|
|
Post by dmncf on Mar 31, 2011 19:43:39 GMT
I noticed that a new ticket office has been opened at Hammersmith H&C and Circle line station. I understand that the previous ticket office was demolished during platform extension work to accommodate S7 trains.
Of course the new ticket office wasn't actually staffed when I visited on Tuesday around 19:00 because ticket office have minimal opening hours these days.
Does this new area on the east side near the station entrance also include a station control room or other facilities? Otherwise the business case for building a new ticket office that is lightly used would be rather poor. I believe Wood Lane was built without a ticket office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tubeboy on Apr 4, 2011 22:26:51 GMT
According to the official documents, Hammersmith H+C Ticket office is open 0730-1330 and 1515-1845 M-F. On saturday it is 0930-1615 and on sunday 1000-1400.
No Control room there AFAIK, its still controlled from Ladbroke Grove I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 19:45:57 GMT
I went through there today, seeing there are a pair of brand new ticket windows there. Perhaps the ticket windows back on to a Staff Area facility built at the same time?
It will be nice if someone in the know can advise us accordingly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2011 16:33:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by edwardfox on Jun 12, 2011 21:30:57 GMT
If it had been thought of in the early years of the network, would it have been possible for the H & C tracks at Hammersmith to link up with the District line tracks?
|
|
|
|
Post by 21146 on Jun 12, 2011 21:57:06 GMT
If it had been thought of in the early years of the network, would it have been possible for the H & C tracks at Hammersmith to link up with the District line tracks? It was and they did. The remains of the viaduct can still be seen west of Hammersmith (D&P). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2011 22:00:50 GMT
No. The H&C station was there first. But ever since the District arrived, a link from it to the H&C has been possible, just lacking the will to build it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2011 22:02:11 GMT
I thought their used to be a link?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2011 22:06:22 GMT
It was in LSWR Days, to allow trains to run to Kensington Addison Road, freight mainly! Hence the widened embankments around Turnham Green!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2011 22:24:39 GMT
Now theres a couple of office blocks blocking the original route
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2011 22:54:29 GMT
To explain the contradictions in the last few speedy posts see this map. First railway to Hammersmith was the H&C in 1864, originally GWR, from 1867 Met & GW joint, eventually to LU - pale blue and yellow on the map. Next was the LSWR Addison Road (now Kensington Olympia)- Hammersmith Grove Road - Gunnersbury - Richmond line (blue) in 1869; with the following year a link to the H&C - there was then a Met service to Richmond, which lasted until 1906 (never electrified). Finally the District arrived (orangeish) - to Hammersmith [Broadway] in 1874, then onto Studland Road Junction in 1877, with running over the LSWR to Richmond: in c1910 the MDR built its own pair of tracks to Turnham Green - the LSWR pair were disused with the closure of the line through Grove Road in WW1, but later used when the Piccadilly was extended west in c1930. All these lines were principally for passenger services, but used to some extent for freight (which did have some influence on how Turnham Green Junction was reorganised in c1930 - there are further details in Steam to Silver) |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Jun 13, 2011 8:16:35 GMT
Now theres a couple of office blocks blocking the original route ...And a bit (the car-park?) of the King's Mall shopping centre... The office block was,when last seen,a rather shabby early-60s example which may well be up for re-development soon.Perhaps the route through should be safeguarded in case of future re-use... |
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jun 13, 2011 9:14:23 GMT
There was a link, in the westbound direction. There was even a station on the link Hammersmith (Grove Road) opened on the 1/10/1877. The station closed in 1906 and the link was removed about 10 years later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 15:32:01 GMT
Ah so that's what they were doing. It's good that it's gotten a bit of a refresh. Those MR stations are nice architecturally, bit in a bit of a state (cf Great Portland Street).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2011 15:45:52 GMT
The April 1910 Bradshaw gives services at Hammersmith (Grove Road) as follows: - LSWR: Ludgate Hill - Richmond (10 trains each way, M-S)
- LSWR: Waterloo - Richmond (13 Down/14 Up, M-S; 10 Down/11 Up (most continuing to Kingston), Su)
- LSWR: Clapham Junction - Richmond (1 each way, M-S)
- GWR: Ladbroke Grove - Richmond (half-hourly, daily)
The GWR service lasted until the end of 1910, and the Kensington - Studland Road Junction line closed in 1916. |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282 
|
Post by Ben on Jun 13, 2011 20:38:52 GMT
Good idea, Slugabed. Lets hope its acted on. Theres nothing to stop such a link being built over afterwards.
