Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
*From the Chancellors autumn statement, *I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.
--
Phil Cook

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 05/12/2012 14:50, Phil Cook wrote:
On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.

Also having a little more than the Kennington loop to take pressure off
the point where the two branches join can only be a good thing if the
longer term plan is to run more services and potentially split the
branches to remove contention there and at the flat junction at Camden.

Or am I missing something?

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social, but is your (77002)
single line statement an ideological point otherwise?

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

Phil Cook wrote:

On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
From the Chancellors autumn statement, I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?


The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.


I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

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.

I have to say that I agree with Adrian. If the development was
anywhere as near as profitable as its protagonists suggest, there
wouldn't need to be a penny of taxpayers' money supporting it.

No doubt some politicians will stand to benefit from their support of
this scheme using OUR money. Perhaps they should be using their own
money instead?

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

Someone Somewhere wrote:

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social


The Coalition recently announced that the binding targets for
affordable housing would be dropped.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.

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.

Has the money spent on the JLE been recouped? Or any tube line? How do you
propose to measure it?

B2003

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:36:17 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.

Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area.

B2003

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 05/12/2012 16:36, Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.


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.

Mr Osborne announced: “As one of the first projects to benefit from this
scheme, the Government will provide a UK Guarantee to allow the Mayor of
London to borrow £1 billion at a new preferential rate to support the
Northern Line Extension to Battersea scheme, subject to due diligence
and the agreement of a binding Funding and Development Agreement with
developers, the Mayor of London and partner authorities during 2013.

“The Northern Line extension to Battersea is key to the redevelopment of
Battersea Power Station and the regeneration of an historic part of London.

"Government intervention has the potential to enable an £8 billion
investment at the Battersea Power Station site, supporting the wider
redevelopment planned for Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea."

--
Phil Cook

It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development
will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.

There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

Phil Cook wrote:
On 05/12/2012 16:36, Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.


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.

Mr Osborne announced: “As one of the first projects to benefit from this
scheme, the Government will provide a UK Guarantee to allow the Mayor of
London to borrow £1 billion at a new preferential rate to support the
Northern Line Extension to Battersea scheme, subject to due diligence
and the agreement of a binding Funding and Development Agreement with
developers, the Mayor of London and partner authorities during 2013.

“The Northern Line extension to Battersea is key to the redevelopment of
Battersea Power Station and the regeneration of an historic part of London.

"Government intervention has the potential to enable an £8 billion
investment at the Battersea Power Station site, supporting the wider
redevelopment planned for Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea."


What relevance has any of that to whether the taxpayers' £1 billion
will ever be recouped?

When there are plenty of proposed capital projects with benefit/cost
ratios of 2.0 or greater waiting for Treasury funding, projects that
will benefit the nation as a whole, why on earth is £1 billion of
taxpayers' money going to be spent on supporting a private developer's
pipe dream?

Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

The already-rich people of Battersea must be laughing their rainbow-coloured 5-toed socks off at this free addition to their house value.

Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

Robin9 wrote:


Anthony Polson;134685 Wrote:



I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

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.



It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on
the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the
housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less
than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth
Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development

will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using
this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.


I agree with all of the above.


There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the
Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

"Anthony Polson" wrote in message
...
Phil Cook wrote:
On 05/12/2012 16:36, Anthony Polson wrote:
d wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't
just be
for the new estate.


Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.


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.

Mr Osborne announced: "As one of the first projects to benefit from this
scheme, the Government will provide a UK Guarantee to allow the Mayor of
London to borrow £1 billion at a new preferential rate to support the
Northern Line Extension to Battersea scheme, subject to due diligence
and the agreement of a binding Funding and Development Agreement with
developers, the Mayor of London and partner authorities during 2013.

"The Northern Line extension to Battersea is key to the redevelopment of
Battersea Power Station and the regeneration of an historic part of
London.

"Government intervention has the potential to enable an £8 billion
investment at the Battersea Power Station site, supporting the wider
redevelopment planned for Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea."


What relevance has any of that to whether the taxpayers' £1 billion
will ever be recouped?

