|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote: Wouldn't they? You tell me. There were plenty of gauge issues with contai= ners around the country but they sorted that so why would this be an issue other than money? ISTR the Severn Tunnel had very severe damp problems. I wouldn't be surprised if Reading becomes the equivalent of Bedford on the MML. Even though it would make sense to continue the wires no one can be bothered. B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 26, 4:42*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:28:30 -0700 (PDT) 77002 wrote: Wouldn't they? You tell me. There were plenty of gauge issues with contai= ners around the country but they sorted that so why would this be an issue other than money? ISTR the Severn Tunnel had very severe damp problems. I wouldn't be surprised if Reading becomes the equivalent of Bedford on the MML. Even though it would make sense to continue the wires no one can be bothered. From what I have read in this thread, the wires will go right thru to Bristol and South Wales. I am curious about the current state of the Severn Tunnel. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message , at 15:42:43 on Mon, 26 Mar
2012, d remarked: I wouldn't be surprised if Reading becomes the equivalent of Bedford on the MML. Even though it would make sense to continue the wires no one can be bothered. I hope it doesn't inherit that other dubious characteristic of Bedford - only a quarter of the long distance trains bothering to stop there. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 26, 9:03*pm, wrote:
In article , (77002) wrote: On Mar 26, 3:30*pm, wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:24:36 +0100 "Paul Scott" wrote: wrote in message ... I vaguely remember reading something about clearance issues with the severn tunnel wrt overhead wires. There is no OHLE clearance issue in the Severn Tunnel. *If there was, they wouldn't be wiring through to Cardiff, would they? Wouldn't they? You tell me. There were plenty of gauge issues with containers around the country but they sorted that so why would this be an issue other than money? ISTR the Severn Tunnel had very severe damp problems. s/had/has. They need a lot of pumping capacity. Not the ideal environment for 25kV AC then! :-) |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
"77002" wrote in message
... On Mar 26, 9:03 pm, wrote: s/had/has. They need a lot of pumping capacity. Not the ideal environment for 25kV AC then! :-) The main works contract for the GWML wiring has been let to Amey yesterday, to Cardiff (via the tunnel), Bristol, Oxford and Newbury. Paul S |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mar 27, 4:19*pm, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "77002" wrote in message ... On Mar 26, 9:03 pm, wrote: s/had/has. They need a lot of pumping capacity. Not the ideal environment for 25kV AC then! :-) The main works contract for the GWML wiring has been let to Amey yesterday, to Cardiff (via the tunnel), Bristol, Oxford and Newbury. Thank you Paul. There are days when I just love Usenet. It is another month before "Modern Railways" drops onto the doormat. An electrified GW mainline, how exciting. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote: There are days when I just love Usenet. It is another month before "Modern Railways" drops onto the doormat. An electrified GW mainline, how exciting. I wonder how much brand new copper cabling the pikeys will manage to nick before its complete. B2003 |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote: On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, D7666 wrote: On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. West Hampstead is one of London's biggest, wasted, transportation opportunities. It's not conveniently near a seaport to get the people to Oz, is it ? |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002 wrote: On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, D7666 wrote: On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. West Hampstead is one of London's biggest, wasted, transportation opportunities. It's not conveniently near a seaport to get the people to Oz, is it ? Oh, very funny Charles. ;-) West Hampstead is one of those places where trainspotters pore over lines on maps and think "we must build an interchange station here, so people can change trains between all these converging lines". Given that the lines have all been in situ for more than a century, if there was any real demand for this interchange, don't you think someone would have done it by now? The only evidence of any demand seems to come from trainspotters clutching their rail atlases. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:08:49 +0100, Bruce
wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002 wrote: On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, D7666 wrote: On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. West Hampstead is one of London's biggest, wasted, transportation opportunities. It's not conveniently near a seaport to get the people to Oz, is it ? Oh, very funny Charles. ;-) West Hampstead is one of those places where trainspotters pore over lines on maps and think "we must build an interchange station here, so people can change trains between all these converging lines". Given that the lines have all been in situ for more than a century, if there was any real demand for this interchange, don't you think someone would have done it by now? The only evidence of any demand seems to come from trainspotters clutching their rail atlases. I used to work in the area. Those whose navigational abilities were limited to the map in the back of their diary (and there are IME still lots of them) might have agreed but that is not entirely their fault. In past times useful interchange would have been practically limited to those aware of the more exotic routings available with season tickets but that should no longer apply with current zoned ticketing. It is not the idea of interchange between the three stations which is wrong as much as the typically over-enthusiastic plans for achieving it. At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating "out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware of it; the walking distances involved are less than many same-station interchanges in Central London. Rather than building one dirty great station, what is needed is improved pedestrian links between them where possible; if/when the NLL and LU/NR bridges at the two southern stations are replaced then there should be no excuse for not incorporating pedestrian routes at that time if not already done as e.g. a partial or complete footbridge/tunnel route from West Hampstead LU via West End Lane station to West Hampstead Midland. The abolition of the long-established failure by assorted parties to admit that LU are not the only railway operators in Greater London would also be a lot of help. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:08:49 +0100, Bruce wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002 wrote: On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, D7666 wrote: On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. West Hampstead is one of London's biggest, wasted, transportation opportunities. It's not conveniently near a seaport to get the people to Oz, is it ? Oh, very funny Charles. ;-) West Hampstead is one of those places where trainspotters pore over lines on maps and think "we must build an interchange station here, so people can change trains between all these converging lines". Given that the lines have all been in situ for more than a century, if there was any real demand for this interchange, don't you think someone would have done it by now? The only evidence of any demand seems to come from trainspotters clutching their rail atlases. I used to work in the area. Those whose navigational abilities were limited to the map in the back of their diary (and there are IME still lots of them) might have agreed but that is not entirely their fault. In past times useful interchange would have been practically limited to those aware of the more exotic routings available with season tickets but that should no longer apply with current zoned ticketing. It is not the idea of interchange between the three stations which is wrong as much as the typically over-enthusiastic plans for achieving it. At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating "out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware of it; the walking distances involved are less than many same-station interchanges in Central London. Rather than building one dirty great station, what is needed is improved pedestrian links between them where possible; if/when the NLL and LU/NR bridges at the two southern stations are replaced then there should be no excuse for not incorporating pedestrian routes at that time if not already done as e.g. a partial or complete footbridge/tunnel route from West Hampstead LU via West End Lane station to West Hampstead Midland. I agree that the grandiose solutions being proposed to solve this non-problem were ludicrous. But there is one major obstacle to a full interchange, and that is the lack of Chiltern Line platforms. Not that Chiltern Railways would be interested. The last thing Chiltern needs is another stop further extending journey times just to benefit a very small number of passengers. The abolition of the long-established failure by assorted parties to admit that LU are not the only railway operators in Greater London would also be a lot of help. I think a recognition that Chiltern's primary role does not include operating suburban services within London would help a lot more. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 3, 10:56*pm, D DB 90001
wrote: On Tuesday, 3 April 2012 21:52:19 UTC+1, Bruce *wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 10:08:49 +0100, Bruce wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:37:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002 wrote: On Mar 18, 4:01*pm, D7666 wrote: On Mar 18, 12:44*pm, 77002 wrote: Partially by planning to build trains that have few seats and no toilets. This is the cost of involving TfL I suppose. *Why cannot Crossrail be run in a similar manner to Thameslink? I suggest if through route Thameslink did not already exist and/or the present trains on the route did not already exist, then it would be more Crossrail like; indeed, I suggest it would also be a more metro less main line operation, with slow all stations trains to SR ML and GN suburban destinations, without *old NSE *type network express workings. Indeed, if I planned TL from scratch, I'd never have linked it in with GN, but with the Met (and electrified GC suburban) at West Hampstead. Instead we have a supermarket where we should have junctions infrastructure, and three disjointed stations instead of one. West Hampstead is one of London's biggest, wasted, transportation opportunities. It's not conveniently near a seaport to get the people to Oz, is it ? Oh, very funny Charles. *;-) West Hampstead is one of those places where trainspotters pore over lines on maps and think "we must build an interchange station here, so people can change trains between all these converging lines". Given that the lines have all been in situ for more than a century, if there was any real demand for this interchange, don't you think someone would have done it by now? *The only evidence of any demand seems to come from trainspotters clutching their rail atlases. I used to work in the area. Those whose navigational abilities were limited to the map in the back of their diary (and there are IME still lots of them) might have agreed but that is not entirely their fault. In past times useful interchange would have been practically limited to those aware of the more exotic routings available with season tickets but that should no longer apply with current zoned ticketing. It is not the idea of interchange between the three stations which is wrong as much as the typically over-enthusiastic plans for achieving it. At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating "out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware of it; the walking distances involved are less than many same-station interchanges in Central London. Rather than building one dirty great station, what is needed is improved pedestrian links between them where possible; if/when the NLL and LU/NR bridges at the two southern stations are replaced then there should be no excuse for not incorporating pedestrian routes at that time if not already done as e.g. a partial or complete footbridge/tunnel route from West Hampstead LU via West End Lane station to West Hampstead Midland. I agree that the grandiose solutions being proposed to solve this non-problem were ludicrous. *But there is one major obstacle to a full interchange, and that is the lack of Chiltern Line platforms. Not that Chiltern Railways would be interested. *The last thing Chiltern needs is another stop further extending journey times just to benefit a very small number of passengers. The abolition of the long-established failure by assorted parties to admit that LU are not the only railway operators in Greater London would also be a lot of help. I think a recognition that Chiltern's primary role does not include operating suburban services within London would help a lot more. IIRC Chiltern considered operating a Metro-style service, but the plans were dropped, presumeably because of the low-return on investment expected. Significant enhancements would be required in order to enable Chiltern to maintain a high-frequency metro service in addition to their relatively high-speed long distance services. I agree that a grandiose solution is not necessary, the fact is that West Hampstead (Overground)* and West Hampstead (Underground) are a fixed distance apart, and a tunnel/bridge will not reduce this distance. There have already been some enhancements to the walking route including traffic light crossings and better signage. If I remember correctly there were also concerns that the aforementioned bridge/tunnel could become a hub for crime because of its secluded nature and relatively low footfalls - it might actually be "safer" to keep the walking route to the road. Bearing all of that in mind, I do think that Chiltern and London Underground/Overground/Thameslink would benefit from an investment in Chiltern and Metropolitan line platforms. Not only would you enable journeys between the Chiltern line and Thameslink/Overground it would also ease pressures on Marylebone's Bakerloo Line station by enabling interchange with Metropolitan and Jubilee line services. Chiltern platforms at Finchley Road would have similar outcomes at lower costs, but not benefit from connections to Thameslink/Overground. There is no space for Chiltern and Metropolitan Platforms at West Hampstead. However, allowing Thameslink passengers easy access the West End (thru the Jubilee Line), and the orbital services provided by London Overground would be very worthwhile. It would certainly offer an alternative to the crowded Marylebone Road/Euston Road interchanges. Our self-righteous refugee from the 1960s havers on about demand. He seems blind to the fact that in his "golden age" the North London Line, et al was being run down. Look at the Overground today. Passenger convenience is improved as routes are improved or re-opened and new interchanges created. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 4, 9:00*am, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Charles Ellson" wrote The Chiltern services are not really suitable for the short-distance journeys that could be expected in the peaks if they stopped at West Hampstead. It could be different outwith the peaks and/or at weekends. Another snag might also lie with what space might or might not be available for the platforms to be reinstated. There have never been platforms serving the Great Central (now Chiltern) tracks at any station south of Harrow-on-the-Hill, As was the agreement between the boards of the two railways when the MS&L Ry London Extension was constructed. so nothing to 'reinstate'. Did the Met station at West Hampstead have four platforms during the period 1913 (when it was quadrupled) and 1939 (when the Bakerloo took over the central pair of tracks)? Lords, Saint Johns Wood, and Finchley Road were of course double track. I do not know if the formation widened to four tracks at, or before, West Hampstead. I do recall seeing a photograph of a very bad crash at West Hampstead Met. Station. The platform, in the photograph, appears to be an island. Whether it was a single island, or, one of a pair, I do not know. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 4, 9:57 am, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 09:22:05 UTC+1, Bruce wrote: Charles Ellson wrote: Their service is the odd one out through West Hampstead. It is maybe a candidate for limited/non-stopping in peaks but otherwise providing a connection which ISTR has been done elsewhere to prevent overloading when near-parallel services are available. There's a flaw in your logic. Services are only overloaded in the peaks and, as you appear to agree, it would not be a good idea to foul up the Chiltern service with additional stops in the peaks, or at all. We're back to trainspotters' "lines on a map syndrome" again. Just because lines converge, or run parallel doesn't mean that you have to build an interchange. Chiltern Railways is NOT a London suburban train operating company. Providing an opportunity for Marylebone - West Hampstead journeys on Chiltern services is a very bad idea, one that deserves to be kicked into touch without any thought of it coming back into play. I think you're missing the point of the platforms. The primary purpose would be to enable passengers from all the other Chiltern line stations aside from Marylebone to change onto other routes at West Hampstead. This creates all sorts of opportunities as a result of the orbital Overground railway. There may be some interchange in the opposite direction, but not many people at West Hampstead are going to want to travel to Marylebone - it's a small London terminus with only 1 tube connection, and not very conveniently located for the centre of London. You "get it". Polson does not. He lives in the age of the BMC Mini, Renting a (big plastic, tethered to the wall) telephone from the Post Office, and comrade Barbara, dismantling the railways. Chiltern Run a very good secondary service to Birmingham. But arguably Chiltern is also a suburban railway. Amersham, Aylesbury, Gerards Cross, et al, are for the most part London dormitories. Whilst I accept that Chiltern Railways is not primarily a London Suburban train operating company, it does operate commuter services which may benefit from an addition interchange opportunity at West Hampstead. Define "London Suburban TOC". No TOCs operate just within London, with the exception of LO, if that is still considered a TOC rather than part of TfL. Chiltern Railways have some quite long routes, but it's hardly particularly long distance. Chiltern fail to integrate well with London's railways on several counts. Just converting the Central Line at West Ruislip's to side platforms would enable many northwest bound passengers a simple cross platform change. By all means encourage interchange between the routes that *do* have platforms at West Hampstead, but don't ruin a good service on Chiltern by inserting unnecessary stops. But you're not going to reduce any journey times by building some fancy tunnel/bridge solution between the different stations - the walking time won't be any different. OK maybe you'll save a few seconds of barrier time, but that's about it. Does West Hampstead (Thameslink) even have barriers? Chiltern's services have improved, but they're still not that high-speed relative to VT, I don't see any major problem with an additional stop. If Liverpool Street services can all stop at Stratford, then why shouldn't Chiltern services call at West Hampstead, providing useful connections to many other lines. Assuming the tracks could be realigned, there are many potential benefits of new platforms at West Hampstead. If you want a fast journey to Birmingham, use VT, or wait for HS2 ;-) But anyway, we're wasting time, Chiltern have decided not to pursue it, for whatever reason, so it's probably not going to happen. You are so right. In truth squeezing Chiltern platforms into West Hampstead would not be easy, or inexpensive. That aside, there are still plenty of interchange opportunities at West Hampstead. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
... ... At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating "out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware of it... It will have that already - I believe TfL just need to explain OSIs much more clearly than they do at the moment. Paul S |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 4, 7:37*pm, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 07:26:31 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: There is no space for Chiltern and Metropolitan Platforms at West Hampstead. *However, allowing Thameslink passengers easy access the West End (thru the Jubilee Line), and the orbital services provided by London Overground would be very worthwhile. *It would certainly offer an alternative to the crowded Marylebone Road/Euston Road interchanges. Whilst I am also of the opinion that Chiltern platforms at WH would be worth the cost, far more useful I suspect would be a rebuild for Met platforms (I'm thinking islands as at WP & FR), with the current ones at FR skipped.. The Met stopping at FR can only interchange with the Jubilee...but interchanging at WH....much more useful. On their own, Chiltern platforms probably don't stack up....but adding in an island for Chiltern whilst doing the rebuild for the Met kinda makes sense... But is there enough room to do this? IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 4, 8:13*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 19:37:54 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 07:26:31 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: There is no space for Chiltern and Metropolitan Platforms at West Hampstead. *However, allowing Thameslink passengers easy access the West End (thru the Jubilee Line), and the orbital services provided by London Overground would be very worthwhile. *It would certainly offer an alternative to the crowded Marylebone Road/Euston Road interchanges. Whilst I am also of the opinion that Chiltern platforms at WH would be worth the cost, far more useful I suspect would be a rebuild for Met platforms (I'm thinking islands as at WP & FR), with the current ones at FR skipped. The Met stopping at FR can only interchange with the Jubilee...but interchanging at WH....much more useful. On their own, Chiltern platforms probably don't stack up....but adding in an island for Chiltern whilst doing the rebuild for the Met kinda makes sense... Whilst I agree that 2 stops in quick succession would not seem to make sense for the Metropolitan line, I don't know if the locals would be satisfied with any reduction in service at Finchley Road. In addition, Finchley Road is quite a major hub for buses (buses from Finchley Road:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaro...finchleyroad-2...) so any reduction in service could cause unwanted disruption for passengers using bus/tube to make their journey. West Hampstead, although a major rail hub, only has 2 bus routes (buses from West Hampstead:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaro...hampstead-...). So I would suggest keeping the Metropolitan line at Finchley Road for the reasons given above. Interchange between Metropolitan and Overground is already do-able via Finchley Road and Frognal, although the walk is closer to 10 minutes rather than 5. Even if the cost of the platforms could be found from somewhere, the cost of the works would be significantly increased because the width of the railway lines is constrained by the bridge to the West. Your guess is as good as mine as to whether there is enough room for 3 island platforms:http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=skr...&dir=90.19&sty... That's not even considering any land-take that might be required to the North or South of the station. I suppose if land-take was going to be significantly expensive, then you could just put the Chiltern lines in tunnels below the Jub/Met lines, but that wouldn't exactly be cheap. Replacing the cutting sides with retaining walls might do it. Otherwise homes and businesses would have top be purchased. I can understand why Chiltern didn't pursue this... :-) |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012 18:21:42 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote in message .. . ... At a most basic level all that is needed is a properly-operating "out of station" interchange arrangement but that would be greatly helped if all the people capable of using the interchange were aware of it... It will have that already - I believe TfL just need to explain OSIs much more clearly than they do at the moment. That would not be enough for the many passengers who would be unfamiliar with the locality or who would not wish to leave the perceived safety/comfort of a contained interchange. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
|
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 5, 2:39*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. Looking at the aerial photography, I would suggest that it might On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. Looking at the aerial photographs (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=skq...=183.09&st...), I think I might have a slightly better solution. If the station was to be relocated to the West of the bridge, land take could probably take place to the North and the South of the new station - and the close proximity to the London Overground platforms would make a station interchange somewhat shorter. Removing the turn-back sidings would free up space for some of the island platforms, and the lines could be realigned without requiring any changes to the bridge. It looks like there is potential for retaining walls to the West of the bridge, as suggested before. Seehttp://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.54695933837645~-0.192700713872904...andhttp://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampstead,+uk&hl=en&ll=51.546779,-0.191... If TfL, etc. were going to build this interchange, this would be the way to go. Having platforms closer to the Overground has its attractions. However, having given it some though, I question the value of stopping Chiltern trains at West Hampstead. The Jubilee Line parallels the Bakerloo across the West End. Passengers for Kings Cross Saint Pancras, or the City can change elsewhere for the Metropolitan. That leaves Interchange with the orbital Overground. This is attractive. But, alone it does not make a compelling case for major reconstruction. By all means improve the interchange between the Jubilee, Overground, and Thameslink. This could probably be paid for by developing and renting out the air space above the stations. There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and residential development. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 5, 8:47*am, wrote:
In article , (Charles Ellson) wrote: Never mind all the diversions. Did the tunnelling actually start on 21st March? I cannot give you a definite answer. I have read that the TBMs have been "launched"!. Perhaps some of our commuting contributors have report back on their visuals. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 6, 8:40*am, Mark Goodge
wrote: On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 08:35:59 -0700 (PDT), D DB 90001 put finger to keyboard and typed: On Thursday, 5 April 2012 15:34:12 UTC+1, Chris J Dixon *wrote: D DB 90001 wrote: Looking at the aerial photographs (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=skq...=183.09&st...), I think I might have a slightly better solution. If the station was to be relocated to the West of the bridge, land take could probably take place to the North and the South of the new station - and the close proximity to the London Overground platforms would make a station interchange somewhat shorter. Removing the turn-back sidings would free up space for some of the island platforms, and the lines could be realigned without requiring any changes to the bridge. It looks like there is potential for retaining walls to the West of the bridge, as suggested before. Seehttp://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.54695933837645~-0.192700713872904...and http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampst....546779,-0.191... Any chance you could manage to limit yourself to a reasonable line length, it gets really difficult to read. I guess Google is the culprit, but others seem to fight it into submission.. My apologies. I think it's because of my 22 inch monitor which seems to make the lines very long when I'm in full screen mode. Although No; it's a known bug in the new version of Google Groups. You can fix it by going back to the old version. Does any one actually like the new Google Groups? I fail to see any andantage. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 5, 7:57*pm, D DB 90001 wrote:
On Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:29:45 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: On Apr 5, 2:39*pm, D DB 90001 wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. Looking at the aerial photography, I would suggest that it might On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. Looking at the aerial photographs (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=skq...=183.09&st...), I think I might have a slightly better solution. If the station was to be relocated to the West of the bridge, land take could probably take place to the North and the South of the new station - and the close proximity to the London Overground platforms would make a station interchange somewhat shorter. Removing the turn-back sidings would free up space for some of the island platforms, and the lines could be realigned without requiring any changes to the bridge. It looks like there is potential for retaining walls to the West of the bridge, as suggested before. Seehttp://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.54695933837645~-0.192700713872904...... If TfL, etc. were going to build this interchange, this would be the way to go. *Having platforms closer to the Overground has its attractions. However, having given it some though, I question the value of stopping Chiltern trains at West Hampstead. *The Jubilee Line parallels the Bakerloo across the West End. *Passengers for Kings Cross Saint Pancras, or the City can change elsewhere for the Metropolitan. That is of course true, but access to these locations would be via overcrowded central stations such as Oxford Circus or (to a lesser extent) Baker Street. Rather than having to spend large amounts of money increasing capacity at Oxford Circus (which admittedly will need doing to some extent), it may be a more affordable option to re-build West Hampstead as suggested here. That leaves Interchange with the orbital Overground. *This is attractive. *But, alone it does not make a compelling case for major reconstruction. I would argue *very* attractive, the Overground has been a phenomenal success and provides great connectivity and at the same time avoids central London. Journeys that wouldn't previously have been considered because of large numbers of changes will be made possible. This would benefit TfL and Chiltern, enabling more direct journeys, and easing pressure on central London.. By all means improve the interchange between the Jubilee, Overground, and Thameslink. *This could probably be paid for by developing and renting out the air space above the stations. Compulsory purchase is great isn't it. TfL or Network Rail force people to sell their businesses and then lease new properties probably at a much higher rate and make large amounts of money that can be ploughed back into the railways. Good stuff ;-) There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and residential development. Is it not the local, or county, authority that exercise eminent domain (compulsory purchase)? TfF, Network rail are the beneficiaries? |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 05/04/12 17:29, 77002 wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:39 pm, D DB 90001 wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie Thompson wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 wrote: But is there enough room to do this? IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. While I can imagine trains from Wycombe, Banbury and maybe Aylesbury stopping at West Hampstead, I can't say the same for those from Birmingham. That would be no more likely than trains from Leeds stopping at Finsbury Park, from Birmingham at Willesden Junction or from Leicester at West Hampstead. Oh, and Jamie, please could you try to persuade Google to wrap your lines properly? snip However, having given it some though, I question the value of stopping Chiltern trains at West Hampstead. The Jubilee Line parallels the Bakerloo across the West End. Passengers for Kings Cross Saint Pancras, or the City can change elsewhere for the Metropolitan. Where? Roger |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Apr 6, 10:52*am, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 05/04/12 17:29, 77002 wrote: On Apr 5, 2:39 pm, D DB 90001 wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. While I can imagine trains from Wycombe, Banbury and maybe Aylesbury stopping at West Hampstead, I can't say the same for those from Birmingham. That would be no more likely than trains from Leeds stopping at Finsbury Park, from Birmingham at Willesden Junction or from Leicester at West Hampstead. Oh, and Jamie, please could you try to persuade Google to wrap your lines properly? snip However, having given it some though, I question the value of stopping Chiltern trains at West Hampstead. *The Jubilee Line parallels the Bakerloo across the West End. *Passengers for Kings Cross Saint Pancras, or the City can change elsewhere for the Metropolitan. Where? Harrow-on-the-Hill, or walk from Marylebone to Baker Street. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On 06/04/12 17:10, 77002 wrote:
On Apr 6, 10:52 am, Roger Lynn wrote: On 05/04/12 17:29, 77002 wrote: However, having given it some though, I question the value of stopping Chiltern trains at West Hampstead. The Jubilee Line parallels the Bakerloo across the West End. Passengers for Kings Cross Saint Pancras, or the City can change elsewhere for the Metropolitan. Where? Harrow-on-the-Hill, or walk from Marylebone to Baker Street. Most Chiltern services don't pass through Harrow and we keep being told that Moor Street to New Street, which is equivalent to Marylebone to Baker Street, is impossible for most people. Roger |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 02:01:56 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote: On Apr 5, 7:57*pm, D DB 90001 wrote: On Thursday, 5 April 2012 17:29:45 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: On Apr 5, 2:39*pm, D DB 90001 wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. Looking at the aerial photography, I would suggest that it might On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 23:39:00 UTC+1, Jamie *Thompson *wrote: On Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:12:02 UTC+1, 77002 *wrote: But is there enough room to do this? *IIRC the line (GC, Met, Jubilee) is in something of a cutting at this point. If you consider that curvature is less of a problem at low speed, and that trains that will be stopping (i.e. all of them) will be at low speed, then things get much easier. The bridge is the primary issue, no doubt. My first stab at things considers that land take to the north is viable I think. This would enable the southbound Chiltern Line (and the gap to the current northbound met line) to be converted to a platform, with the northbound Met line serving as it's replacement. The northbound Jubilee would be used by the northbound Met, with the southbound Jubilee becoming the northbound Jubilee. The southbound Met then becomes the southbound Jubilee, and we build an island and new southbound Met track (with the required bridge works greatly reduced from a full rebuild) to the north of the current lines. Voila. Looking at the aerial photographs (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=skq...=183.09&st...), I think I might have a slightly better solution. If the station was to be relocated to the West of the bridge, land take could probably take place to the North and the South of the new station - and the close proximity to the London Overground platforms would make a station interchange somewhat shorter. Removing the turn-back sidings would free up space for some of the island platforms, and the lines could be realigned without requiring any changes to the bridge. It looks like there is potential for retaining walls to the West of the bridge, as suggested before. Seehttp://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=51.54695933837645~-0.192700713872904...... If TfL, etc. were going to build this interchange, this would be the way to go. *Having platforms closer to the Overground has its attractions. However, having given it some though, I question the value of stopping Chiltern trains at West Hampstead. *The Jubilee Line parallels the Bakerloo across the West End. *Passengers for Kings Cross Saint Pancras, or the City can change elsewhere for the Metropolitan. That is of course true, but access to these locations would be via overcrowded central stations such as Oxford Circus or (to a lesser extent) Baker Street. Rather than having to spend large amounts of money increasing capacity at Oxford Circus (which admittedly will need doing to some extent), it may be a more affordable option to re-build West Hampstead as suggested here. That leaves Interchange with the orbital Overground. *This is attractive. *But, alone it does not make a compelling case for major reconstruction. I would argue *very* attractive, the Overground has been a phenomenal success and provides great connectivity and at the same time avoids central London. Journeys that wouldn't previously have been considered because of large numbers of changes will be made possible. This would benefit TfL and Chiltern, enabling more direct journeys, and easing pressure on central London. By all means improve the interchange between the Jubilee, Overground, and Thameslink. *This could probably be paid for by developing and renting out the air space above the stations. Compulsory purchase is great isn't it. TfL or Network Rail force people to sell their businesses and then lease new properties probably at a much higher rate and make large amounts of money that can be ploughed back into the railways. Good stuff ;-) There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and residential development. Is it not the local, or county, authority that exercise eminent domain (compulsory purchase)? TfF, Network rail are the beneficiaries? Compulsory purchase powers are available to local and national government and to various other bodies under a range of legislation and for varying purposes. Property will not always pass by purchase, e.g. some of my drains are now the property (along with responsibility for repair and upkeep) of the local water company due to recent legislation affecting common drains. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
77002 wrote
There is ample space for a worthwhile retail, office and residential development. Is it not the local, or county, authority that exercise eminent domain (compulsory purchase)? TfF, Network rail are the beneficiaries? Too US-centric an assumption. Recall that the trad means of constructing a new UK railway was to promote a private act of parliament which allowed compulsory purchase as needed by a new or existing company. So it might be TfL or Network Rail or a specially set up company, under court and Dept of Transport supervision. Same for a pipeline or a toll motorway. -- Mike D |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message , at 23:03:20 on
Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: Compulsory purchase powers are available to local and national government and to various other bodies under a range of legislation and for varying purposes. Property will not always pass by purchase, e.g. some of my drains are now the property (along with responsibility for repair and upkeep) of the local water company due to recent legislation affecting common drains. The correct term is "sewer", not "drain". And when the ownership is transferred, do the water company also own any relevant manholes and manhole covers, or just the pipes? Out of interest, before the transfer, did detached houses own (in a property sense) the pipe under the pavement and road connecting to the public sewer - because they were responsible for it. I don't remember them being "shown in red" on my deeds. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message 01cd1440$d8aa14e0$LocalHost@default, at 00:51:29 on Sat, 7
Apr 2012, Michael R N Dolbear remarked: Is it not the local, or county, authority that exercise eminent domain (compulsory purchase)? TfF, Network rail are the beneficiaries? Too US-centric an assumption. Recall that the trad means of constructing a new UK railway was to promote a private act of parliament which allowed compulsory purchase as needed by a new or existing company. So it might be TfL or Network Rail or a specially set up company, under court and Dept of Transport supervision. Same for a pipeline or a toll motorway. In the UK it requires whoever is building the new road, tramway etc to obtain a TWA (Transport and Works Act) Order. Here is an application for one, from a train company: http://www.chiltern-evergreen3.co.uk/ -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
"Roland Perry" wrote Out of interest, before the transfer, did detached houses own (in a property sense) the pipe under the pavement and road connecting to the public sewer - because they were responsible for it. I don't remember them being "shown in red" on my deeds. That might depend on who owns the road. The highway authority of an adopted highway owns the surface, 'together with the materials and scrapings of it' (Highways Act 1980 s263) and may or may not own the subsoil, which may belong to the owner of the house, or to the developer who built the house. The owner of the house owned the pipe, and had an easement allowing him to keep it there, if he did not own the subsoil of the road. Easements are often not referred to in registers of title, merely being referred to as 'overriding interests'. Peter Peter |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 08:50:14 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 23:03:20 on Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: Compulsory purchase powers are available to local and national government and to various other bodies under a range of legislation and for varying purposes. Property will not always pass by purchase, e.g. some of my drains are now the property (along with responsibility for repair and upkeep) of the local water company due to recent legislation affecting common drains. The correct term is "sewer", not "drain". "Private sewers and lateral drains" it says here. "There are now only public sewers (owned and maintained by the sewerage companies) and private drains (the responsibility of property owners)." [http://www.southernwater.co.uk/Domes...rshipChanges/] And when the ownership is transferred, do the water company also own any relevant manholes and manhole covers, or just the pipes? I wondered about that myself. My water company doesn't seem to want to tell you (possibly because they don't deal with taking the waste away) but :- "Who owns inspection chambers? For transferred sewers, Southern Water will own manholes and inspection chambers (and covers). Householders will generally be responsible for inspection chambers on drains, but water companies will typically need access to the chamber at the head of the lateral drain (the first one inside the property boundary)." [http://www.southernwater.co.uk/Domes...shipQandA.asp] So, in my case I've only got a couple of short bits of pipe to worry about as the rest is common. Out of interest, before the transfer, did detached houses own (in a property sense) the pipe under the pavement and road connecting to the public sewer - because they were responsible for it. The Thames Water leaflet [http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde...une_-2011.pdf] shows them as private up to the point where they join the main sewer/drain but I think they have ignored a difference mentioned by Southern Water for those existing before 1937. When local authorities were still clearing blockages, the common pipe in my mother's back garden (blocked by disposable nappies from a neighbour) was always cleared without charge, the house being built around 1925. I don't remember them being "shown in red" on my deeds. They are usually covered in the sections dealing with easements and covenants as IMU a common drain or neighbour's drain does not involve ownership of the land space through which it passes but the right to put the drain through the land; the location is IME not usually specified and it is maybe not a good idea to do it except when it becomes a genuine necessity. As there is no land ownership then there is no property to be marked. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message , at 20:45:44 on
