the bus up to Vauxhall (for the Victoria line), or
otherwise catching a mainline train to Victoria from Battersea Park
(frequent service). The developers however obviously don't feel that
this would suffice for what they are planning - and of course the very
question of transport links is instrumental to any new development
such as this.


-----------------


Ever heard of a strawman?

Several people here have questioned the ability of the Northern to absorb
extra traffic. I'm trying to explore alternatives to the proposal.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 02:59:52PM +0100, Paul Scott wrote:

They'd still have to change twice surely - the drawings that appeared
somewhere recently assumed connections to/from the reversing loop beyond
Kennington station, so they could only have access to the Charing Cross
branch rather than the City branch - therefore forcing a change at
Kennington?

That's an easier and quicker change than what they've got at the moment.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

All praise the Sun God
For He is a Fun God
Ra Ra Ra!

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 03:11:17PM +0100, David A Stocks wrote:

Almost anyone arriving on the Victoria side who wants to go to the city is
on the wrong train in the first place. They should go to London Bridge
instead.

Gosh, and there are so many trains to London Bridge from places like
Lewes! And even if you start at a station which does have services to
both Victoria and London Bridge, it's often quicker to just take the
first train and change than to wait for a direct train.

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

Arbeit macht Alkoholiker

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Jul 15, 8:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:

[snip John B's post]

Cripes. I can hardly believe it. I honestly thought it was all total
pie-in-the-sky stuff.

*If* this can honestly, really be done on a by privately funded basis,
then fair enough [...]

So surprised that I couldn't even construct sentences properly! You
see what I was trying to get at though.

A few thoughts. Initially I thought it a bit of a shame that it'd miss
Vauxhall altogether, though obviously on looking at this map [1] for
longer than five seconds one sees that the trajectory of the line
south of Kennington is all wrong for that:
http://tinyurl.com/Battersea-Extension-Map

Also a bit of a shame that it misses Oval station (well, winds around
it) -

Why?

What possible use would a Kennington to Oval line be, given that there's
already a Kennington to Oval line?

tim

In article ,
(tim.....) wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote in message
...

On Jul 15, 8:52 pm, Mizter T wrote:

[snip John B's post]

Cripes. I can hardly believe it. I honestly thought it was all total
pie-in-the-sky stuff.

*If* this can honestly, really be done on a by privately funded basis,
then fair enough [...]

So surprised that I couldn't even construct sentences properly! You
see what I was trying to get at though.

A few thoughts. Initially I thought it a bit of a shame that it'd miss
Vauxhall altogether, though obviously on looking at this map [1] for
longer than five seconds one sees that the trajectory of the line
south of Kennington is all wrong for that:
http://tinyurl.com/Battersea-Extension-Map

Also a bit of a shame that it misses Oval station (well, winds around
it) -

Why?

What possible use would a Kennington to Oval line be, given that
there's already a Kennington to Oval line?

We were shown options, certainly for a station at Vauxhall and I think one
at Oval, in Parsons Brinkerhof's presentation at Rail 2009. I have the
notes on why they preferred a station at Nine Elms but not with me.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

David Cantrell wrote:
Gosh, and there are so many trains to London Bridge from places like
Lewes! And even if you start at a station which does have services to
both Victoria and London Bridge, it's often quicker to just take the
first train and change than to wait for a direct train.

Is there a capacity issue with stopping Southern trains at Clapham Junction
in the peaks? SWT claim there aren't enough paths on their side, so in the
peaks everything long-ish distance goes through non-stop. Not much point
having an interchange if most of the commuters can't use it.

Theo

"Theo Markettos" wrote in message
news
David Cantrell wrote:
Gosh, and there are so many trains to London Bridge from places like
Lewes! And even if you start at a station which does have services to
both Victoria and London Bridge, it's often quicker to just take the
first train and change than to wait for a direct train.

Is there a capacity issue with stopping Southern trains at Clapham
Junction
in the peaks? SWT claim there aren't enough paths on their side, so in
the
peaks everything long-ish distance goes through non-stop. Not much point
having an interchange if most of the commuters can't use it.

AIUI both SWT and Southern don't like stopping longer distance trains at CJ
in the peaks to discourage their use for short hops.

It isn't just at CJ but SWT reduce stops at Surbiton and Wimbledon as well.
I don't know if it is still true but there used to be an hour gap in the
evening peak if you wanted a train from Wimbledon to Surbiton (something
which is about every 10 minutes for most of the day).

tim

tim..... wrote:

AIUI both SWT and Southern don't like stopping longer distance trains at CJ
in the peaks to discourage their use for short hops.

That would be served by making them set-down/pick-up only, though, and not
advertise them as calling at CJ? At CJ with trains to Waterloo from many
platforms, there's not much to be gained by standing on the fast Woking
lines platform on the chance of picking up a train to Waterloo, when there
are the slow lines plus the Windsor lines too with advertised trains. Is it
really worth the commuter picking a packed 444 over a packed 455? Does the
455's extra stops at Vauxhall (and maybe Queenstown Road) make such a
difference?

I've seen an article in the SWT magazine that described why they don't stop
in the up direction... IIRC a call takes about 1.5 mins which eats a path.
To switch to the slow lines to call eats even more paths.

It isn't just at CJ but SWT reduce stops at Surbiton and Wimbledon as well.
I don't know if it is still true but there used to be an hour gap in the
evening peak if you wanted a train from Wimbledon to Surbiton (something
which is about every 10 minutes for most of the day).

I'm surprised this isn't covered by the Oxshott/Leatherhead trains... or are
they fast in the peaks?

Theo

On Jul 16, 10:40*pm, Theo Markettos theom
wrote:
That would be served by making them set-down/pick-up only, though, and not
advertise them as calling at CJ? *At CJ with trains to Waterloo from many
platforms, there's not much to be gained by standing on the fast Woking
lines platform on the chance of picking up a train to Waterloo, when there
are the slow lines plus the Windsor lines too with advertised trains. *Is it
really worth the commuter picking a packed 444 over a packed 455? *Does the
455's extra stops at Vauxhall (and maybe Queenstown Road) make such a
difference?

A 444 at Woking will be less packed than a 455 at Clapham, IMX. And
given the regularity of many Southern Region commuters' commutes, I
don't think advertised vs unadvertised makes much difference.

I've seen an article in the SWT magazine that described why they don't stop
in the up direction... IIRC a call takes about 1.5 mins which eats a path..
To switch to the slow lines to call eats even more paths.

Surely if the train behind is also stopping at CJ, then the net eating-
of-paths is 0?

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