castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 15, 2011 18:04:53 GMT
Red Lion Square Red Lion pub outside station?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 15, 2011 16:15:25 GMT
The Great Western regularly used Fixed Distants. Mostly semaphore, but not all, even when semaphores were otherwise common > There was a very brightly lit f.d. southbound, just south of Castlebar Park for years in the '50s and possibly even before that, to protect Drayton Green Junction, which is just around a bend, under a bridge and unsighted. That f.d. could be seen from South Greenford! It was to ensure that a red at Drayton Green didn't catch any driver by surprise after the bend.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 14, 2011 12:40:36 GMT
Honor Oak Park?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 14, 2011 9:02:24 GMT
@ Metcontrol. I am in total agreement with you regarding (not) extending the Met to Barking, which is the title of this thread. I am also pleased to see that proper use of the Watford north chord is a possibility for the future, for as you said about the WLL, it has provided new journey opportunities. As will this.
But you also said "not to start you" on the Central to Uxbridge. I'd like to do just that and I would value your opinion. Uxbridge is no longer the rural market town that it was when the Central was planned to extend to W. Ruislip in the 1930s in the New Works Programme . This deserves (and requires) a separate thread, and if I can be tempted to start you, I will happily contribute to it. I have spent my entire working life arguing against people who have looked for "reasons why not" whereas I've always argued for "reasons why". I think there are many and it could become a very interesting new thread.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 21:35:39 GMT
MetControl > I am in general agreement with all you said, but note "c"
c)There was insufficient demand
You used the word "WAS", but London has changed SO much. I remember saying to somebody about 45 years ago, regarding re-opening the WLL to passenger traffic, He said exactly the same words, "There was insufficient demand". I do agree with you about the Met east of Aldgate, the subject of this thread. But I am certain that a couple of other proposals would amaze, they would be so heavily used,
My 3 are:
1 Greenford Ealing line extended to Clapham Junction, ALL over existing tracks 2 Re-opening the Watford North curve for regular passenger use (Perhaps running Chiltern services from Aylesbury (or Ayl. Parkway). OR from Chesham! Again, ALL over existing track 3 Linking the Central to Uxbridge from Ruislip Gdns. Reduce services to W. Ruislip (stop more Chilterns there) and cut some UXB Picc services back to Ruislip. For this one, a few hundred metres of new track required.
Result = Thousands of happy (fare paying) travellers, and traffic taken off busy roads. SO LITTLE expenditure required to implement these.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 13:50:45 GMT
@ norbitonflyer: Yes- good idea. I'd be happy with that.
And what about my idea for the Essex end?
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 13:26:17 GMT
Many years ago, a scrapman with a horse and cart worked that area regularly. LU would have at least got a few quid for it then whereas now, given the laws of missing opportunities when they arise, cost of removal will now be more than the scrap value.
It's been there so long that l'm surprised the local authority aren't charging rates on it as a building.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 12:26:18 GMT
"The Met" and "out East" are not natural bedfellows. South Essex is NOT Metroland, and never can be.
There has to be a more sensible 'out of the box' way of even-ing up services without what seems to be the simplest solution of just extending the Met line on a map. Perhaps even running some Districts via Kings Cross. Apparantly, this happened in the '50s on some bank holiday workings which I think were from Richmond. (Probably to Aldgate) I'm sure I have a picture of one of these somewhere. Does anyone have more details of these?? I'd even consider Richmond - Richmond clockwise around the Circle and Ealing - Ealing anti clockwise as a radical plan. Similarly Upminster-Dagenham clockwise around and then Dagenham-Upminster anti-clockwise around. That sorts out all Circle services.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 13, 2011 9:25:53 GMT
@ v52gc You said: "Just to add my snippet, on the Pics' 73s you can set up any station as the destination or start providing the route is possible (eg not Heathrow to Uxbridge). It even has stations it doesn't stop at normally that can be programmed in the route like Ravenscourt Park so it's a pity if Willesden Green won't be possible on the S stock. There also High Street Kensington, West Kensington and Ealing Broadway, but these can't be programmed into a route or destination."
This is interesting, because Picc stock had West Kensington on their roller blinds around 40/45 years ago, as l believe there was a scheduled and timetabled early morning working (from Northfields??) to West Ken in those days. I think it was then the first train up to Uxbridge. Similarly, they had "Hillingdon" on the blinds too, for a direct run into Uxbridge sidings after a Hillingdon PAX tip-out, I think this was often used evening rush hours to prevent a back-up in UXB platforms. The platform indicators showed Uxbridge as they didn't have "Hillingdon" as a possible destination on them.
Did the stock have these two destinations on delivery or were they subsequently added??