ISTM that stamp duty (at 3 or 4%) on 8 billion pounds of house sales will go
some way towards it (250-300 milliion)

Not to mention the ongoing council tax collected from a site that is
currently derelict and paying nothing in local taxes

tim

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 5 Dec, 15:08, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 05/12/2012 14:50, Phil Cook wrote:

On 05/12/2012 14:15, 77002 wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:45, Someone Somewhere wrote:
* From the Chancellors autumn statement, *I guess it doesn't change the
fact that it will (eventually) be privately financed, but is the idea of
advancing a loan to the developer a new one?

The merits of this line are questionable even before the UK treasury
lends money it does not have.

Given the number of flats due to be built on the Nine Elms area, due to
be occupied by city types given the prices they are likely to fetch, I
can see some merit in it.

Also having a little more than the Kennington loop to take pressure off
the point where the two branches join can only be a good thing if the
longer term plan is to run more services and potentially split the
branches to remove contention there and at the flat junction at Camden.

Or am I missing something?

Of course I would expect a proportion of the housing to meet whatever
the agreed criteria is for affordable or social, *but is your (77002)
single line statement an ideological point otherwise?

Far from it: My Conservative views are no secret. However, the
United Kingdom's transportation networks fall so far short of what is
needed, that I believe we all need to rise above politics and seek
practical, affordable, commonsense solutions. Moreover, railways in
particular do not lend themselves to a political philosophy.

Add to that the equally dire housing shortage, and it behoves us all
not to pay politics with urban planning.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 5 Dec, 16:39, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:36:17 +0000





Anthony Polson wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.

Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. *Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.

Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area..

Is this true? I mean the area already has several railway stations.
And there is no effort being made to integrate the new extension into
the existing transportation infrastructure.

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.

The Victoria Line filled a strategic gap in the subway network. Its
axis was almost a stroke of genius. Add to that the interchanges with
the existing lines (some of them cross platform) and the route quickly
became an indispensible part of the everyday journey of millions of
users. Indeed the routes succeeded in knitting together disparate
parts of London's rail network.

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some
worthwhile interchanges. And, in compensation for the lack of
strategic planning, the Canary Wharf developer made a sizable
contribution to the Line's cost.

Now we come to the Northern Line extension to Battersea. There is no
strategy. There is just a developer's perceived need to a "tube"
connection. There is no guarantee that the urban development will be
completed.

If the line is intended to replace the two existing Battersea stations
(accelerating services into Victoria and Waterloo), and would then
continue to Clapham Junction (for interchange with the mainlines) it
might make some sort of sense. In its planned form it is an oversized
vanity project adding little to London's transportation network.

And, what of Battersea and Nine Elms as a whole? Is there a grand
vision here? Will the existing road system be abandoned in favor of a
modern grid? Are there attempts at future proofing? I mean will
there be easy access to the subsurface for future co-axes and fibre
optics, etc?

How about severe ToDs over, and around, the new stations? Perhaps
high rise residential accommodation, over commercial office space,
over retail. The density (and skyline) tapering off as distance from
the stations increases?

No? I thought not, just more expensive piecemeal renewal. One day
London will wonder why her role, as a financial center, has been
replaced by perhaps Singapore, Shanghai, and/or Brasilia.

It would be better to spend the money on a replacement for Camden Town
Northern Line station. That would at least allow splitting and
acceleration of the Northern Line.

Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 5 Dec, 18:10, Robin9 wrote:
Anthony Polson;134685 Wrote:



I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

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.

It is most unlikely that the taxpayer will ever see a sensible return on
the money.
The extension is going to serve a housing development. Behind the
housing
estate is the River Thames. Half a mile north is Vauxhall Station. Less
than
half a mile south are Battersea Park and Queenstown Road. Wandsworth
Road
and Clapham North Stations are not far away.

How many passengers who do not live in the proposed housing development

will use this extension? Not many. Will there be enough people using
this
extension to finance an adequate repayment of the loan? Most unlikely.

There is - or was - a much more worthwhile possible extension of the
Northern
Line from Kennington as I have explained before.

Excellent comments, and as I have commented elsewhere, rebuilding
Camden Town station would benefit far more passengers.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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, and Crossrail.

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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=
..

Is this true? I mean the area already has several railway stations.
And there is no effort being made to integrate the new extension into
the existing transportation infrastructure.

Does it need to? I can't see anyone changing onto the northern line at
battersea and trundling through south london when they can go one more stop
to victoria and be in the heart of west end with 2 stops of the victoria line.

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

Shame it didn't go further south.

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. There is no
strategy. There is just a developer's perceived need to a "tube"
connection. There is no guarantee that the urban development will be
completed.

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.

B2003

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

"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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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

Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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

Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

77002 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 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.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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

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

Not in my experience and I'm one of the many who use it for east to south
trips. Quite a lot get off at London Bridge or Waterloo whilst many others
travel further west. The same can be seen in reverse.

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.

Lining up to such a major interchange is pretty useful already. What suburb
would you have wanted to open up instead? West Silvertown is somewhat
physically constrained and much of the rest of Newham had rail or tube or
DLR links already.

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.

Have you seen the size of the loadings at Stratford at that time?

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.

At this stage the emphasis is largely on joining up the dots rather than
breaking new ground - the Victoria line kicked that off and the JLE followed
suit by going where the demand was.

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 7 Dec, 12:36, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:
77002 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 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.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

Which is why I believe the NLL needed to be diverted from Silvertown
and North Woolwich, and instead run under the Thames to an interchange
with the Dartford lines. There would nothing to prevent an
interchange staion with a Jubilee route to Thamesmead.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

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.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

Which is why I believe the NLL needed to be diverted from Silvertown
and North Woolwich, and instead run under the Thames to an interchange
with the Dartford lines. *There would nothing to prevent an
interchange staion with a Jubilee route to Thamesmead.

In my eyes, the ideal situation given hindsight would have been for
the NLL's Poplar branch to have been renovated and tunnelled under the
river as the DLR was and linked to a rebuilt Greenwich Park branch,
which would then run through to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye.
Likewise, there would have been little need to wait for Crossrail to
run from North Woolwich to Abbey Wood had the NLL been extended the
same way, with a service from the North Kent line running via Canning
Town and Stratford to the Goblin at South Tottenham, thence onward to
Willesden Junction and Richmond.

Given the demand between Stratford and Canary Wharf I believe a grade-
separated curve linking the two Crossrail branches would serve this
demand far better than the Jubilee line does, and it would enable more
use to be made of the capacity on the two branches (i.e. every train
to Canary Wharf from Whitechapel is a train to Shenfield that has to
use up capacity at Liverpool Street). Accordingly, the Jubilee could
then have it's branch to Thamesmead, with the DLR running alongside
the NLL up to Stratford.

....swinging back on topic, the Northern Line extension to Battersea
couldn't be more of a pig's ear if they tried, and funding it with a
loan is disgraceful. The capacity of the CX branch should be used to
extend south east, e.g. down to Crystal Palace via Loughborough
Junction, Herne Hill et. al. en route to the Hayes branch. A major
redevelopment of the drain (including lengthening the existing Bank
platforms to 8 car length and building new ones at Waterloo) would be
the ideal way to serve the Battersea area, with stations at Bank,
Blackfriars, Waterloo, Lambeth, Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea Park,
Battersea High Street and Clapham Junction, with depot facilities
provided by London Road (the Bakerloo getting a new depot on its own
southern extension.)

Even if you accept that the drain proposal above is dependant on the
Bakerloo works to free up London Road, then simply building Clapham
Junction to Vauxhall then linking to Kennington is the way to do
things for the time being so you can just reuse the infrastructure
later in doing things properly. Likewise, the reasons given for not
interchanging with Vauxhall are bunk of the highest order. Routing the
line as required and hollowing out the platform tunnels is all that is
needed for passive provision until Crossrail 2 relieves the Victoria
line enough to permit the interchange being brought into use.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 07/12/2012 17:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
..swinging back on topic, the Northern Line extension to Battersea
couldn't be more of a pig's ear if they tried, and funding it with a
loan is disgraceful.

How else are you going to fund it?

The capacity of the CX branch should be used to
extend south east, e.g. down to Crystal Palace via Loughborough
Junction, Herne Hill et. al. en route to the Hayes branch. A major
r

IIRC Crystal Palace et al already have a railway service.

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On Dec 7, 5:59*pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
How else are you going to fund it?

From the developers whom will reap the financial benefits perhaps? I'm
not against a loan in the general per se, just against a taxpayer-
subsidised and guaranteed one, especially given the site's history of
financial imploding.

IIRC Crystal Palace et al already have a railway service.
It does indeed, however it operates on a two track railway that has to
be shared with longer-distance suburban services. Compare and contrast
the service provision of Crystal Palace and Hendon Central, both zone
3/4 stations...not to mention that removing the current services from
their respective termini frees up capacity there.

