|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 15, 2017 14:33:51 GMT
With tunnelling in progress it would be a "courageous" decision to abandon the project at this late stage. The cost overrun issue was discussed at the Assembly Budget Cttee meeting a couple of weeks ago. A webcast is available on the london.gov.uk website. Stuart Harvey, who I know of old, has been elevated to Head of Major Projects and is grappling with the consequences of the enforced station redesign at BPS. The alleged cost issue is £240m. He was very reluctant to give away too much which is entirely understandable when there is effectively a dispute between the parties even if formal papers haven't been served. Both sides are obviously talking to their lawyers and advisers while still being "nice" in public. When pushed Mr Harvey suggested that not opening Battersea Power Stn was a possibility which would make access to the redevelopment a bit more cumbersome for people and may deter people. However I am pretty sure LU is tied into a legal agreement that says they will run a given service level to all stops on the extension from a given date. Clearly this is in danger because of the enforced redesign of the LU station at the Power Station to bear the structure of the redesigned over station development (OSD). Whether LU is prepared to *actually* threaten to not open to BPS and therefore effectively put itself into potential breach of the service agreement is another thing altogether. Can't imagine TfL's lawyers being terribly keen about that as it potentially weakens other arguments they may wish to deploy. From what little information is in the public domain I believe LU was broadly on schedule on the entire project until the enforced pause because of the developer's OSD change. Therefore LU has a decent place to start from and the developer probably hasn't *unless* "ideas" were floated about potential impacts if there were "changes" and someone from LU was a little "loose" with their words. You can guarantee that will have been written down somewhere if it happened. Unfortunately it does happen even if it was not on formal project communication between the parties. On the face of it the developer doesn't have much of a leg to stand on and they may potentially earn way above £240m from the larger OSD over a reasonable time period. A point made quite forcibly by Len Duvall AM who pushed pretty hard on who had the most "power" in the dispute. Whether LU can prise open the developer's wallet is another thing. If I was LU I would certainly want a relaxation of the project completion deadline and service obligations given the delay has been caused by the other party. There is no point LU being forced into a potential breach and penalties through no fault of its own. |
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Oct 18, 2017 17:57:51 GMT
The tunnels will be finished. It would cost pretty much the same to stop them as to continue so even a bean counter wouldn't halt that now. Station fit out though is a different story, and could much more easily be "deferred", even more so if any assets already ordered could be used elsewhere on the network (e.g. ticket machines or gates ordered for the new stations could replace life expired kit elsewhere). So what would happen if the tunnels were finished but the station fit out was 'deferred'? Would the tunnels just be left to rot like other abandoned line extensions? Would the new ones end up like a modern day version of the Northern Heights project or North End (Bull and Bush) where the tunnels were built or partially built but no surface building? |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Oct 18, 2017 18:32:25 GMT
There is no way this won’t be finished. It’s nothing like the Croxley situation, and the potential fall out from a cancellation would send shock waves like never before.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,785
|
Post by Chris M on Oct 18, 2017 18:44:57 GMT
holborncentral it could go either way. If TfL are making a point that the developers need to stump up more cash to get the stations fitted out then I imagine that they'll do the maintenance required to keep the tunnels functional enough that it really is just the station fit out standing in the way of a service. Or they could just be abandoned bar enough maintenance that they don't collapse or otherwise pose a danger. Or the tunnels/station boxes could be rented out to third parties like the deep level shelters are. Either on short or long term leases. It really depends on what TfL see as being in their best interests. Another option I've just thought of is that they run a service through the tunnels as if the stations were open, they just do so without any passengers on. Perhaps the most pointy option, and not one I think they'd choose without being very sure that everything standing in the way of a passenger service is the responsibility of the developers.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 18, 2017 19:00:40 GMT