Sat, 7 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: Compulsory purchase powers are available to local and national government and to various other bodies under a range of legislation and for varying purposes. Property will not always pass by purchase, e.g. some of my drains are now the property (along with responsibility for repair and upkeep) of the local water company due to recent legislation affecting common drains. The correct term is "sewer", not "drain". "Private sewers and lateral drains" it says here. Exactly. That's the terminology which has no space for the concept of "common drains". "Who owns inspection chambers? For transferred sewers, Southern Water will own manholes and inspection chambers (and covers). Householders will generally be responsible for inspection chambers on drains, but water companies will typically need access to the chamber at the head of the lateral drain (the first one inside the property boundary)." [http://www.southernwater.co.uk/Domes...shipQandA.asp] So, in my case I've only got a couple of short bits of pipe to worry about as the rest is common. In my previous 1920's house there were two of the large rectangular pressed steel manhole covers in my drive. The one nearest the road was already the water company's responsibility and the other remains the householder's responsibility. I wonder how big a dent in the cover is required before you can require the water company to replace them? -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 09:37:43 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 20:45:44 on Sat, 7 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: Compulsory purchase powers are available to local and national government and to various other bodies under a range of legislation and for varying purposes. Property will not always pass by purchase, e.g. some of my drains are now the property (along with responsibility for repair and upkeep) of the local water company due to recent legislation affecting common drains. The correct term is "sewer", not "drain". "Private sewers and lateral drains" it says here. Exactly. That's the terminology which has no space for the concept of "common drains". The description two above ignores the different treatment of common and non-shared drains so there is a dirty great interpretative hole available to put "common drains" in. The phrase "common drain" might (or might not?) be missing from the water/sewerage companies' leaflets but it certainly isn't from e.g. planning matters :- "Extension is shown to be constructed above a common drain and will required the relocation of the existing manhole and SVP." [Burgh of Brent planning report case 10/1812] "Who owns inspection chambers? For transferred sewers, Southern Water will own manholes and inspection chambers (and covers). Householders will generally be responsible for inspection chambers on drains, but water companies will typically need access to the chamber at the head of the lateral drain (the first one inside the property boundary)." [http://www.southernwater.co.uk/Domes...shipQandA.asp] So, in my case I've only got a couple of short bits of pipe to worry about as the rest is common. In my previous 1920's house there were two of the large rectangular pressed steel manhole covers in my drive. The one nearest the road was already the water company's responsibility and the other remains the householder's responsibility. I wonder how big a dent in the cover is required before you can require the water company to replace them? pedant sewerage company /pedant (one all ?) |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message , at 23:02:35 on
Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: Compulsory purchase powers are available to local and national government and to various other bodies under a range of legislation and for varying purposes. Property will not always pass by purchase, e.g. some of my drains are now the property (along with responsibility for repair and upkeep) of the local water company due to recent legislation affecting common drains. The correct term is "sewer", not "drain". "Private sewers and lateral drains" it says here. Exactly. That's the terminology which has no space for the concept of "common drains". The description two above ignores the different treatment of common and non-shared drains so there is a dirty great interpretative hole available to put "common drains" in. Common Drain is an oxymoron, because as soon as it's shared it becomes a sewer. The phrase "common drain" might (or might not?) be missing from the water/sewerage companies' leaflets but it certainly isn't from e.g. planning matters :- "Extension is shown to be constructed above a common drain and will required the relocation of the existing manhole and SVP." [Burgh of Brent planning report case 10/1812] Congratulations, you've found a planning document with a mistake in it. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message , at 23:02:35 on
Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: In my previous 1920's house there were two of the large rectangular pressed steel manhole covers in my drive. The one nearest the road was already the water company's responsibility and the other remains the householder's responsibility. I wonder how big a dent in the cover is required before you can require the water company to replace them? pedant sewerage company /pedant (one all ?) No, because both were the responsibility of the same company - Severn Trent Water. -- Roland Perry |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 08:01:52 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 23:02:35 on Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: In my previous 1920's house there were two of the large rectangular pressed steel manhole covers in my drive. The one nearest the road was already the water company's responsibility and the other remains the householder's responsibility. I wonder how big a dent in the cover is required before you can require the water company to replace them? pedant sewerage company /pedant (one all ?) No, because both were the responsibility of the same company - Severn Trent Water. Which is both a sewerage and a water company; the distinction is important when they connect their pipework to your house. In my case two different companies are involved. |
Crossrail tunnelling to start shortly
In message , at 00:24:07 on
Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Charles Ellson remarked: In my previous 1920's house there were two of the large rectangular pressed steel manhole covers in my drive. The one nearest the road was already the water company's responsibility and the other remains the householder's responsibility. I wonder how big a dent in the cover is required before you can require the water company to replace them? pedant sewerage company /pedant (one all ?) No, because both were the responsibility of the same company - Severn Trent Water. Which is both a sewerage and a water company; They call themselves "Severn Trent Water", not "Severn Trent Water and Sewerage" or "Severn Trent Sewerage". Therefore it's polite (as well as correct) to refer to them as they refer to themselves - a water company. the distinction is important when they connect their pipework to your house. Not in my case. In my case two different companies are involved. And you made an erroneous assumption that the same applied to myself. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk