|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 15, 2018 15:29:54 GMT
I wonder how much of that is being overly optimistic at the planning stage to get project approval and/or tighten budgets? There are genuine reasons for a delay on the NLE. Slightly surprised it's as big as 9 months but clearly there is an element of not wanting too much change on the Northern Line in a short period so aiming for one timetable change post Bank and NLE completion makes sense. It probably also underlines an unstated view that the Nine Elms / BPS redevelopment may not be as big a draw as people expected when it was being planned. Given the woes with the "High Street / retailers" will people really go to BPS for a largely "retail experience" that they could get elsewhere? Possibly not but it's a bit late now! I don't know what's happening on the Bank project and if it is late / has encountered problems. The only thing that I know is being questioned at TfL Board level is the lack of accessibility to the Central Line in the plans. Obviously even if you put in lifts to / from Central Line platform level you are left with a very significant problem between train and platform that can't be easily remedied. Purely on the retail experience end, apart from the distinct possibility of getting it cheaper on line, how many people will be taking the Tube to buy more expensive/bulkier items, in preference to the car? Unless it's retail experience, but not as we know it, Jim, of course.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 13, 2018 20:33:39 GMT
One wonders if it will still open in phases. If you assume that the majority of the delays are down to signalling and that the revised opening date is after the original completion date of December 2019 then surely there would be no reason why the new line couldn't all open in one go. Well, if it is over-budget & opens in stages, it won't be the first railway to do tose things-most of the original main lines did, because the companies either had to raise more dosh through a further share issue, or their engineer had a penchant for spending the company's money like a sailor on shore leave-step forward I K-B & the GWR!! If it does open in stages regardless, be interesting to see which part opens first. I would hope as much of the central section as possible, as it would then relieve pinch-points/bottlenecks on other lines and not start pouring even more people towards an already-overcrowded zone. I did say hope, rather than expect.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 13, 2018 16:43:06 GMT
I hope the only casualty was the brick wall.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 11, 2018 20:41:12 GMT
Speaking as someone who's sold 40+ of his own paintings, I've only two queries with the concept. One, of course, why haven't they approached ME yet? The other-art is purely subjective;struggle as we might, none of us can deliver an objective assessment of what constitutes art, let alone good or bad art. Is that therefore an appropriate subject to be on the Tube Map, which shouldn't be remotely subjective, unless we want to have referenda on a daily basis about which Tube Line's services are going to be serving which termini tomorrow? Might be fun, but..................
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Dec 9, 2018 21:15:07 GMT
Funny to think the core section would have opened today! I'll look forward to that one amongst the Christmas crackers, then!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 29, 2018 12:47:48 GMT
I have a Crossrail mug from that time with the NSE style liveried rolling stock and the route map. Also tucked away somewhere in my files is a draft timetable for Crossrail showing trains to Reading and Aylesbury so quite a lot of detail had been worked up back then. The thing had been designed in very great detail by the time BR was privatised. There were still arguments about the precise location of the substations and some minor matters like that but the whole thing was getting close to being a tenderable scheme - cue Treasury panic... (Hence the "Northern Crossrail" variant that the Treasury tried to use as a spoiler.) Just in case you were wondering, I haven't seen a single commemorative mug or draft timetable on e-Bay. However, when the current edition finally starts up properly, you could be looking at Sotheby's. Hopefully more than just looking.............
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 17, 2018 10:38:28 GMT
I'd have thought if you want these on the Tube Map, the logical thing to do is to increase the size of the Thames on the map and put the linear representation of the boat routes in there. leaving the Tube lines under the river as well-spaced broken lines: -- -- --, the riverboat services as continuous lines: -------------------------------------Those who know the history of London Transport & buses in particular in the 1920's will be looking forward to see how pirate operators get on with this one-the battle for fares should involve some excellent swashbuckling and Newtonian + overacting. + = Robert, not Isaac, inventor of ARRRJIMLAD & not the cat-flap.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 9, 2018 13:07:51 GMT
I wonder what the reaction would be to the spare plinth in Trafalgar Square?
After all, it did once have its' own Tube station.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 8, 2018 11:32:50 GMT
Video by Londonist on what is going on Thanks for that. I've actually stayed in the Thistle Hotel twice, but can't say I'll miss that. But I do wonder, when the guy(at 3:10) says "Before we take out this station", whether he ought to start auditioning for Godfather Three. Well, I suppose a contract's still a contract, regardless of who's delivering the hit.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 7, 2018 15:04:37 GMT
Again, Eversholt Street Station could serve anywhere on this. The Underground station building on Eversholt Street, on the east side of the main line station, is long gone. That was the CSLR station, at the junction of Eversholt Street and Drummond Street (now separated from the rest of Drummond Street by the 1960s expansion of the main line station's concourse, and renamed Doric Way). leslie Green did not design any stations for the CSLR. It is the Leslie Green station built for the CCEHR at the junction of Melton Street and Drummond Street, on the west side of the main line station, which we are discussing. Both stations can be seen on this 1916 map. maps.nls.uk/view/103313306However, there is a Leslie Green station building on Eversholt Street: but Mornington Crescent is in no imminent danger of demolition. Thanks,have corrected it---Eversholt Street stayed with me after we photographed the station in 2013-mrs tbf demanding food and sustinence after the walk from South Kentish Town & that's where we partook of same. Euston House was built on the site of the CSLR station, but that too may be gone by now. Both stations were connected beneath ground, and above ground by the fact they both closed on the same date, 30 July 1914?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 7, 2018 10:22:41 GMT
We could do with a place to re-erect worthy buildings as they have in Helsinki, or the Weald and Downland Museum here. We don't, that apart have a very enviable record...eg, the saving of Lawrence of Arabia's bungalow in the 1930s, and its re-erection (now unfortunately next to a set of diesel pumps) at Loughton. Perhaps this one could be reerected in a corner of the Olympic Park...after all, are supposed to be the relics of the Arch, in the Bow Back Rivers? It would be great if, instead of building a theme park in the vicinity of the Dartford Crossing, a London version of Beamish or the Black Country Museum could be constructed. Tubes, trams, trolleybuses.............. oh the joy!!! Anyone have a large lottery win that they can't think what to do with? Why not both, with a Tube Line connecting the two, which will spawn a couple of intermediate stations at suitable historical sites between? Again, Euston CCEHR Station could serve anywhere on this, or as a Tourist Information Centre/themed restaurant.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 6, 2018 10:28:39 GMT
Well, in reply to you all,
It isn't the last of its' kind by a long chalk, but, if one such gets simply junked, then how long before the likes of South Kentish Town, Down Street & York Road, all of no use to passengers now, as is Eversholt Street of course, go the same way-after all, the developers would say, plenty of the same sort of extant stations still in use, so......? And then, developers being developers---"Look, this faence tiling's all very well, but it's long since been proved, by all the examples of it that have had to be demolished or updated, that doesn't let the light in/isn't very good for customer flows, so let's rebuild them all".
We have an example of up-cycling in Marlborough Road station, which was turned into a restaurant post-war & has served as several different such eateries since. Now, there's a thought for a repositioned Euston CCE & HR building-ticket guichets as serving hatches. Plan C, could also be re-positioned anywhere in that guise, could it not? We know the exact date it opened & closed, we could use the same menus as the Savoy, Claridges & The Ritz had on those dates.
Back on answers-EOR itself can't help but celebrate the Tube as part of its' heritage, because Tube trains ran through it between 1957-1993. So, they may or may not have been incongruous in the Essex Countryside in the first place, but there they were, and they became a part of it.