holborncentral it could go either way. If TfL are making a point that the developers need to stump up more cash to get the stations fitted out then I imagine that they'll do the maintenance required to keep the tunnels functional enough that it really is just the station fit out standing in the way of a service. Or they could just be abandoned bar enough maintenance that they don't collapse or otherwise pose a danger. Or the tunnels/station boxes could be rented out to third parties like the deep level shelters are. Either on short or long term leases. It really depends on what TfL see as being in their best interests. Another option I've just thought of is that they run a service through the tunnels as if the stations were open, they just do so without any passengers on. Perhaps the most pointy option, and not one I think they'd choose without being very sure that everything standing in the way of a passenger service is the responsibility of the developers. If I was a betting man (I'm not) then I expect the extension will fully open but possibly late and with a dispute ongoing between the parties. The second viable option is to not complete the BPS station to a standard passengers can use. However trains could run there to turn and staff could access / leave the site for evacuation / inspection / maintenance purposes. I do expect Nine Elms would be open under this scenario to serve the new housing and American Embassy nearby plus the more established area a little beyond. I don't see the route being left part built or part finished in a way that would prevent the movement of trains. The issue is all to do with the cost of Battersea Power Stn station not the rest. Regardless there are no doubt a whole pile of related issues that limit TfL's ability to act in a cavalier way not the least of which is good old politics and what it would say about the Mayor and the way he's run things. He's very unlikely to hand his opponents a great big stick to hit him with during an election year. He ain't that stupid. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 18, 2017 19:08:07 GMT
holborncentral it could go either way. If TfL are making a point that the developers need to stump up more cash to get the stations fitted out then I imagine that they'll do the maintenance required to keep the tunnels functional enough that it really is just the station fit out standing in the way of a service. There is a recent precedent for this kind of thing, albeit National Rail rather than LU: St Pancras International. Construction of the 'box' for the station was complete in 2005, but until 2007 trains ran through calling at Kings Cross Thameslink instead. Eventually, money was found and the station fitted out. I wouldn't be surprised if, whilst waiting for funds to appear, LU ran trains towards Battersea if it could lead to improvements to the service and/or track work on the Kennington Loop. |
|
|
|
Post by holborncentral on Oct 18, 2017 22:52:11 GMT
holborncentral it could go either way. If TfL are making a point that the developers need to stump up more cash to get the stations fitted out then I imagine that they'll do the maintenance required to keep the tunnels functional enough that it really is just the station fit out standing in the way of a service. Or they could just be abandoned bar enough maintenance that they don't collapse or otherwise pose a danger. Or the tunnels/station boxes could be rented out to third parties like the deep level shelters are. Either on short or long term leases. It really depends on what TfL see as being in their best interests. Another option I've just thought of is that they run a service through the tunnels as if the stations were open, they just do so without any passengers on. Perhaps the most pointy option, and not one I think they'd choose without being very sure that everything standing in the way of a passenger service is the responsibility of the developers. Interesting. If this was to happen would both new stations not open or is it mostly the Battersea Power Station one? I guess they could keep the tunnels open for maintenance access or emergency exits if needed. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Nov 2, 2017 18:59:25 GMT
Please keep discussion in this thread to the Battersea extension currently under construction.
Posts related to possible extensions beyond Battersea have been moved to the thread below, where such discussion can continue.
districtdavesforum.co.uk/thread/28856/
Thanks all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ducatisti on Mar 27, 2018 8:22:48 GMT
Hello
this has suddenly become potentially relevant to me.
Does anyone know
1) how on track are they with it (the TfL site says open "in 2020") - does anyone have any feel as to which end?
2a) what are the planned operating patterns? are current Kennington loop trains going to serve it?
2b) are there likely to be regular (say every 10 minute ish) from the Barnet branch down to the new extension?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,785
|
Post by Chris M on Mar 27, 2018 8:56:44 GMT
I can't find anything more specific than 2020 for the opening date. The tunnel construction is complete and station fit out has started. There was some dispute about Battersea Power Station station but I think that's been resolved - if it hasn't then trains could just run between there and Nine Elms out of service.