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 9, 2011 16:39:36 GMT
@ dalesman
Actually, it doesn't work at Golders Green, 'cos l fear you are missing the point. At Golders Green, there are LU (only) rail services through London and out to the suburbs, (both N & S). The Marylebone idea was to have NO rail access at all, but for the Bakerloo, as the Chiltern Line would be ripped up, with a dedicated bus/coachway bringing in passengers to central London on the covering tarmac, these passengers currently travel by rail.
Golders Green was a historic coach stop since the ealiest days of motor coaches, Green Line coaches brought people in to Golders Green for the Undergrond connection. Golders Green coach station has not involved the complete closure of a railway. But also, there are other pick up points on all the major coach routes out of London. People rarely use them. This plan was to rip up what remains of the G.C. (now a.k.a. "Chiltern"), completely out of existence. The Met would be overwhelmed. Do you want coachways and dedicated busways instead of rail, with the rail tracks concreted over? That is what so nearly happened at Baker Street
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 7, 2011 17:59:30 GMT
maxym
google > cartometro london
You can see brilliant track diagram
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 7, 2011 12:13:27 GMT
@ bicbasher
Did you pay by cash or card??
Because these outlets receive a fee/commission from LRT, I didn't think they also could charge you an additional fee on top!
Perhaps I'm wrong but certainly don't think they can charge if you pay cash, and if they charge a fee for paying by card, I think a notice to that effect has to be prominantly displayed.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 6, 2011 6:59:35 GMT
This makes me really quite angry. By not keeping the Ongar branch open as far as North Weald, and developing that station as a "Parkway" for the massive amount of M11 traffic that now drives in to pollute London, a fabulous opportunity was missed.. Yes, there would be a massive car park there but:
1 North Weald residents would still have a rail service
2 Other car parks further down the line such as Epping would still have spaces at 7.30 a.m.
3 Less pollution and congestion nearer to C. London
4 Less oil imported whilst providing revenue for LU
Yet again, I personally feel that other, more enlightened County Councils would have done this, but Essex C.C. > (chaired between '89 & '92 by the notorious Lord Hanningfield recently imprisoned for fiddling his own personal expenses), was rabidly Thatcherite anti-rail. Now we learn that Epping station car park is often full by 7a.m. Is it too late for this to be re-considered?? (I know this is also RIPAS territory but my posting is specifically to address the Epping station car parking problem that now obviously exists).
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 5, 2011 12:07:11 GMT
Osterley + 1
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 5, 2011 9:05:16 GMT
It is not necessarily a matter of whether it is fast or not. Sometimes it is simply a matter of being on a train that goes along the branch you want to take. Being told it will, but being simultaneously shown on the front of the train or the platform that it won't, ought not to be rocket science to get sorted out.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 4, 2011 9:11:03 GMT
Ultimately, the driver is the guy with the train, the brakes and the accelerator, so is the guy who controls where/whether the train stops. Why do platform staff not recognise that simple truth, and if the driver says its fast, (or not), that's more important than what platform staff decide. So, surely there ought to be a "chain of command" system where in the event of any uncertainty, platform staff communicate with the driver of said train?
To give conflicting information is the worst possible scenario, and LU have had long enough to get this right.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 3, 2011 10:47:27 GMT
@ abe
You may well be right. This (at Mansion House) would be a very expensive plan to implement, and l fail to see how it represents good value for money with so many other projects needing funding. This seems to me to be more destructive (as far as flexibility is concerned) rather than constructive.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Oct 2, 2011 9:56:07 GMT
"You are now at "Street Level". The next stop will be "Platform Level", which is where this lift stops"
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 30, 2011 17:40:03 GMT
Actually, thinking "out of the box", and with some foresight, The Olympia service could have been EXTENDED, Shepherds Bush, White City, then "the link" referred to, fast on the old GWR line to an interchange at Park Royal, interchange with the Central at Hanger Lane, ditto Greenford, fast to South Ruislip, THEN link to the Met > Hillingdon Uxbridge.
Too avant garde for the (so called) 'planners' of the time.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 30, 2011 16:48:21 GMT
stonesfan is of course correct.
But with the closure of Banbury - Woodford Halse and the G.C., through freights were effectively finished on that route so the spare tracks along the Central Line were there, rusting and unloved through the 60's, but the bit by the dairy to build the Westway was the "priority lift". After that, the rest didn't matter so it was left for a few years to rust as it was "job done" on cutting another rail link. The Met certainly would not have survived beyond Rickmansworth, possibly not even TO Rickmansworth. The Bakerloo would have been expected to take all coach passengers arriving at Marylebone. See the other threads, THAT is how bad it was when one Government had been in power so long it felt it had a divine right to do what it liked.
Unfortunately, as has also been mentioned on the ChiltenMet thread, the incoming Labour Gov'ts in '64/66 were just as bad at listening to the public. It was in fact just as corrupt (remember Lord Kagan, Mr Milhench and the slag heap scandal).
Some of the decision makers of those days are still alive. Two at least are in the House of Lords whereas they ought to be in Wormwood Scrubbs. Which of course can be seen from the piece of track and Central Line in question.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 30, 2011 15:18:29 GMT
@ slugabed
You are entirely correct. As per two other contemporaneous threads, they would have been happiest if every surface railway had been concreted over and turned into a road. "Dedicated busways" are the vestigal desperate attempt to revive such concrete thinking, (pun intended). "Bustitution" came, and the buses soon went the way of the trains. Won't be so easy with dedicated expensive guided roadways though.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 30, 2011 10:00:09 GMT
@ pitdiver
Exactly, "Marylebone Coach Station" with it's dedicated express bus/coachway to near the M1 & A/M40 was to take pressure off Victoria C.S., which would then specifically handle coaches from S. & S.W. of the Thames, Sussex and Kent leaving Marylebone to handle much of the rest. It was aimed at taking the traffic from Metroland. I doubt very much if the Met would have survived to Rickmanswoth. Beyond Rickmansworth, - NO chance.
One of the "selling points" was that coaches would not have needed to cross central London in order to access a coach station (Victoria) and they tried to sell it as a way of easing congestion in the West End!!
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 30, 2011 9:03:30 GMT
Yes, slugabed
One of the reasons given AT THAT TIME for the closure of Marylebone was that "the building was unsuitable for offices". The building site itself was THE ultimate target of these people. So the track was to become a dedicated bus/coachway and "lovely new offices, suitable for the modern age" above a coach station would have made £Millions for a very few. Is Victoria coach station the model for what so nearly happened??
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 30, 2011 8:28:55 GMT
Thank you slugabed
Yes, my articles were on the "Chiltern and Metropolitan Railway" thread around pages 6/7. The anti-railway brigade of the Conservative Party (a.k.a. "The Road Lobby" - and what a powerful lobby it was with political donations) preceded Thatcher by a whole generation. Particularly the Eden & Macmillan governments. It was a on a knife edge that Marylebone survived at all. The corruption was unbelievable (see my article re Marples), and by the 60s, all the central London "bomb sites" had gone so the magnificent structure of Marylebone with it's wonderful location was THE target for new concrete "offices". If my late uncle's memoirs could have been published at the time, the Tory party would imploded, but he was bound by the Official Secrets Act. He only gave me the info verbally, but as he died before the Millenium, l thought it time to share some of what he told me.
Only when all the central London and West End prime sites were gone did serious attention turn to anywhere east of Liverpool Street/Aldgate and Docklands, where more fortunes were made.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 29, 2011 20:01:57 GMT
Great Idea, slugabed
Far better to extend it than cut it.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 29, 2011 14:55:30 GMT
Indian summer??
Monsoon & Flooding?? Should have a punkahwallah in every carriage!
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 28, 2011 15:39:48 GMT
Brilliant!. But what happens to a Met train using the Watford north curve as that line isn't on the map??
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 28, 2011 15:24:45 GMT
We are not in America. Over here, it means exactly what it says. Perhaps Newyorker might wish to explain or self-edit?
Sorry, but I am of the generation that finds such a comment about other people's work is offensive.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 28, 2011 8:56:06 GMT
beck is quite correct.
Only a very few weeks ago, I wrote some articles about this on another thread, > it was to do with this, Beeching's relationship with Marples, the closure of the Great Central etc., but l'm afraid I don't have the time to find those threads now.
There was NEVER any possibility of main line services to Baker St. The idea as beck says was to turn the Amersham route into a "high speed bus (only) way", with the Ruislip, Denham and beyond services all being diverted to Paddington. This would have meant re-vivifying the Ruislip-Paddington section a bit, but the ultimate goal was to complete the closure of the G.C. all the way to Marylebone and "redevelop" the site for the profit of property developers. The whole thing smacks of corruption and l would recommend a read of my previous threads if you can find them.
Sorry, but must go now.
|
|
castlebar
Planners use hindsight, not foresight
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by castlebar on Sept 26, 2011 9:57:16 GMT
There was once another official map produced about 20 or so years ago when "closure by stealth" was still a policy, that the entire Horsham - Dorking line was "by accident" omitted from B.R. or NSE station maps. This was not a pocket map but one displayed at every station in the S.E. of England.
Maps sometimes give an advance clue to corporate "thinking" before that thinking becomes known to the wider public or it becomes corporate policy.
|
|