On that subject though, what about the new control centre at Hammersmith, that isnt on the formation is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by railtechnician on Jun 14, 2011 1:13:06 GMT
To explain the contradictions in the last few speedy posts see this map. First railway to Hammersmith was the H&C in 1864, originally GWR, from 1867 Met & GW joint, eventually to LU - pale blue and yellow on the map. Next was the LSWR Addison Road (now Kensington Olympia)- Hammersmith Grove Road - Gunnersbury - Richmond line (blue) in 1869; with the following year a link to the H&C - there was then a Met service to Richmond, which lasted until 1906 (never electrified). Finally the District arrived (orangeish) - to Hammersmith [Broadway] in 1874, then onto Studland Road Junction in 1877, with running over the LSWR to Richmond: in c1910 the MDR built its own pair of tracks to Turnham Green - the LSWR pair were disused with the closure of the line through Grove Road in WW1, but later used when the Piccadilly was extended west in c1930. All these lines were principally for passenger services, but used to some extent for freight (which did have some influence on how Turnham Green Junction was reorganised in c1930 - there are further details in Steam to Silver) Railway Junction Diagrams is one of the most useful books around, I've had my copy for many years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2011 18:24:29 GMT
What is the process required to safeguard a route? Although I can't see this as a viable project at this stage, I agree it is still important to keep options open for future extensions. In terms of a link, and assuming these building all came up for redevelopment (unlikely), the old LSWR viaduct rises between the eastbound Piccadilly and District tracks. Therefore you'd have to rebuild the alignment. And then you'd have the operational challenge of dovetailing the H&C into the District line. Interesting idea though...  |
|
Ben
fotopic... whats that?
Posts: 4,282
|
Post by Ben on Jun 19, 2011 18:43:51 GMT
The trick would be to have it fork, with each direction starting between the district and pic lines of its direction. Thats if it the viaduct were realigned.
|
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Jun 19, 2011 19:28:06 GMT
As I understand it,a route is safeguarded by the local planning authority (in this case Hammersmith and Fulham Council) though they might be directed to do so by a higher authority in Central Government.
The planning authority should produce a develpment plan for its area,and this would make it much harder to get planning permission for a development which contradicts the plan.
If H&F decided (or was told) this route might be a good idea,it would find its way onto the development plan.
To give a frinstance,a friend who lives in Chenies St (near Goodge St station) got a letter from Camden Council informing of a new development in her street,and giving notice for any objections etc.
The letter also said that the foundation depth was limited in order to safeguard the Chelsea-Hackney line route.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 15:42:15 GMT
Thanks slugabed Let's assume that, in this case, Hammersmith & Fulham Council will not be interested in safeguarding the route. Which higher authority in central government has responsibility to safeguard routes of strategic value? Or is it TfL? Conversely, if Hammersmith & Fulham Council became very excited about this proposal and decided to safeguard the route in its development plan, could this be overridden by a higher authority? |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Jun 21, 2011 18:10:12 GMT
As I understand it....The Department of Transport would probably have a hand in it,as would the Minister ultimately responsible for planning (Home Secretary? Environment Minister?) TfL would certainly be involved,probably as promoter of such a scheme.
If they all agreed it should be done,the Minister could direct H&F to put it in their development plan.
(This I do know) If H&F decided unilaterally to put it in its development plan,and someone wanted to build on the route without the burden of having to keep the route clear they would first exhaust the Council's own planning appeals procedure,then they would appeal to the Minister who would (in this particular scenario) rule in favour of the developer as the safeguarding wasn't his own idea or from DfT or TfL who are the only people with the money to realise such a scheme.
Look how difficult it is to build the Croxley Link when all these bodies appear to be not against (but not wildly enthusiastic either) and there is no developer crying "Foul!"
I personally think it is a great idea,but,because it by-passes BOTH Hammersmith stations,it will need a new one of its own (Grove Rd) so it will be so expensive it would be very difficult to get built.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2011 7:41:01 GMT
I think it's a good idea too, but as a strategic improvement to the network as a whole, rather than providing any specific benefit to Hammersmith. But from what you say, if a route is not safeguarded by a higher level authority then a developer (or a local authority) can call the shots. But it is not clear who that higher authority is. In fact, I am rather unclear who is responsible for strategic planning of the rail network in London. |
|
slugabed
Zu lang am schnuller.
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by slugabed on Jun 22, 2011 8:27:30 GMT
Ultimately,the Minister responsible for planning (used to be the Environment Minister but so much gets changed so frequently) has the final say.
A developer who wants to contradict a local authority's development plan can appeal to the Minister,and the appeal may be successful.
Or,conversely,the Minister can "call in" a scheme,effectively taking the decision out of the local authority's hands,if he believes the decision is of "strategic" value....though this is usually used to get big schemes built against purely local opposition.
Local authorities can push schemes through off their own bat,but like everything in life,the more pepole you have "on side" (and the more powerful those people are) the more likely it is to succeed.
The schemes most likely to succeed are ones adopted by the Department for Transport (who also have a remit for strategic planning,though,frankly,rail is pretty low on their priorities),but even these have to be approved by the minister responsible for planning....however,as this is "politics" a quiet word would be had before submitting such a scheme so only schemes certain to be approved would be submitted....
|
|
|
|
Post by djlynch on Jun 25, 2011 16:28:13 GMT
Getting into RIPAS territory here, but it seems like the easier route in the present day might be to connect the shunting neck for Hammersmith Depot to the EB District just west of Hammersmith Station. Aerial photos show a curve in the back of the buildings on the west side of Shepherds Bush Road that would line up nicely with the District/Picc route as it runs through the station. Probably only need a few dozen yards of tunnel under the road junction for that one.
|
|