However, if they only form a part of that heritage, perhaps celebrating that part could be confined to one and only one historic Tube station building? The rest could celebrate the GER/LNER/BR Eastern Region heritage as appropriate or not.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 5, 2018 16:49:55 GMT
You could turn that around & say why waste y billion on HS2 anyway. At the top of the page it says "District Dave's London Underground Forum". This is not a place to discuss High Speed 2, 3, 4 or 5.Fair enough, I've edited it out, apologies, too.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 5, 2018 16:18:43 GMT
Because why spend x billion pounds and have to make numerous compromises to retain something that isn't significant? If it were the last Leslie Green building left, maybe. As it is... it isn't important. At all. How about this as an alternative suggestion; why not number it, transport it & re-erect it (for a very nominal fee) to Epping & Ongar Railway as the station building for a repositioned Blake Hall station (to which costs a contribution could also be made)? There's up-cycling, preserving heritage and good neighbourliness in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 5, 2018 15:47:49 GMT
Good riddance. Sooner it goes, the sooner we can stop hearing about people decrying this. It's no Doric Arch. There are numerous other, better examples. It has zero notability. Just demolish it already. It's called progress - or shall we all go back to running trains with someone walking in front with a flag? Any reason why not? Seriously, why not incorporate it within the HS2 station building & make it into both an historic and new station building in one hit?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 5, 2018 13:01:37 GMT
Pure and simple vandalism. What's the official rubbish reason?
They could make a cracking exhibit of it given what's below ground & pull the tourists in.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 5, 2018 12:03:26 GMT
Very pleased to see that the 1989 Hammersmith & Acton Town stations both had one pleasing feature that remained in 2012/3. Plenty of pigeons & snack bars to feed them from. I bet those pigeons are/were cheeky fare dodgers? or do they have their tickets or Oyster cards under their wings? The university I go to also has a pigeon. Everyone feels sorry for him because he only has one foot and they're always giving food to him. He often flies in through the doors and has been known to fly around the main buildings. We spent a few days in Cork a couple of weeks ago & were pleased to see both pigeons & seagulls in Dublin Heuston & pigeons and terns at Cork Kent. Plus a one-footed seagull at Holyhead on the way home, who must've smelt the complementary cabin biscuits in my pocket-quite chuffed with with three custard creams. I believe the Tube pigeons usually go one stop only, rather than systematically cheat TfL. Mind you, maybe they've trained themselves to peck in and out rather than touch.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 4, 2018 11:10:58 GMT
Very pleased to see that the 1989 Hammersmith & Acton Town stations both had one pleasing feature that remained in 2012/3.
Plenty of pigeons & snack bars to feed them from.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 3, 2018 22:15:10 GMT
I thought Meridian Water was being sited to the south of Angel Road ( but i havent been there for a while) just needs someone to suggest west and we have it covered lol My mistake - MW is on the London side of Angel Road, so south (and a little west!) You won't believe this-wiki says it's 600m South West. This station could out to be the most discussed one in London, at least if anyone can decide just where they're supposed to build it!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 3, 2018 16:34:12 GMT
Just thinking of JE Connor & the London Railway Record etc., I believe their criteria was that moving the platforms around +250 yards meant a re-sited station, anything less wasn't even considered re-sited. A newly-named station? Meridian Water is 600m west, so would be regarded as new by most, especially if Angel Road gives up the ghost. . Meridian Water is, surely, north of Angel Road, not west. A criterion for new vs re-sited used in some publications is that both the entrance and the platforms must be new - if any part of the platforms extends over any part of the site of the old ones it is not a new station. Yes, that's covered by the rough 250-yard rule, which also sweeps up the matter of platform extensions to service 10-coach trains etc. However, there are also anomalies where the entrance is moved to the other side of the road, and the new platforms are no more than 100 yards from the existing ones, even if there is no overlap. That criterion is still a useful basic yardstick to use as a definition of new.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 3, 2018 16:08:22 GMT