The extension is connected to the Kennington loop so it is only possible to run to and from Charing Cross branch. The last I head about frequency was 50-75% of Kennington terminators would run there during the day. I haven't heard anything either way about the Night Tube service.
As far as I'm aware no decisions have been made about where the trains will go north of Camden Town, but if the line is split (and TfL's publicity about the Camden Town upgrade say there are no current plans to do this) then it will obviously only be one of them. The current thinking seems to be that the Edgware and Charing Cross branches, and thus the Battersea extension, will form one unit operated from Golders Green depot while Morden depot will operate a Morden-Bank-Camden Town-High Barnet/Mill Hill East service.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Mar 27, 2018 9:42:25 GMT
I can't find anything more specific than 2020 for the opening date. . from last September suggests " the project remains on track to launch at the end of 2020". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2018 15:04:32 GMT
Does anybody else feel that the name 'Battersea power station' is quite ungainly. As it will make it Battersea power station station. would 'Battersea' be a simpler and less convoluted name for the station?
Sorry if this has already been brought up, I couldn't find it anywhere.
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,785
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 9, 2018 15:17:05 GMT
Yes, Battersea would be simpler and less convoluted but there are already two existing stations in Battersea (Battersea Park and Queenstown Road (Battersea)) with which it might be ambiguous. There was a consultation run, I forget by who, prior to construction where names for the two stations could be input which resulted in "Nine Elms" and "Battersea Power Station" being the popular choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Apr 9, 2018 15:37:07 GMT
Yes, Battersea would be simpler and less convoluted but there are already two existing stations in Battersea (Battersea Park and Queenstown Road (Battersea)) with which it might be ambiguous. There was a consultation run, I forget by who, prior to construction where names for the two stations could be input which resulted in "Nine Elms" and "Battersea Power Station" being the popular choices. Battersea Chimneys would have been quite a nice one, I think. Bit of a cottagey sort of feel to it. But Power Station is OK too. Some like it hot... |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 9, 2018 16:11:22 GMT
An ungainly name for an ungainly building. Why it wasn't demolished along with most other redundant London power stations is a mystery to me. They even replaced the chimneys with plastic replicas!
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Apr 9, 2018 17:50:39 GMT
Battersea Pink Floyd?
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenarrow on Apr 9, 2018 19:20:34 GMT
An ungainly name for an ungainly building. Why it wasn't demolished along with most other redundant London power stations is a mystery to me. They even replaced the chimneys with plastic replicas! I think a Grade II* (particularly important buildings of more than special interest) listed status is enough to signify the buildings importance as a part of the capitals architectural and industrial history. Regardless of individual opinions, even with the meticulous efforts of preservationists, campaigners and planners, so many great buildings in this country have been lost to development over the years that we should be grateful with what has survived even if their design is subjective. I'd wager that large swathes of the public wouldn't bat an eyelid to some of the fine railway stations in the capital that have stood the test of time but are still nonetheless much cherished by us. History can only shape our future if we make a conscious effort to recognise and preserve it before it's too late. |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Apr 10, 2018 7:40:28 GMT
’Pigs On The Wing’ would be far better IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 10, 2018 10:50:52 GMT
Having the word 'station' in the name of a station, referring to something other that that station, is asking for confusion.
There's one on the Tyneside Metro, where the station at Central Station is called 'Central Station', and is therefore 'Central Station Station'. The Metro station at Manors Station, conversely, is simply called 'Manors'.
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Apr 10, 2018 11:27:18 GMT
Actually, given the house prices there, what are the odds on Higher or Upper Battersea being 'suggested' & then adopted before long?
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,785
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 10, 2018 11:43:19 GMT
If a developer or someone else wants to pay for it...
|
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,785
|
Post by Chris M on Apr 10, 2018 11:46:23 GMT
Having the word 'station' in the name of a station, referring to something other that that station, is asking for confusion. There's one on the Tyneside Metro, where the station at Central Station is called 'Central Station', and is therefore 'Central Station Station'. The Metro station at Manors Station, conversely, is simply called 'Manors'. That's because the mainline station is locally known as "Central station" (presumably a formerly official name) but it's not actually central from a Metro point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by nick66 on Apr 10, 2018 12:02:27 GMT
Having the word 'station' in the name of a station, referring to something other that that station, is asking for confusion. There's one on the Tyneside Metro, where the station at Central Station is called 'Central Station', and is therefore 'Central Station Station'. The Metro station at Manors Station, conversely, is simply called 'Manors'. That's because the mainline station is locally known as "Central station" (presumably a formerly official name) but it's not actually central from a Metro point of view. It used to be known as Newcastle Central Station, although I have only ever seen “Newcastle” on the signs, but now it is the only NR station in the city, the rest are all Metro. I can’t ever recall Manors being known as “Manors Station” though. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 10, 2018 12:04:42 GMT
Having the word 'station' in the name of a station, referring to something other that that station, is asking for confusion. There's one on the Tyneside Metro, where the station at Central Station is called 'Central Station', and is therefore 'Central Station Station'. The Metro station at Manors Station, conversely, is simply called 'Manors'. As someone born and bred in Newcastle I have ever heard anyone called that station "Central Station Station". As Chris M points out it is known as "(the) Central Station" locally or, at a push, Newcastle Central Station. As for Manors I've never heard anyone cite confusion as to the station names. That small niche area between Shieldfield and the Town Centre was always known as "Manors" so it's as much a reference to the local area as a station name. I used to use the old BR station there when using the Tyne Loop diesels and then crossed by footbridge over the central motorway to reach the eastern edge of the town centre. I fear this is one of these debates where the colloquial name may confound "pure logic" or the rules of language but people cope perfectly well regardless. Coming back to topic I suspect the new Northern Line stations will become known locally as "Nine Elms" (perfectly reasonable as that's the locality's name) and "Power Station" or, at a push, "The Power Station". People will associate the station with what is "up top" and if the redeveloped Power Station does become a draw in terms of retail and leisure activity I'd expect people to ask "does this train go to the Power Station?" or some similar phrase. |
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Apr 10, 2018 12:53:12 GMT
Actually, given the house prices there, what are the odds on Higher or Upper Battersea being 'suggested' & then adopted before long? South Chelsea? Battersea Riverside? Four Chimneys? |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Apr 10, 2018 13:01:15 GMT
Dogshome Station? It's closer to that than it is to the actual Power Station.
|
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Apr 10, 2018 13:38:11 GMT
Dogshome Station? It's closer to that than it is to the actual Power Station. 'Dogs', another pertinent Floyd reference. "Who was born in a house full of pain!" |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Apr 10, 2018 13:57:36 GMT
Having Barking and Dogs on the same map, hmmmm .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 15:18:48 GMT
Having the word 'station' in the name of a station, referring to something other that that station, is asking for confusion. There's one on the Tyneside Metro, where the station at Central Station is called 'Central Station', and is therefore 'Central Station Station'. The Metro station at Manors Station, conversely, is simply called 'Manors'. Bradshaw often appended to the street name to the station, whether or not it was part of the station name. Inevitably, Burton-upon-Trent became Burton, Station Street, but only in North Staffordshire and Great Northern timetables. |
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Apr 10, 2018 17:45:06 GMT
It used to be known as Newcastle Central Station, although I have only ever seen “Newcastle” on the signs, but now it is the only NR station in the city, the rest are all Metro. I can’t ever recall Manors being known as “Manors Station” though. I'm fairly sure that Manors Station IS in the city. It was never known as Manors Station colloquially, just Manors. BR used to refer to it as 'Newcastle Manors', but the NR title seems to be simply 'Manors'. It once consisted of 'Manors North' and 'Manors East', with multiple platforms on both sides of a junction. It is now a two-platform shadow of its former self. |
|
