On Dec 2, 10:43*pm, D1039 wrote:
I've not been following this buthttp://www.bettertransport.org.uk/blogs/roads/011211-london-crossings
reports that the Mayor and Chancellor said that the Government would
support the scheme to extend the Northern Line, but it transpires all
the Government actually agreed to do was to ‘consider’ allowing the
Mayor to borrow against future tax receipts to support the scheme,
subject to a commitment by a developer to develop the site and make
the agreed contributions. Within three days Battersea Power Station's
owners went into administration.

I'm not sure how this affects plans?

I am not sure in its present form, the extension is good use of
taxpayer funds.

In message
, at
23:01:01 on Fri, 2 Dec 2011, 77002 remarked:
I've not been following this buthttp://www.bettertransport.org.uk/blogs/roads/011211-london-crossings
reports that the Mayor and Chancellor said that the Government would
support the scheme to extend the Northern Line, but it transpires all
the Government actually agreed to do was to ‘consider’ allowing the
Mayor to borrow against future tax receipts to support the scheme,
subject to a commitment by a developer to develop the site and make
the agreed contributions. Within three days Battersea Power Station's
owners went into administration.

I'm not sure how this affects plans?

I am not sure in its present form, the extension is good use of
taxpayer funds.

It's a bit chicken and egg. The "tax" in question is developer
contributions to local infrastructure. And if the developments stall
because the tube line is regarded as necessary to make them successful,
the funds don't exist anyway.
--
Roland Perry

It's not a good use of taxpayers' funds because it's designed to help only a small group of people and it's not designed improve interchange facilities. To re-iterate the point I made earlier - which at some stage in the distant future will become the orthodox wisdom, shared by politicians and pundits alike - the sensible and constructive extension of the Northern Line is down to Clapham Junction and possibly further south-west.

Oh, and by the way, it is essential that Northern Line trains from Clapham Junction proceed along the City branch and are not confined to the Waterloo branch.

Battersea Power Station is possibly every wedding photographers dream wedding location and as such is one of London's most iconic wedding venues, although unfortunately you can't actually get married here. It's Europe's largest brick built building and once the mooring point for Pink Floyds famous giant inflatable pig.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 11:36:47 +0000
Robin9 wrote:
It's not a good use of taxpayers' funds because it's designed to help
only a small group of people and it's not designed improve interchange
facilities. To re-iterate the point I made earlier - which at some stage

Which small group of people? I don't know what the population of Battersea
is but I suspect its not small. As for interchange, it does seem a bit odd
not to interchange with the victoria line since it will make a trip to the
west end a lot more hassle that it would otherwise be.

in the distant future will become the orthodox wisdom, shared by
politicians and pundits alike - the sensible and constructive extension
of the Northern Line is down to Clapham Junction and possibly further
south-west.

Won't happen. Look at the JLE - they could have easily taken it down the
river to Thamesmead which would have been a godsend for that growing area.
But no, they decided on an utterly pointless (but no doubt a lot cheaper)
terminus at stratford which was already over served by trains before it arrived.

B2003

The small group - relatively speaking - of people who will live in the new development plus those already living in Nine Elms.

Battersea is a large area and has two post codes. It stretches to Clapham Common to the east and to Wandsworth Common to the south.The site of Battersea Power Station is not strictly speaking in Battersea. It's in Nine Elms, a few hundred yards before Nine Elms merges with Battersea. Much of Battersea is some way from the site and consequently most residents will not find the new Northern Line station particularly convenient. Most will find the existing stations more convenient, particularly Clapham Junction. Battersea residents heading for the City probably would slog their way up Battersea Park Road to a new Northern Line station if trains ran from there to the City but TfL has apparently decreed that trains from Nine Elms will serve the Charing Cross branch only. That decision on its own ensures that the project is a waste of money.

As for extending the Northern Line to Clapham Junction and Wandsworth, you may be right in predicting that it will never happen. Investing in public transport in this country is a matter of political fashion. In the past few years vast sums have been chucked at public transport and eventually the pendulum will swing the other way and funds will no longer be available. I wouldn't be surprised if George Osborne gives the pendulum a good push in the next couple of years. However even if that happens, the logic of extending the Northern Line south-west will not change and gradually more and more people will recognise the argument.

Stratford was not and still is not "over-served". The Central Line is a severely overloaded service and relief was and still is urgently needed. The fact that the Jubilee Line trains run at three minute intervals and are crowded even at weekends demonstrates that the Jubilee Line concept was good. As for Thamesmead, that was a Cross Rail destination and may still be, but Thamesmead is not a major passenger interchange point like Stratford . . . and Clapham Junction.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:43:15 +0000
Robin9 wrote:
Stratford was not and still is not "over-served". The Central Line is a
severely overloaded service and relief was and still is urgently needed.

Oh come off it. It already had a direct service to liverpool street, the
central line, the DLR and its allegedly international station. For a run down
multiculti ghetto thats pretty bloody good going.

The fact that the Jubilee Line trains run at three minute intervals and
are crowded even at weekends demonstrates that the Jubilee Line concept

Well they may well crowded now due to westfield but thats another matter.

was good. As for Thamesmead, that was a Cross Rail destination and may
still be, but Thamesmead is not a major passenger interchange point like
Stratford . . . and Clapham Junction.

Neither are cockfosters, barnet, edgeware, stanmore ... perhaps the tube
shouldn't have bothered to go there?

B2003

No. You come off it! Your complaint is feverish and irrational. Whether or not a station or area is adequately served or "over-served" revolves essentially around the ratio between the number of passengers and the amount of transport provision. Your low opinion of the area and its residents is irrelevant. Stratford is in a densely populated part of inner London and is a major passenger interchange station. Consequently the number of passengers using Stratford is extremely high and the transport provision needs to be correspondingly high.

Your belief that the Jubilee Line trains have been crowded only since the opening of Westfield shows how little you know about the Jubilee Line and Stratford.

Your reference to Cockfosters, Barnet, Stanmore and Edgeware is completely beside the point. Those four places have no alternative rail transport. Thamesmead will be part of the Cross Rail system and has Abbey Wood and Plumstead stations nearby already. Not taking the Jubilee Line to Thamesmead did not mean the area would be without rail transport. Your comparison is not valid.

In message , Robin9
wrote:
Battersea residents heading for the City
probably would slog their way up Battersea Park Road to a new Northern
Line station if trains ran from there to the City but TfL has apparently
decreed that trains from Nine Elms will serve the Charing Cross branch
only.

(1) TfL haven't "decreed" it. They've made a cost-benefit decision. The
proposed line connects to a piece of existing infrastructure that is
only on the Charing Cross branch. Adding the extra connections to allow
through trains to the City branch would add significantly to the cost
(and, unlike the rest of the proposal, would disrupt the existing
service while it was being build) for little obvious benefit. Adding
non-conflicting junctions like at Camden would be even more expensive.

(2) It's a cross-platform interchange at Kennington. If the poor city
workers can't walk the five metres or so involved, then they should be
using taxis all the way rather than the tube.

(3) To get the maximum density of traffic on the Northern Line, it
really ought to be split into two completely independent services that
can't pollute each other. We already have that to some extent at
Kennington, with relatively few CX-Morden services. This gives a further
benefit to this change.

That decision on its own ensures that the project is a waste of
money.

Nonsense.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , d
wrote:
Won't happen. Look at the JLE - they could have easily taken it down the
river to Thamesmead which would have been a godsend for that growing area.

I don't recall it being so *at the time*.

But, as it happens, North Greenwich station is already laid out so that
the JLE can be extended eastwards if desirable.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: