SSL Control Centre

South Kensington would be an interesting location, but I still think the smart money is on Harrow.

Those who have voted so far have neglected us who have to travel, or have some strange desire to see it at Tower Hill. What is it about this place? It always seems to be mentioned, yet is hardly handy for anyone except maybe staff travelling in on c2c.

It has to be Baker Street (because like my colleague, if it's not near my home station then why not here!).

Cut the costs of setting up a new room - install new equipment only. The room is big enough to control the whole lot - provided the new equipment is thought out properly. It's very easy to get to. 5 different services plus Chiltern from nearby Marylebone. Travelling of between 5 and 15 minutes from all London Termini - for those who have opted to live away from London.

On a serious point, if you start making staff work in obscure locations, they very quickly tire of the travelling and move on. In the meantime, moral is low and performance even lower.

I would hardly call Harrow obscure...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the very reason Mr Citysig gives Harrow should defintely NOT be a contender. It's too much of a backwater and out in the sticks. As Mr C says it HAS to be somewhere on or within the Circle line for staff conveniece and access from ALL parts of the capital. Train, station and other staff have to (often) travel long distances to their place of work without the option so signal staff should not complain if they have to do the same. At least they get to sit somewhere reasonably warm and dry or airconned whatever the weather. A spiders web is monitored from the centre so why not the network?

P.S. I must admit I personally am predjudiced against Harrow as it's in THAT railways territory.

So it looks like we found a use for the old LER control office at Leicester Sq then? ;D

More seriously LUL has a lot of office space at Baker St (historically due to it being the headquarters the senior underground railway)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hee hee hee!! I was waiting for that !! ;D ;D ;D

Seriously though if theres lots of space already available at Baker (I assume management has moved to a more prestigious building at St James (oh I'm SO sorry that is an MDR building ain't it) then the new SSL centre should be at Baker and thereby cut expense.

Well I only wanted there to be space for tea storage, that's all - that big building at Harrow looks suitable for that purpose

Then again, I guess siting the IECC at Baker Street would be the last gasp of the Met's dominance over LU - especially if it was placed in the MR headquarters at Selby House...

Funnily enough I had a tour round the Midland Grand Hotel a few weeks ago. The reason it is no longer used as offices is because it failed its fire safety certificate and it was too expensive to carry out the necessary alterations. That same problem still applies to anyone wishing to use the building and has virtually ruled out the possiblilty of it again being used for railway offices.
There are, I understand, active plans to convert the lower floors back into a hotel, while the upper floors are likely to be converterd into loft style apartments. In both cases the companies involved presumably expect to make a return on the investment required to bring the building up to modern standards.

Anyone else who might like a short tour of the building should look at the following link
www.lcrproperties.com/html/outers/spc/intro.html

I believe thar far greater use will be made of that area once the current rebuilding of the station is complete. In any case I wouldn't really want to work in a control room that was placed underground.

The thing I can't understand is the context of this comment. In this thread the only comment I'd previously made with respect to costs was the cost of bringing St Pancras Chambers (the old Midland Grand Hotel) up to modern standards to permit its re-use. This doesn't really have any relevance to the main subject of the thread but was merely mentioned to show the unsuitability of that one building for housing the SSL control centre as had been suggested by one of the other contributors.
Having said that cost is innevitably going to be a very big factor in determining the location of any such control centre. To think otherwise just ignores the reality of the railway today.

Unfortunately we live in a world which is "all-to-cock" these days. And whether my colleague mentioned money or not (I feel the latter) the whole world is driven by the stuff. You won't get a new desk lamp on LU without thousands of people getting involved with their safety cases, studies and the like. Such a lamp may cost under a tenner in your local shop. On LU it can costs hundreds.

As for having "whole line" control. Until 1999, the whole Jubilee Line was under one roof. Politics got in the way and the "new" bit was given to new staff and a new control room.

By the year 2000, the entire Met line was to be under one roof at Baker Street. But again politics and company movement got in the way.

By the year 2003, it was planned that most of the H&C would be controlled by Baker Street.

Did you know that Edgware Road cabin was due to close in the 1970s, 1980s, 1991, 1994, 1998 and in a final desperate attempt to meet the target, 2002 was banded around. The matter has not been discussed for years now.

So while it is sensible service sense to have everything under one roof, those in power and those with the purse think differently. If it doesn't give them a good return, it won't happen.