The emphasis certainly should be on joining up the dots. Unfortunately
the people who make the decisions seem to be totally unaware of how
that would benefit London. The second major failing of this Battersea scheme
is that is does not link up with other routes.

My particular obsession - an extension from Kennington to Clapham Junction
- would most definitely "join up the dots" as would other obvious - to practical
people - proposals like extending the Bakerloo Line to Peckham Rye and the
Victoria Line to Leytonstone.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 07/12/2012 18:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:59 pm, Graeme wrote:
How else are you going to fund it?

From the developers whom will reap the financial benefits perhaps? I'm
not against a loan in the general per se, just against a taxpayer-
subsidised and guaranteed one, especially given the site's history of
financial imploding.

So best not to invest in some wastrel scheme to redevelop old docks the
other end of London then? After all the docks business imploded.

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

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 7 Dec, 09:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
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.

The North London Line in that part of town was okay if you wanted to go to
north London and if you could bear the infrequent service it was fine for
Silvertown and North Woolwich. But it was utterly useless for getting from
Stratford/West Ham/Canning Town to places south of the river. The
development in the docks was not adequately served - even three car DLR
trains are still slow (and the Waterloo & City heaving at the other end) and
no great substitute for a proper tube lin to the centre.

Which is why I believe the NLL needed to be diverted from Silvertown
and North Woolwich, and instead run under the Thames to an interchange
with the Dartford lines. *There would nothing to prevent an
interchange staion with a Jubilee route to Thamesmead.

In my eyes, the ideal situation given hindsight would have been for
the NLL's Poplar branch to have been renovated and tunnelled under the
river as the DLR was and linked to a rebuilt Greenwich Park branch,
which would then run through to Clapham Junction via Peckham Rye.
Likewise, there would have been little need to wait for Crossrail to
run from North Woolwich to Abbey Wood had the NLL been extended the
same way, with a service from the North Kent line running via Canning
Town and Stratford to the Goblin at South Tottenham, thence onward to
Willesden Junction and Richmond.

Given the demand between Stratford and Canary Wharf I believe a grade-
separated curve linking the two Crossrail branches would serve this
demand far better than the Jubilee line does, and it would enable more
use to be made of the capacity on the two branches (i.e. every train
to Canary Wharf from Whitechapel is a train to Shenfield that has to
use up capacity at Liverpool Street). Accordingly, the Jubilee could
then have it's branch to Thamesmead, with the DLR running alongside
the NLL up to Stratford.

...swinging back on topic, the Northern Line extension to Battersea
couldn't be more of a pig's ear if they tried, and funding it with a
loan is disgraceful. The capacity of the CX branch should be used to
extend south east, e.g. down to Crystal Palace via Loughborough
Junction, Herne Hill et. al. en route to the Hayes branch. A major
redevelopment of the drain (including lengthening the existing Bank
platforms to 8 car length and building new ones at Waterloo) would be
the ideal way to serve the Battersea area, with stations at Bank,
Blackfriars, Waterloo, Lambeth, Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea Park,
Battersea High Street and Clapham Junction, with depot facilities
provided by London Road (the Bakerloo getting a new depot on its own
southern extension.)

Even if you accept that the drain proposal above is dependant on the
Bakerloo works to free up London Road, then simply building Clapham
Junction to Vauxhall then linking to Kennington is the way to do
things for the time being so you can just reuse the infrastructure
later in doing things properly. Likewise, the reasons given for not
interchanging with Vauxhall are bunk of the highest order. Routing the
line as required and hollowing out the platform tunnels is all that is
needed for passive provision until Crossrail 2 relieves the Victoria
line enough to permit the interchange being brought into use.

Excellent thinking sir. I cannot fault it.

London Battersea Northern Line extension now done with a loan?
 

On 07/12/2012 18:54, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:59 pm, Graeme Wall wrote:
How else are you going to fund it?

From the developers whom will reap the financial benefits perhaps? I'm
not against a loan in the general per se, just against a taxpayer-
subsidised and guaranteed one, especially given the site's history of
financial imploding.

The Nine Elms and Battersea developments aren't just about the power
station site, which has been undeveloped through at least two boom and
bust cycles.
--
Phil Cook