|
|
Post by melikepie on Oct 3, 2014 17:05:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 23:38:56 GMT
Kindly remember that it was Boris that cancelled the installation of lifts at West Kensington, Ladbroke Grove, Amersham, Greenford, Newbury Park and Osterley in 2009, claiming lack of funds after TfL had already spent £25m on preparation works. Chuck this in with the as yet unfunded Bakerloo extension and the cycle superhighway it obvious that Boris is desperate to leave a legacy of his 8 years as mayor other than a bus than doubles as sauna, a bike scheme that still can't break even and a cable car to nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Indefatigable on Oct 3, 2014 23:45:22 GMT
That might well be true, but he also got back C.O.B, chased after a lady's attackers, made a great After Olympics speech and is very attractive
I don't know how much of this is true, but was not Boris overruled on a number of tube improvements and somewhat bullied into cancelling projects?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 4:24:56 GMT
That might well be true, but he also got back C.O.B, chased after a lady's attackers, made a great After Olympics speech and is very attractive I don't know how much of this is true, but was not Boris overruled on a number of tube improvements and somewhat bullied into cancelling projects? By whom and how was he "bullied and who overruled him? Those lifts were cancelled in 2009 while Gordon Brown was in No. 10, about a year before his Bullingdon chum George slashed TfL's budget. He scrapped plenty of projects because he wanted to focus on his bikes and his useless bus plus he was expecting to lose £55-70m by scrapping the Congestion Charge western extension. I'm not sure what C.O.B. was or why we needed it back but those attackers were three teenage girls that the woman described as smaller than the iron bar they dropped when Boris appeared. Thankfully I never heard his speech as I was working but he made himself look like a fool at the Beijing Olympic closing ceremony. Attractive? Really? No accounting for taste..... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 5, 2014 23:40:02 GMT
I don't know how much of this is true, but was not Boris overruled on a number of tube improvements and somewhat bullied into cancelling projects? Boris is the Chair of TfL - what he says goes. I would love to know who can "bully" him into cancelling projects and having to write off tens of millions of pounds of preparatory work. I think it is more likely the case that he thought running London would be a breeze and that you can stop stuff and it has no consequences. Unfortunately it does have consequences and it has taken him nearly 5 years to learn that you need to fight your corner to get the money to do substantive stuff. Of course now it is all too late and there will be little of any great substance or value [1] that will be identifiably "his". I'll give him credit for forcing TfL to release real time bus data (a manifesto commitment) and ELL phase 2 funding (but even that was compromised by the DfT). He can't claim tube upgrades or Crossrail as his nor the boom in Overground usage. I'd even question how committed he was to GOBLIN electrification - I've seen plenty of letters written by Assembly Members lobbying Government for the scheme but not one from Boris. Clearly that will complete when he has departed the Mayoralty. It remains to be seen whether TfL will actually order any new tube trains under his Mayoralty - things are in the pipeline but will they actually be ordered by May 2016? Obviously some more Cl 378 carriages have been ordered as has Crossrail stock. It remains to be seen if the Overground / West Anglia stock will be ordered by May 2016. [1] obviously that's an entirely subjective assessment and others will reach a different conclusion to me. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 6, 2014 15:59:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Oct 7, 2014 5:22:57 GMT
Greenford is an incline lift so a bit of an experiment.
Newbury Park could be achieved without a lift.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 5:57:16 GMT
Greenford is an incline lift so a bit of an experiment. Newbury Park could be achieved without a lift. Okay I'm intrigued, explain how Newbury Park could achieve step free access without a lift. Stratford has an incline lift from the western concourse (Jubilee Line) down the stairs to tunnel for the Central Line and mainline platforms |
|
|
|
Post by crusty54 on Oct 7, 2014 6:18:52 GMT
Via the car parks at Newbury Park.
The Stratford lift is not on an incline. It rises a very short distance.
At Greenford the lift will run beside the escalator hence the term incline.
It fits over the staircase.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 14:56:34 GMT
Via the car parks at Newbury Park. The Stratford lift is not on an incline. It rises a very short distance. At Greenford the lift will run beside the escalator hence the term incline. It fits over the staircase. Oh yeah, I've used to one at Stratford when taking the ex-Mrs shrugged in her wheelchair, my memory isn't what it used to be.... Adding two new entrances/exits directly onto the platforms at Newbury Park would create revenue, staffing and evacuation problems. |
|
|
|
Post by rsdworker on Oct 9, 2014 9:32:39 GMT
simllar one to station where have two side entrances such Sudlury town station which has two side entrances for disabled access which is for ticket holders only so lifts can be installed if step free from sides is not possible to used
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Oct 9, 2014 14:09:09 GMT
The situation at High Barnet is that whilst there is no lift, there is a very long walkway that goes around the whole of one of the roads in order to reach the side entrance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2014 16:20:05 GMT
How would Bow Road have lifts installed? Half of it under a road and the ticket hall small? Not to mention the platform curved! Which would make it more difficult. Unlike Mile End and Stepney Green where life is much easier to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 21, 2014 14:47:50 GMT
Interestingly, how many stations could have had disabled access, if lifts hadn't been taken out?
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Oct 21, 2014 16:26:02 GMT
Interestingly, how many stations could have had disabled access, if lifts hadn't been taken out? Escalators can move far greater numbers of people and in the event of a failure do not usually leave people trapped. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,286 
|
Post by rincew1nd on Oct 21, 2014 16:41:09 GMT
Interestingly, how many stations could have had disabled access, if lifts hadn't been taken out? I suspect its not as many as might be thought at first, I'm thinking of places where the lifts went to a landing then there was a small flight of stairs down to platform level. |
|
gantshill
I had to change my profile pic!
Posts: 1,372
|
Post by gantshill on Oct 21, 2014 16:43:31 GMT
I'm not sure how many early tube railway stations originally had level access when they had lifts. Caledonian Road was one, but at many of the stations, the lifts stopped at a landing above and to the side of the station platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by brigham on Oct 21, 2014 21:23:40 GMT
Interestingly, how many stations could have had disabled access, if lifts hadn't been taken out? I suspect its not as many as might be thought at first, I'm thinking of places where the lifts went to a landing then there was a small flight of stairs down to platform level. It isn't the small flights of stairs that are the problem. They can be overcome with relative ease. It's the 70 foot drop from street level that costs the money. |
|
|
|
Post by abe on Oct 23, 2014 8:20:32 GMT
Actually, putting in lifts to bypass the short flights of stairs between lower lift landings and platform level is complex and expensive. The space between the platform tunnels is extremely limited, and the tunneling works can cause distortion of the tunnels - not good for a train service. Where this has been done there have often been closures during the works (confined to weekends where possible, but see the recent protracted closures at Bond Street also), and the platform tunnel segments have had to be removed and replaced with 'straighter' sections to provide enough space. Then there is the difficulty of achieveing these works deep underground with no access to a surface site. All of the equipment, plant, and spoil has to come in and out by rail, which is more time-consuming than where it can be craned into and out of a shaft opening to the surface.
The most likely reason for Aldwych having been constructed with three lift shafts was that it was confidently expected in 1905 that the line would be extended southwards to Waterloo, and hence sufficient capacity for the expected traffic was provided. Had they needed to sink additional shafts once the station was open they would have risked distortion to the shaft with lifts. Similarly, the short section of platform tunnel constructed at South Kensington for the abortive deep-level District Railway was probably built to avoid damage to the lift shafts, this being why the section is adjacent to the shafts and not running from one or other end of the proposed platform site.
|
|