Certainly any station that opens where there wasn't a station recently is new from a passenger point of view. Meridian Water will be seen as a new station, even though it's effectively just Angel Road being moved a few hundred metres or so. On the thread subject first, be interesting to know from those who know/use/live in Docklands how Thames Wharf's passenger hinterland/catchment area and connectivity compare now to when the station was first mooted. Has it stayed the same do you think, or improved? The salient point re Meridian Water might be how many metres. Just thinking of JE Connor & the London Railway Record etc., I believe their criteria was that moving the platforms around +250 yards (sorry, but them was the measurements back in the 1950's/60's!) meant a re-sited station, anything less wasn't even considered re-sited. A newly-named station? Well, the present Eltham springs to mind, deliberately pitched between the then-extant Eltham Park & Eltham Well Hall stations so they could both be closed and something of a better bus interchange etc. could be made. That's what I'd call a new station. Meridian Water is 600m west, so would be regarded as new by most, especially if Angel Road gives up the ghost. On the general 'when is it a new station' question, I would venture to suggest once the first sod is cut on the station site above ground, platforms take shape below decks, or passageways and lift shafts are installed in between. In other words, just as the first brush of paint to the canvas begins the creation of a new work of art, so the first concrete action to build the station infrastructure marks the creation of a new station.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Nov 1, 2018 20:46:10 GMT
Was there seriously a plan to run the CLR to Denham Golf Course? From what I've read, no, the terminus would have been at Denham, the preceeding station. Actually there was, but never officially & only very briefly. This like all the other Tube expansion schemes in the 1930's was done on favourable loans from the Government in an attempt to help relieve unemployment from the Great Depression. From what I read years ago, the Central's original 1920's plan was to extend & meet the Met at Aylesbury, the Met's reaction to which was a predictable niet! There was a very brief window before the Central Line management formally applied via LPTB to the Government with Denham as the Terminus. Extension to Aylesbury was never discussed at all this time (wonder why?) but for around three weeks to a month, it was mooted about making the Golf Course the terminus. Probably until the office junior had his ear clipped or his crayon snapped. Just cannot remember where I read it, but it was most likely sometime in the 1970's. PS-Can't you just hear a senior manager saying in 1935/6: "You stupid boy!"
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Sept 16, 2018 15:15:58 GMT
About the links being the colour of the lines; That is something that I really wanted to do, and it was something that I hoped was possible but as far as I can see that is impossible with the Quest engine. About the photographs; I have checked and the photographs are in the game at Aylesbury/Chesham-Chalfont and at Rickmansworth. There are at present no additional photographs. This is great feedback. Thank you for it, and I will keep you posted. Just on a small detail, Camberwell-the original plan (1920's) was intermediate station at Wandsworth Road, terminus at Denmark Hill. This morphed (1940's) into no intermediate station/one at Albany Road, terminus at Camberwell Green. Yes, I'm from Camberwell, of course!
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Sept 16, 2018 13:49:31 GMT
I have created a text-based London Underground Simulator (including Crossrail) which has every single London Underground and Crossrail station, including some disused stations and stations/plans that never saw the light of day (including the Northern Heights plan). Thus far, I have included images of Aylesbury-Chalfont, Chesham and Rickmansworth and I eventually plan to have photos for all of the stations that I have added into the game. I also plan to include the Docklands Light Railway eventually, but I will probably focus on doing the stations first. Also, feedback given to me on other forms has said that I should add information about each station, and local places of interest for said stations. I shall be adding those in at a later date. Please give feedback if you try the game, and enjoy! textadventures.co.uk/games/view/edyqq2dpvek-vy046irl3w/the-tube-simGood idea. At the moment, it comes across like the original text-based computer game, The Golden Wombat of Destiny(sorry, rincew1nd, before your time!). Photos will be an essential & if possible, I'd suggest a small montage thereof, historic & present, thus extending the screen-time between stations as per a real train ride. And maybe put the links into appropriately-coloured text for the lines they are on.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Aug 21, 2018 20:14:12 GMT
Pigeons are intelligent birds & could be trained to communicate effectively with passengers(sorry to jamesb). Could advise of delays/next train etc. if the electronic stuff goes haywire (as if!) & would probably work refreshment kiosks for a small concession.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Aug 10, 2018 20:37:31 GMT
There are lots of maps, although as many of the rival schemes were mutually exclusive, a single comprehensive map showing all of them would probably be more confusing than enlightening! Page 201 shows the Morgan schemes along with all the others in the style of a modern tube map for the central area. Of course the big point is that had the Morgan tubes been built, things like the Jubilee and Victoria lines would have looked quite different - assuming they were ever constructed! There are three lines that never were, added onto the modern Tube map-highly interesting seeing them in situ like that. The only problem of presenting them in that manner-all of them provide you with an excuse to put your thinking cap on & wonder if there would be any cause for them today! Probably the only sane way to process them is to gauge the original rationale behind them (assuming there was one in the first place-not guaranteed ) and ask yourself if the need is a) still majorily unmet and b) has in fact mutated into something altogether bigger. If the Crossrail 2 latest mock-up map is anything to go by on the C & NESR, things have gotten out of hand-whatever happened to the original idea ie going from A to B via C & D-the simplest answers aren't always the worst.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 30, 2018 21:11:40 GMT
HS2 was a strategy to avoid making a decision on a third runway with the ridiculous suggestion that High Speed rail would sufficiently reduce the demand for domestic flights that a third runway would not be necessary. Domestic passengers account for just a tiny fraction, the demand for flights at Heathrow is from overseas travellers flying into and out of London. I agree that more capacity is needed on the WCML but no one seems to have bothered researching whether we could reduce demand on the WCML by improving connections around London rather than pushing everything through it. A dozen smaller projects might have the same effect as one big one but obviously they wouldn't grab the headlines the way HS2 would. It is, in fact, quite easy to find a cheaper alternative to HS2 which delivers more benefits but is less shiny and so less attractive to politicians. (See the famous "Big Train" sketch), although I will refrain from such blatant crayonism in a public place where there is mixed company... The real worry with HS2 is that it will cannibalise the rest of the UK rail system financially - with a capitalisation likely to be twice that of Network Rail but a revenue base that is hardly likely to be much more than the present WCML franchise to service it. When push comes to shove in regard to claims on the subsidy available, you can guess which is going to take precedence - HS2 v the present network... If you think I am koking, a swift glance across the Channel at the way the TGV network has eaten the rest of SNCF shows you what happens. Even the French are beginning to get cold feet . BTW, Hewett fils, who is intimately involved with the interface between NR and HS2, warns that because the politicians have promised that nowhere will lose out on their present services when HS2 opens, the total capacity gain south of Brum is 2 high speed paths per hour - a snip @ £45bn apiece. The taxpayer is much better off by setting fire to the banknotes. Perhaps we could use a good bonfire of the vanities anyway-Heathrow third runway joined to a rerouted HS2 somewhere in the Foulness Island/Dengie Marshes area, terminating near Lyonesse. Good use of the Brexit windfall?
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 29, 2018 14:44:30 GMT
Why would terrorists draw attention to themselves by trying to gain access to the cab when they could sit or stand quietly in the saloon like all the other passengers and wait until the train arrived at a crowded platform before denotating their bombs? Same result but with less chance of being detected. We have incidents where drivers have been actually assaulted, we don't need to add hypothetical terrorist situations in order to get better cab security. if anything it weakens our case as management can claim that the chance of a terrorist entering the cab is so low that it can be discounted. Yes, but I'm trying to see it from management's point of view & if there is the slightest chance of a terrorism incident being exacerbated by that, they should be the first to be doing something about it. By the way, I'm not convinced of any management's whole-hearted interest in staff welfare in any given situation, as an ex-union branch secretary myself, which is why I pondered on 'their' potential primary concern. Seems to me in an age where everybody displays notices saying our staff must not be subject to abuse, you should not need to be raising this issue at all, because management should already have been doing more than paying lip service to your concerns
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 29, 2018 11:32:15 GMT
But serious as the risk of an attack on a driver is, there is also the real threat of easy access to a cab being used by those intent on causing death and destruction. It beggars belief that at a time of heightened security alert, Transport for London refuse to take this threat seriously. That bit alone is quite astonishing. Would you care to explain how exactly easy access to the cab would offer a more destructive option to a terrorist than exploding a bomb on a train. Very simply, by then being able to drive the train into a packed station instead before detonating devices. Why would it be just a terrorist and not several? I don't think the District 8 post is being alarmist, by the way, it struck me somebody was thinking about both members and passengers, quite rightly too.
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Jul 29, 2018 10:13:31 GMT
But serious as the risk of an attack on a driver is, there is also the real threat of easy access to a cab being used by those intent on causing death and destruction. It beggars belief that at a time of heightened security alert, Transport for London refuse to take this threat seriously.
That bit alone is quite astonishing.
|
|