"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 06/12/2012 12:55, 77002 wrote:
After WWII several studies were done on the future transportation need
of the London region. One of the few tangible results of these
studies was the Victoria Line.

And the Jubilee line,

The current Jubilee line is not the one planned in the 60s

tim

On 06/12/2012 14:37, tim..... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 06/12/2012 12:55, 77002 wrote:
After WWII several studies were done on the future transportation need
of the London region. One of the few tangible results of these
studies was the Victoria Line.

And the Jubilee line,

The current Jubilee line is not the one planned in the 60s


It is as far as Trafalgar Square…

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On 2012\12\05 23:54, Paul Corfield wrote:

The cynic in me says that the Mayor has been mesmerised by the allure
of a "big development" going ahead on his watch.

Cynic? Sorry Paul, but I find your view hilariously positive.

After years of various taxi driver groups demanding an external review
of TfL's pro-minicab bias, and getting nowhere, Addison Lee boss John
Griffin recently asked for an external review of TfL's pro-taxi bias and
Deloitte were instantly commissioned to perform such a review, despite
the fact that Griffin's recent order to its drivers to break the law
forced TfL bosses to issue notices on a Sunday and then gain a court
injunction against him. Addison Lee is of course a donor to the Tory
Party and specifically to Boris's last campaign, and famously said
"Politicians are not running the country. Businessmen are. They are the
housewives. We give them the money."

That's the way the Tory party works - if you give a few thousand quid to
the Tories, they will take billions from the mugs who voted for them and
divert it to your cause. If Boris has suddenly decided that a billion
pounds of public money should be spent on improving the value of some
private development, I seriously doubt any mesmerising has occurred. I
would bet that a few thousand have gone to the Tories either from the
developer or from some civil engineering company.

On 06/12/2012 14:09, d wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:55:37 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area.

The Victoria Line filled a strategic gap in the subway network. Its

Shame it didn't go further south.

It did, but not by much, the original southern terminus was Victoria.

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some

Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.
A Thamesmead terminues as originally planned would have opened up a whole
new area along the thames.

Now we come to the Northern Line extension to Battersea.

Believe me, once a tube station is built developers will be climbing over
each other to get projects approved there. Thats how london expanded in
the 1930s - Cockfosters for example used to be a quiet little village, now
look at it.

There are already approved plans for a great deal of the area. Embassy
Gardens either side of the new US Embassy, and Riverlight are in the
process of building. Nine Elms Parkside on the Royal Mail site has
planning permission.
--
Phil Cook

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:25:10 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
That's the way the Tory party works - if you give a few thousand quid to

Its the way ALL parties work otherwise there wouldn't be any. They need to get
their money from somewhere. The Tories mix with big business, Labour with the
unions and the Liberal Dufflecoats with Guardian readers. Who probably donate
organic mung beans to the cause. The only solution is for each party to
get a fixed donation of public funds, but then you'll have to hand out money
to any party of unpleasents bigots who stands at an election such as the BNP,
Respect , various Marxist agitprop groups etc. And what about independents?
It all gets very complicated.

B2003

d wrote:

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some

Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.

It provides a direct link from east to south London, starting from east
London's biggest non-interchange station. It provides much needed pressure
relief for the DLR. It regularly fills up before it first hits the Thames.
How is that not useful?

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 21:39:14 -0000
"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote:
wrote:

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some

Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.

It provides a direct link from east to south London, starting from east

Which is probably used by no one. I suspect the vast majority of people who
get on at stratford get off at canary wharf.

London's biggest non-interchange station. It provides much needed pressure
relief for the DLR. It regularly fills up before it first hits the Thames.
How is that not useful?

I'm sure it is useful to some, but it would have been a damn site more useful
if it had opened up a whole new suburb rather than terminating somewhere
that already has more railway lines than it knows what to do with. With 3
car trains I'm pretty sure the DLR would be quite able to cope with the
loading from Stratford in the rush hour. If the tube builders 100 years ago
had thought the same way as the JLE route designers then half of north london
wouldn't exist in its present form. Cockfosters? Who wants to go there , lets
send the piccadilly line to tottenham instead. Edgware? Nothing there, we'll
terminate at Kilburn - good interchange with the Bakerloo! Etc.

B2003

On 6 Dec, 15:49, Phil Cook wrote:
On 06/12/2012 14:09, wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:55:37 -0800 (PST)
77002 wrote:
Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area.
The Victoria Line filled a strategic gap in the subway network. *Its

Shame it didn't go further south.

It did, but not by much, the original southern terminus was Victoria.

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: *This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some

Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.
A Thamesmead terminues as originally planned would have opened up a whole
new area along the thames.

Now we come to the Northern Line extension to Battersea.
Believe me, once a tube station is built developers will be climbing over
each other to get projects approved there. Thats how london expanded in
the 1930s - Cockfosters for example used to be a quiet little village, now
look at it.

There are already approved plans for a great deal of the area. Embassy
Gardens either side of the new US Embassy, and Riverlight are in the
process of building. Nine Elms Parkside on the Royal Mail site has
planning permission.

So no actual TODs then.

On 6 Dec, 21:39, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
wrote:
Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: *This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some
Useful until it heads of to stratford pointlessly duplicating the DLR.

It provides a direct link from east to south London, starting from east
London's biggest non-interchange station. It provides much needed pressure
relief for the DLR. It regularly fills up before it first hits the Thames..
How is that not useful?

A role which previously the North London line filled. The Jubilee
Line is an expensive replacement. By now the North London Line to
Docklands would have been an Overground Link.

It would have been far better to take the Jubilee Line on to
Thamesmead and extended the North London Line under the Thames in
order to interchange with the North Kent routes to Dartford et al.

When I first saw the plans for extending the Jubilee Line, I thought
the route to Stratford was wrong and nothing since has changed my
mind.

On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:09:58PM +0000, Anthony Polson wrote:

If you take into account all the Government help, from derelict land
grants for cleaning up the subsoil through all the sweeteners for
developers to paying £1 billion for the extension of the Northern
Line, one has to wonder whether the outlay of taxpayers' money will
ever be recouped.

Does it have to be recouped? Government isn't meant to be about making
a profit, and especially not about making a profit on every project.
IMO government should exist solely to correct the failures of the free
market. Law and order, for example, can't be left to the free market
for obvious reasons. Nor can most large scale infrastructure projects,
either because the capital requirement is too great, or it's too
difficult to get the necessary rights of way, or the pay-off is too far
in the future.

I can think of only one railway in this country that was built without
government help, that being the Snowdon Mountain Railway. All the
others were either funded partially by government, or were at least
helped on their way with private acts of parliament which granted the
companies various powers.

None of which, of course, says that the Battersea extension is actually
worth building :-)

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

You are so cynical. And by "cynical", of course, I mean "correct".
-- Kurt Starsinic