"E27002" wrote in message

On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making
London and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about
half the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the
UK, as opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll
accept that we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in Mumbai
or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha.

On 28 Oct, 19:19, Stephen Furley wrote:
On 28 Oct, 12:19, Jamie *Thompson wrote:



On 28 Oct, 07:10, Stephen Furley wrote:

On 28 Oct, 04:05, D7666 wrote:

I would have thought the most significant length constraint would be
Willesden Junction (for LO trains obviously not SN). To extend that to
8-car would involve bridging WCML and that would not come cheap.

Which would put the high-level station back just about where it used
to be. *I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to happen.
They've been talking about re-building the platforms on the slow lines
almost since the old ones were demolished. *I'm not expecting that to
happen in my lifetime either.

How long were the platforms at the old station? *Given the previous
platform lengths at various other North London Line stations, I'm
guessing that they were rather longer than at the present station.

The original station also had a third platform, generally known as the
'Earls Court Bay', though I believe it was actually a through
platform, rather than a real bay. *If this was still available it
would have avoided the situation which existed a few years ago, I'm
not sure if it still does now as I haven't used the line for some
time, where a train arriving from the WLL is held just before the
junction while trains run through in both directions on the NLL, so
you then have a long wait for a connection on that line.

This is why NEW tube lines - be they tube size or main line size -
need to get under way now as they take 10 years to build even once
planning is done, and that takes years too.

An LU person at a LURS meeting at the time that the Jubilee Line
extension was being either planned or constructed stated that this was
being built to traditional tube dimensions only because the rest of
the tube section of the line was that size, and that any future tube
line would almost certainly be to take surface stock size trains, as
the cost of tunneling to the larger size would not be much greater
using modern equipment and techniques.

Don't suppose you know of any diagrams of the old pre-1960's layout of
Willesden Junction?

I hear odd descriptions from time to time, but the best I've ever
managed were a few scattered old photos that didn't really give any
indication of how it all was laid out.

Something for the station's wikipedia page perhaps

No sorry, and I don't know much about it. *There was a track in the
second bay, next to platform 2, in the 'new' station. *I have seen a
picture of the old high level station; the two main tracks were served
by side platforms as I remember, and one of these was an island with
the 'Earls Court' track on the other side of it. *The signalbox seems
to have been just at the end of the ramps of the high-level platforms
in the pictures I've seen. *The bridge which gives access to the high-
level platforms also used to serve the main line platforms, I know
this because until not too many years ago old painted over signs
pointing to these platforms could just be made out on this bridge.

Before the old ticket office was demolished, with the odd situation
that you had to cross a road to get from the ticket office to the
platforms, a bricked-up doorway could just be made out in one of the
walls, which I think would also have provided access to these
platforms.

In the South-West you have Clapham Junction, with lots of platforms on
all lines, and most trains stopping there. *In the North-East you have
something similar at Stratford. *it always seemed to me that Willesden
Junction should be the one in the North-West, though there's not
really an obvious one in the South-East.

Thank you. I'll try and work on my mental image of all that.

I agree about the four interchanges. In the south east I guess London
Bridge fulfils the role, dealing as it does with both the southern and
south-eastern mainlines. One of the options considered for Thameslink
was new tunnel from Kings Cross to Bermondsey, with the tunnel to St
Pancras being the cop-out. In my various musings about how things
could be, I usually settle on building a new station on the scale of
CJ/WJ/Stratford roughly where the lines converge next to Millwall's
ground, and downgrading London Bridge in some capacity as more trains
could be running through to Kings Cross (if they an manage 24tph down
the current Thameslink, two tunnels means 24x2 tph isn't out of the
question), and thus Cannon Street should be able to cope. Having the
station there could regenerate the area, and most importantly, provide
interchange with the orbital London overground route. A super-dooper-
surrey canal road junction station, if you will. This location would
be a great location for the line to surface after serving Cannon
Street/London Bridge in tunnel.

Anyway, I digress. Thanks you for your descriptions.

On Oct 28, 11:31*am, EE507 wrote:

2. Having to move signals as well as extend platforms to accommodate
trains of longer than 240 m on many routes.


IMHO 300 m should have been adopted as a default at least from WCML
PUG if not before, and should be used for all upgrades and new routes.

300 = 15x20 with 13x23 = 299 fits well with the basics exisitng 20/23
m car body lengths, 11x26 does waste a bit of space but that does
leave 10x26 with 2x20 for a power car at each end if one must think
that way.

That still leaves a major headache at BNS though.


3. A lack of terminal capacity.


Indeed, although of course thats negated where dead ends are converted
to or relieved by through routes.

SPI has been a waste in this respect. Cue list of whngers to comment
that would make the country end of the MML platforms ever further away
from Euston Road.

6. Dealing with high platforms when converting heavy rail into tram
systems. Manchester is now stuck with them.

Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but that particular scheme does
seem to be an example of not quite how it should have been done.

--
Nick

"E27002" wrote in message

On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making
London and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.

Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about
half the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the
UK, as opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll
accept that we're no longer a good place to do business.

When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in Mumbai
or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha.


grin and OT: but if you're gonna write "Mumbai" for Bombay, please
be consistent and use "Bengaluru" for Bangalore...

On 26 Oct, 21:44, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:37:16 -0700 (PDT), EE507
wrote:

In the short term I would prefer 2 tph of ECR-WFJ rather than 1 of ECR-
MKC, although the benefits would be greater if VT bothered to stop
more than 1 tph at WFJ.

I'd agree, but *only* if the timetable was set up for good connections
with LM services in both directions, which they traditionally haven't
been.

But is there room for 2tph even if there are units for it?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

I was there last Sunday, getting a train from West Brompton to Clapham
Junction. The brand new Overground train arrived and was crush loaded,
thankfully a few minutes later the Southern service arrived which
still had spare seats.

I don't think I have ever seen so many mothers with prams waiting for
a train before - there must have been about ten of them at West
Brompton!

Nobody wrote:
"E27002" wrote in message

On Oct 27, 3:37 pm, "Chris Read" wrote:
"E27002" wrote:
London's costs, including transit fares, are a factor in making
London and unattractive metropolis in which to do business.
Really? People won't do business here because a bus fare costs about
half the price of a small coffee in Starbucks?

When we have people hiding in trucks at Dover, trying to escape the
UK, as opposed to hiding in trucks at Calais trying to get in, I'll
accept that we're no longer a good place to do business.
When I choose an IT contract there are certain cost that I take into
account, the rate, the cost of temporary accommodation, food and
transportation costs. I then factor in issues like safety and the
local environment.

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions, etc.
That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in Mumbai
or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha.


grin and OT: but if you're gonna write "Mumbai" for Bombay, please
be consistent and use "Bengaluru" for Bangalore...

Or "Chennai" for "Madras". This could get complicated.

--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.

Woody Guthrie

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:14:47AM -0000, Paul Scott wrote:

I expect WJ (HL) won't be anything like as difficult to extend to 8 car
length once the current 4 car extension is completed. Getting across the LL
tracks, which is underway now, is the main problem to solve. Having said
that - I'm not too sure where the new reversing siding is going with respect
to the new platform ends - that could prove a limiting factor in the
eastward direction as well...

A bit academic though unless Shepherds Bush and Imperial Wharf have room for
extension.

There's nothing wrong with having one or two minor stations on a route
be shorter than the trains - Battersea Park springs to mind as an
example, as does Billingshurst.

Sure, everyone wanting to use the short stations has to cram into just a
few carriages, but those who don't want to use them will learn to use
the other carriages because they're more comfortable. The problem isn't
Shepherds Bush and Imperial Wharf, it's Clapham Junction. You need to
be able to fit the whole train into the platform at the major stations,
otherwise you'll just end up with half the train overcrowded and half
the train empty.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Lesbian bigots try to put finger in linguistic dyke:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7376919.stm

Martin Edwards wrote:


grin and OT: but if you're gonna write "Mumbai" for Bombay, please
be consistent and use "Bengaluru" for Bangalore...

Or "Chennai" for "Madras". This could get complicated.


I work with a bloke from Madras, and he's very annoyed about the whole
Chennai thing, which he sees as a vain politician jumping on a
bandwagon. According to him it makes about as much sense as renaming
London, 'Kensington'.

Tom

In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:

[snip]

I suspect Omaha isn't exactly bank breakingly expensive either.


Got a good beach I've heard...

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

"Tim Fenton" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

London tends to be less attractive than Edinburgh, Los Angeles, or
Omaha. But, you needn't be concerned; you have plenty of folks
waiting in trucks at Calais. I am sure they will be able to install
and maintain software at your companies, financial institutions,
etc.

That sort of work for British companies is now normally done in
Mumbai or Bangalore. They're a lot cheaper than Edinburgh, Los
Angeles, or Omaha.

Last year, I was doing an assignment with a large services company
which is, as they say, headquartered in the USA.

They had identified a number of low (or lower) cost locations, some
of which were *inside* the US. From memory, the Carolinas was one -
not all of the country is prosperous.

I suspect Omaha isn't exactly bank breakingly expensive either.

Probably not, even though Warren Buffet, one of the world's richest men
lives there.